Fernand Cormon, Cain flying before Jehovah’s Curse
The article that we publish below was generously shared with us by its author, Noah Brehmer, having been previously published with the Blind Field journal (31/12/2024). It is a reflection on Palestinian resistance as a challenge to territorial sovereignty.
The Palestinian resistance will forever usurp the colonizers’ image of an exiled, maimed, brutalized, undead Palestinian people. Every time a prison wall is breached, a new form of life is inscribed onto the political scene: “seizing the moment to roam without limits.” However temporary these image-moments, and however spectacular the scale of the catastrophe waged upon territories to erase them, the potentials for a relation to the earth beyond those offered by the modern political order’s laws, territories, and nation-states, will be persistently planted.
Palestinian justice, as Mustapha Khyati observed decades ago, “is too serious to be left to the states.”[1] The Palestinian question asks us to consider, once again, the limits of law and territorial governance as mediums for the deliverance of liberation. While we have been informed for over a century that there are alternatives—i.e. the liberal judicial foundation of citizenship and human rights—these forms never fully overcome zones of exclusion. Exclusions, as C.L.R. James once noted, which are irrevocably founded in a “racial doctrine”: the belief that “the national race, the national stock, the national blood, is superior to all other national races, national stocks and national bloods.” [2]
As the Nazi collaborator Carl Schmidt himself acerbically observed: “In the beginning was the fence”. The arrival of peace as the constitutive episode in statehood, rests on spatial enclosures and for this reason “it was not the abolition of war, but rather its bracketing that has been the great, core problem of every legal order.” [3] Legality is fundamentally exclusive—it only persists so far as a state can maintain its position as “the supreme proprietor of the land”. The state as a measure of justice for general interest is thus always based on a law of appearance, hiding its fundaments in a nomos: that territorial dominion in which “space and law, order and orientation meet.” [4]
While we cannot ignore the question of what path Palestinian justice should take—the nation-state certainly figures in these debates—we can surely find in Palestinian people’s ways of life a movement against the state-form’s nomos: originating, enclosing, owning. As Abdaljawad Omar has recently noted, Palestinian insurgency is organized through the “non-sovereign decision, resistance emerges as an effort to deform the colonial condition, a task that is also ‘formless’ and that seeks to bring the colonial condition down in the world, initiating a process of decomposition.” [5]
In dialogue with the black radical tradition’s notion of negritude, one can broadly understand how modernity has made those outside the ethno-supremacist enclosure permanent squatters. [6] It is from this position of the squatter, that we can understand how the Palestinian claim to existence can be received as an act of seditious treason against the rule of law. And as William C. Anderson will observe, if:
Statelessness is more than a lack of citizenship: it renders you nonexistent, a shadow. So why not embrace the darkness we’re in, the darkness we are, and organize through it and with it? Use the conditions that the state has placed on us to inform our most radical incursions, rather than asking the state to change, when we should know by now that it certainly won’t. The state is not for us. This sort of work, making do and building from exactly where we are has always been a Black skill, but the world around us demands we do this with more revolutionary intentions. [7]
The Palestinian movement has once again radically opened the possibility of thinking this statelessness as more than a politics of negative desire or lack. The transcendental homelessness of the stateless, who are refused but also refuse to claim statehood as the basis of being, belong to the nomos of the stateless.
***
The Palestinian question is of course, also, the Jewish question—and in more than one sense. I will contend here that Palestinian justice can be brought into a generative dialogue with the historical trajectory of Jewish justice. Now conceptualized against the telos of the nation-state, one can find in the legacy of Palestinian insurgency a decisive moment in the liberation of Jewishness from the figure of the omnipotent Israeli conception of the “jew”: a prediscoursive, ahistorical, subject ontologically rooted in the exiled peoples of the kingdom of Judea; and resurrected through the assistance of modernity’s nation-states as well as its advanced techniques of governance, securitization and totalizing desire to control and cleanse territory of the non-european other.
