Turkel report on IDF Gaza boat raid

The Turkel report into the attack on the aid ship to Gaza has concluded that Israel acted within international law, and that the soldiers acted in self-defence. As a reminder, nine activists died and several more were injured. Some IDF soldiers were also injured. The summary is here; the international observers’ endorsement here. (The observers were former Northern Ireland first minister David Trimble and a retired Canadian Brigadier-General.) Paragraph 41 of the summary is telling

It should be emphasized that the Commission’s ability to construct a complete picture of the incidents in which force was employed by IDF soldiers is limited for a number of reasons, including the nature of the event, the lack of testimonies by the flotilla participants, and the fact that the scenes in which the events took place were not kept “sterile.” Such an analysis is particularly complex when it is conducted retroactively, under the fluorescent lights of the office and after the fog of war has dissipated.

Nonetheless the summary judges (para 43)

After examining all the material it can be determined that the IDF soldiers acted professionally and in a measured manner in the face of extensive and unanticipated violence. This professionalism was evident, among other factors, in their continuing to switch back and forth between less-lethal and lethal weapons in order to address the nature of the violence directed at them.

And concludes:

The conclusion of the Commission is that – despite the fact that
several incidents have not been fully clarified – overall the actions undertaken were lawful and in conformity with international law (para 48)…

The naval blockade imposed on the Gaza Strip – in view of the security circumstances and Israel’s efforts to comply with its humanitarian obligations – was legal pursuant to the rules of international law.

The actions carried out by Israel on May 31, 2010, to enforce the naval blockade had the regrettable consequences of the loss of human life and physical injuries. Nonetheless, and despite the limited number of uses of force for which we could not reach a conclusion, the actions taken were found to be legal pursuant to the rules of international law (para 49).

For those who can stomach it, the full report is here. This is part 1; the forthcoming second part is on the intelligence gathering in advance.  The Guardian reports on the inquiry here; the BBC reports here that the Turkish government have rejected the report. They won’t be the only ones. Israel refused an international investigation, and appointed Trimble and Watkin to try to counter criticism that it would not be objective.

The report itself, after the conclusions which are put in the summary and quoted above, says “Now all has been heard, here is the conclusion of the matter”. Both parts of that sentence seem unlikely.

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

Speculative Medievalisms podcasts

The audio from the conference in London recently is now available here. (See also my brief report and question.)

Posted in Conferences, Medieval Studies | Leave a comment

Sloterdijk on Heidegger’s drawing

Sloterdijk tells the story of how his Sphären project was inspired by Heidegger’s ‘artwork’.

I was also fascinated by a chalkboard drawing Martin Heidegger made around 1960, in a seminar in Switzerland, in order to help psychiatrists better understand his ontological theses. As far as I know, this is the only time that Heidegger made use of visual means to illustrate logical facts; he otherwise rejected such antiphilosophical aids. In the drawing, one can see five arrows, each of which is rushing toward a single semicircular horizon—a magnificently abstract symbolization of the term Dasein as the state of being cast in the direction of an always-receding world horizon (unfortunately, it’s not known how the psychiatrists reacted to it). But I still recall how my antenna began to buzz back then, and during the following years a veritable archaeology of spatial thought emerged from this impulse.

“Against Gravity: Bettina Funcke talks with Peter Sloterdijk”, Book Forum, 2005.

This was the Zollikoner Seminare with Medard Boss, and the diagram is shown on p. 3 of the German edition.

Posted in Martin Heidegger, Peter Sloterdijk | Leave a comment

Review of State, Space, World

There’s a review of the Lefebvre collection Neil Brenner and I edited (and translated with Gerald Moore) in the new issue of Urban Studies. From the conclusion

Lefebvre has shown that we have “passed from the production of things in space to the production of space itself” and his conception of generalised ‘autogestion’ in the expanded realm of reproduction under late capitalist conditions points the way to a radical social practice of space. What remains to be seen is whether Lefebvre’s readers can also become critical social actors.

 The full review is subscription only here.

Posted in Henri Lefebvre, Neil Brenner | Leave a comment

Sloterdijk video

This may be of interest to some people – Sloterdijk speaking at The Tate, London, in 2005. Unlike most of the videos on the web, this one is in English.

There is a long introduction by Eric Alliez – Sloterdijk starts speaking at around 16 minutes in. The text later appeared in Radical Philosophy 137 as “War on Latency: On some Relations between Surrealism and Terror”, and in revised form in the translation of Luftbeben (Terror from the Air). It’s worth it just for the story of Dali in the diving suit.

Posted in Peter Sloterdijk | Leave a comment

Further talks

Matthew Sparke and I will be in conversation at National University of Singapore on 17th February, around the themes of territory, geopolitics and geoeconomics. This is my stopover on my way to Australia. I fly back through Hong Kong and have a few days there in May.

It looks like I’ll be giving a talk to the geography department at University of Arizona, Tucson, just after the Berkeley talk, in mid September.

Posted in Conferences, Travel | Leave a comment

The spatial politics of occupation

Interesting piece here on the student occupations (via Alex at Experimental Geographies).

