Paul Martin shares this article by an Israeli veteran
Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation in the post-colonial era. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace. They are at once the instrument of exploitation and the symbol of the hated occupation. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion’s share of the scarce water resources. Cheek by jowl with these foreign intruders, the majority of the local population lived in abject poverty and unimaginable misery. Eighty per cent of them still subsist on less than $2 a day. The living conditions in the strip remain an affront to civilised values, a powerful precipitant to resistance and a fertile breeding ground for political extremism.
And human rights lawyer Curtis Doebbler tells inconvenient truth about Gaza.
Even if the Israeli self-defence argument focused on its use of force being a response to Hamas rocket fire, it would clearly fail any test of international law. First of all, back in December 2008 it was Israel, not Hamas that first breached the ceasefire between these two actors. Israel did so by carrying out attacks on targets in Gaza. In fact, in aftermath, it seems plausible that Israel’s attacks were intended to provoke a Hamas reaction, as they did. And it was to this reaction that Israel responded with disproportionate force.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
DH 01.12.09 at 3:38 pm
Both of these views are totally biased and wrong. Just like an “inconvenient truth” was in fact a lie (at least a stretch) so it is here.
Richard 01.12.09 at 4:01 pm
In the face of injustice, it is absolutely right to be biassed.
Phil 01.12.09 at 10:27 pm
In any event, the US has introduced moral hazard by supplying both combatants with capital and on one side, material logistics for waging war. If the support for both sides were removed by the US, wouldnt the effort for a peaceable solution be pursued? In other words, is the US directly supporting a continuation of warfare within the region. This is not a direct policy, but the effect of supporting in capital both combatants. Only through conflict will the support continue.
Consider, if the support were discontinued what would be the logical rationale for any side to be aggressive? Of course, ancient blood feuds may persist, but rational self-interest would necessitate peaceful alternatives.
Further, to those Christians who support Israel unconditionally - its one thing to support the state of Israel, but it is another to use the sweat and labor of others to support it as well. I am a Christian who thinks that it would be a wiser course for all Christians to advocate abolishing foreign support, and let the US citizen to use their own money in further propagating the Gospel. For each Christian this should be fundamental, every dollar you pay into the State, thats a dollar less you have to support or use as you see fit, including promoting the Gospel in a meaningful way.
Beth 01.12.09 at 11:47 pm
Can I just put this back into perspective by saying that the land and resources discussed here form an area about the size of Portland, Oregon? This is not a country, not a province; it’s about the size of a city.
dh 01.13.09 at 2:39 am
I’m sorry, the US is NOT supplying combatants of both sides in this campaign. Terrorism is not supported by the US. Beth, your analysis is totally correct.
Kim 01.13.09 at 7:06 am
Though a man would say this, what’s size got to do with it? Besides, prisons are small - and that’s exactly what Israel has turned the Gaza strip into. And, of course, the US has always supported terror when it is in their interests.
DH 01.13.09 at 9:39 pm
Kim, I’m sorry. The US does NOT support terror. Hamas has turned the Gaza strip into a prison because all people within Hamas deserve to be in prison. Wow don’t you realize that Hamas is using human shields in their terror campaign. The US or Israel have never done these things. In a lessor sense I guess with the settlements by Israel that was indirectly that but that has sense been resolved by the pull outs by Israel. I still don’t understand your over-the-top comments.
OJ 02.06.09 at 9:33 am
What dou you think about the article below…
What You Don’t Know About Gaza
By RASHID KHALIDI
Admin’s note: I’ve replaced the quoted article with a link back to the original. I’m quite sure that the NYT have copyright lawyers!
Tony Buglass 02.06.09 at 11:19 am
One quibble - a reduction in rocket launches from hundreds to 20 doesn’t constitute a cease-fire in my book. A ceasefire is when the rockets stop. They didn’t. By definition, there was no ceasefire. On the contrary, it could be argued that Israel maintained a unilateral ceasefire during those four months, despite provocation. Their tactical mistake was in retaliating with such overkill, and ceding the publicity/propaganda high ground to Hamas.
Beth 02.06.09 at 11:35 am
“Nearly 700 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed since the conflict broke out at the end of last year.”
Define “civilian”? And what happened to the figure of 1,300 dead that was being cited not so long ago?
Richard 02.06.09 at 12:49 pm
That article was dated 8th Jan, Beth. 10 days before the Israeli ceasefire. But there’s a useful article at BBC News about the question of counting the casualties.
