Israel, Hamas and Moral Equivalence
Bill Muehlenberg | 17.02.2009 20:29 | Analysis | Palestine
Now that Israel has entered Gaza, the response from much of the world’s press has been totally predictable. Israel is called a nation of terrorists and mass murderers, and it is claimed that Israel is being far too disproportionate in its response. Demands for an immediate withdrawal, along with expectations that Israel grovels in remorse are becoming commonplace.
Now that Israel has entered Gaza, the response from much of the world’s press has been totally predictable. Israel is called a nation of terrorists and mass murderers, and it is claimed that Israel is being far too disproportionate in its response. Demands for an immediate withdrawal, along with expectations that Israel grovels in remorse are becoming commonplace.
Of course all of this anti-Israeli rhetoric is built on the assumption that some sort of moral equivalence exists here. Critics of Israel might grudgingly admit that Hamas has not been exactly pure in all this, but they also claim that Israel is in fact just as bad, if not far worse.
However, a number of commentators beg to differ, and I enlist their aid in this piece. First, consider the phony charge that this is some sort of David versus Goliath situation in which Israel is some massive military power while poor Hamas is just some small guy outfit throwing stones.
Hamas is armed and supported by nations such as Iran. Both have vowed to eliminate the nation of Israel. And Israel is surrounded by nations that don’t exactly look kindly upon Israel. All in all, Israel is vastly outnumbered and outgunned, hedged in by violent opponents. Writes Greg Sheridan:
“To grasp the nature of the strategic threat Hamas poses, it is necessary to place it in the context of its ally, Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, and their common backer and puppet master, Iran. During Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah, rockets continued to rain down on Israel as far as the big industrial city of Haifa. There was an acute fear within Israel, although not much spoken of, that Hezbollah rockets would hit a massive oil refinery in Haifa. The flow-on effects from this could be catastrophic. During that war, much of northern Israel was effectively paralysed, and certainly closed for normal business.”
“Despite the mistakes Israel made in that war, it got some things right. At the start of the conflict, it knocked out Hezbollah’s longest-range missiles that could reach Israel’s biggest city, Tel Aviv. And since then, the missiles have not come back from the north. Now they come from Gaza in the south. They not only terrorise the small Israeli town of Sderot, they frequently now reach Ashkelon, the industrial city that ironically provides electricity to Gaza. (There must be few occasions in history when a nation is expected to supply electricity to factories building rockets designed to blow up the electricity plant.)”
The only reason Israel has not suffered more at the hands of Hamas thus far is the lack of long-range rockets. “From Israel’s point of view, it is very clear that if it leaves Hamas alone, Hamas will gather more and better rockets, long-range and with better guidance systems. Hamas and Hezbollah together can then present two types of strategic threat to Israel, beyond merely killing its citizens. They can shut down vast swaths of Israeli society and industry with a rocket offensive. Or they can hit strategic targets, at least from Dimona to Haifa. Israel had no alternative but to act, although how it will restore a future equilibrium in Gaza remains deeply unclear.”
Complaints about civilian casualties are also routinely raised by the critics of Israel. It is always regrettable when civilians die in armed combat. But there is a huge moral difference between a nation which seeks to prevent such collateral damage as much as possible, and a terrorist organisation that thrives on such civilian carnage. As Mona Charen explains,
“It’s often pointed out that Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. It’s more than that. Hamas, with Iran’s backing, is committed to Israel’s violent destruction. Missiles have fallen on schools and homes. Hamas is explicit about desiring Israeli counterattacks, because while Hamas aims to kill Israeli civilians, they know that Israel tries very hard not to kill Palestinian civilians. But every Palestinian death at the hands of Israel is seen as a propaganda victory for Hamas — which is why they place their munitions and terrorists in mosques, hospitals, and homes crowded with children. Hamas representative Fathi Hamad stated it explicitly: ‘For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life’.”
Melanie Phillips argues much the same: “Alas, the civilian toll will unavoidably mount, which is deeply regrettable. But what must be understood is that Hamas have deliberately situated their weapons under apartment blocks, in mosques and in hospitals. The Israelis build bomb shelters for their civilians - Hamas stores bombs underneath its civilians to manipulate world opinion. What people find so hard to grasp is that Hamas actually wants to maximise the number of Palestinians killed because, as they boast: ‘We desire death as you desire life’.”
