House Arab | Hacker News Reader

House Arab

bidoun.org

23 pointsspeckx14 comments

The story of Israel and Hamas is a story of the force of modernity overcome by babarism against a barbarism borne from the horror of modernity. The author made an error in believing that barbarism is ever justified for its own sake, as a reaction. Nobody will question that violence is unnecessary for the cause of freedom, but what Hamas did was not tactical, it was an indulgent revenge cloaked in the guise of righteous anger. But personal feelings, percieved wrongs, are meaningless in the real world. The only thing that is right is eliminating the conditions of possibility for such senseless violence, and neither Israel nor Hamas has made any genuine efforts to do so.

Actually, I’d say it worked. Hamas doesn’t care about Palestinians. But they also know Israel doesn’t. And they have succeeded in using over-the-top violence to goad Israel into committing its own orgy of over-the-top violence. And that will turn it (if it hasn’t already) into a pariah state.

A page straight from Bin Laden’s book. And in case you are wondering, he also succeeded in severely - possibly even permanently - damaging America.

Is there any difference between indulgent revenge and righteous anger? Are they not just descriptions of the same thing from either side of a conflict?

Isn’t “righteous anger” a feeling, not an action? If someone is righteously angry, they might take some action that is calculated to bring them some real benefit or they might take a form of revenge that is, at best, indulgent.

To me, the article's thesis and frame of reference hinges on one statement: That the writer viewed Oct 7th as a "legible expression of rage." Those who see Hamas as non-representative of the Palestinian people, and certainly not working in their best interests, do not see Oct 7th as some sort of crime of passion or explosion of popular will, but as an actual attempt at genocide that was years in the planning.

But even if it was only an expression of popular rage, the author implies that such an expression would be justifiable. I'd submit that if his moral framework can justify that, then why is any other violent expression of rage unjustified? I don't personally believe that Israel's retaliation against Hamas is primarily for revenge or rage, although I'm sure those play a role. But surely that rage is legible to him as well, so on what grounds would the author criticize it?

It seems to me that by justifying murder by one side of the conflict, he leaves himself no moral authority to comdemn the other side. I suppose that implicit, but never really stated, is that the weaker side's rage is morally defensible while the stronger side's is not. But this is why he takes pains to describe Gaza before 10/7 as an "open-air prison" and to specifically negate the influence of Iran. In a larger scope, Israel is the weaker party in the Middle East, and if smallness justifies rage which justifies killing, then the logic of what is legible would certainly have to extend to Israel's response as well.

I wouldn't say that no efforts have been made, but you can't eliminate those conditions with both parties on the edge of violence. I don't see a resolve anytime soon.

Given the cartoons and references to fact-checking, I assume this is about the New Yorker (and not the NYT as another commenter suggested), but I'm a bit surprised because the New Yorker has been one of the most vocal outlets speaking out about the plight of Palestinians, even prior to the current assault on Gaza. Which obviously doesn't preclude the possibility that this guy's coworkers were weird and shitty to him, but like, the NYer has not been shy about discussing civilians casualties in Gaza and settler violence in the West Bank, or featuring guest pieces from Palestinian authors.

Chotiner alone has done at least a few dozen interviews in the past few years where he's made his opposition to the war in Gaza very clear, and (famously) made its supporters look very stupid and callous by letting them trip over their own words. But... Chotiner himself is a white guy (or at least I assume?), so there is that. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. Could very well be some ugly office politics that this author is right to be upset about, even if I'm skeptical about his commentary on the effects of those politics on the NYer's reporting.

  I assume this is about the New Yorker (and not the NYT as another commenter suggested)

Yes, that was a slip of my pen (or keyboard). He was at the New Yorker.

A common enough mistake :) Re. your other comment though, I'm not sure the NYer has ever cared about worrying what conservatives will think about their contributors, at least not in my lifetime. I just read a lovely new Zadie Smith essay yesterday where she talked about her commitment to socialist ideals!

Which is ironic compared to the NYT, because I think the New Yorker tends to slip under the conservative media's radar, whereas the NYT has conspicuously attempted to appeal to conservatives but in doing so has only alienated some more liberal readers while still catching a whole lot of conservative ire.

Socialism is one thing, but I think neither publication would be comfortable having an employee who casually mentions they "hate the West" and goes on to insinuate the October 7th attack was acceptable.

Netanyahu recently spoke that Israel needs to become a Super Sparta as the world is turning against it.

Sparta periodically declared war against the Helots.

In between those "wars" (it's not really a war when a helpless population is subjected to killings) the Crypteia assassinated Helot leaders.

I agree with Netanyahu in characterizing Israel as a Super Sparta.

The NYT never should have hired this guy. He seems like a conservative's nightmare of a leftist made flesh and blood.

He worked for the New Yorker.

Thanks for the correction. It's embarrassing that I mixed that up, given the style of the cartoons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com