In light of the unprecedented PR disaster faced by Israel, we shouldnt be surprised at concerted efforts at damage limitation, no matter how unpleasant they may be. But the ongoing strategy of debating the combatant-civilian fatality ratio is especially disgusting. Firstly, it is primarily based on a dehumanisation of Palestinian men, such that anyone of so-called combat age is essentially an expendable non-human, their right to life stripped by the fact that they are a colonized male. Secondly, it is also based on the denial of the Palestinian right to self-defence, with the assumption that a Palestinian may not use arms to defend themselves and community, and that anyone who does so is a terrorist rather than a parent, sibling, friend, neighbour etc. Thirdly, the question why have so many men died tends to ignore such obvious factors as - men are more likely to stay behind to take care of a property, men are more likely to be first responders and helping in the aftermath of attacks (which are often when further attacks take place). Fourthly, Israels definition of combatant is explicitly and notoriously broad, such that it includes someone sleeping in their bed who may (or may not) be a member of an armed faction (and this from a country which has an army based on conscription and reserves). Fifthly. Any Palestinian killed over the last five weeks in Gaza, combatant or non-combatant, is dead because of the Israeli occupation.
Posted on: Sun, 10 Aug 2014 13:33:33 +0000