I certainly think that the deliberate murder of civilians is very wicked and half the Israelis whom Hamas killed (perhaps as many as sixty percent) were civilians.
The people of Gaza elected Hamas in January 2006 (some of its leaders were less extreme then) but in June 2007, 16 years ago, Hamas staged a coup and suppressed all opposition.
When the rebellion was suppressed the slaves who were lynched included many who had not taken part in the revolt.
I am also put in mind of the Indian Mutiny in 1852 which aroused a very bloodthirsty reaction in England, including from such Liberals as Macaulay, Dickens and Wilkie Collins. They wanted death to the mutineers.
What is interesting is the very different reaction that the Amritsar massacre in 1919 elicited in England. English attitudes had changed greatly.
Are Israelis like the English of 1852 or of 1919?
'Violence perpetrated by Jewish settlers in the Palestinians’ West Bank has risen sharply since October 7th. The Israeli army and the settlers have, in total, killed at least 155 Palestinians in the territory, the core of a would-be Palestinian state, since Hamas committed its atrocities against Israel. This death toll is a fraction of the number killed by Israel’s bombardment of Gaza in the same period. But it is rising dangerously fast. The occupied West Bank is getting closer to boiling over.'Last year was already the deadliest for Palestinians in the West Bank for 20 years. Settler groups have become bolder and the army has intensified its raids on Palestinian towns and cities. But since October 7th things have dramatically worsened. At the current rate, the four weeks following the Hamas attack will have been more deadly for Palestinians in the West Bank than the whole of last year.'
By all means take a side if you wish in the Arab Israeli dispute but try to understand the other man's point of view.
It's difficult because of the media which distort everything, for political reasons.
Some see this as about colonialism, others about terrorism, others about American hegemony or the Holocaust and so on and so on.
It is about these things but only incidentally.
Actually the Holocaust has nothing to do with it but people keep mentioning it.
People like feeling angry and get angry with people they are disposed to dislike. Then they find reasons.
What is clear is that this is a quarrel between two peoples over land, not a fight between civilisation and barbarism or between the West and Islam.
I'm sure your Jewish friend is also looking at pictures from Gaza now and sees great real estate development opportunities.
ReplyDeleteThat's an unpleasant thing to say.
DeletePCPSR conducted a survey last year and found over one third of all of Palestinians consider Hamas to be the most damaging thing to their country, even more than Israel, but the popularity of Hamas rose fast after October 7.
ReplyDelete'over one third of all of Palestinians'
ReplyDelete...support Fatah.
What I call settler nationalism is an aggravated form of both colonialism and nationalism. Under Netanyahu, Israel has become even more settler nationalist than it was, with the controversial 2018 law defining Israel as the « nation-state of the Jewish people, » which is of course problematic for the «other» people who happen to be there. Now Israel is a country with its back against the wall. Why ? Because ethnic settler nationalism can only work with apartheid and ethnic cleansing... It so happens that Apartheid and ethnic cleansing are no longer very fashionable...
ReplyDeleteEven if we accept the idea that Jews returned home after 2000 years, it remains a fact that they spent much less time there than outside, unlike the natives who seem to represent some continuum since the Late Bronze Age. And even if we consider the 'racial', 'ethnic', or genetic arguments, Palestinians have a more solid claim to the land than these newcomers. A quick genetic analysis would show that the groups closest to the Judeans of Roman times, before the second destruction of the Temple, are the Samaritans, the Christian Palestinians, the Christian Lebanese (due to lesser mixing), the Karaite Jews (a small minority), Syro-Mesopotamian Jews (that is, non-Yemeni Mizrahis), the Druze, and finally the Muslim Lebanese and Palestinians. In other words, the majority of today's Levantines. Therefore, the « we are coming back home » argument loses its weight in the age of genetics and DNA analysis. It becomes closer to pure colonialism.
I'm not saying the racial argument is valid; but if Israel wants to use it, it doesn't work in its favor.
Israel can no longer be "a villa in the jungle," as former Prime Minister Ehud Barak said. (Karim Bitar’s interview with France 24 TV, Editor’s Note) That's the problem, Sparta no longer exists. The Levant is littered with dozens of empty Crusader and Hospitaller fortresses. The identity of countries changes over time and militarism does not protect anything in the long run. If identities were fixed and immutable, we would speak Gaelic in France today. If I am in favor of federalism in Lebanon (and the Levant), it is for Tocquevillian reasons: protecting non-aggressive minorities (religious or cultural) from the majority and maintaining a diversity that continually evolves, in order to avoid a fixed and coercive central identity. The nation-state is obsolete (it came and went) ; city-states are here to stay.
Today, Israel is fundamentally a fragile state. For its survival, Israel must radically change its model and accept equality with the Palestinians at all levels – and without exception. This is because, like gender equality, even small disparities can significantly increase Palestinian anger. The Israelis have wasted valuable time doing propaganda in America, not realizing that it is the Palestinians they must try to convince. If they can succeed in convincing them, there would be some hope. But I have my doubts.
Is Israel a Fragile State? Interview with Nassim Nicholas Taleb
https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1362814/is-israel-a-fragile-state-interview-with-nassim-nicholas-taleb.html
Thank you. Brilliant. Yes the Arabs are descended from the Jews, especially the Christians who were not expelled by Trajan. I so esteem him and must read his hook. I disagree about nation states though, as I say here. They are wonderful but should not be created by ethnic cleansing or genocide.
Deletehttps://pvewood.blogspot.com/2018/05/the-nation-state-is-political.html?m=1
The Nat Tate analogy was first made by Finkelstein, who has subsequently walked back on this initial, spurious comparison, made when he thought the number of deaths was far less and confined to military targets (leaving aside the war crimes committed against even that group). Like much else in the world, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict suffers from American comparisons. The Palestinians are not slaves; the Israelis are not settlers.
ReplyDelete