The rupturing of the walls of so called contemporary Jewish ontology, by the Palestinian revolutionary tradition has encouraged new possibilities of belonging as yidishkeyt: the world of exilic Jewish being. [8] Like other exilic forms of life, yidishkeyt, if an ontology at all, is existentially precarious at its core—a contested domain of meaning prioritizing living ethics over the moral dogmatisms implied in a return to authentic being. As Edward Said nicely put it, in diasporic belonging one dwells and begins; while in ontopolitical belonging one originates and encloses. [9]
Drawing on Said’s distinction, Adam Hajyahia has aptly noted how the Palestinian movement of return, in contrast to the zionist discourse, “evades purity” and “rejects totality.” It is not, as Hajyahia affirms: “a negative desire for something they lack […] but a redeeming principle that pursues the abolition of the conditions that render exile the only remaining possibility.” [10]
What would it mean to place the Palestinian nomos in dialogue with a trans-historical durée of statelessness? What would it look like to further a politics of the exilic: a politics organized around our co-unbelonging to states and capital? What could historical and contemporary movements of exilic peoples have to share with the Palestinian nomos today?
***
There are many paths that could be turned to as answers for these questions. For me, as a Jewish person—one long since estranged from Jewish belonging by the zionist paradigm—my path, like many of my comrades, has been through researching ant-zionist, exilic traditions of my people, through organizations like the Jewish Labor Bund: a significant anti-zionist movement that was founded in Vilnius, where I live. Much of this research has been at an archive in Vilnius called Judaica Research Centre, where I have been able to access historical documents from the first two decades of the Bundist movement. It was in this period that their most intense collaboration with other socialist and ant-authoritarian communist movements in the region transpired.
What then are these contributions and what is their importance for our movements today?
The Bund contributed to the unresolved question of autonomy in anticapitalist movements—critically raising this question through the principle of national self-determination. The Bund found in Jewishness not only an identity reproduced through repression, but a lived experience and social knowledge of revolt and survival. As the Bund cofounded the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party only one year after its own establishment, the question of minority autonomy in a movement that conspired to abolish the state and all gender, racial, religious, and national inequalities, became an essential strategic debate.
Citing The Communist Manifesto in a Bundist congress gathering in 1902, Martov, a cofounder of the both the Bund and the RSDLP stated, “only the common interests of the proletariat, independent of all ‘nationality’” should be welcomed as a basis of belonging to the communist movement. Viewing communism as the liberation of humanity from the nomos of the nation-state, Martov saw liberation as the dissolving of jewishness into the nomos of a post-capitalist earth wherein social being is freed from the yoke of territorially imposed ethnic and geographic identity.
Despite its eventual split with the RSDLP and from there with the Bolsheviks, on this question of autonomy within the confederated communist movement the Bund critically introduced the concept of what I will call confederated-autonomy—yes hinting at the Kurdish tradition—as a strategy for navigating the question of including the radical traditions and collective survival practices of working class minorities in the stateless communist movement. For instance, as magnificently illustrated in congress notes from 1911, the Bund stresses that its demand for rest on Saturday sabbath is “not for religious or national reasons, but for purely economic [social] reasons.” A day protected from work is good for both the Jewish working class and the working class in general. As an anti-clerical organization, the Bund took from Jewishness what contributed to universal emancipation, while leaving behind those aspects which it considered a mere outcome of the collective, traumatic, internalization of repression—as identity.
The Bund’s politics of confederated autonomy, was further emphasized in its anti-territorialism. The Bund was fiercely critical of both regional socialist parties that centered the state as an organizing apparatus of the class as well as the socialist zionist movement that argued the path of Jewish class emancipation will only be achieved as the ethnic majority of a nation-state. This opinion was formed in close dialogue, as I have now read from historical documents, with early protagonists of national socialism. Bundist autonomy articulated a relation to dwelling that did not confer owning, originating, nor enclosing. The Bund’s politics of inhabitation would eventually be conceptualized through the principle of “hereness”. Doikayt radically emphasized the importance of belonging to where one is; an opening of oneself to that terrain’s histories; a solidarity with those who share a bond, a condition, in the struggles of existence in the here and now. In this sense, the here of hereness cuts across the linear historical time of empire and affirms the now as a domain of rupture, emergence, and antagonism. Change cannot wait: we begin where we are, with who we are.
Yet, as one Palestinian comrade recently wrote me, as Jews delink from the genocidal entity and reclaim these exilic roots, it is critical we do so in light of an effort of ending the genocide of Palestinians and other exilic peoples. Just as our movement of solidarity will be furthered by making our strategies and traditions of statelessness interchangeable, we must in turn make our histories of oppression. As the comrade will continue, “to recognize the Palestinians as the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and the Jewish people, especially those killed by Nazis, those who never identified with and actively resisted Zionism, as one of the multitude of ongoing victims of the Nakba.”
