I think I was moved to write these lines after reading, posting, & reacting to responses to Eva Illouz’s article https://www.facebook.com/richard.flantz/posts/10157111444145018?pnref=story]
[From my responses to comments on this post:]
What I find illuminating is the phenomenological analysis of how a regime & its society’s evil towards its Others needs to be seen as more than the banality of how people obey orders & don’t think or feel humanely (like Arendt’s Eichmann) & involves complex hegemonic processes that are unique to each regime/society but have a “family resemblance” to one another in being evil & inhumane.all the analogies & terms drawn from other evil regimes are ultimately inadequate. It just occurred to me that this one should be given its own place in the family of inhumane “modern” regimes: Falangist, Fascist, Nazi, Stalinist, Apartheid, Zionist…. (& there are others today too, but that’s not to the point)
[& some other relevant responses:]
You are correct Richard. It was her distinction between the evil of a leadership which deliberately sets out to harness and direct the emotions/ frustration/ aggressions/ cultism/, ideology of a particular group in order to the gain control over a larger public entity. The individual actor caught up in this crowd/ mob behaviour as she so clearly describes, is a pawn. Not necessarily innocent, but in most societies, not strong enough to stand alone against their peers. Those that do, are the real heroes.Larry Stillman
I don’t know where Ran Greenstein’s comments went, but his work on apartheid of a special type takes up some of the lapses in the article which is still important for its conceptual depth and pulling us away from all-too-easy labelling and analyses.
Like · Reply · August 5 at 6:57pm
Absolutely. I would add that not only aspects of Apartheid but also of the other systems or regimes I’ve mentioned are applicable to the Zionist regime/society. Bottom line for me is less name-calling & analogizing more reporting, analysis & condemnation of Zionist crimes against humanity
It’s a question of how you use analogies: we never find precise replications of regimes, but can identify similar practices, trends and patterns. My comment on the article had to do with her argument about why ‘apartheid’ is an unsuitable term. She is both factually and logically wrong. Factually, black South Africans identified with ‘enemies’ of the apartheid state just as Palestinians do. Logically, the identification with enemies is a RESULT of apartheid-like policies, not their CAUSE. And, apartheid is a notion about internal structures of domination – whether Palestinians identify with Arab/Islamic forces is irrelevant to the definition. Here is the quotation from her article: “it is not overseeing a system of South African-style apartheid. (Apartheid was not part of a military conflict, whereas the very group that Israel oppresses and segregates, the Palestinians, are also engaged through a system of regional alliances in a military conflict with Israel through its identification with self-declared enemies of Israel as Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Lebanon.”
Thanks Ran. I agree with your comment, she got that part wrong.