But Israel should negotiate, and not fight, critics argue. This is not easy to do when the one you are trying to negotiate with wants only one thing of you: your destruction. As Yuval Rotem has put it, “Hamas is a problem for Israel because it doesn’t want to engage Israel in dialogue or reach a two-state solution. (Israel has said innumerable times it will deal with Hamas as soon as Hamas recognises Israel’s right to exist and renounces terrorism.)”
But, the critics will complain, an attack by Israel will simply provoke more Islamist aggression. Says Phillips, “Despite this fanaticism, many fear Israel’s attack will create yet more suicide bombers. There is a grain of sense in this - but only a grain. This is because every act of self-defence against Islamist aggression is used as a recruiting sergeant for the Islamic holy war. So if this dictates world responses, no one can ever defend themselves - not just in Israel but in Afghanistan or against al-Qaida anywhere.”
But the Israeli attack is so disproportionate we are told. Jonathan Mark agrees. He says that Israel’s response is disproportionate. Israel is responding nowhere near the way it should be if it carried on like Hamas has been: “I condemn Israel’s disproportionate attack on Hamas because, so far, it has only lasted four days and I would like to see a proportionate response that terrifies Hamas for seven years, the years that have filled Sderot and neighboring towns with nightmares, death, amputations and trauma coming from rockets and mortars fired from Gaza. . . . A proportionate response would so intimidate Hamas that they will grovel and, as a ‘gesture,’ send cocoa and jam into Sderot, the way Israel has groveled in response to rockets from Hamas, sending cocoa and jam into Gaza. Imagine Churchill sending cocoa and jam into Berlin as a humanitarian gesture after - during - the bombing of London.”
He continues, “A proportionate response to Hamas, one might gather from the European scolds, would be as if the United States, after Pearl Harbor, would bomb just a few Japanese fishing boats and call it a day, believing the war would have ended with that. A proportionate response will begin to remind Jews that there is no peace process like victory, just as Israel’s decade of disproportionate restraint and self-doubt has convinced young Palestinians that their victory is inevitable, like Aryan youth in 1933 singing ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’.”
Yes but, the critics continue, Hamas was democratically elected. Rotem deals with this objection: “Let’s not beat around the bush. Hamas is a terrorist organisation masquerading as a legitimate government. Yes, it did win the 2006 democratic election in the Palestinian Authority. But winning one election does not make an organisation democratic. Democratic organisations do not stage violent coups against their own national president, as Hamas did in June 2007. Also, democratic organisations do not have as a central and founding policy to carry out the genocide of a neighbouring country.”
“Hamas’s founding charter includes the statement: ‘Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet (Mohammed), prayer and peace be upon him, said the time (of resurrection) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews,’ and, ‘peaceful solutions and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem are all contrary to the beliefs of Hamas.’ In its own words - indeed, in its founding document - Hamas states it will continue fighting Israel as long as Israel exists.”
“The war Hamas is waging against Israel has nothing to do with occupation (Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in August 2005). Rather, it has everything to do with Israel’s existence. That is why Hamas - or, rather, its central policy - is a problem, aptly described by the Israeli Foreign Minister. For as long as Hamas clings to the notion that Israel can be destroyed and it wants to be the one to do so, there will be no peace. Israel has offered to deal with Hamas as long as it agrees to recognise Israel’s right to exist and renounce terrorism. Such demands are hardly taxing. In response, Hamas continued firing rockets at Israeli civilians.”
Yet we keep hearing the same old moral equivalence. Says Phillips, “What is so distressing is the desperate unfairness of so much Western reaction. Thus Israel is accused of causing a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, even though it is allowing hundreds of trucks of supplies through the crossing points. Few are aware that wounded Gazans - 65 per cent of whom voted for Hamas - are being treated in Israeli hospitals. By contrast, in a Gaza hospital, Hamas shot dead five suspected Palestinian ‘collaborators’ - and murdered another 30 elsewhere. Many in the West think that the Palestinians are the rightful inheritors not just of Gaza and the West Bank but Israel itself. But this is totally false.”
“The Jews are the only people for whom ‘Palestine’ was ever their nation state, hundreds of years before Mohammed was even born. No other country on the planet has ever been expected to make suicidal concessions to its enemies even while they continue to try to destroy it. Yet the world expects it of Israel. An immediate ceasefire would effectively mean victory for Hamas. “
It is unbearable what Israel has been forced to endure. No other nation would acquiesce to such treatment. There is no moral equivalence taking place here. Hamas is a terrorist organisation which cares nothing about human life. A Hamas official today called for the killing of Jewish children around the world. Such amoral terrorists are not on a par with civilised nations. Nor should they be treated as such.
