[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack (fwd)

[Chaim Gingold <cog@chopper.slackworks.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:41:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chaim Gingold <cog@chopper.slackworks.com>
To: scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Israel rushes to capitalise on terrorist attack

On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, scotartt wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 06:47:33PM -0400, Chaim Gingold wrote:
> 
> > We must be careful when comparing Palestinian terror attacks with
> > those we witnessed Tuesday. In terms of style and substance -- the
> > deliberate targetting of random individuals -- they are identical. Drawing
> > distinctions of justification based upon underlying motivations seems to
> > be a slippery slope. The deliberate targetting of random men, women,
> > and children whether they be at the mall, WTC, Pentagon, or Sbarro's is
> > unjustifiable under any circumstances.
> 
> I do not think that WWII-era British Bomber Command, or American Army Air
> Force, would agree with you. For further example, I regard it as right of
> the USA to use the Atom Bomb against Japan in 1945. This is indiscriminate
> killing of civilians and is perfectly justifiable in that situation (WWII)
> by my view and also in the view of many, many others, including my father
> who was in the jungles of the Solomon Islands at the time, fighting the
> army of that enemy. Without such bomb it is very possible I would not
> exist, as my father may not have therefore survived the war. Whatever,
> many Americans as well as others would agree this action, while extremely
> regrettable, is justifiable. Therefore, in my view, the justification is
> *situational* and not subject to blanket, all-encompassing, moralisms
> about "any circumstances".

If we follow your logic to its ultimate conclusion, then the possibility
of a legitime grievance by those who perpetrated Tuesday's act would
justify the killing of thousands of innocents. This is a logic many people
would have trouble agreeing with.

Although many of your facts and interpretations of Israeli policy are
a blanket mischaracterization and in some cases wild fiction, it is
important to keep in mind that the Palestinian political leadership claims
to be fighting for that which they turned down in negotiations. This
nullifies any legitimacy that their use of violence might have had.

Violence as a tool is totally illegitate if the same ends can be
accomplished through discussion. Discussions of the sort that the
Palestinians & Arab states walked away from in 1947, 1967 (immediately
following the war), and again last year.

I see your point that the use of the atom bomb makes this issue a little
stickier, but I have trouble accepting even that decision as absolutely
correct. Surely the ethics of it are more complex than that.



_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold