Leader of the Pack

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib—a Palestinian-American analyst who grew up in Gaza—has published a furious response to newly revealed documents attributed to Yahya Sinwar. He calls Hamas a “genocidal cult” that sacrificed Gaza’s population for an international propaganda strategy.

I understand his anger.

The document in question was seemingly handwritten by Sinwar on August 24, 2022, more than a year before the October 7 attacks. It was recovered in Gaza by the Israeli military and subsequently published by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

According to the document, Sinwar envisioned sending as many as 10,000 fighters across the border. They would breach the barrier at 25 different locations, seize junctions, attack military bases and enter more than 200 Israeli communities.

Residents would be expelled or taken hostage.

This was a plan for an enormous invasion of southern Israel.

Sinwar also considered how Israel might respond.

He was apparently uncertain about whether Iran and Hezbollah would enter the war. But he was certain that Israel would retaliate with overwhelming force.

He wrote that Israel would use every weapon available to it. He contemplated the possibility that Israel might use an atomic bomb against Gaza.

Nevertheless, Sinwar described the proposed attack as a “battle of life or death” and continued planning it.

This is an extraordinary detail.

Sinwar understood that the attack would provoke an enormous war.

He knew that Gaza was a small, densely populated territory facing one of the most powerful militaries in the Middle East. He knew that Hamas could not protect Gaza’s civilians from the consequences of the war it was initiating.

Indeed, in reality, they did not even try. There were no attempts by Hamas to build bomb shelters for Palestinian civilians. There were no attempts to secure Palestinian civilians alternative supplies of water, fuel, electricity in advance of the attacks, either. There was no plan to evacuate Palestinians away from the war.

Sinwar chose to attack anyway, without real preparation for the civilian toll.

(the rest of this essay is paywalled, but this section alone was worth sharing.)

[Image ID: The Destiel confession meme edited so that Dean answers 'JK Rowling posted upskirt photos of a woman on Twitter' to Cas 'I love you'. /End ID]

No one doing this should be allowed to call themselves a feminist.

its a take from the perspective that trans men are "vulnerable" is some vague abstract generalized way, not in a way which would behoove anyone to adjust their behavior or take action on their behalf. its the erasure of erasure; the assumption is that trans men probably have enough resources and support anyways, which could not be farther from the truth. some local communities may have more transmasc-focused resources, but many others do not. transmasculine people are left out of vital conversations, are excluded from vital resources, are ignored and forgotten when they are abused and killed.

it treats transmasc erasure as something which is passive in itself and which can be solved passively. which is erasure itself in action. i do not really give a fuck about "who has it worse," it is not about that. it is about the fact that if YOU do not make an ACTIVE EFFORT to advocate for transmascs, to make transmasc suffering and oppression visible and legible, it will not happen. it simply will not happen.

erasure is an active force. we all internalize transmasculine erasure and we can all easily contribute to it; we are expected to contribute to it. trans men&mascs cannot afford the model of "well we only need to raise awareness for the most vulnerable" because our vulnerability is defined by being ignored.

or trans men like Sophie Lederer, who was only 19 when he was arrested for "talking silly and claiming to be a boy" in the early 20th century, and the only other thing I know about him is that he spent the rest of his life, over a decade, institutionalized for his transmasculinity. god only fucking knows what was done to him in those years by his wardens.

"Unless they present hyperfeminine, butches don’t have access to the job market. You will not be considered if you don’t wear nice women’s clothes. If you set up catering, you will get told, “I am disgusted; a woman who thinks she’s a man is cooking for me.” So butch lesbians normally have an assistant, or their femme partner if they have one, who is more feminine-looking to run the front so customers don’t know a masculine-presenting person is cooking behind the curtains. Many of us become sex workers [due to lack of job opportunities].… But then when police raid brothels and homes, the masculine lesbians get treated “like men.” This means more forceful handcuffing, kneeling, and stripping their shirts off." – Rosa, lesbian and sex worker rights defender El Salvador

i was thinking about this when it comes to how we describe vulnerability in our community, specifically mentioning someone is a "femme" to indicate their need for extra support. i don't know i've ever seen the same be done for butches. i genuinely cannot remember ever really seeing people talk about butches and their economic and social vulnerability, the way i see people talk about femmes.

its not that being feminine doesn't cause genuine vulnerability! but because people have such a binary attitude towards gender (and more broadly), the way we talk about gendered vulnerability leads to this view that feminine people are always more vulnerable than masculine people, that "this femme needs help" to many queers and feminists feels more urgent than "this butch needs help."

this is where we get the constant refrain of "the patriarchy likes masculinity, so masculine people are always seen as better than feminine people" & why people may find it incomprehensible that there may be situations where being feminine may be a protective factor in comparison to being masculine.

another example of this from this article:

The trio made their way down a busy street in the Santiago suburb of Pudahuel, close to where Carolina lived with her mother and father. Carolina and Estefania chose not to hold hands to avoid offending anyone. Suddenly, Carolina felt a force to the back of her head. Then darkness. She had fallen unconscious, and would remain in a coma for a week. She suffered a fractured skull, a broken nose, internal bleeding and permanent damage to her hearing. There were two male attackers. One had used a large wooden pole to hit her repeatedly on the back of her head, only stopping when Estefania threw herself on top of Carolina, using her body as a shield. This is significant, says Carolina's mother, Mariela. Because unlike Carolina, who identifies as a camiona and dresses accordingly, Estefania is femme - a more feminine lesbian identity. The attackers targeted Carolina and not Estefania, says Mariela, because she represented an "unacceptable" face of womanhood. It was not just her sexual orientation that prompted violence, it was her appearance as a camiona. "I want to make it very clear they were trying to kill her," she adds. "There is no other way of looking at it. The fact that she is here is a miracle." Carolina knew one of her alleged attackers. "Before this attack he threatened me. He said, 'I am going to kill you.' He said he was going to shoot me with a gun. He called me a lesbian and swore at me. He said, 'Why do you dress like a man?'"

there are people who have been nearly (or successfully) violently murdered for being seen as a masculine woman, while their femme girlfriends were not targeted or were not the main target. but if you reduce everything in patriarchy down to "m > f" you will miss this. and

How is Itamar Ben Gvir a real person

But NOW I have to be like "yeah the one where they keep Palestinian prisoners in a complex surrounded by a moat filled with alligators is real" ?????