Of course all of this anti-Israeli rhetoric is built on the assumption that some sort of moral equivalence exists here. Critics of Israel might grudgingly admit that Hamas has not been exactly pure in all this, but they also claim that Israel is in fact just as bad, if not far worse.
However, a number of commentators beg to differ, and I enlist their aid in this piece. First, consider the phony charge that this is some sort of David versus Goliath situation in which Israel is some massive military power while poor Hamas is just some small guy outfit throwing stones.
Hamas is armed and supported by nations such as Iran. Both have vowed to eliminate the nation of Israel. And Israel is surrounded by nations that don’t exactly look kindly upon Israel. All in all, Israel is vastly outnumbered and outgunned, hedged in by violent opponents. Writes Greg Sheridan:
“To grasp the nature of the strategic threat Hamas poses, it is necessary to place it in the context of its ally, Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, and their common backer and puppet master, Iran. During Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah, rockets continued to rain down on Israel as far as the big industrial city of Haifa. There was an acute fear within Israel, although not much spoken of, that Hezbollah rockets would hit a massive oil refinery in Haifa. The flow-on effects from this could be catastrophic. During that war, much of northern Israel was effectively paralysed, and certainly closed for normal business.”
“Despite the mistakes Israel made in that war, it got some things right. At the start of the conflict, it knocked out Hezbollah’s longest-range missiles that could reach Israel’s biggest city, Tel Aviv. And since then, the missiles have not come back from the north. Now they come from Gaza in the south. They not only terrorise the small Israeli town of Sderot, they frequently now reach Ashkelon, the industrial city that ironically provides electricity to Gaza. (There must be few occasions in history when a nation is expected to supply electricity to factories building rockets designed to blow up the electricity plant.)”
The only reason Israel has not suffered more at the hands of Hamas thus far is the lack of long-range rockets. “From Israel’s point of view, it is very clear that if it leaves Hamas alone, Hamas will gather more and better rockets, long-range and with better guidance systems. Hamas and Hezbollah together can then present two types of strategic threat to Israel, beyond merely killing its citizens. They can shut down vast swaths of Israeli society and industry with a rocket offensive. Or they can hit strategic targets, at least from Dimona to Haifa. Israel had no alternative but to act, although how it will restore a future equilibrium in Gaza remains deeply unclear.”
Complaints about civilian casualties are also routinely raised by the critics of Israel. It is always regrettable when civilians die in armed combat. But there is a huge moral difference between a nation which seeks to prevent such collateral damage as much as possible, and a terrorist organisation that thrives on such civilian carnage. As Mona Charen explains,
“It’s often pointed out that Hamas does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. It’s more than that. Hamas, with Iran’s backing, is committed to Israel’s violent destruction. Missiles have fallen on schools and homes. Hamas is explicit about desiring Israeli counterattacks, because while Hamas aims to kill Israeli civilians, they know that Israel tries very hard not to kill Palestinian civilians. But every Palestinian death at the hands of Israel is seen as a propaganda victory for Hamas — which is why they place their munitions and terrorists in mosques, hospitals, and homes crowded with children. Hamas representative Fathi Hamad stated it explicitly: ‘For the Palestinian people death became an industry, at which women excel and so do all people on this land: the elderly excel, the Jihad fighters excel, and the children excel. Accordingly (Palestinians) created a human shield of women, children, the elderly and the Jihad fighters against the Zionist bombing machine, as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: We desire death as you desire life’.”
Melanie Phillips argues much the same: “Alas, the civilian toll will unavoidably mount, which is deeply regrettable. But what must be understood is that Hamas have deliberately situated their weapons under apartment blocks, in mosques and in hospitals. The Israelis build bomb shelters for their civilians - Hamas stores bombs underneath its civilians to manipulate world opinion. What people find so hard to grasp is that Hamas actually wants to maximise the number of Palestinians killed because, as they boast: ‘We desire death as you desire life’.”
But Israel should negotiate, and not fight, critics argue. This is not easy to do when the one you are trying to negotiate with wants only one thing of you: your destruction. As Yuval Rotem has put it, “Hamas is a problem for Israel because it doesn’t want to engage Israel in dialogue or reach a two-state solution. (Israel has said innumerable times it will deal with Hamas as soon as Hamas recognises Israel’s right to exist and renounces terrorism.)”