Tony - a slight quibble with your quibble. A few rockets fired from Gaza don’t necessarily mean that Hamas were breaking the ceasefire. In an area where the knowledge and materials to make a crude rocket must be fairly widespread, they might have had nothing to do with Hamas.
That doesn’t make rocket attacks on Israel acceptable, of course.
DH 02.06.09 at 3:17 pm
Richard, there wasn’t “a few rockets” that broke the cease fire. I agree with Tony and would add 20 rockets fired the type that were used are not a “few”. Also the technology of these rockets are not “widespread”. These are rockets from Syria, Iran, etc. and are not of “crude technology”. To say that rocket making is “fairly widespread” is clearly an overstatement. I do know that some are using materiele from casings to make some rockets but that is not the particular rockets Israel is refering to in their response.
I totally agree with Beth. Many people lump people who are not civilians in with civilians. That is common place. The press does it, UN does it, etc.
Tony Buglass 02.06.09 at 4:35 pm
Richard: “In an area where the knowledge and materials to make a crude rocket must be fairly widespread, they might have had nothing to do with Hamas.”
Arguably. But would you bet money on that? Given that Hamas were conducting a rocket offensive, and then continued responding with rockets after Israel attacked, how probable is it that they were Hamas guerillas launching rockets during the cease-fire in order to provoke Israel into a response? Which eventually worked.
Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas are served by peace with Israel. They have both said they don’t want Israel, and destabilising the area is the best tool they have now for getting rid of Israel, since the Arab nations which said in 1948 they were going to push the Jews into the sea have failed and are no longer trying. Whatever the details of any given local episode, that is the wider scenario - and since the Arabs remember the Crusades as a recent event, it is not unreasonable for 1948 still to be fresh in mind.
DH 02.06.09 at 4:57 pm
Tony, wow. I really like your latest response.
I will add though that there are rising number of Arab nations (you referred to as not even trying) who don’t support Israel not being a nation. What is encouraging is the fact that Jordan, Egypt and some other Arab nations support Israel in their fight against Hamas and Hezbollah. It might be a “soft support” but they know that terrorism cannot be continued to be supported however indirect it can be.
That is why Hamas and Hezbollah must be eliminated as a power before peace in Israel and the Palastinian people can be achieved.
Beth 02.07.09 at 10:24 pm
Richard, your last comment is objectionably silly. You sound like an anxious parent trying to divert blame from a child who has obviously done wrong… “well, just because the football came from our garden, doesn’t mean it was little Johnny who kicked it…”
Richard 02.08.09 at 8:56 am
Well, OK Beth.
But if, for example, the peace process in Northern Ireland had been called off because acts of violence continued by IRA splinter groups, where would we be?
I’ve got no particular affection for Hamas (though they do have a legitimacy being an elected government) and of course they bear some responsibility for the situation in Gaza.
But I don’t see how Israel’s action in Gaza can be supported on any grounds. It has been morally repugnant, militarily foolish and politically disastrous. imho.
Beth 02.09.09 at 11:28 am
Hitler was elected, you know - there’s legitimacy and then there’s legitimacy. What I mean by that is that one can see that people have elected a particular group and still believe that the group has no real right to be in power. As long as it stops short of advocating the circumvention of democracy, I see no real problem with holding the position that an elected group or person has neither the skill nor the moral right to govern. I agree with you that the Palestinians have a genuine grievance against Israel, regardless of the fact that their own elected representatives are making the situation many times worse.
I also think you are too hard on Israel. The way the Israelis have acted has been, on the whole, excessive and in some cases truly immoral. But to say they have no grounds whatsoever for their action is unfair. In the end, this is a country which, leaving aside any pointless discussion of its very right to exist, has a duty to protect its citizens and its own sovereignty. If there is a concerted attack on Israel from Gaza, Israel has some right to react to quash that attack. I am worried by the focus on “proportionate” action. When you have a throat infection, you don’t cure it by reacting to each ulcer as it appears - you take antibiotics to kill off the bacteria before they have a chance to cause ulcers. If people are firing rockets at your country, you don’t react to each rocket individually; you aim to cripple the system that is supporting the rocket attacks in the first place.
Richard 02.09.09 at 3:47 pm
>>“When you have a throat infection, you don’t cure it by reacting to each ulcer as it appears - you take antibiotics to kill off the bacteria before they have a chance to cause ulcers.”