Let us begin to take up these tasks by noting the deep trans-historical resonance between doikayt and the Palestinian concept of sumud. Sumud, like doikayt, suggests an insurgent practice of inhabitation against the oppressors’ architectures of erasure. As Shivangi Mariam formulates sumud is a “spatiality of wait, where the geography which has been rendered inaccessible to Palestinians is imagined again and lived again in time, where generative infrastructures of everyday life are built. Here all absence is charged with spectral presence, a time longer than this time, a phantom time that exceeds and explodes the frontiers of coloniser’s clocks.” [11]
As a politics that offers a form of belonging without a state but in a “place,” doikayt can be approached as a contemporary strategy for furthering our solidarity and bonds of co-unbelonging with the sumud of the Palestinian resistance and other stateless peoples today.
***
On Oct 29, 1957, a movement of the homeless, 35,00 strong, prepared the first mass land deappropriation in the outskirts of Santiago Chile. Calling their autonomous territory La Viktoria, inhabitants made their criminalized dwelling of the earth into a standpoint for a fundamentally different foundation of politics: of social rights and property. As Marcello Tari beautifully notes, “it is never individuals who inhabit a [deappropriated] territory, but potentials; it is not a population that can inhabit a place, but forms of life; it is not a subject who drives forward the struggle, but a nameless force.” In short, the nomos of the stateless is less a form, than a set of dismantling acts. Rather than an act of reappropriation or counter-enclosure, it is a commoning, a de-enclosing; which is at the same time the becoming of a new orientation to the earth as ours in common. Calling upon the memory of the Paris Commune, It’s less a decreeing or proclaiming of the state and capitals abolition, than an abandonment of one’s self to the real movement of their negation. [12]
The exilic intercommunalist tradition of which Jewish anti-zionists and the Palestinian resistance contribute, teaches us that politics begins when the separation imposed between the state and civil society is attacked: when the “political” is reclaimed by the territory it once governed. When the fundaments of politics are emancipated from the problematic of territorial dominion and return to the underlying question of “when shall our day begin and when shall our day end?”
***
If destroying all the maps known / would erase all the boundaries / from the face of this earth / I would say let us / make a bonfire / to reclaim and sing / the human person
—KEORAPETSE KGOSITSILE
This essay is dedicated to the memory of Marina Vishmidt. Marina was always there for me as a critical reader, mentor, and co-conspirator in my writing practice and political organizing. While this essay was written after her passing its premises were developed through her kind guidance as a fellow jew and anti-state communist.
It should also be noted that the essay grew out of a lecture I gave at the Riga Anarchist Bookfair in May, 2024—I’m grateful for the organizers in offering me a space to begin working out these thoughts. Finally, the “thoughts” themselves, it must be noted, are part of a larger constellation of research carried by Palestinian, Jewish, and other comrades who have taken up the calling of exile. It variously goes by Dabartis, Obecno??, Tämänhetkisyys, Doikat or Sumud—a circulator of autonomous forms. https://dabartis.com/
[1] Mustapha Khyati, “Two Local Wars,” Situationist International, 1967.
[2] C.L.R. James, Mariners, Renegades and Castaways, 1953. 10-11.
[3] Carl Schmidt, Nomos of the Earth (1950), Telos Press, 2006. 74.
[4] Rather than dismissing Schmidt’s philosophy as a Nazi aberration from an otherwise respectable European modernist political project, we should look to Schmidt for a window into the very essence of European modernity and its crisis.
[5] Abdaljawad Omar, “Bleeding Forms: Beyond the Intifada”, Critical Times (2024) 7 (2): 304–317.
[6] As formulated by Saidiya Hartman in Looting, eds. Andreas Petrossiants and Jose Rosales,Diversity of Aesthetics, 2023.
[7] Wiliam C. Anderson, The Nation on No Map: Black Anarchism and Abolition, AK Press, 2021, 91.
[8] Yet as Abdaljawad Omar well noted during his talk at BICAR this year, such a rupturing of Jewish omnipotence, as a return of Jewish fragility, is itself operationalized by the Israeli state as a key mechanism in the justification of sovereign violence against the perpetrators. The rupturing of Jewish ontology hence need to be more than a practice of becoming fragile, becoming victim, but becoming exilic, a becoming of statelessness.
[9] Edward Said, Beginnings: Intention and Method. United Kingdom, Granta Books, 2012.
[10] Adam Hajyahia, “The Principle of Return Palestine: The repressed ruptures of Zionist time”, Palestine Issue, Parapraxis Magazine, 2024.
