Tags: No Videos; Few Quotes
Sunday, yesterday: Amazing day: Three generations of extended family ate bagels together; The greatest tiny hardware shop on earth (thanks Aunt B!); "Dad-project" (installed yet-more-shelving in kid's apartment); Some shopping (NYC: Center of the material[ist] universe); An amazing play-Stereophonic (thanks for the tip, cuz M.H.R.!); and, A late-into-the-night bull session with A.M.Z about terminology and its impacts.
Terminology
I started a thread a week or two ago asking: Terms to use, and what do terms tell us? Terrorist; Militant; Gunman; Soldier; and Raf's construct: Hamasnik.
RE "Hamasnik" some grief was sent my way. "Sounds too friendly." "Sounds too neutral." [Grief is welcome, btw. I want to hear it.]
OK. I hear. The point of Raf's exercise is to ask why labels matter. Raf's exercise is cognizant that if I reject relativism (which I do), any absolutist framework I can think of will allow actions over some threshold to move into the zone of labels. A shoplifter is a person who stole a candy bar: Developmental stage (by a ten year old); Psychological problem (when done by someone of means); Biological need (by the hungry); or, Rebellion (by the disenfranchised or disaffected).
A shopkeeper, to operate a business, may need to label people "shoplifters." Where from my chair this is a dishonest or needy person in certain contexts.
Someone capable of murder, however, everyone needs to know about. This may be the realm where labeling is a social need: We need (believe we need) to know about people capable of crossing certain lines of direct physical harm.
Back to terrorists: Raf framed the question: Look, in Gaza Hamas has been, essentially, the government: They control entry and exit, taxation, social services, etc. And they have a "Military Wing." Why not call members of that wing Soldiers? There are Syrian soldiers, and other soldiers who are enemies. Whom it is OK to kill. Because the state behind them is openly at war with you. Some of these soldiers, like Syrians, attack civilians (historically, their own, and there is no reason to think they would refrain from attacking Israeli civilians) and commit war crimes.
I asked Hebrew University Professor D.P. who reminded me:
“By calling them "soldiers" or " military" you associate them with a state or a legitimate resistance movement. 'Terrorists' portrays them as ordinary criminals. This distinction also has legal implications. The former are POW and have rules associated with Geneva Convention while the latter do not.”
This may be where the conversation vis-a-vis Palestinians falls into one of its many pits:
Since when is there a place on earth that is the "responsibility" of country A (who provides water, power, telecommunications and other essentials) but is governed in practice by entity B, which is in a declared and open state of war with A?
In other words, Geneva conventions, and other “norms” seem not applicable as they did not envision a landscape that would behave like Gaza/Hamas/modern Terrorism.
Other Conversational Pits
A few related items that have come up in my reading over the past month.
Refugee "Privilege"
A roll up of topics raised by leaders, journalists and analysts:
Why are the refugees of "Palestine" given a dedicated UN agency (UNWRA) with special intergenerational rules and material resources accorded to no other group of refugees ever?
How is it that many millions are piped to these refugees by wealthy Gulf countries who concurrently make no political efforts to give these same refugees paths out of the camps they live in? (In the face of discriminatory legislation in multiple countries of the region against these same refugees.) -- The refugees from the war in Iraq received neither the ongoing funding nor the discrimination (to Raf's knowledge)
Odds and Ends
Mixed Gender Tank Crews
A couple weeks ago I had a Relief Area post about a female tank commander. That isn't a made up scenario. My quick research indicates that the IDF started allowing women to train and serve as Tank Commanders in 2018. One description of such commanders in combat on October 7 is described in Haaretz (in English). (PDF Here)
This is in counterpoint to a growing body of journalism indicating that sexism within Israeli intelligence contributed to the failure to prepare for the attack. This Haaretz article (PDF here) is the least of it. (There is more damming reporting about female intelligence analysts being ignored and overridden. Makes me think of such scenes from the film Zero Dark Thirty)
Relief Area
I expect you find, as I do, that the "quality" of material in this section has declined. I am searching. Friends send me what they find. Bottom line: The situation isn't funny. The situation drives people to become shrill and close their ears and minds. Much of the “humor” is built on internal division (by generation, sexual orientation, etc.).
It is easier to joke about soldiers and generals than hostage children
Mishaps and failed assumptions can be funny... when on the winning side
The events are recent and raw
The point, to Raf, is that the content here reflects what some people are thinking and think is funny. I am a messenger. I pass on the "best" of what I find and of what is sent my way (plenty ends up on the cutting room floor).
Alef
Bet
That is it for the day. I am on a train to Providence, R.I. to see one of my kids (who is visiting R.I. while I happen to be in NYC).
Again, I appreciate (and often respond to) input in all forms: Complaints, compliments, howls and yowls.
Back to Tel Aviv tomorrow night.
Raf
(With thanks to A.M.Z., M.H.R., A.K.)