Posted in Politics, Universities | Leave a comment

Two more Sloterdijk chapters

Two more Sloterdijk chapters back from revisions, and edited into final form for submission.

The first is by Marie-Eve Morin, and is entitled ‘The Coming-to-the-World of the Human Animal”. The piece engages with Sloterdijk’s reading of Heidegger, especially in the book Nicht gerettet: Versuche nach Heidegger, and draws extensively on his work in the Sphären trilogy.

The second is by Jean-Pierre Couture (his personal website/blog is here). Entitled ‘A Public Intellectual’, it uses the recent debates on the welfare state between Sloterijk, Axel Honneth, and others to reflect on his modes of intellectual engagement.

Both Marie-Eve and Jean-Pierre were involved in the theme issue of Society and Space on Sloterdijk that appeared in 2009 (find it here), though their pieces were entirely different.

Posted in Marie-Eve Morin, Martin Heidegger, Peter Sloterdijk | Leave a comment

Next year’s teaching

Yesterday was largely spent on administrative things at Durham. It feels very early to be planning teaching for the 2011/12 academic year, down to which lectures in which weeks and trying to ensure teaching doesn’t clash with the 2012 Association of American Geographers meeting, which is to be held earlier than usual, in late February in New York.

Next year the plan is to teach a full year course on Territory and Geopolitics. The first term will be largely historical; the second term 20th and 21st century. I’m also convening a course on Theory and Geography, and teaching the block of lectures on Foucault within that. Colleagues will be teaching Derrida, Deleuze and Butler. And I’ll be doing the introductory conceptual lectures on the Political Geography course (power, state, territory, borders, etc.).

Posted in Gilles Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Michel Foucault, teaching | Leave a comment

Another Leibniz

I’m continuing to read and think on Leibniz, as a parallel interest to other things I’m doing. I’ve just read Glenn A. Hartz, Leibniz’s Final System: Monads, Matter, Animals (Routledge, 2007; paperback 2010). From the book’s publicity

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was one of the central figures of seventeenth-century philosophy, and a huge intellectual figure in his age. This book from Glenn A. Hartz (editor of the influential Leibniz Review) is an advanced study of Leibniz’s metaphysics.

Hartz analyzes a very complicated topic, widely discussed in contemporary commentaries on Leibniz, namely the question of whether Leibniz was a metaphysical idealist, realist, or whether he tried to reconcile both trends in his mature philosophy. Because Leibniz is notoriously unclear about this, much has been written on the subject. In recent years, the debate has centered on whether it is possible to maintain compatibility between the two trends.

In this controversial book, Hartz demonstrates that it is not possible to maintain compatibility of idealist and realist views – they must be understood as completely separate theories. As the first major work on realism in Leibniz’s metaphysics, this key text will interest international Leibniz scholars, as well as students at the graduate level.

It’s not an easy read, partly due to the subject matter, and partly due to the style. I felt most comfortable when it remained close to Leibniz; much less so when it related him to more contemporary debates. There was some stuff on sandwichs and ‘cambridge relations’ that make little sense to me. But the book does open up what seem to be intriguing possibilities. 

Then, via John Protevi at New APPS, I was alerted to this interesting looking book: Justin E H Smith, Divine Machines: Leibniz and the Science of Life (Princeton UP, April 2011). The book blurb says

Though it did not yet exist as a discrete field of scientific inquiry, biology was at the heart of many of the most important debates in seventeenth-century philosophy. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the work of G. W. Leibniz. In Divine Machines, Justin Smith offers the first in-depth examination of Leibniz’s deep and complex engagement with the empirical life sciences of his day, in areas as diverse as medicine, physiology, taxonomy, generation theory, and paleontology. He shows how these wide-ranging pursuits were not only central to Leibniz’s philosophical interests, but often provided the insights that led to some of his best-known philosophical doctrines.

Presenting the clearest picture yet of the scope of Leibniz’s theoretical interest in the life sciences, Divine Machines takes seriously the philosopher’s own repeated claims that the world must be understood in fundamentally biological terms. Here Smith reveals a thinker who was immersed in the sciences of life, and looked to the living world for answers to vexing metaphysical problems. He casts Leibniz’s philosophy in an entirely new light, demonstrating how it radically departed from the prevailing models of mechanical philosophy and had an enduring influence on the history and development of the life sciences. Along the way, Smith provides a fascinating glimpse into early modern debates about the nature and origins of organic life, and into how philosophers such as Leibniz engaged with the scientific dilemmas of their era.



This one looks very interesting too. I’d mentioned my interest in his Protogaea last year when I was finishing up Chapter Nine of my territory book. In Geography, at least, Leibniz tends to get seen either as a proponent of a relative view of space, or through the lens of Deleuze’s strange little book on him. He is rarely read, but I think he should be. But it would be another Leibniz to the way he is often portrayed – a realist, empiricist Leibniz. In terms of bio-geography or physical geography there may not be much to add beyond what’s already out, but perhaps more might be said of him as a thinker of political and historical geography.

Posted in Gilles Deleuze, Gottfried Leibniz | 8 Comments