[11] Shivangi Mariam Raj, “Behind the Scenes”, in Undocumented International, Issue. 51, The Funambulist.
[12] Kristin Ross, Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune, Verso, 2015, 79.
A Nomos of the Stateless
The article that we publish below was generously shared with us by its author, Noah Brehmer, having been previously published with the Blind Field journal (31/12/2024). It is a reflection on Palestinian resistance as a challenge to territorial sovereignty.
The Palestinian resistance will forever usurp the colonizers’ image of an exiled, maimed, brutalized, undead Palestinian people. Every time a prison wall is breached, a new form of life is inscribed onto the political scene: “seizing the moment to roam without limits.” However temporary these image-moments, and however spectacular the scale of the catastrophe waged upon territories to erase them, the potentials for a relation to the earth beyond those offered by the modern political order’s laws, territories, and nation-states, will be persistently planted.
Palestinian justice, as Mustapha Khyati observed decades ago, “is too serious to be left to the states.”[1] The Palestinian question asks us to consider, once again, the limits of law and territorial governance as mediums for the deliverance of liberation. While we have been informed for over a century that there are alternatives—i.e. the liberal judicial foundation of citizenship and human rights—these forms never fully overcome zones of exclusion. Exclusions, as C.L.R. James once noted, which are irrevocably founded in a “racial doctrine”: the belief that “the national race, the national stock, the national blood, is superior to all other national races, national stocks and national bloods.” [2]
As the Nazi collaborator Carl Schmidt himself acerbically observed: “In the beginning was the fence”. The arrival of peace as the constitutive episode in statehood, rests on spatial enclosures and for this reason “it was not the abolition of war, but rather its bracketing that has been the great, core problem of every legal order.” [3] Legality is fundamentally exclusive—it only persists so far as a state can maintain its position as “the supreme proprietor of the land”. The state as a measure of justice for general interest is thus always based on a law of appearance, hiding its fundaments in a nomos: that territorial dominion in which “space and law, order and orientation meet.” [4]
While we cannot ignore the question of what path Palestinian justice should take—the nation-state certainly figures in these debates—we can surely find in Palestinian people’s ways of life a movement against the state-form’s nomos: originating, enclosing, owning. As Abdaljawad Omar has recently noted, Palestinian insurgency is organized through the “non-sovereign decision, resistance emerges as an effort to deform the colonial condition, a task that is also ‘formless’ and that seeks to bring the colonial condition down in the world, initiating a process of decomposition.” [5]
In dialogue with the black radical tradition’s notion of negritude, one can broadly understand how modernity has made those outside the ethno-supremacist enclosure permanent squatters. [6] It is from this position of the squatter, that we can understand how the Palestinian claim to existence can be received as an act of seditious treason against the rule of law. And as William C. Anderson will observe, if:
The Palestinian movement has once again radically opened the possibility of thinking this statelessness as more than a politics of negative desire or lack. The transcendental homelessness of the stateless, who are refused but also refuse to claim statehood as the basis of being, belong to the nomos of the stateless.
***
The Palestinian question is of course, also, the Jewish question—and in more than one sense. I will contend here that Palestinian justice can be brought into a generative dialogue with the historical trajectory of Jewish justice. Now conceptualized against the telos of the nation-state, one can find in the legacy of Palestinian insurgency a decisive moment in the liberation of Jewishness from the figure of the omnipotent Israeli conception of the “jew”: a prediscoursive, ahistorical, subject ontologically rooted in the exiled peoples of the kingdom of Judea; and resurrected through the assistance of modernity’s nation-states as well as its advanced techniques of governance, securitization and totalizing desire to control and cleanse territory of the non-european other.
The rupturing of the walls of so called contemporary Jewish ontology, by the Palestinian revolutionary tradition has encouraged new possibilities of belonging as yidishkeyt: the world of exilic Jewish being. [8] Like other exilic forms of life, yidishkeyt, if an ontology at all, is existentially precarious at its core—a contested domain of meaning prioritizing living ethics over the moral dogmatisms implied in a return to authentic being. As Edward Said nicely put it, in diasporic belonging one dwells and begins; while in ontopolitical belonging one originates and encloses. [9]
Drawing on Said’s distinction, Adam Hajyahia has aptly noted how the Palestinian movement of return, in contrast to the zionist discourse, “evades purity” and “rejects totality.” It is not, as Hajyahia affirms: “a negative desire for something they lack […] but a redeeming principle that pursues the abolition of the conditions that render exile the only remaining possibility.” [10]
What would it mean to place the Palestinian nomos in dialogue with a trans-historical durée of statelessness? What would it look like to further a politics of the exilic: a politics organized around our co-unbelonging to states and capital? What could historical and contemporary movements of exilic peoples have to share with the Palestinian nomos today?
