1) He begins by centring Israelis, the Israelis who invited him as “good Israeli” who are committed to social justice and praise the Israeli Sociological Society for its progressive stance on Israel’s marginalised populations.
-
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
2) The good Israelis have agency, ideology, good politics. He then presents his initial willingness to participate as strengthening these noble efforts. Then he turns to the us, the Palestinians.
Näytä tämä ketju -
3) We don’t exist as agents. There, he talks about “high politics,” the UAE agreement. We are pawns, we are objects. We don’t have good (anti-colonial) politics, ideology or a struggle that guides us.
Näytä tämä ketju -
4) He fails to mention that it is Palestinian call (together with allies) that led his to change his decision. The way he justifies his decision is, frankly, quite offensive. He manages to erase Palestinian while withdrawing from a conference in Israel following Palestinian call
Näytä tämä ketju -
5) That’s quite an impressive accomplishment. I’m glad he withdrew but his statement reflects the bad politics that led his to accept the invitation in the first place.
Näytä tämä ketju -
6) as others have mentioned, he doesn’t speak of settler colonialism, occupation, domination, the nakba, Palestinian rights etc.
Näytä tämä ketju
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.