Tuesday, May 19, 2015

this actually gets to the point of why i don't like to use the term "apartheid", and prefer to use the term "genocide".

when you start thinking in terms of israel being an "apartheid state", it's correct to conclude that it's unstable. no slave state has ever been stable. it's the actual reason we don't support slavery in "western liberal democracies" - it just doesn't work, in the long run.

but, when you start understanding the situation in terms of genocide, a different logic asserts itself. there is a way out of the logic of inevitable collapse. that is, if you take a step back and look at all of the options, you're left with a much more disturbing choice. it's true that the state is ultimately unsustainable, as it is. that means israel has the option of dismantling itself, or killing the palestinians off.

now, standing up and stating that is going to produce an immediate emotional reaction for a number of reasons on a number of levels, and that's fine - i think any halfways empathetic person has no choice but to react that way. but, if you look at the situation with a cold, analytical eye, it begins to seem less and less outrageous with every israeli action. from the continuing colonization of the occupied areas, to the continued imprisonment of gaza, it really would be obvious that that's the path israel is following - if it weren't too ghastly to consider.

unfortunately, surrounding countries like egypt are more likely to collaborate than intervene.

people are going to look back and wonder why nobody saw it coming.