***
There are many paths that could be turned to as answers for these questions. For me, as a Jewish person—one long since estranged from Jewish belonging by the zionist paradigm—my path, like many of my comrades, has been through researching ant-zionist, exilic traditions of my people, through organizations like the Jewish Labor Bund: a significant anti-zionist movement that was founded in Vilnius, where I live. Much of this research has been at an archive in Vilnius called Judaica Research Centre, where I have been able to access historical documents from the first two decades of the Bundist movement. It was in this period that their most intense collaboration with other socialist and ant-authoritarian communist movements in the region transpired.
What then are these contributions and what is their importance for our movements today?
The Bund contributed to the unresolved question of autonomy in anticapitalist movements—critically raising this question through the principle of national self-determination. The Bund found in Jewishness not only an identity reproduced through repression, but a lived experience and social knowledge of revolt and survival. As the Bund cofounded the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party only one year after its own establishment, the question of minority autonomy in a movement that conspired to abolish the state and all gender, racial, religious, and national inequalities, became an essential strategic debate.
Citing The Communist Manifesto in a Bundist congress gathering in 1902, Martov, a cofounder of the both the Bund and the RSDLP stated, “only the common interests of the proletariat, independent of all ‘nationality’” should be welcomed as a basis of belonging to the communist movement. Viewing communism as the liberation of humanity from the nomos of the nation-state, Martov saw liberation as the dissolving of jewishness into the nomos of a post-capitalist earth wherein social being is freed from the yoke of territorially imposed ethnic and geographic identity.
Despite its eventual split with the RSDLP and from there with the Bolsheviks, on this question of autonomy within the confederated communist movement the Bund critically introduced the concept of what I will call confederated-autonomy—yes hinting at the Kurdish tradition—as a strategy for navigating the question of including the radical traditions and collective survival practices of working class minorities in the stateless communist movement. For instance, as magnificently illustrated in congress notes from 1911, the Bund stresses that its demand for rest on Saturday sabbath is “not for religious or national reasons, but for purely economic [social] reasons.” A day protected from work is good for both the Jewish working class and the working class in general. As an anti-clerical organization, the Bund took from Jewishness what contributed to universal emancipation, while leaving behind those aspects which it considered a mere outcome of the collective, traumatic, internalization of repression—as identity.
The Bund’s politics of confederated autonomy, was further emphasized in its anti-territorialism. The Bund was fiercely critical of both regional socialist parties that centered the state as an organizing apparatus of the class as well as the socialist zionist movement that argued the path of Jewish class emancipation will only be achieved as the ethnic majority of a nation-state. This opinion was formed in close dialogue, as I have now read from historical documents, with early protagonists of national socialism. Bundist autonomy articulated a relation to dwelling that did not confer owning, originating, nor enclosing. The Bund’s politics of inhabitation would eventually be conceptualized through the principle of “hereness”. Doikayt radically emphasized the importance of belonging to where one is; an opening of oneself to that terrain’s histories; a solidarity with those who share a bond, a condition, in the struggles of existence in the here and now. In this sense, the here of hereness cuts across the linear historical time of empire and affirms the now as a domain of rupture, emergence, and antagonism. Change cannot wait: we begin where we are, with who we are.
Yet, as one Palestinian comrade recently wrote me, as Jews delink from the genocidal entity and reclaim these exilic roots, it is critical we do so in light of an effort of ending the genocide of Palestinians and other exilic peoples. Just as our movement of solidarity will be furthered by making our strategies and traditions of statelessness interchangeable, we must in turn make our histories of oppression. As the comrade will continue, “to recognize the Palestinians as the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and the Jewish people, especially those killed by Nazis, those who never identified with and actively resisted Zionism, as one of the multitude of ongoing victims of the Nakba.”
