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

[Marcela Canavarro]

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 at 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 at 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 at 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 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/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 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/
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>