Alongside this radical conception of strike, and by no means as its replacement, I propose to consider the strike not in terms of the right to protest against oppression, but rather as an opportunity to care for the shared world, including through questioning one’s privileges, withdrawing from them, and using them. In the case of strikes, he argues, oppression “is partly a product of the legal protection of basic economic liberties, which explains why the right to strike has priority over these liberties.” 1 However, conceiving of a strike as the last but not the least right of the oppressed against their oppressors doesn’t exhaust the potential of the right to strike. The right to strike, he claims, is derived from the right to resist oppression. In contrast to liberal and social democratic arguments, Alex Gourevitch proposes a radical view of the right to strike. By completely ignoring this expanded civil activity, historians endorsed this imperial violence, relating to destroyed Palestine as Israel. The removal of this activity from historical narratives enabled the retroactive depiction of the 1948 war as the culmination of a long-lasting national conflict, rather than as another imperial enterprise of destruction.” The intense civil activity that had taken place throughout the country at that time was ignored and Palestine was destroyed by Jewish militias. Film still. As Azoulay writes: “Between November 1947 (the UN Partition Plan for Palestine) and May 1948 (the creation of the state of Israel), many Arab and Jewish communities in Palestine who cared for their country intensified the negotiations between themselves and initiated urgent encounters during which the participants raised demands, sought compromises, set rules, formulated agreements, made promises, sought forgiveness, and made efforts to compensate and reconcile. Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, Civil Alliances, Palestine 47-48, 2012.
0 kommentar(er)