Except that the issue here is not a virulent micro-organism but a group of people who, by your own admission, have a genuine grievance. It should be clear by now that there is no military solution to the problems of Israel/Palestine. However painful or indeed repugnant it may be, dialogue and negotiation is the only path to genuine peace.
Incidentally, when I say “I don’t see how Israel’s action in Gaza can be supported on any grounds”, I don’t think that means quite the same thing as your paraphrase — “…to say they have no grounds whatsoever for their action is unfair”. Clearly the Israelis do feel they have grounds for acting as they have done, and you seem to agree with them. I don’t. I believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza have been morally reprehensible and politically irresponsible, making peace in the region more difficult to achieve.
I don’t deny the provocation the Israelis have endured. But the only way to end this is to break the cycle of tit for tat is for one side to break it and hold its nerve in the face of provocation if it comes.
DH 02.09.09 at 4:23 pm
To your last sentence Richard, that is in fact what Israel did. There was an agreement of a cease fire for a very long time and Hamas broke it. Israel did “hold its nerve” and in the end was attacked. In WWII France, Britain, etc. “held its nerve” after the proclamation of “peace in our time” and in the end the situation was worse. We were talking about France who was at the time of 1938 the world miltary power and Britain the worlds naval and air power leader in the world. Sitting back and saying “peace in our time” cause hundreds of thousands more lives to have been lost than otherwise. The situation would have been dramtically different if France and England decided to attack Germany after the Czech operation as opposed to doing what they did which was waiting for the blitzkreig.
The same goes with Israel. Israel can’t afford and let Hamas and Hezbollah get stronger, have continued armaments comeing from Syria, Iran, Al quada (possibly), etc. Israel must get the bunkers destroyed and the underground system eliminated. also, Palastinians must revert to not electing terrorists as their leaders. I personally believe people should not have the right to elect known terrorists for their leaders. I believe if known terrorists are elected the free world has a right to “deal with them”.
Richard 02.09.09 at 6:49 pm
>> “I personally believe people should not have the right to elect known terrorists for their leaders.”
I just remind you that Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist. Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were terrorists, or at least, had strong links to terrorism. Menachem Begin could easily qualify as a terrorist (I’m not sure what else you would call the King David Hotel bombing) and yet he was given the Nobel Peace Prize.
It is not enough simply to label people as terrorists and then write them off. It never has been. And if a population have a free and fair election (which I understand was the case in Gaza) and elect people we regard as objectionable, that shouldn’t prevent negotiation. Indeed, we do well to ask why such people have been elected. That’s the only point of contact I can see between the present situation in Israel and the rise of Hitler in Germany. Beth is right: Hitler was elected. Why? Certainly the treatment of Germany at the end of WWI had more than a little to do with it. Who knows how history might have worked out differently. That can be nothing but speculation. In the present however, Israel has an opportunity to try a policy toward the Palestinians which is not based on oppression and military superiority. You never know. It might just work.
But honestly DH, your habit of drawing parallels between Nazi Germany and any military conflict you can think of in the world is getting a bit tired.
DH 02.09.09 at 8:06 pm
Beth, was trying to make the same point as me that many of these so-called “solutions” that are being suggested against what Israel is doing has been tried in the past and have failed. Israel HAS tried a policy toward the Palastinians that is not based on oppression and military superiority and they have failed that is why Israel is pursuing the policies they are doing.
I have never aid that Israel should not do any negotiations. I don’t believe that. I will say that one really can’t negotiate until the otherside agrees to some level of “normalcy” however tense or difficult it may be. With regard to the Nazi’s in WWII the facts seem pretty clear and they are NOT speculation. Germany during the time from 1937-1939 was able to increase their military to the point where it was of no return. Germany attacked first and the fact that they were allowed to get away with violations of the treaties of no military materiale should have been reason to prevent the inevitable. Worst case it would have limited the geography thereby saving lives and limiting the scope of the war. With regard to WWI treatment of Germany, the treatment was similar to Japan post WWII and look at Japan they are a wonderful ally. The fact remains however the treatment of Germany there was no excuse for the rise of Nazism in Germany.
Richard, your inability to see the parallels of the situation to WWII is getting a bit tired as well. It seems to me everytime your policies that you support don’t seem to work more times than not. In your first paragraph you fail to recognize that the groups who don’t support terrorism were the ones that had a “big enough stick”. The ones that pursued terrorism then realized that it was a “losing proposition” to their own people and thereby stopped their aims and pursued peace.