But, the critics will complain, an attack by Israel will simply provoke more Islamist aggression. Says Phillips, “Despite this fanaticism, many fear Israel’s attack will create yet more suicide bombers. There is a grain of sense in this - but only a grain. This is because every act of self-defence against Islamist aggression is used as a recruiting sergeant for the Islamic holy war. So if this dictates world responses, no one can ever defend themselves - not just in Israel but in Afghanistan or against al-Qaida anywhere.”
But the Israeli attack is so disproportionate we are told. Jonathan Mark agrees. He says that Israel’s response is disproportionate. Israel is responding nowhere near the way it should be if it carried on like Hamas has been: “I condemn Israel’s disproportionate attack on Hamas because, so far, it has only lasted four days and I would like to see a proportionate response that terrifies Hamas for seven years, the years that have filled Sderot and neighboring towns with nightmares, death, amputations and trauma coming from rockets and mortars fired from Gaza. . . . A proportionate response would so intimidate Hamas that they will grovel and, as a ‘gesture,’ send cocoa and jam into Sderot, the way Israel has groveled in response to rockets from Hamas, sending cocoa and jam into Gaza. Imagine Churchill sending cocoa and jam into Berlin as a humanitarian gesture after - during - the bombing of London.”
He continues, “A proportionate response to Hamas, one might gather from the European scolds, would be as if the United States, after Pearl Harbor, would bomb just a few Japanese fishing boats and call it a day, believing the war would have ended with that. A proportionate response will begin to remind Jews that there is no peace process like victory, just as Israel’s decade of disproportionate restraint and self-doubt has convinced young Palestinians that their victory is inevitable, like Aryan youth in 1933 singing ‘Tomorrow Belongs To Me’.”
Yes but, the critics continue, Hamas was democratically elected. Rotem deals with this objection: “Let’s not beat around the bush. Hamas is a terrorist organisation masquerading as a legitimate government. Yes, it did win the 2006 democratic election in the Palestinian Authority. But winning one election does not make an organisation democratic. Democratic organisations do not stage violent coups against their own national president, as Hamas did in June 2007. Also, democratic organisations do not have as a central and founding policy to carry out the genocide of a neighbouring country.”
“Hamas’s founding charter includes the statement: ‘Hamas has been looking forward to implementing Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet (Mohammed), prayer and peace be upon him, said the time (of resurrection) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews,’ and, ‘peaceful solutions and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem are all contrary to the beliefs of Hamas.’ In its own words - indeed, in its founding document - Hamas states it will continue fighting Israel as long as Israel exists.”
“The war Hamas is waging against Israel has nothing to do with occupation (Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in August 2005). Rather, it has everything to do with Israel’s existence. That is why Hamas - or, rather, its central policy - is a problem, aptly described by the Israeli Foreign Minister. For as long as Hamas clings to the notion that Israel can be destroyed and it wants to be the one to do so, there will be no peace. Israel has offered to deal with Hamas as long as it agrees to recognise Israel’s right to exist and renounce terrorism. Such demands are hardly taxing. In response, Hamas continued firing rockets at Israeli civilians.”
Yet we keep hearing the same old moral equivalence. Says Phillips, “What is so distressing is the desperate unfairness of so much Western reaction. Thus Israel is accused of causing a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, even though it is allowing hundreds of trucks of supplies through the crossing points. Few are aware that wounded Gazans - 65 per cent of whom voted for Hamas - are being treated in Israeli hospitals. By contrast, in a Gaza hospital, Hamas shot dead five suspected Palestinian ‘collaborators’ - and murdered another 30 elsewhere. Many in the West think that the Palestinians are the rightful inheritors not just of Gaza and the West Bank but Israel itself. But this is totally false.”
“The Jews are the only people for whom ‘Palestine’ was ever their nation state, hundreds of years before Mohammed was even born. No other country on the planet has ever been expected to make suicidal concessions to its enemies even while they continue to try to destroy it. Yet the world expects it of Israel. An immediate ceasefire would effectively mean victory for Hamas. “
It is unbearable what Israel has been forced to endure. No other nation would acquiesce to such treatment. There is no moral equivalence taking place here. Hamas is a terrorist organisation which cares nothing about human life. A Hamas official today called for the killing of Jewish children around the world. Such amoral terrorists are not on a par with civilised nations. Nor should they be treated as such.
