It is very hard to talk like this, Ben-Collins. My 9-year old niece is much more rational. I am saying that THE SOLUTION for future situations is on the table but Israel is too colonialist to see it. For the current situation, I am pretty sure that Israel has made quite enough. More than enough. Em quarta-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2024, Ben-Collins Ndinojuo < becoolholly@gmail.com> escreveu:
Based on the comments of Marcela, until a state is created, Hamas is free to kill as many Israelis as they can, and Israel has no rights whatsoever to defend it's citizens.
Ndinojuo, Ben-Collins Emeka BA, MA, PhD Faculty of Humanities Department of Linguistics and Communication Studies, University of Port Harcourt. Nigeria. Researchgate - https://www.researchgate.net/ profile/Ben_Collins_Ndinojuo Google Scholar - https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=AobhKnYAAAAJ& hl=en Academia Link - https://uniport-ng.academia.edu/ChukwuemekaCollins
On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:58 PM Marcela Canavarro via Air-L < air-l@listserv.aoir.org> wrote:
It looks like many people forget that the only part in this conflict that is a NATIONAL STATE is Israel.
I wonder how israelis wish the world to hold Hamas accountable otherwise than through war and genocide against palestinians...
Let me be clear: there must be a STATE to be held accountable so the international community can do so. International laws apply to States and formal representatives, not unofficial militias...
It is as simple as that.
Em segunda-feira, 22 de janeiro de 2024, Nils Zurawski via Air-L < air-l@listserv.aoir.org> escreveu:
Dear list and participants of this debate,
I may come a little late to this thread, but it took me a while to read through all posts. I have to say that I support Sam’s arguments, if I had to take sides here in the debate. But I would like to share some further thoughts on this, hoping not to repeat arguments that have already been made, but rather commenting on the debate itself, which I feel is like so many others – flawed and in parts very boring, particularly from a scholarly viewpoint
But first let me make myself clear, where I come from: I am German, have friends in Israel, I am involved in teaching peace building courses at the University of Hamburg and work as a mediator. I am a pacifist of sort, hate violence and promote peaceful conflict resolution. I can comprehend what Isreal is acting the way it does, but do not support it. It puts me in a dilemma that has brought me to think about the situation more.
I am used to be more active on this list, however this was years ago. Being German makes me a target of being accused to have something of a guilt, therefore I (we Germans) are deemed unable to criticise Israeli politics - well mostly we should criticise Israel as a whole. And this is where it starts for me to become fuzzy and boring already.
I have a lot of sympathy for anyone opposing violence, war, atrocities and genocide. No question. But I was surprised not to read something on the Hamas attack on Israel in the original mail of this thread. And I was less surprised to read all following arguments as to why this can be omitted. Debates and arguments like this want to take a side. You are either for or against something – and then follows a list of arguments. In the case of omitting the Hamas attack, or against the critique to do so, the following is said: Well, yes there was an attack, but it was not the start, the Israeli started it before, with their polics, there history of violence, the occupation and so forth. Israel become the colonial settler state that has to be opposed. Hamas becomes a freedom fighting group, depending on how far this narrative is taken. The game played here is tit for tat. WE did, yeah, but only because you did….. going back years, decades, centuries if needed. It does not lead anywhere and it indeed a boring debate, given that we as scholars of various perspectives should be able to discuss much better, far more differentiated. To add to Sam’s list in this context: We could add the US as a colonial settler state, one that many on this list live in or came to, that has not been boycotted and one that can be criticised for various wrong doing, false wars and horrific policies over the years. Somehow Israel seems to be the prototype of this kind in the debates. If we would be asking why Israel, we would need to go back centuries to start with and end in 1933, when the Nazis with the help of a good portion of the German people tried to finish a job, that had been coming for some years. Anyway that is not my point, even if it would be giving some context in a game of tit for tat. It simply does not end.
I would like to propose something else for a debate here. I want to uncouple threads of argumentations to generate a better debate and to really discuss the various issues in this conflict, the situation in general and in specific debates. It is one thing to ask to take a side. Any debate and argument ends here. Side A, against side B. Both sides are fine with their place, but will never capture the complexity of what is at stake. I often ends with frictions in the debate, also here, when the Israeli left was brought in and they were the taken on the good side, and another exception and another one. Why, because taking sides makes arguments difficult and in the end flawed,
What does it mean to decouple threads? It means to discuss the problems and phenomena at hand for their own sake. I cannot uncouple all arguments here, but to give you an example.
The Hamas attack on Oct. 7th and the pain it has brought to Israeli people. You can discuss the Hamas strategy, their role, the violence, show empathy, condemn the way Hamas has acted, acted in the past and may be a authoritarian force that is rather an obstacle to Palestinian peace than a great help. You cannot discuss the attack by saying, yes but…. But is the word that has to be deleted from all those debates.
You can very well discuss the scope to the Israeli counter attack and with it the pain inflicted on Gaza. With it you can discuss Netanyahu’s politics over the years, maybe even the settler issue of the West bank and its role in preventing peace in the area over the years. Not but. Just this.
Within Israel, as I understand it, there are discussions and arguments against the Gaza strikes, for the hostages, for a change in politics and so forth. From what I see quite a vivid public sphere there, given that it is a country fighting a bloody and disputed war. Not „but“ here.
We can also discuss the role of the Arab states and Palestine, not because Israel is worse, or better or different, but for what this relationship is like.
I hope you get the idea. The arguments of genocide, we do, because they do, this or this violence is justified, because… but look at them, are flawed and will bring us nowhere. We as scholars should be able to discuss on a higher level, with more information, so much information that simply makes it harder to take a side in a game of „we-do-because-they-did“.
And as Sam demonstrated, there are always aspects that could brought forward, good points, if a debate does not want to fail, because of blind spots, which have become necessary to uphold one’s own position of support against the other side.
Maybe this all does not make sense. Maybe it does. I only want to promote the idea of a better way to discuss these issues, as threads of their own, without falling prey to argumentative shortcomings due to blind spots by being on a particular side and blaming the other for the violence that has been inflicted upon them. You cannot blame the victims of violence for the suffering. Anyways, this post has gotten longer than I wanted. If it does not make sense, simply delete it, if it does, think about it some more. Maybe we need another petition in the end, once that does justice to the highly complicated context and geopolitics in the middle east, not simply blaming one side with all the effects that may follow from that (e.g. boycott).
Peace
nilz
On 22 Jan 2024, at 12:59, Sam Lehman-wilzig via Air-L wrote:
The call for some sort of “response” to Israel’s actions might have some
legitimacy if:
1. Previously we heard similar calls against China’s cultural genocide against the Uighurs. 2. Ditto: any call to stop the slaughter of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Africans in the Sudan. 3. Some mention of Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, VIDEO-documented by THEIR OWN FIGHTERS. 4. Some mention of the fact that in contravention of all international law, Hamas abducted and is holding hostage for over 3 months Israeli civilian women, men, and children. 5. Hamas hid massive amounts of armaments in hospitals, schools, kindergartens, and private civilian homes (e.g., under baby cribs!!) – again, against Geneva Convention laws of warfare. Thus, where exactly is Israel supposed to fight? Just on roads or parks? 6. Israel sent messages (flyers and phone calls!) to all Gazan civilians in North Gaza to get out and move south in order NOT to be in the line of fire when the IDF attacked Hamas soldiers. This is the very opposite of intended genocide. 7. If already people here mention “genocide”, then what do you call Hamas’ Charter that calls for the elimination not of Israelis but of all JEWS? And after Oct. 7, their spokesman said that they will do it (Oct. 7) again and again. So who exactly is “genocidal” here? Given that this forum is for academics, one would expect a bit more “context” in respondents’ posts – not to mention understanding and noting ALL the facts involved.
Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig 3 Yitzchak Sadeh St. 4423918 Kfar Saba ISRAEL 052-3410163 www.ProfSLW.com<http://www.profslw.com/>
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
PD Dr. Nils Zurawski Universität Hamburg FB Sozialwissenschaften 20146 Hamburg Germany https://www.surveillance-studies.org Podcast: http://www.panoptopia.de
Aktuell:
- Nadja Maurer / Annabelle Möhnle / Nils Zurawski (Hg.). Kritische Polizeiforschung. Reflexionen, Dilemmata und Erfahrungen aus der Praxis. 2023 Bielefeld: transcript, open access, https://www.transcript-verlag. de/978-3-8376-6557-4/kritische-polizeiforschung/
- N. Zurawski: Welt ohne Abweichung? Soziale Kontrolle, Konsum und der digitalisierte Alltag. In Soziale Probleme, Nr. 2/2023, Bd 34.
- N. Zurawski: Überwachen und Konsumieren. Kontrolle, Normen und soziale Beziehungen in der digitalen Gesellschaft. 2021 Bielefeld: transcript. open access, https://www.transcript-verlag.de/978-3-8376-5606-0/ueberwach en-und-konsumieren/
- N. Zurawski: Proximity, Distance, and State Powers: Policing Practices and the Regulation of Anonymity. In Anon Collective: The Book of Anonymity. Punctum 2021, https://punctumbooks.com/titles/book-of-anonymity/
- N. Zurawski: „Früher war alles … sicherer?“ Gesellschaftliche Sicherheit und die Sensibilisierung von Gesellschaft gegenüber Gewalt und deviantem Verhalten bei Jugendlichen. Ein Einwurf. In Jahrbuch Pädagogik 2019 (erschienen 2021): https://www.peterlang.com/file asset/Journals/Jp/JP012019e_book.pdf
- weitere Publikationen: http://www.surveillance-studies.org/zurawski _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
_______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/ listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/