BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Kenya, Israel, the Palestinians, and al Qaeda

  
 
Ethan Hawke
13:43 / 02.12.02
Last week's attacks against israeli tourists in Kenya seem to me to be an event of great importance, perhaps marking a turning point in TWAT that will destroy any possibility of a Palestinian state.

If, in fact, it proves out that the suicide attack on Israeli tourists in Kenya was the work of al Qaeda rather than that of the Hama, Al aqsa Martyrs brigade, or any of those related organization, what would it mean for international support for Palestine?

If a link, however tenuous, can be made between the activities of Al Qaeda and those organizations who are fighting for the liberation of Palestine (a link besides Saudi money, of course), will this be the death knell of any hope of a Palestinian state?

If the events in Kenya were conducted by a Palestinian group, does the spread of violence to other countries signify a new level in hostilities, desperation, or what? Will the location and character of the attacks (the "stinger" attempt on the Israeli plane) turn governments that were largely sympathetic to the palestinians away from them? Personally, I find it hard to empathize with any group that tries to shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky with missiles.
 
 
grant
14:19 / 02.12.02
It seems if Palestinian hopes can survive the Olympics hijacking in the 70s, then they can survive this.

But it's a *major* setback in the PR war. Most of the world already sees them as psychopathic suicide bombers. And the coverage of the bombing/missile attack has been really sensational - over the weekend, I actually saw a broadcast where the anchor announced new home video footage of the blazing hotel "where you can clearly hear the victims screaming."
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:43 / 03.12.02
Personally, I find it hard to empathize with any group that tries to shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky with missiles.

I think you're falling into a category error here, Todd, that seems widespread now to the point where I think it's horrily inevitable that it will continue as a kind of default mindset. It's guilt by association: through this line of reasoning 'Palestinians' and 'people who try to shoot a civilian aircraft out of the sky with missiles' become one group rather than two groups with a potential (but as yet undetermined overlap).

Point is, crimes committed in the name of a people or cause should not in themselves detract from the rights of that people or the validity of that cause. For example, in the name of the US public's right to live unmolested by terrorism, bad things have been done. Does this mean that the US public do not have the right to live unmolested? Of course not. But by the same token, Palestinians have the right to live unmolested by US-Israeli state terrorism and aggression, and crimes committed by specific groups of Palestinians should not affect our perception of this (and note that being denied of statehood, the Palestinians do not have a sub-section of the population granted license to commit violence without moral or legal censure in the way that functioning, 'legitimate' nation states with 'legitimate' security and military forces do).

It's even more ludicrous to suggest that the actions of third parties claiming to operate in order to benefit the Palestinians should affect our viewpoint of the Israel/Palestine situation (though I agree with you that again, this is quite likely to happen, tragically). Ironically enough, the mindset that would hold the Palestinian general populace responsible for the actions of Al-Queda is exactly the one being demonstrated by terrorists who attack the "allies" of the US and/or Israel.

I suppose the next question is, what level of responsibility and complicity *can* be aligned to civilian populations in whose name violence is done. For instance, it's a typical accusation that the Palestinians amongst others 'sponsor' terrorism. Now, it is transparently clear that they do not in as direct or substantial a way as the way I myself or most people on Barbelith do when we pay our taxes, but it's a tricky issue all the same, not least in terms of perception...
 
 
Creepster
03:15 / 04.12.02
But it's a *major* setback in the PR war...home video footage
of the blazing hotel "where you can clearly hear the victims
screaming."

sanitization would be a deception. this is to make a moral crime more
a legitimate political act.

will this be the death knell of any hope of a Palestinian state?

no. whole sale slaughter of civilians, even targeting women and
children specifically has been characteristic of the "intafada".
so inevitably the burdened of responsibility is isreals. prior
to the jewish state it was the jews of europe.

(and note that being denied of statehood, the Palestinians do not
have a sub-section of the population granted license to commit
violence without moral or legal censure in the way that functioning,
'legitimate' nation states with 'legitimate' security and military forces
do).

firstly though the isreali military maybe unfortunately reactionary
there is no moral equivalence, as youd have it, between the repeated
massacar of isreali civilians and the actions of the IDF.

'sponsor' terrorism...I myself or most people on Barbelith do when we
pay our taxes, but it's a tricky issue all the same, not least in terms
of perception...

what is this but youre own guilt? we never see psychology in politics,
but we alway see our selves in the world and assume that fundementally
all people are alike (morally) and that therefore when an oppressed(?)
people slaughter civilians it is a political action they have obviously
been diven to as you or i or anyone would under the circumstanses.
so much is implicit and merely assumed by default. thats not even it
though one of the truths of the situation can be found in freuds 'moses
and monetheisem'. forget it, not even the prime minister of australia
can say everything. but at the end of the day before you can know
other or the world you first have to 'know your self', other wise all to
often the difference is lost on you..
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
17:48 / 04.12.02
I'm not even going to touch the stuff where the implicit undercurrent seems to be "Palestinians are inherently immoral and cannot be understood as if they were civilized people like us", or the by-now characteristic attempt to connect criticism of the actions of the Israeli state/military with historical antisemitism in Europe.

firstly though the isreali military maybe unfortunately reactionary
there is no moral equivalence, as youd have it, between the repeated
massacar of isreali civilians and the actions of the IDF.