One of my favorite Presidents Teddy Roosevelt stated: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Those nations that speak softly and have a little stick are the nations where terrorist take advantage of the situation. It seems you pursue the “little stick” concept which I refute.
Beth 02.09.09 at 9:37 pm
To be fair to Richard, dh, the fact that the policies he supports are not those that immediately bring direct results doesn’t mean he is wrong to support them.
Richard, I actually do wish I could agree with you that one of the players in this conflict could break the cycle unilaterally, but I can’t see it happening. And if Israel were to stop any form of military retaliation for attacks on its people and territory, what then? Would our government do the same if someone were firing rockets from France into London?
I’d love to see a better answer than violence, but sitting on your hands and letting yourself be beaten up is not an option I can support. Frankly, I wish that Israel’s response had been more measured and careful - mainly because it would have saved lives and reduced suffering, but also because they have put themselves to a great extent in the wrong by the way in which they have responded. But to ask that they not respond at all I think is going too far.
DH 02.09.09 at 9:59 pm
Beth, I guess I need to be fair to Richard. However, I personally don’t believe they bring results at all. It is just hard for me to “wrap myself around” his ideas because if free nations followed his ideas more problems not less problems would arise. In fact his type of policies have been followed and they were proven not to work. The precident is already there. I agree that he has a right to his opinion but I believe I have a right to state that his views are wrong.
Beth, I will say I agree with everything you stated on your most recent response. One might be surprised that I DO believe Israel’s response was more measured and careful. However, I believe if one looks at the evidence over time that one will see they probably were those things but that it is difficult when the enemy hides behind innocent people aka “human shields”. Anytime the enemy resorts to this sort of thing the situation can only get ugly. However, i totally agree with your conclusion and that not responding at all is not an option for nations in this sort of situation.
Beth 02.10.09 at 3:48 pm
“I believe I have a right to state that his views are wrong.”
I would modify that, dh, to say “I have a right to state that I think his views are wrong.” When it comes down to it, there is very little in this world which is certainly right or wrong. I believe we need to remember at every turn that our own views, however strongly held, may be wrong. None of us is infallible, and we all make mistakes, especially over issues that are highly emotional. So when I tell someone I think they’re wrong, and what my reasons are for that, I try very hard to remember that their opinion may actually be correct, even though my heart and my mind tell me otherwise.
Of course, I’m not always very good at following this course! But I think I’m getting better at trying to follow it
Richard 02.10.09 at 6:49 pm
>> “but I believe I have a right to state that his views are wrong”
I’m not very happy with the language of rights in this context. This is, after all, my blog. Better to say that you and others have been invited to share your views. But you don’t have rights here in any meaningful sense.
Richard 02.10.09 at 6:52 pm
Beth - you’re talking about interpretive charity. I strongly approve of it, even though I find it hard to do.
Beth 02.10.09 at 7:01 pm
“you don’t have rights here in any meaningful sense.”
Well, I’d kinda disagree, Richard - but not for the reason you’re thinking. Those of us who share our views here have the right to disagree with you because you have afforded us that right - which is to say that you have never been known to censor comments from those who express opinions you don’t like. So although the legal concepts of “rights” such as the right to freedom of expression do not apply in this context, we are nonetheless lucky enough to have been granted the limited and contextual right to comment here as long as we don’t violate the blog rules. As blog-master, you are also master of posting-rights. Cool, huh?
dh 02.11.09 at 2:55 am
Beth and Richard, thanks for the clarifications and contextual advise. I totally agree with what both of you have said. I’m not afraid to state that “I’m wrong” or how I worded what I said was “wrong” in this case” yes I worded what I said wrong. Your clarifications and advise on wording are actually correct.
Beth, I agree that i’m not “infallible” but I would say that there are more things than people realize that is “right or wrong”. However, I agree with you that many things are not “right and worng” just like you said.
When I mentioned “rights” I meant what Beth siad on the subject. Richard I should have said what I said like you mentioned here “Better to say that you and others have been invited to share your views.” I was more saying it for “effect” not for the “legal” definition of rights like Beth said.
dh 02.11.09 at 3:08 am
Richard, “interpretative charity” definitely something that I agree with after rereading the post. Thanks for posting this again Richard. While we all have come a long way, I really needed to reread it to “get back on track” and I hope others feel the same way toward their view towards me as well.
Beth, again, I’m learning from you to be a better bloger, communicator, discussion, etc. Thanks so much for the advise. Richard, thanks for the advise on the “interpretive charity” we both need to work on it. However, I need to work on it a little more than some others.