Bill Muehlenberg
Homepage:
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Poor Isreal
17.02.2009 21:21
Great post, it helps keep my mind on why Zionism and its supporters are worth fighting against.
Sam
anti-all religions
18.02.2009 01:04
Anti-Israel
Nazis, Jews and moral equivalence
18.02.2009 01:08
And that, children, is how we quickly moved from the New Order to the New World Order.
Samson
The sentiments expressed in this article ......
18.02.2009 07:01
The zionist has his own site on which to expound his reprehensible views....
Dahab Dabbler
Using Mad Mel quotes for support makes you look like a nutter
18.02.2009 13:44
I won't write more since one-sided rhetoric of the kind presented in this article is, I fear, designed to waste the time of pro-Palestine individuals, whose time is probably better spent on stalls in high-streets telling good people about the conditions in which Israeli policy forces them to live. Zionists and strategic supporters of Israel who make no complaint at all about the behaviour of their favourite state know full well about the thousands of official condemnations from US bodies, NGOs, countries, faith groups etc. right across the world. However, in their narrative, all that is omitted or obfuscated, to throw people off track. We should not let that happen.
In any case, a defence of Israeli policy that is not prepared to mourn, and recognise without equivocation, the deaths of 400 children last month, is disgusting. It's a bit like people examining the "complicity" of Twin Tower occupants with American imperialism - something that would likely not come easily to this conservative commentator.
"Israel withdrew completely from Gaza in August 2005" - I am certain this is untrue. It is definitely not the case that they withdrew from Palestinian lands, and honest supporters of Israel will recognise that whilst some withdrawals have been much trumpeted, building work on other occupied land went on at **exactly the same time**. I am convinced that the author, Bill Muehlenberg, knows this - which illustrates a disingenuousness of a crafty and disgraceful level.
"Hamas is a terrorist organisation masquerading as a legitimate government". Try this: "Bush's Republicans were a terrorist organisation masquerading as a legitimate government". Or this: "The IDF are a terrorist organisation masquerading as a legitimate army". The problem the author has here is that he is unwilling to see his own blind spots. Personally, I think all three use(d) terrorism, but Western-centric myopia forces pundits such as this to witness only the atrocities of the other side. If there were justice in the world, leaders of all of these organisations would find themselves in the dock at the Hague. In my view though, Hamas represents the only one of the three who are under sufficient psychological strain - the occupation - that mitigating circumstances could be offered to the court.
The Palestinian people have time and again offered a long-term truce based on the two-state solution, though it doesn't get much coverage in the media. So, talk of "destruction of Israel" ignores the reality of the current situation.
Furthermore, supporters of Palestine are regularly brow-beaten by people on the right about "Israel's right to exist". Well, we should bear in mind that it is only a state - it is not its people - and states come and go all the time. It is not racist to say that Israel has (or had) no right to exist, either. If a two state solution is not possible, then the only other long-term route to security is a one-state solution, in which Israel and Palestine both "cease to exist". The conservative right has regularly implied that if you don't support Israel's right to exist, you must be a terrorist, which of course is rubbish. In theory, one or both side could cease to exist, without any violence in either direction.
To finish, in the words of the great Craig Murray, "Zionism is bullshit". It's something that Bill here would do well to ponder.
Jon
Some facts...
18.02.2009 16:02
"17. During the first period Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire and its operatives were not involved in rocket attacks. At the same time, the movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it. Hamas took a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement, but in a limited fashion and contenting itself with short-term detentions and confiscating weapons. For example, a number of times Hamas’s security services detained Fatah/Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades operatives, including Abu Qusai, an Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades spokesman, who claimed responsibility for rocket fire (June 29). Detained operatives were released after a short interrogation and no real measures were taken against them. However, it was clear that throughout the first period Hamas sought to avoid direct confrontations with the rogue organizations (especially the PIJ) insofar as was possible, lest it be accused of collaborating with Israel and harming the “resistance.” Hamas therefore focused on using politics to convince the organizations to maintain the lull arrangement and on seeking support for it within Gazan public opinion (including issuing statements by its activists regarding the lull’s achievements)."
The report adds "25. Before November 4, large quantities of food, fuel, construction material and other necessities for renewing the Gaza Strip’s economic activity were delivered through the Karni and Sufa crossings. [b]A daily average of 80-90 trucks passed through the crossings[/b], similar to the situation before they were closed following the April 19 attack on the Kerem Shalom crossing. Changes were made in the types of good which could be delivered, permitting the entry of iron, cement and other vital raw materials into the Gaza Strip."
