Although this blog's focus is on matters relating to political and social issues within the US, the big news story seems to be the whole situation in the Gaza Strip. I intended to write a blog entry about that conflict, so I searched for an article that provided some insight on the subject. Finding such an
article was no problem. What proved to be difficult was the seemingly simple task of referring to the war.
What is the appropriate way to refer to the adversaries in the war? It could be Israel vs. Palestine, Israelis vs. Gazans, IDF vs. Hamas, Arabs vs. Jews, and anything in between. I could easily use any of these phrases and everyone would know what I'm talking about, but each term has its own connotation that could misrespresent the reality of what's going on in Gaza.
So, what are the possible terms that could be used for each side of the war?
One side of the war could be referred to as Israel, the Israelis, the IDF (Israel's military), Jews, or Zionists. My gut reaction would be to refer to this side as Israel because whenever a military force fights on behalf of a country's government, it is typical to refer to that force as the country. For example, one would say that during WWII, the US (and its allies) fought against Germany (and its allies). But, in the case of the conflict in Gaza, Israel may not be the proper, objective terminology. After all, one of tenets of Hamas is the idea that Israel is not a legitimate nation. Many of those who deny Israel's right to exist refer to the land between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan as Palestine. Saying Israel to refer to one of the two combatants implies the view opposed by Hamas, so it is a subjective term.
One alternative to Israel would be the Israelis. It would make sense because many attacks have been against ordinary Israeli citizens, rather than military and political entities. Furthermore, Israel's army is comprised of Israelis. This term, though, has the same problem as the first in that it implies the legitimacy of Israel's existence. At the same time, referring to a group of a people under a common label without referring to that label as its own entity could simultaneously imply that Israel isn't a legitimate state. (This is similar to the idea that there are Palestinians, but there's no country called Palestine.)
The next term on the list is the IDF. It is somewhat accurate because this organization is physically in Gaza and is firing the weapons. On the other hand, it is acting on behalf of the Israeli people and is following the orders of Israel's government. Since the IDF isn't single-handedly opposing its enemies, that term is also improper to use.
Jews would not make much sense at all since there are many gentiles in Israel and the IDF, not to mention the fact that there are plenty of Jews who live outside of the Middle East and there are also Jews who support the Palestinians' perspective.
The final possibility would be Zionists. It seems somewhat reasonable at first because the term "Zionist" means one who supports the movement to have a Jewish homeland in modern-day Israel. Israelis support having a homeland and many opponents of Zionism refer to Israelis as Zionists, but the term isn't accurate because there are plenty of Zionists who don't live in Israel and there are also Zionists who don't support Israel's military actions.
Now onto the other side of the war. This side could be referred to as Palestine, the Palestinians, Gaza, the Gazans, Hamas, the Arabs, or the Muslims. Like its adversaries, this side is equally hard to define with a single term. The first term on the list, Palestine, has two problems. First, it implies that there is a country of Palestine, which is inaccurate, since there is no official country called Palestine. To be a country, a land must be autonomous under a single governmental system. Palestine is considered to contain the West Bank, which has its own government independent of that of Gaza. The second problem is that only Gaza is involved in the current fighting. Therefore, it would be improper to say that Palestine as a whole is involved. A similar problem is faced by the term Palestinians, which implies the involvement of those in the West Bank.
Next on the list of possible terms comes Gaza. It seems sensible because it's the area where the fighting is going on and Gaza is a universally accepted geographical term for the region. Again, the issue with this terminology is that Gaza is not universally accepted as its own political entity. Furthermore, supporters of Israel's military actions would argue that Gaza itself isn't being attacked. Rather, only a select group of people within the region, specifically Hamas, are involved. Likewise, Gazans wouldn't work either based on the rationale that the target isn't the Gazan population as a whole.
Perhaps the most commonly used term is Hamas. This group is unquestionably involved in the fighting. It has fired missiles into Israel and it has been targeted by the IDF. However, in its efforts to attack Hamas, the IDF has physically entered Gaza and much of the fighting occurs in areas populated by people who are not necessarily members of Hamas. On the other hand, Hamas is the ruling party in Gaza, so an attack in Gaza could be viewed as an assault on Hamas. Then again, an attack against the political process in Gaza affects all Gazans, not just Hamas.
The final two possibilities are Arabs and Muslims. Like the previously mentioned terms Jews and Zionists, they are too general. One can be a Gazan without fitting into either category and one can fit into both categories without being directly involved in the conflict.
So, after this needlessly long analysis of the terminology regarding the conflict in Gaza, what have I concluded? My conclusion is that there is no perfectly accurate and objective term to describe the conflict. Hopefully there will be peace in the Middle East so that naming wars is no longer a relevant issue.
Read More......
