THE UNETHICAL PROPAGANDIZATION OF THE ‘TERRORIST’ ARGUMENT
Ones perspective is influenced by whether they are the observers or the observed!
In January 2009, when Israel and the Palestinians were engaged in another of their vicious and unevenly matched wars, I posted the following blog, which, at the time, was reflective of my perspective on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Since then, we have had the 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza, in what was then called "Operation Protective Edge", and, more recently, we have been having copy-cat random stabbing attacks by Palestinians, on mostly innocent Israeli citizens, with the Israeli Government responding with what appears to be a policy of killing all the attackers.
At the same time, IS, the so-called Islamic State or Caliphate, has expanded its bloody campaigns to Europe, with attacks being carried out in America, Britain and mainland Europe. All of these events giving renewed impetus for reviewing the relationship between the citizens and the state, including considering the extent to which the state should go to restrict the privacy, rights and liberties of the individual or group of citizens, in order to more expeditiously protect the state, in the first instance, and the citizen, in the next. During this review and reconfiguration of the relationship between the two, the concept of what constitutes 'an innocent citizen' is posed. For example, in Israel, it might be assumed that when Palestinians and Israelis are present together, say, at a bus stop, the Palestinians might not be perceived as 'innocent citizens' alone, but also as potential attackers of Israelis. Similarly, more recently, in Europe and America, Muslim Americans and Europeans are being perceived as 'potential enemies and attackers', by virtue of the fact that IS, Al Queda, and other extremist Islamic groups are waging their war under an Islamic banner.
The blog, which was written over 7 years ago, was looking on some of the semantics then associated with the use of terms such as 'terrorist' and 'terrorism.'
See what you make of it.
Israel is currently waging a war of destruction, death and desolation against the people of Gaza, and, in doing so, she is arguing that she has to do it in order to protect hundreds of thousands of her citizens who are being traumatized and having their lives disrupted by rockets Hamas is firing into Israel.
Israel is arguing that no other country would allow this situation to continue, without taking action to protect her citizens from the ‘terrorism’ of Hamas. This is, of course, correct, upto a point, although Israel is not like any other country, as she is responsible for the brutal oppression which she has been waging on the Palestinians for many decades now.
The tactic of using the terms ‘terrrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ as part of a deliberate strategy and tactic to undermine the case of your opposition is not a new one. Clearly, not everybody would argue with Israel in wanting to protect her citizens, or with Hamas, for that matter, in wanting to protect Gazans from the hunger, starvation, charity and death and destruction which Israel’s oppressive policies and military action is having on the Gazans.
Israel is currently waging a war of destruction, death and desolation against the people of Gaza, and, in doing so, she is arguing that she has to do it in order to protect hundreds of thousands of her citizens who are being traumatized and having their lives disrupted by rockets Hamas is firing into Israel.
Israel is arguing that no other country would allow this situation to continue, without taking action to protect her citizens from the ‘terrorism’ of Hamas. This is, of course, correct, upto a point, although Israel is not like any other country, as she is responsible for the brutal oppression which she has been waging on the Palestinians for many decades now.
The tactic of using the terms ‘terrrorist’ and ‘terrorism’ as part of a deliberate strategy and tactic to undermine the case of your opposition is not a new one. Clearly, not everybody would argue with Israel in wanting to protect her citizens, or with Hamas, for that matter, in wanting to protect Gazans from the hunger, starvation, charity and death and destruction which Israel’s oppressive policies and military action is having on the Gazans.
Just as how the issue is about how Hamas goes about trying to protect Palestinians, so it is about how Israel tries to protect her citizens
If, as seems reasonable, we define ‘terrorist’ as a person, group or sovereign state which uses methods which terrifies and/or causes extreme fear in the person or people whom it targets, and ‘terrorism’ as the personal, physical, psychological and social and economic impact of the ‘terrorist’ act or acts, then, there is no ethical or moral difference between the ‘terrorism’ of the individual or group and that of the State. Thus, as far as the ‘terrorism’ of Israel towards the people of Gaza and the ‘terrorism’ of Hamas is concerned, they they are morally and ethically the same.
If, however, we apply the ‘principle of proportionality’, and the concept that ‘civilized’ and ‘democratic’ societies, both of which Israel claims to be, then, the methods and extent of Israel’s response raise the question as to whether she is now guilty of committing war crimes against the people of Gaza.
If neither Isreal nor Hamas can claim that their actions are not having the effect of ‘terrorising’ those whom they are targeting, the next question is that of whether such acts of ‘terrorism’ are or can ever be deemed understandable and acceptable. Generally, most people might be willing to accord some level of ‘legitimacy’ to some acts of ‘terror’ which targets the more overtly oppressive institutions of an oppressive state. This was the case with the ANC’s struggle against the former racist Apartheid Regime in South Africa.
While their is some similarity between the South African and Israel/Palestine contexts, there are some major differences which suggest that a different, but hopefully fair, outcome is likely. In the Israel/Palestian struggle, Israel is, arguably, fulfillng the function of being an American proxy in helping America to achieve what they see as American strategic interests in the Middle East. Similarly, it is arguably the case that the Palestinians, in their struggle for self-determination, are striving to achieve what some Arab nations and many Muslim and other people see as outcomes they would like to them have.
The ‘acceptibility’ and ‘understandability’ issues regarding acts of’terrorism’ will be influenced by the impact of the those acts on the ‘civilian’ populations of the combatants. Of course, the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been an extremely complex and long-fought one, which has radicalised both people and probably blurs the simply categorization of the citizens of each State and quasi-State into 'combatants' and 'civilians.'
Israel’s IDF and probably most Israelis, it appears, support their government’s military action in Gaza, and, ipso facto, would appear to be giving some credence to the view that Gazans should be collectively punished because they are supportive of their Hamas Government. If this is so, are Israelis, then, as a whole, not collectively responsible for the oppression of the Palestinians and creating the conditions of their existence, which has given rise to Hamas resorting to firing rockets on Israel and terrorising her citizens?
If neither Isreal nor Hamas can claim that their actions are not having the effect of ‘terrorising’ those whom they are targeting, the next question is that of whether such acts of ‘terrorism’ are or can ever be deemed understandable and acceptable. Generally, most people might be willing to accord some level of ‘legitimacy’ to some acts of ‘terror’ which targets the more overtly oppressive institutions of an oppressive state. This was the case with the ANC’s struggle against the former racist Apartheid Regime in South Africa.
While their is some similarity between the South African and Israel/Palestine contexts, there are some major differences which suggest that a different, but hopefully fair, outcome is likely. In the Israel/Palestian struggle, Israel is, arguably, fulfillng the function of being an American proxy in helping America to achieve what they see as American strategic interests in the Middle East. Similarly, it is arguably the case that the Palestinians, in their struggle for self-determination, are striving to achieve what some Arab nations and many Muslim and other people see as outcomes they would like to them have.
The ‘acceptibility’ and ‘understandability’ issues regarding acts of’terrorism’ will be influenced by the impact of the those acts on the ‘civilian’ populations of the combatants. Of course, the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians has been an extremely complex and long-fought one, which has radicalised both people and probably blurs the simply categorization of the citizens of each State and quasi-State into 'combatants' and 'civilians.'
Israel’s IDF and probably most Israelis, it appears, support their government’s military action in Gaza, and, ipso facto, would appear to be giving some credence to the view that Gazans should be collectively punished because they are supportive of their Hamas Government. If this is so, are Israelis, then, as a whole, not collectively responsible for the oppression of the Palestinians and creating the conditions of their existence, which has given rise to Hamas resorting to firing rockets on Israel and terrorising her citizens?
If unarmed Gazans, though they might support Hamas, out of despair, to be collectively punished for their government’s actions, how much more responsible are the Israelis for their government’s actions of oppression against the Palestinian people?
It is arguable that the concept of being a ‘civilian’ and a ‘combatant’, in the messy situation which is prevailing in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, is not a straightford one.
What is clear is that Israel’s actions before and during this military onslaught is not a prudent one. Although it is likely to bring about some short-term positive relief, it is likely to set the struggle for peace and a just resolution of the conflict between the two peoples back by decades, if not by several generations. In the short- to medium term, it could lead to further radicalisation of the younger Palestinians. If this is not to get out of hand, it is vital that a comprehensive peace and reconciliation agreement is reached between Palestinians and Israelis, with the Palestinians being conceded their rightful and justified claim for a viable, free and sustainable state.
Since this post was first posted in January 2009, Israel has invaded Gaza in 2014 and wreak havoc on a scale probably larger than that in 2008/2009. Although President Obama, the first African-American President, is now in the final year of his 2 term presidency, he has not taken any new initiative in trying to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and tragedy, which probably suggest that Israel and the Palestinians will forever remain in a state of perpetual conflict, with Israeli periodically blitzing Gaza.
It is arguable that the concept of being a ‘civilian’ and a ‘combatant’, in the messy situation which is prevailing in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, is not a straightford one.
What is clear is that Israel’s actions before and during this military onslaught is not a prudent one. Although it is likely to bring about some short-term positive relief, it is likely to set the struggle for peace and a just resolution of the conflict between the two peoples back by decades, if not by several generations. In the short- to medium term, it could lead to further radicalisation of the younger Palestinians. If this is not to get out of hand, it is vital that a comprehensive peace and reconciliation agreement is reached between Palestinians and Israelis, with the Palestinians being conceded their rightful and justified claim for a viable, free and sustainable state.
Since this post was first posted in January 2009, Israel has invaded Gaza in 2014 and wreak havoc on a scale probably larger than that in 2008/2009. Although President Obama, the first African-American President, is now in the final year of his 2 term presidency, he has not taken any new initiative in trying to resolving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and tragedy, which probably suggest that Israel and the Palestinians will forever remain in a state of perpetual conflict, with Israeli periodically blitzing Gaza.
At the sametime, it can be expected that the Palestinians, not wanting to be ignored by the rest of the world, and in utter desperation, will, periodically, be perceived to have 'provided' Israel with the pretext to kill them with impunity and destroy their already unviable livelihood and economy.
Peace based on mutual understanding, respect and fairness is better than that which is enforced by brute force
OWOHROD
Comments