[b]
This figure of 80-90 is still not comparable to the figure of 564 in December 2005, before the siege began.[/b]
The pivotal event in the ceasefire breaking down, [u]according[/u] to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report:
"19. The second period of the arrangement began with Hamas’s preparations to abduct an Israeli or Israelis through a tunnel dug under the border security fence. In our assessment, those who planned it had to take into consideration that such an attack would do great harm to the arrangement, but nevertheless Hamas was eager to have another Israeli hostage to use as a bargaining chip. Following information, the IDF went into action close to the border, prevented the attack and killed seven Hamas terrorist operatives. Hamas responded with a massive barrage of rocket and mortar shell fire, unprecedented since the lull arrangement had gone into effect."
According to Oxfam only 137 trucks of food were allowed into Gaza in November. This means that an average of 4.6 trucks per day entered the strip compared to an average of 123 in October this year and [b]564 in December 2005[/b]. The two main food providers in Gaza are the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the World Food Programme (WFP). UNRWA alone feeds approximately 750,000 people in Gaza, and requires 15 trucks of food daily to do so. Between 5 November and 30 November, only 23 trucks arrived, around 6 per cent of the total needed; during the week of 30 November it received 12 trucks, or 11 per cent of what was required.
It is also worth noting that Exports from Gaza, mainly to Israel and the West Bank, have been stopped: from around 1000 truckloads a month in May 2005, to 748 truckloads in June 2007. A month later there were none. With dire consequences for jobs within Gaza. Also the limits on some 24,000 Palestinian workers traveling to their jobs in Israel or the West Bank have been increased since 2000. By 2008, the figure was zero.
I haven't seen any reports that contradict the IDF claim of an kidnap attempt, but neither has Israel provided evidence. I would point out the Israeli kidnapping of two civilians in 2006, that led to the killing and kidnap of the IDF soldiers, which in turn prompted the Lebanese conflict. Israel also used pretty shameful tactics, kidnapping civilians, in fact some 570 Palestinians are held in Israeli prisons without charge (Israeli figures for 31/10/2008).
The Hamas kidnap attempt was against unwritten ceasefire rules, the killing of Hamas fighters *in* Gaza was against the ceasefire, as of course are the Hamas rockets in retaliation, and the increased blockade in retaliation for the rockets.
[b]But the continued blockade against Gaza, during the WHOLE of the ceasefire is the major cause of the ceasefire breakdown. Israel never honoured the ceasefire. Even Hamas did not fire rockets into Israel until the 4th of November. Opening the borders, doesn't equal a lifting of the blockade, with its limits on goods for Gaza.[/b]
[b]Were military exports stopped to Israel during the ceasefire? [/b]
A economic blockade is also a act of war / terrorism, targeting civilian population. The long history of Israeli aggression would also support a ban on weapon imports to Israel, to a much larger extant than one on Hamas.
EDIT: A reason given by Chomsky for the IDF action on 4th November was the peace talks between Hamas & Fatah, which was going to take place. The first since the civil war; any peace would of put Fatah complicity in Israeli actions on the West Bank at risk.
And he also makes an interesting point about action as act of self-defense against the rocket attacks, the legal definition doesn't necessary equal using force.
The British government didn't use fighter-bombers on the Provisional IRA / Sein Fein infrastructure in Northern Island or lay siege to the Catholic population, after the attack that almost destroyed the whole of the British government in Brighton in the 1980's, and the deaths caused by the IRA from 1967 to 2001/2004 (around 1,781 to 1,821). The lower estimate puts the number of civilians killed by the IRA at 644, with 14,000 injured.
Thatcher certainly wasn't regarded as an soft touch (look at her stance on the IRA Hunger strikes), but she authorised talks with the IRA / Sein Fein, they addressed the grievances of the IRA and Sein Fein.
...
In response to a claim made by the video posted on "Pallywood" that the "The Gaza Beach Incident killings" was a deliberate act of falsification / false attribution by an alleged Palestinian Propaganda industry, here is a quote from the Human Rights Watch report into
"Indiscriminate Fire: Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel and Israeli Artillery Shelling in the Gaza Strip" July 2007:
p89 of pdf.
