The New Catastrophe in Gaza

Remove all ads!

@Martaug:

That's just plain nonsense.

National identity and nationalim do exist in different Arab countries (Lebanon and Syria are not the same, as Kuwait and Iraq are not the same).

You are just repeating the colonial discourse that justified the creation of the state of Israel in the first place i.e. Palestinians are Arabs and there's no reason that they shouldn't blend in with other Arabs. History taught us how wrong that assumption was.

That's the same reasoning that led to the nonsensical partition of Africa by colonial powers without any regard for cultural and ethnical diversity.

You referred to Jordan, it's worth to mention that currently the majority of the population of Jordan is in fact of Palestinian origin (like the current queen of Jordan). That doesn't mean that the two communities look eye to eye (Black September comes to mind).

The Arab world is a mosaic, it is not a unified entity.

If I say that Canadians and Americans are the same I guess you will disagree, if I say Texans, Californians, Virginians and the inhabitants of Vermont are the same I'm not sure you will agree and yet that statement is far more accurate than what you said in your post.

 

That depends on who you ask. Ask an Iraqi how old his nation is and the answer you usually get is over 5,000 years, not less than a century. In the minds of most Iraqis, Kuwait should rightfully belong to Iraq, since it was part of what we now call Iraq long before the land was ever colonized. Kuwaitis, however, tend to disagree.

Kuwait wouldn't even exist as its own nation right now were it not for the fact that England wanted to keep a shipping port when granting Iraq its independance. The only reason Kuwait is a seperate country is that it gained its independence later than Iraq did.

Nevertheless, I don't think that my little semantics adventure really detracts from your point. I agree with it, generally speaking.

 

Whether or not Palestinians had a national identity before the creation of Israel or not seems to me a moot point; they certainly have one now.

At the same time, whether or not Israel has a right to have a country in the region, and whether or not "the Zionists" have a legitimate national identity as Israelis is also a moot point; again, they have a legitimate claim now.

However, I think recent events have very little to do with the whole "Zionist-as-colonialists" narrative. I'm not talking about the general situation, but the kidnappings and the responses to the kidnappings. In this case, I think it's simply about nation-states, Iran and Syria, using Hamas and Hizbollah in a proxy war against Israel, as a way of reshuffling the regional balance. Part of the strategy involves setting off a crisis and standing back as the rest of the world condemns Israel as violent colonialists unconcerned with spilling Arab blood.

 

If I understands correct You pressume Israelis and zionists are the same, wich is the same as saying every German under 2nd WW was a nazi.
Still I must agree to you point about proxy war. Could Israel then be the weapon of the US?

 

that's why I put "scare quotes" around Zionists, a term often used to connote colonialism, the illegitimacy of the Israeli national identity, and as you point out assertions of moral equivalence to Nazis.

 

Then Arabs must have a time machine because PLO was founded in 1964 and its statement of proclamation begins with "Believing in the right of the Palestinian Arab people to its sacred homeland Palestine".

 

Honestly - I'm starting to really not care if Israel gets 'wiped off the map'. This situation is bull****, and Israel is to blame for the most part.

I'm not entirely sure who started it - I doubt it matters. Two captured soldiers *is not* a valid reason for destroying a country and killing hundreds of civilians. This is just an excuse to blow the **** out of the neighbours - it's not going to fix anything, all it will do is make more 'terrorists' (though I'm not sure how 'terrorist' Hezbollah actually are - what are their tactics when they're not firing rockets?)

So for now I'm cautiously applauding Hezbollah - if only because Israel are being so much worse. If they can do some damage to the Israeli military or government - I'd be quite happy.

 

@Aikanaro

I applaud your honesty. While I happen to be on the opposite side of the fence (as Cuchulainn loves to point out), I respect your bravery in posting such a comment. Be prepared for a fury of condemnation as genocide supposedly is not a solution.


EDIT

I like what the German Chancellor had to say.

It is almost like she read my post on page one of this thread on how to stop the violence.

[ July 17, 2006, 16:21: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]

 

Both sides are completely insane, they deserve eachother.

 

Snook (or anyone else): I hope you don't actually get the impression that I'm advocating genocide (that would be a rather messy and unpleasant end to the whole problem) of the Jews. I don't - I'm all for civilians not dying. I just couldn't care less if the state of Israel ceased to exist. (Saying that all Israeli civilians should be killed because the Israeli military killed hundreds of civilians would be a bit silly, to say the least )

True, it's not as simple as I put it - but it's not as simple as you put it either. The raid was to capture soldiers in order to secure the release of their own prisoners. Now sure - these prisoners may, for all I know, have been captured in some other thingy instigated by Hezbollah, which was probably caused by some action by Israel, which was probably caused by some action by Hezbollah - and so on and so forth - as I said, I don't think it matters who started it - just that the reaction to it was crap.