Is either someone who has never actually looked at how Judaism functions and is spreading misinformation ignorantly.

Or is a fucking liar who is looking for an excuse to continue hating Jews.

And either way the outcome is functionally the same.

You are generally rude to Jews, whether that's saying Nazi stuff, aggressively persistent conversion attempts, or something else, because you are biased.

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN A POST ABOUT THE ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR CROSSES YOUR DASH AND YOU WANT TO REBLOG IT:

Does this post link to a source?

If the post does link to a source, is it a credible one?

If the post does not link to a source, is there one screenshotted in the post that you can find? If so, please search out that source and read the entire thing in context. And make sure the source is credible. Ideally, if you decide to reblog it, add a link to the source.

Is the post just screenshots of tweets? If so, you probably should not reblog this. Posts that are just screenshots of tweets are a massive red flag. Do not believe something because it's a twitter screenshot. Frankly this rule is for everyone about everything all the time.

What is the tone of the post? Does it make you angry? If yes, this is a red flag. Exercise caution reblogging.

Does the post frame Israel as a uniquely evil country in need of destruction? Does the post treat Israel with different standards than those that are applied to every other country that has done horrible, horrible things, such as Russia, the UK, or United States? This is a red flag. If the government of Israel falls without some sort of transition plan, there will be Jewish genocide. Anyone advocating for a one-state solution either way is advocating for one group to get genocided. A two-state solution is the only possible peaceful end to this conflict (technically my opinion but I feel comfy stating it as fact).

Does the post treat Hamas as anything other than a terrorist organization? Do not reblog.

Is the post promoting Jewish Voice for Peace/JVP? Do not reblog. That organization is not Jewish and is antisemitic.

What is the focus of the content of the post? Is the post discussing reasonable paths to a ceasefire/peace? Is the post criticizing Israel's actions without using antisemitic stereotypes? Netanyahu is a disgusting fascist who I hate, but even though he is a terrible person you are not allowed to portray him as an antisemitic caricature. Similar to how you don't get to misgender shitty trans people, you don't get to be antisemitic towards shitty Jewish people (even if he's really, really shitty).

How does the post use the word "zionist?" Does the word have any coherent meaning in the post besides "person (often Jew) that I hate?" Does it treat zionists as a group of people who are disgusting and deserve to be murdered and/or raped? Does the use of the word "zionist" completely dehumanize the person/people the label is applied to into nothing more than evil that the Earth must be rid of? This is antisemitic. Do not reblog.

QUESTIONS TO ASK YOURSELF WHEN YOU'RE AT A PRO-PALESTINE PROTEST:

Are people chanting antisemitic slogans such as "globalize the intifada" and/or "from the river to the sea" (these are both antisemitic you cannot remove the antisemitic meaning from them, they are both advocating for the murder of Jewish people, sorry, stop using them.)?

Are people comparing themselves to Palestinians in Gaza? (this is not a joke, I saw a video of a Columbia student who compared Columbia sending out fliers to leave or be suspended to the IDF dropping flyers in Gaza saying "the army is coming in 24 hours.") If so, they care more about fetishizing Palestinian pain and making themselves feel like noble victims than the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Are people harassing Jews? This includes: preventing them from getting to class, yelling things at them like "go back to Poland," and/or physically assaulting them.

Are people defacing Jewish property/monuments? Are people defacing synagogues? Businesses with known Jewish owners? Statues and/or memorials of/for Jews?

What is the purpose of this protest? Would you feel comfortable sharing opinions that differ from the majority? Would you feel comfortable engaging in a conversation about this issue with fellow protesters? Are any of you actually educated on the complicated and lengthy history of the Israel-Palestine conflict? Is the protest about a peaceful solution, or is it just making you angrier and/or more upset? Does the protest/your fellow protestors care more about freeing Palestine so that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace, or about hating Israel and treating it like a uniquely evil country?

If people are chanting antisemitic slogans, harassing Jews, and/or defacing Jewish things, then this is an antisemitic protest. Do you want to be associated with these people and this protest? If your answer is yes, you are an antisemite-sympathizer, which is basically an antisemite.

MORAL OF THE STORY: antisemitism is all over this issue and it's easy to get more antisemitic and spread antisemitism because bad actors use this issue to indoctrinate people who start off just genuinely caring about the issue but are not educated at all about it or what antisemitism actually looks like. BE CAREFUL. All Jews want, all we've ever wanted, is to be left alone to do our thing. Random Jews are not at fault for the horrific actions taken by the Israeli government since the terrorist attack on October 7th. We support the existence of Israel, but we do not support all of the current government's actions. We are just trying to live. We want there to be a ceasefire now. If you actually read this whole thing, thank you. It means a lot to be listened to.

For those of you that made it to the end, I'll offer one last reminder and one last gentle suggestion.

My last reminder is: "it is not your job to finish the work by neither are you free to ignore it" is a Jewish passage I really like. I think in times like these, it is important to focus on the first half. It is not your job to finish the work. The fate of Palestine does not rest on your shoulders. It's ok. Take time to decompress and log off.