"Although the IDF acknowledges it was firing artillery in the area that day, it takes the position (see below) that the explosion responsible for killing the Ghalya family on June 9 was not an artillery shell that Israel fired that day and was probably not an IDF artillery shell at all. After investigating the incident, however, as described below, Human Rights Watch concluded that the deadly explosion was caused by a 155mm Israeli artillery shell.
The shrapnel, crater, and injuries all point to this weapon as the cause."
HRW examines both the Israeli and Palestine attacks, and is an reliable source.
Israel's renewed use of artillery in Gaza poses an increased risk to civilians if the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) adopts the same reduced "safety zones" that resulted in many civilian casualties there in 2006, Human Rights Watch said today. The IDF had put a moratorium on the use of artillery in Gaza after an artillery attack on Beit Hanoun on November 8, 2006, killed 23 Palestinians and wounded 40, all of them civilians.
"Israel's decision to reduce the so-called ‘safety zone' the last time it employed artillery in Gaza had terrible consequences, and should not be repeated," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Artillery has a wide blast radius, so the risk to civilians is high when used in populated areas. The IDF has an obligation to take all feasible precautions to avoid harming civilians when it uses this weapon."
The danger to civilians in Gaza from IDF artillery shelling increased after April 2006, when the IDF reportedly reduced from 300 to 100 meters the "safety zone" between artillery targets and civilian areas - the minimum distance required between a target and the nearest homes or populated areas. Human Rights Watch found that all fatalities and all but eight injuries from artillery fire between September 2005 and May 2007, when the research was done, occurred after April 2006, and before the moratorium.
Human Rights Watch has repeatedly condemned the launching of rockets at population centers in Israel by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups. The rockets are highly inaccurate, and those launching them cannot accurately target military objects. Deliberately firing indiscriminate weapons into civilian-populated areas, as a matter of policy, constitutes a war crime. Prior to the current fighting, rocket attacks had killed 19 civilians in Israel since 2005.
While Palestinian fighters firing rockets from sites close to Palestinian civilians can itself be a violation of the laws of war and does not prohibit the IDF from returning fire, the IDF still must, under the laws of war, take all feasible steps to minimize civilian loss and refrain from attack if expected civilian casualties will be disproportionate to the concrete military gain.
Excerpts from:
So the Israeli Military, as seems likely, is not taking [u]all feasible steps[/u] to reduce civilian causalities by keeping to the 300 metre safety zone for shells, a standard imposed by Israel its self. Even disregarding the attacks on Hamas civilian infrastructure.
As the UN compound and UN school attacks would support, if we even believe the Israeli statements (no fighters even near the UN Compound), regarding Hamas fighters being in the area of the UN locations. Most likely, if we believe the IDF - no evidence has been produced, they were within 100m of the UN locations, rather than 300m, for the locations to be hit.
The 2007 report goes onto report:
Total Number of Artillery Shells Entering Gaza, 31st August 2005 - December 2006
[b]14,617[/b]
Palestinian Civilians dead: 59
Injuried: 270
Total Number of Locally Made Rockets Entering Israel from Gaza, 31st August 2005- May 29th 2007:
[b]2,696[/b]
Israeli Civilians dead: 4
Injured: 75
Soldiers killed: 9
Foreign Citizens killed: 1
Source for figures: UNOCHA Weekly Briefing Notes
Summary Extracts:
"The rockets, made in Gaza and generically known as “Qassams” after the name of the armed wing of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, are highly inaccurate and cannot be directed at a specific target.
Even assuming the rocket attacks were intended as reprisal for Israeli attacks that kill and injure civilians, as Palestinian groups often claimed, they still are unlawful under international humanitarian law. The law governing reprisals—defined as otherwise unlawful actions that are considered lawful when used as an enforcement measure in reaction to an adversary’s unlawful acts—does not permit direct or indiscriminate attacks on civilians, in part for reasons that these rocket-artillery exchanges demonstrate: even attacks ostensibly launched as reprisals often spur counterattacks by the other side, yielding an endless cycle of civilian injury and death.
[b]As the leading treaty in this area provides, one side’s targeting of civilians or civilian objects can never justify like targeting by the other side.[/b]
Human Rights Watch has been unable to find any report or claim that those killed or injured by artillery fire included persons believed to be combatants, and the IDF has not responded to a Human Rights Watch request about whether any Palestinians killed or injured by artillery fire into the Gaza Strip were combatants or believed to be combatants.
Israeli artillery strikes in 2006 also left many unexploded shells strewn on the
ground that constitute a continuing hazard to lives and livelihoods."
sam