|
i'm aware of how the occupation started. i'm also aware of the fact that since 67 the situation has fundamentally changed--israel is now a regional military superpower and the idea that any combination of forces in the region can push it into the sea is a pipe dream. it isn't gonna happen. if you connect the gaza situation back to 1947, what it primarily enables is the erasure of the post-67 state of affairs.
that the occupation came about as it did says and explains nothing about how israel has chosen to deal with the west bank/golan (which i've not talked about here--because for the time being, it's separate) and gaza. in the west bank, for example, the massive israeli settlement program did not follow logically or inevitably from the nature of the 67 war.
if you look at the guardian article i posted above, it's curious to note that what we're talking about traces the outline of the public relations fight that's presently happening. blurring out the post-67 situation, downplaying occupation, blaming hamas as if they fall under the conventional bush administration category "terrorist"--you know, snippy but otherwise unmotivated people who just want to blow stuff up. i think the fact that these arguments are being repeated in this conversation is interesting because the article is pretty good about pointing out what's at stake in the positions.
this is not just about hamas. it really isn't.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|