[Air-L] Difficult Discussion: What's Missing -- Digest, Vol 234, Issue 29

[Nils Zurawski]

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 at 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/ueberwachen-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/fileasset/Journals/Jp/JP012019e_book.pdf

- weitere Publikationen: http://www.surveillance-studies.org/zurawski