Because when the IDF kill civilians, it's not a 'massacre', but rather an accident or an unfortunate side-effect? You might want to consider the respective Israeli and Palestinian death tolls since the Intifada began, for starters, before you begin denying moral equivalence. There's an inequality here, that's for sure, but I'd suggest it follows the usual pattern where such a considerable a difference in power occurs.

whole sale slaughter of civilians, even targeting women and
children specifically has been characteristic of the "intafada".

Define 'characteristic'. These are the worst excesses of the Intifada, a term that encompasses a wide variety of tactics of resistance, not all of them violent or even physical. It's certainly characteristic of the mainstream media to present the Intifada as consisting primarily of suicide bombings, but this is something of a distortion - non-payment of taxes to the Israeli state could be said to be equally 'characteristic' of the Intifada, and whilst Israel considers this terrorism, I hope many people here would not. Equally I would not describe the shooting of unarmed children as 'characteristic' of the IDF, even though it does occur, because the term seems vague enough to be unhelpful.
 
 
Lurid Archive
22:26 / 04.12.02
Point is, crimes committed in the name of a people or cause should not in themselves detract from the rights of that people or the validity of that cause. - Flyboy

While I agree with you, I think that there are two points worth making. First, I think that there is a credible case to be made for the complcity of large numbers of Palestinians in the violence that we see. I've also read lots of credible reports of Palestinian hatred of the Israelis that makes widespread support of terrorists acceptable. (Your point about the legitimacy of a military force is a good one, however, and I am using the word "terrorist" after careful consideration.)

Secondly, I think that it is a natural human emotion to begrudge rights to those we think have wronged us. Whether that should be the basis of a political solution is another matter, but I do think that such a reaction is not only inevitable but also understandable.

As for Creepster's "moral equivalence"...

I think that "moral equivalence" is a term used by those with propoganda advantages to nullify their own wrongdoings. In this case it is particularly distorting. I agree that the Palestinians engage in terrorism. However, as Flyboy has pointed out, any comparison with Israeli actions do not reflect well on Israel. Personally, I see a situation where both sides engage in violence. I see one side that is subject to violence but is vastly superior militarily and economically. The other side also suffers quite random violence and is kept in abject poverty and suffers gross human rights on a daily basis.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:56 / 12.12.02
Lurid: I think that the complicity of civilian populations in terrorism is arguably one of the biggest ethical problems of today. It's easy to see the extreme ends of the possible spectrum of opinion here, and to dismiss them: obviously you cannot support and enjoy the benefits of living in a state that engages in terrorism and claim total innocence of these crimes, and everyone seems aware of this where people other than 'ourselves/our allies' are concerned; conversely, to argue that when civilians are killed in large numbers in 'retaliation' for crimes committed in their name, to argue that they had it coming is equally absurd.

However this doesn't provide us with an answer to the tricky question of precisely what level of accountability/responsibility has to be assigned to civilians who help sponsor terrorism (when properly defined to include what is often portrayed by 'our' politicians/media as 'legitimate' military action...). In all likelihood we ought to consider such a question on a case-by-case basis - as you say, in the case of the Palestinians the situation most civilians have been put in makes their support for terrorism at least understandable. This is in sharp contrast to those of us in the UK or the US who sponsor terrorism, who have no grievance in the vast majority of cases against the people whose slughter our governments either authorise directly or play a significant role in enabling. This isn't just "guilt" speaking, contraryn to Creepster's spurious accusation above, as I'm sure most people here know, or will do if they take five minutes to probe a little further than government claims of ethical foreign policy...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:56 / 12.12.02
Lurid- "Secondly, I think that it is a natural human emotion to begrudge rights to those we think have wronged us. Whether that should be the basis of a political solution is another matter, but I do think that such a reaction is not only inevitable but also understandable."

While I agree that such a reaction is COMPLETELY understandable, I also think the mark of a civilised society is to divorce legality from anger. This is exactly why the victim of a crime in the UK doesn't get to choose the sentence. It's why the Statue of Liberty is blind.

And much as I consider killng civilians to be a despicable act, when you don't have an army and everyone else does, what the fuckare you supposed to do? Wave banners? (No, bad idea, you'd probably get shot.)
 
 
Jack Fear
19:38 / 12.12.02
Nitpicky pedantic point: the Statue of Liberty (lifting her lamp beside the golden door) is not blind: That's Justice, with her sword and her scales.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:43 / 12.12.02
I realised that after posting. I just hoped everyone'd be polite and maybe shift uncomfortably a little. Point still stands, though.
 
 
Linus Dunce
23:02 / 12.12.02
And much as I consider killng civilians to be a despicable act, when you don't have an army and everyone else does, what the fuckare you supposed to do?

Oh, I don't know. Kill soldiers? You don't need a different kind of explosive than that used to kill civilians.

Having said that, I agree that the idea of "moral equivalence" is a specious propaganda tool used by those wishing to portray criticism of the Israeli govt as anti-semitic. But the sad truth is, both sides are morally equivalent. Neither's got any.
 
  
Add Your Reply