Just some thoughts on the timeliness and relevance of Ali Rizvi's posting:
We at Columbia University had a rally last Wednesday calling for an end to
the occupation. One thing that was repeatedly emphasized was that we do
not see this as a struggle between Jews and Palestinians, nor do we Jews as
the enemy. Mahmood Mamdani said it quite eloquently in his speech: "When
the Klu Klux Klan burns crosses and attacks black people, I do not call it
'Christian violence', and when Osama bin Laden bombs the Word Trade Center,
I do not call it 'Muslim violence'. In that very same way, when the
Israeli army commits atrocities against Palestinians I will never call it
'Jewish violence'." To call it "Jewish violence" or to blame Jews for what
is happening is to subscribe to the very racist and binary logic that we
oppose.
Unfortunately, despite everything we kept saying at the rally --and despite
the fact that a large number of the speakers were themselves Jewish-- the
whole thing got spun in the campus newspaper as "anti-Jewish". Worse
still, certain comments made by two speakers were quoted out of context to
make it sound like the speakers themselves were attacking the legacy of the
Holocaust, when in fact what they had been saying is that Sharon's actions
[NB: not the actions of "the Jews"] constituted a betrayal of the legacy of
the holocaust.
-Nate
At 02:44 PM 4/20/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>"When it comes as an expression of a nationality that has neither
>independence nor state structures and demand them, terrorism is ultimately
>accepted: Jewish terrorism before the creation of the state of Israel,
>Palestinaian terrorism, Irish terrorism, also; even if one is hostile to
>one or another of these types of action, the very principle of terrorism
>is not fundamentally impugned. By contrast, what is funamentally impugned
>is a terrorist movement in which one speaks in the name of a class or
>political group or avent garde or marginal group, saying "I am rebelling .
>. . I am threatening to kill someone in order to gain one or another goal"
>(From an interview from 1977 quoted in Miller's Passion of Michel Foucault
>p. 449 n43).
>
>As Miller notes it shows essentially that Foucault's later opposition to
>terrorism was tactical and not moral. To me passages like this show that
>Foucault's relation to the problem of terrorism is more complex than is
>normally being assumed these days.
>
>It seems to me that there is a whole movement going on to discredit the
>very concept of resistence. I recall the quotes posted here right after
>Sept 11, which have left me musing ever since.
>
>regards
>ali
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
We at Columbia University had a rally last Wednesday calling for an end to
the occupation. One thing that was repeatedly emphasized was that we do
not see this as a struggle between Jews and Palestinians, nor do we Jews as
the enemy. Mahmood Mamdani said it quite eloquently in his speech: "When
the Klu Klux Klan burns crosses and attacks black people, I do not call it
'Christian violence', and when Osama bin Laden bombs the Word Trade Center,
I do not call it 'Muslim violence'. In that very same way, when the
Israeli army commits atrocities against Palestinians I will never call it
'Jewish violence'." To call it "Jewish violence" or to blame Jews for what
is happening is to subscribe to the very racist and binary logic that we
oppose.
Unfortunately, despite everything we kept saying at the rally --and despite
the fact that a large number of the speakers were themselves Jewish-- the
whole thing got spun in the campus newspaper as "anti-Jewish". Worse
still, certain comments made by two speakers were quoted out of context to
make it sound like the speakers themselves were attacking the legacy of the
Holocaust, when in fact what they had been saying is that Sharon's actions
[NB: not the actions of "the Jews"] constituted a betrayal of the legacy of
the holocaust.
-Nate
At 02:44 PM 4/20/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>"When it comes as an expression of a nationality that has neither
>independence nor state structures and demand them, terrorism is ultimately
>accepted: Jewish terrorism before the creation of the state of Israel,
>Palestinaian terrorism, Irish terrorism, also; even if one is hostile to
>one or another of these types of action, the very principle of terrorism
>is not fundamentally impugned. By contrast, what is funamentally impugned
>is a terrorist movement in which one speaks in the name of a class or
>political group or avent garde or marginal group, saying "I am rebelling .
>. . I am threatening to kill someone in order to gain one or another goal"
>(From an interview from 1977 quoted in Miller's Passion of Michel Foucault
>p. 449 n43).
>
>As Miller notes it shows essentially that Foucault's later opposition to
>terrorism was tactical and not moral. To me passages like this show that
>Foucault's relation to the problem of terrorism is more complex than is
>normally being assumed these days.
>
>It seems to me that there is a whole movement going on to discredit the
>very concept of resistence. I recall the quotes posted here right after
>Sept 11, which have left me musing ever since.
>
>regards
>ali
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com