“Hungry Palestinians looking for food made Israeli soldiers feel unsafe.” An understandable headline, for there is a direct correlation at play. The ‘Do you condemn Hamas?’ symphony did not come about solely through the dictation of politics and policy. That symphony was composed not out of inspiration, but because it is the only symphony the instrument of ‘democracy’ could play.

See you cannot condemn the entire Palestinian resistance body. To do that, is to acknowledge the reality for what it is. No one wants that, and rightfully so. But more importantly, putting a name or a label is the first step in giving a shape and form to the otherwise infinite, and, from a material point of view, incomprehensible, and by induction inconsumable: in this case, armed struggle. If it is inconsumable then what is there to demonize, or even glorify for that matter?

Too wordy. A different angle is what the director of this should play should consider. If it is not the Palestinians, one way or the other, to condemn then who is it to condemn? In a materialist utopia the answer would be perversion: I look at the TV and say ‘condemn Israel.’ What is at stake however is much higher than dismantling a holocaust milking enterprise. It is condemning what Israel is merely a louder, more extreme, representation off: condemn oppression, condemn hunger. Apocalyptic. For what is “state,” “policy,” & “order” as we know today if there is no “hungry”?

A phone call between the Qataris (wanna-be glorified parasites) and the Americans (remnants of glorified parasites) discussing the massacre committed by Israel against Gazans as they were gathered in thousands waiting for aid concluded with a joint statement: if a hostage swap deal is to be made it will ensure the starving are well-fed and safe for “at-least a month and a half.” What is blackmail? But every state was once a cartel.

Those sending aid to Gaza on the other hand spend more time in producing cinematic short films of themselves delivering aid than on “where to send it?”, “what is the best way to send it?”, and “how to make sure they are received?” Again, rightfully so. For those who identify themselves as caretakers, and the protectors will perish on the first night with no boot stamping on anyone’s face.

Wait! The price of ending world hunger is a few billion dollars. That does not mean it is the cost of ending world hunger. If that who is hungry is no where to be found, where would “Nike” find a minor who is willing to work 25 hours a day for a few peanuts per hour to knit a pair of sneakers that costs a few bags of peanuts worth only to be sold for one-month supply of food for a small to medium family worth? Total collapse. The cost of ending world hunger then could very much turn-out to be the complete abolition of the notion of privilege, and its construct.

So if one now asks: do you want stand-alone peace? You do not need progressive at all. On the contrary. Reaction is what is needed: just keep feeding the greedy.