Reading about the current events got me looking into the history of Palestine and Israel, and I noticed a lot of Israel’s politicians (like Yitzhak Shamir, Menachem Begin, and Ariel Sharon to name a few) were Zionist terrorists (using the word literally, not subjectively) since before the establishment of Israel. The groups they belonged to, like Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi have been designated terrorist organizations by the United Nations, British, and United States governments, and
Albert Einstein, in a letter to The New York Times in 1948, compared Irgun and its successor Herut party to “Nazi and Fascist parties” and described it as a “terrorist, right wing, chauvinist organization”.
The Zionists have explained their view as follows:
Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. We are very far from having any moral qualms as far as our national war goes. We have before us the command of the Torah, whose morality surpasses that of any other body of laws in the world: “Ye shall blot them out to the last man.”
and
Late in 1940, Lehi, having identified a common interest between the intentions of the new German order and Jewish national aspirations, proposed forming an alliance in World War II with Nazi Germany.[22] The organization offered cooperation in the following terms: Lehi would rebel against the British, while Germany would recognize an independent Jewish state in Palestine/Eretz Israel, and all Jews leaving their homes in Europe, by their own will or because of government injunctions, could enter Palestine with no restriction of numbers.[32] Late in 1940, Lehi representative Naftali Lubenchik went to Beirut to meet German official Werner Otto von Hentig. The Lehi documents outlined that its rule would be authoritarian and indicated similarities between the organization and Nazis.
It just gets worse the more you look into it, but it does give important context to the current genocide in Gaza, and to the decades old conflict in general.
Literally everything we know of is already inherently political, on account of being perceivable by humans.
Not sure what definition of political you’re using.
Management/governance of things having to do with humans, which is everything that we know of.
But there are plenty of things that don’t involve governance. Like I’m not gonna look at a video of someone playing with a puppy and go “Hm yep there is a human so this is political.”
Late reply but the fact that people keep pets at all is also a very political subject.
I think context matters a lot. Green Day’s “Dominated Love Slave” isn’t very political, and to be honest it would be kind of dumb to try and make it out to be. Similarly, for “Pulling Teeth” by them as well - they’re just stories about them. “American Idiot” on the other hand is political, and it would be quite dumb to argue that it isn’t.
As such, all things can be. Now, if the argument is that everything can be made to be analogous to a political statement, like how “I’m all busted up, broken bones and nasty cuts, accidents will happen but this time I can’t get up” for domestic abuse and our current state of the government then by all means yes though our human perception we can make that jump, but I wouldn’t necessarily say that it was the point even if I would agree. Exactly the way I likely would for someone’s argument about “American Idiot” not being political, like argue all you want but objectively it’s false.
Anyway not really sure what my point here is. I guess not everything is political, but it can be if it is reconstructed through multiple lenses. Kind of like memes!