From the very beginning of the conflict between Israel and Palestine, there was disagreement over a number of factual statements. One of the controversies is about whether this conflict should be called a "Palestinian-Israeli conflict" or an "Israeli-Kazakh conflict"; The other has sparked a debate about whether the Israelis captured by the Palestinian resistance are "hostages," "prisoners of war," or "detainees." What should we make of these terms? Big Ivan believes that there is no doubt that the power of words will determine the nature of events.
The words used to describe everything that happened on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea are a direct reflection of the attitude of a certain country and individual to this event. Israel did not hesitate to call those taken by the Resistance "hostages," and the United States and other Western countries followed suit. Seeing this scene, many military fans in China also followed the title of "hostage, hostage". However, the word "hostage" does have the meaning of "a population plundered by war, forcing the enemy to agree to certain conditions" in ancient Chinese.
However, in the context of modern Chinese, the word "hostage" is mostly used in scenarios such as illegal crimes and terrorist attacks. So who will take the "hostages"? Only the hijackers will take the hostages, and the ** will take the hostages. Therefore, Israel and other countries will call the people taken by Hamas "hostages", which is complementary to Israel's stigmatization of the resistance group as ***. My country does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization or as a national army, so the term "prisoner of war" does not apply.
At the CCTV level, we refer to these people as "detainees", which is very neutral. The same is true of the "Palestinian-Israeli conflict" and the "Israeli-Kazakh conflict."
The reason why China describes this conflict as a "Palestinian-Israeli conflict" is that, on the one hand, it recognizes the resistance groups led by the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement, which to a certain extent represents the spirit of resistance of the Palestinian people; On the other hand, it is believed that the Israeli army's wanton bombing of the Gaza Strip has caused all the Palestinian people to suffer from the conflict, which makes the conflict have the nature of a general war, enough to be called a "Palestinian-Israeli conflict".
The constant advocacy of the "Israeli-Hazakh conflict" seems to ignore the fact that Hamas is closely linked to the Palestinian people, who neither represent the Palestinian people nor have the right to resist on their behalf. This view seems to limit Israel's war objectives to Hamas and not to the Palestinian people, which is clearly not the case. In contrast, will we call the September 18 Incident the "Japan-Zhang Conflict" and the War of Resistance of the People's ** the "Japan-Chiang War"? Obviously not, and to do so would dilute the significance of the all-people war of resistance and inter-state war.
It also reveals the true intentions of those who advocate the "Israeli-Kazakhstan conflict" – Hamas's "illegal resistance to Israel" has resulted in significant personnel in the Gaza Strip that cannot represent the interests of the Palestinian people. To put it bluntly, this is just like the anti-Japanese guerrilla war that was known to attack behind enemy lines. According to these people's ideas, we can also call the current Russia-Ukraine conflict the "Russia-Ze conflict" - after all, compared to the country that has been "sold, sold, sold..."After the Kiev ruling circles, Hamas looks more humane.
Ask those who advocate the "Kazakh-Israeli conflict", who is willing to change their words to the "Russian-Zez conflict"? I'm sure 9999% of people wouldn't want to, so, that's it, right?