| nettime's digst on Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:23:55 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: <nettime> Iraq, Israel, Terrorism and Warfighting [3x] |
Table of Contents:
Re: <nettime> Iraq, Israel, Terrorism and Warfighting
Chaim Gingold <[email protected]>
Re: <nettime> Iraq, Israel, Terrorism and Warfighting
Rick Bradley <[email protected]>
Re: <nettime> Iraq, Israel, Terrorism and Warfighting
Ian Dickson <[email protected]>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 23:07:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chaim Gingold <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Iraq, Israel, Terrorism and Warfighting
If we repeat this enough times, does it become true?
It certainly helps your argument to claim that Hamas is repelling invaders
of Palestinian territory, and it is, but if and only if you grant that
pre-1967 Israel is an illegal occupation to be liberated. This does, of
course, contradict your claim that most Arabs & Arab Palestinians can live
with a 1967 Israel.
I never cease to be amazed at people who draw conclusions about the
Arab-Israeli conflict, especially those regarding the legitimacy of
intentionally murdering noncombatants, with such flimsy knowledge of even
the most basic facts about the situation.
Given that a solution to the problem is political, and will ultimately be
reached through negotiation (obvious given the unlimited aims of Hamas,
Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc...), the legitimacy and even usefulness of
violence is generally suspect.
You don't have to take my word for it; consult the web sites & information
disseminated by these groups directly. Or maybe we should trust your claim
that most Arabs & Palestinian Arabs can live with a 1967 Israel? I'll let
Hamas speak for themselves.
Chaim
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Ian Dickson wrote:
> Most Arabs can live with a 1967 Israel. Most Palestinians can too.
>
> If there is to be peace, and the recruiting card for terrorism to be
> torn up, Israel must become peaceful and stop its occupation.
>
> Hamas, (et al), as an organisation fighting invaders of Palestinian
> territory, can legitimately do anything it likes. When fighting a modern
> war, if you are the weaker side, everything is a target, especially if
> the actual soldiers are too heavily protected to be hit effectively.
>
> Hamas, as an organisation trying to continue a war with an Israel
> seeking peace, and behind 1967 boundaries, with settlements dismantled,
> would very soon lose the support that it requires, and fold.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 00:05:24 -0500
From: Rick Bradley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Iraq, Israel, Terrorism and Warfighting
> A terrorist is defined by his actions, not his dress. Forcing women, at
> gunpoint, to drive car bombs at Americans is terrorism. Volunteering
> freely to do so is not, not until the war is over and Government
> reinstalled.
[...]
> Hamas, (et al), as an organisation fighting invaders of Palestinian
> territory, can legitimately do anything it likes. When fighting a modern
> war, if you are the weaker side, everything is a target, especially if
> the actual soldiers are too heavily protected to be hit effectively.
Faulty logic fails to convince. The Palestinians and the Israelis must be
bound by the same rules where morality is concerned.
Attacking civilians is not justifiable as an act of war, regardless on
which side the attacker, regardless the tactics of the opponent.
When Hamas orchestrates the killing of civilians they are committing
terrorism, or "war crimes" -- under either name the act is unforgivable.
When the Israeli army orchestrates the killing of civilians they are
committing "war crimes", or terrorism -- under either name the act is
unforgivable.
Let us be clear, however, that "Hamas (et al)" are military organizations,
just as the incorporated forces of Israel are military organizations.
There are no civilians in Israel's military. There are no civilians in
Hamas.
There are matters of degree -- when a military group attacks a military
target, how much collateral damage is acceptable?
We can also split hairs over the Geneva Convention, but it really doesn't
matter, in the long run, whether someone in Hamas is wearing an insignia;
just as it didn't matter whether Washington's troops marched in a line
during the American Revolution. These sorts of wartime conventions are
designed to minimize collateral damage, given a common model of how
"modern" war is waged, and are subject to modification over time, as the
manner of waging war evolves.