Let us begin to take up these tasks by noting the deep trans-historical resonance between doikayt and the Palestinian concept of sumud. Sumud, like doikayt, suggests an insurgent practice of inhabitation against the oppressors’ architectures of erasure. As Shivangi Mariam formulates sumud is a “spatiality of wait, where the geography which has been rendered inaccessible to Palestinians is imagined again and lived again in time, where generative infrastructures of everyday life are built. Here all absence is charged with spectral presence, a time longer than this time, a phantom time that exceeds and explodes the frontiers of coloniser’s clocks.” [11]
As a politics that offers a form of belonging without a state but in a “place,” doikayt can be approached as a contemporary strategy for furthering our solidarity and bonds of co-unbelonging with the sumud of the Palestinian resistance and other stateless peoples today.
***
On Oct 29, 1957, a movement of the homeless, 35,00 strong, prepared the first mass land deappropriation in the outskirts of Santiago Chile. Calling their autonomous territory La Viktoria, inhabitants made their criminalized dwelling of the earth into a standpoint for a fundamentally different foundation of politics: of social rights and property. As Marcello Tari beautifully notes, “it is never individuals who inhabit a [deappropriated] territory, but potentials; it is not a population that can inhabit a place, but forms of life; it is not a subject who drives forward the struggle, but a nameless force.” In short, the nomos of the stateless is less a form, than a set of dismantling acts. Rather than an act of reappropriation or counter-enclosure, it is a commoning, a de-enclosing; which is at the same time the becoming of a new orientation to the earth as ours in common. Calling upon the memory of the Paris Commune, It’s less a decreeing or proclaiming of the state and capitals abolition, than an abandonment of one’s self to the real movement of their negation. [12]
The exilic intercommunalist tradition of which Jewish anti-zionists and the Palestinian resistance contribute, teaches us that politics begins when the separation imposed between the state and civil society is attacked: when the “political” is reclaimed by the territory it once governed. When the fundaments of politics are emancipated from the problematic of territorial dominion and return to the underlying question of “when shall our day begin and when shall our day end?”
***
If destroying all the maps known / would erase all the boundaries / from the face of this earth / I would say let us / make a bonfire / to reclaim and sing / the human person
—KEORAPETSE KGOSITSILE
This essay is dedicated to the memory of Marina Vishmidt. Marina was always there for me as a critical reader, mentor, and co-conspirator in my writing practice and political organizing. While this essay was written after her passing its premises were developed through her kind guidance as a fellow jew and anti-state communist.
It should also be noted that the essay grew out of a lecture I gave at the Riga Anarchist Bookfair in May, 2024—I’m grateful for the organizers in offering me a space to begin working out these thoughts. Finally, the “thoughts” themselves, it must be noted, are part of a larger constellation of research carried by Palestinian, Jewish, and other comrades who have taken up the calling of exile. It variously goes by Dabartis, Obecno??, Tämänhetkisyys, Doikat or Sumud—a circulator of autonomous forms. https://dabartis.com/
[1] Mustapha Khyati, “Two Local Wars,” Situationist International, 1967.
[2] C.L.R. James, Mariners, Renegades and Castaways, 1953. 10-11.
[3] Carl Schmidt, Nomos of the Earth (1950), Telos Press, 2006. 74.
[4] Rather than dismissing Schmidt’s philosophy as a Nazi aberration from an otherwise respectable European modernist political project, we should look to Schmidt for a window into the very essence of European modernity and its crisis.
[5] Abdaljawad Omar, “Bleeding Forms: Beyond the Intifada”, Critical Times (2024) 7 (2): 304–317.
[6] As formulated by Saidiya Hartman in Looting, eds. Andreas Petrossiants and Jose Rosales, Diversity of Aesthetics, 2023.
[7] Wiliam C. Anderson, The Nation on No Map: Black Anarchism and Abolition, AK Press, 2021, 91.
[8] Yet as Abdaljawad Omar well noted during his talk at BICAR this year, such a rupturing of Jewish omnipotence, as a return of Jewish fragility, is itself operationalized by the Israeli state as a key mechanism in the justification of sovereign violence against the perpetrators. The rupturing of Jewish ontology hence need to be more than a practice of becoming fragile, becoming victim, but becoming exilic, a becoming of statelessness.
[9] Edward Said, Beginnings: Intention and Method. United Kingdom, Granta Books, 2012.
[10] Adam Hajyahia, “The Principle of Return Palestine: The repressed ruptures of Zionist time”, Palestine Issue, Parapraxis Magazine, 2024.
[11] Shivangi Mariam Raj, “Behind the Scenes”, in Undocumented International, Issue. 51, The Funambulist.
[12] Kristin Ross, Communal Luxury: The Political Imaginary of the Paris Commune, Verso, 2015, 79.