Israel has lived up to their promise to send Lebanon back 20 years (or more) - they've destroyed the economy and infrastructure - that's going to take a very long time to rebuild. The Lebanese have been screwed over, basically.

Now, I'd be all for Hezbollah going away quietly and not being such Islamist dicks - but destroying a country was not the way to go about it. I don't know what is - but that is one thing that I can certainly say it wasn't. The lives of millions should not be ruined because of these kinds of (rather minor in comparision) attacks on Israel - *especially not the lives of civilians*.

I don't see a Lebanese life as any more important than an Israeli life - I see a soldier's life as of less worth than a civilian's life - they've consented to (the possibility of) being killed by joining the military in the first place. Killing hundreds of civilians because 8 soldiers died and two were captured is thus - as far as I can see - bull****.

 

I am pretty much along the same lines as Aik.

"Eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind" sums the whole damn mess up.

 

Bah, what you people do not seem to understand is that this is war. Sure, Hezbollah (and Hamas) do not have tanks or jets or whatever, but they make do with what they have, and it is war nonetheless. So, from this point of view, asking that the Israeli give the same weight to the life of a palestinian as to the life on one of their own shows a great degree of naivete.

And don't tell me that the Lebanon government is not at fault for what Hezbollah does. Are there groups in the government which do not approve of Hezbollah? sure. However, they could have made at least a try to disarm them. They pretty much choose to look the other way, and now they are surprised that the situation has blown up. It is equivalent to having a rabid dog in your house, but not taking any measures to protect the neighbours.

 

Really? I guess the British should have bombed hospitals and schools in the Republic of Ireland when the IRA attacked London

 

Did the IRA shell London? Did the leadership of Ireland vow the destruction of the English nation?

 

Does the method of attack really matter that much? Do political party links to terrorists count?

 

Khaavern:
You're contradicting yourself.

** Sure, Hezbollah (and Hamas) do not have tanks or jets or whatever, but they make do with what they have, and it is war nonetheless.**
and
**Did the IRA shell London?**


Did the leadership of Lebanon vow the destruction of the Israel nation?
Answer : No

 

heh. I guess you have a point there, and I did not make my case as clear as I could.

What seems to me to make this a war is the fact that if Hamas and Hezbellah have their way, Israel would cease to exist. This is different from the IRA, which only wanted self determination for Ireland. Also, this would make it different from the USA vs. terrorism fight, since the terrorists do not really have the means to destroy USA.

And also note that in the Hezbollah vs Israel case, it is not only a matter of rethoric. It could be argued that the terrorist groups in the Mid. East, working in conjunction with Syria and Iran, could potentially achieve their aim of destroying Israel.

 

If it's a war, it's pretty damn one sided. Israel has killed 10 Palestinians in response to every Israeli killed in a terror attack since its inception. Lets not forget that Israel has employed tactics like killing the families of suicide bombers in the past. Their counter attacks have often been just as indiscriminate as the attacks launched by Palestinian terrorists; aiming not for a strategic gain, but instead attempting to use fear to make terror attacks stop by showing Palestinians that if they make a suicide attack, Israel will in response kill their wife, children, brothers, cousins, etc. Thanks to the UN, Israel is no longer allowed to do this, but the Palestinians still remember and these actions play a very large part in the prevailing opinion Palestinians have of Israel. It is this (not entirely unwarranted) opinion that the Palestinians have of Israel that is the real enemy in this cycle of violence.

Historically, there have only been two successful methods to defeat terrorism. Since genocide isn't an option, the only option left is eliminating the root cause. The existance of Israel is not the root cause in this instance. If the Palestinians in Israel were treated as equals and if the Palestinians in Palestine (and the Palestinian refugees all over the world) felt that they were heard, and that Israel would be willing to work with them as an ally, the attacks would stop. This will take a long time, but I think 30+ years of trying the military solution to the Palestinian conundrum should be sufficient evidence to show that a military "solution" simply will not work. Ever.

The only attempts at Diplomacy have been short lived. Terror attacks will simply not stop immediately because there exist (on both sides) a great many people who do not desire peace under any circumstance. We can not allow such people to destroy the diplomatic process before it even starts as we have done so many times in the past. When looking at diplomatic solutions, it is imperative that we understand that terror attacks will not stop until Palestine has the infrastructure and stability necessary to stop terrorist attacks. Not only that, but Israel and Palestine will need to work together to stop such attacks, as well.

But not enough seats to actually dictate national policy. Not by a long shot. At most, their less than 25% minority can be used to conclude that some (no more than 25%) of the Lebanese people support them and their tactics.

[ July 19, 2006, 01:51: Message edited by: Drew ]