The significant open questions, as I see it, are whether Israeli's opening
settlements in contested territory (knowingly, of course), or Palestinians
aiding/abetting suicide bombers, are combatants.
Rick
- --
http://www.rickbradley.com MUPRN: 187
| we rate this as the
random email haiku | best value in portable
| jam players to date.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 08:22:37 +0100
From: Ian Dickson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Iraq, Israel, Terrorism and Warfighting
In message
<[email protected]>, Chaim
Gingold <[email protected]> writes
>
>If we repeat this enough times, does it become true?
>
>It certainly helps your argument to claim that Hamas is repelling invaders
>of Palestinian territory, and it is, but if and only if you grant that
>pre-1967 Israel is an illegal occupation to be liberated.
Hamas want to destroy Israel, as I am sure you know, but the occupation of
territory outside the 1967 boundaries by Israel gives Hamas the excuse AND
LOCAL SUPPORT they need in order to engage in their activities.
Such support would diminish rapidly if the Palestinians had a realistic
state of their own. In my travels I've tended to find that most people,
most of the time, wish for nothing more than a quiet life of gentle
respect, and they don't like those who prevent that, be they an occupying
force, or self destructive terrorists who could break a peace based on
mutual respect.
The IRA fought for a United Ireland, but after partition they vanished
(well, they were helped to vanish by the new Irish Gvt). Only bad
government in the north regenerated them at the end of the 1960's.
>This does, of
>course, contradict your claim that most Arabs & Arab Palestinians can live
>with a 1967 Israel.
Since the Arabs and Palestinians have recently signed declarations to
that effect it seems to be reasonable.
>
>Given that a solution to the problem is political, and will ultimately be
>reached through negotiation (obvious given the unlimited aims of Hamas,
>Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, etc...), the legitimacy and even usefulness of
>violence is generally suspect.
Agreed, but one important view is that armoured bulldozers, tanks, and a
very very tight security regime by an occupying power are violence.
Especially when it has a penchant for deciding to create facts on the
ground and that for security purposes it needs to build settlements, and
they all too frequently need to be on the best land.
Of course as long as the Israelis and the Palestinians swap "you started
it" arguments they won't get far.
A political solution is essential, but can't happen in the foreseeable
future unless Israel withdraws to 1967 borders.
>
>You don't have to take my word for it; consult the web sites & information
>disseminated by these groups directly. Or maybe we should trust your claim
>that most Arabs & Palestinian Arabs can live with a 1967 Israel? I'll let
>Hamas speak for themselves.
See my opening comment. To undercut the extremists the moderates must have
something worth having. Give people nothing to lose, and you do nothing
but create enemies.
After WW2 we Brits, currently running Palestine as part of a previous
bodged up solution, were subject to terrorist attack by Zionist
extremists, most of whom later became the rulers of Israel. Also early in
the state of Israel there was I understand a case when the newish Gvt
turned on and sank a boat carrying guns to a Zionist group who didn't
think that they had got enough land.
I seen no reason to doubt that if an effective Palestinian State was
established that the likes of Hamas would reduce to a rump, easily
destroyed by the Palestinian Gvt.
Summary - If Israel gives the moderates a peace worth having, Israel will
end up at peace. The US can help Israel make that leap.
Final note re targeting of non combatants. In asymmetric warfare as soon
as one side believes that it is fighting for survival the gloves come off.
They always have, and they always will. We terror bombed German cities
(the phrase is theirs), they rocketed us. The Americans dropped the atom
bomb (correctly, to avoid the expected loss of, IIRC, 500,000 US
solidiers). I'm willing to
Out of curiosity, while I agree that civilians inside the 67 borders are
non combatants, are Settlers, in your view, combatants or not?
- --
ian dickson www.commkit.com
phone +44 (0) 1452 862637 fax +44 (0) 1452 862670
PO Box 240, Gloucester, GL3 4YE, England
"for building communities that work"
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]