Media
Terror and starvation in Gaza
Published 22 January 2007
Pilger on the genocide that is engulfing Palestine as bystanders silently look on
A genocide is engulfing the people of Gaza while a silence engulfs its bystanders. "Some 1.4 million people, mostly children, are piled up in one of the most densely populated regions of the world, with no freedom of movement, no place to run and no space to hide," wrote the former senior UN relief official Jan Egeland and Jan Eliasson, then foreign minister of Sweden, in Le Figaro. They described a people "living in a cage", cut off by land, sea and air, with no reliable power and little water, and tortured by hunger and disease and incessant attacks by Israeli troops and planes.
Egeland and Eliasson wrote this four months ago in an attempt to break the silence in Europe, whose obedient alliance with the United States and Israel has sought to reverse the democratic result that brought Hamas to power in last year's Palestinian elections. The horror in Gaza has since been compounded: a family of 18 has died beneath a 500lb US/Israeli bomb; unarmed women have been mown down at point-blank range. Dr David Halpin, one of the few Britons to break what he calls "this medieval siege", reported the killing of 57 children by artillery, rockets and small arms and was shown evidence that civilians are Israel's true targets, as in Leba non last summer. A friend in Gaza, Dr Mona el-Farra, emailed: "I see the effects of the relentless sonic booms [a collective punishment by the Israeli air force] and artillery on my 13-year-old daughter. At night, she shivers with fear. Then both of us end up crouching on the floor. I try to make her feel safe, but when the bombs sound I flinch and scream . . ."
When I was last in Gaza, Dr Khalid Dahlan, a psychiatrist, showed me the results of a remarkable survey. "The statistic I personally find unbearable," he said, "is that 99.4 per cent of the children we studied suffer trauma. Once you look at the rates of exposure to trauma you see why: 99.2 per cent of their homes were bombarded; 97.5 per cent were exposed to tear gas; 96.6 per cent witnessed shootings; 95.8 per cent witnessed bombardment and funerals; almost a quarter saw family members injured or killed." Dahlan invited me to sit in on one of his clinics. There were 30 children, all of them traumatised. He gave each a pencil and paper and asked them to draw. They drew pictures of grotesque acts of terror and of women streaming tears.
The excuse for the latest Israeli terror was the capture last June of an Israeli soldier, a member of an illegal occupation, by the Palestinian resistance. This was news. The kidnapping by Israel a few days earlier of two Palestinians - two of thousands taken over the years - was not news. A historian and two foreign journalists have reported the truth about Gaza. All three are Israeli. They are frequently called traitors. The historian Ilan Pappe has documented that "the genocidal policy [in Gaza] is not formulated in a vacuum" but part of Zionism's deliberate, historic ethnic cleansing. Gideon Levy and Amira Hass are reporters on the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. In November, Levy described how the people of Gaza were beginning to starve to death: "There are thousands of wounded, disabled and shell-shocked people, unable to receive any treatment . . . The shadows of human beings roam the ruins . . . They only know the [Israeli army] will return and they know what this will mean for them: more imprisonment in their homes for weeks, more death and destruction in monstrous proportions." Hass, who has lived in Gaza, describes it as a prison that shames her people. She recalls how her mother, Hannah, was marched from a cattle-train to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen on a summer's day in 1944. "[She] saw these German women looking at the pris oners, just looking," she wrote. "This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side'."
"Looking from the side" is what those of us do who are cowed into silence by the threat of being called anti-Semitic. Looking from the side is what too many western Jews do, while those Jews who honour the humane traditions of Judaism and say, "Not in our name!" are abused as "self-despising". Looking from the side is what almost the entire US Congress does, in thrall to or intimidated by a vicious Zionist "lobby". Looking from the side is what "even-handed" journalists do as they excuse the lawlessness that is the source of Israeli atrocities and suppress the historic shifts in the Palestinian resistance, such as the implicit recognition of Israel by Hamas. The people of Gaza cry out for better.
www.johnpilger.com
Post this article to
21 comments from readers
-
melmat
19 January 2007 at 11:27 The Gaza situation is a terrible injustice. Unfortunately an injustice totally of the 'Palistinians'own making. Pilger as usual neglects to champion the dead Isralie children that are killed on a daily basis by lunatic fanatics that are more concerned with their own criminal factions then the coming together of their people. The 'Palistine' problem can be fixed parctically overnight. Stop the indiscriminate killing of Isralies! Its as simple as that. The world, and Isreal, would bend over backwards to rebuild the place and welcome 'Palestinians' into the 21st century.
Pilger should report reality and not rivisionist clap trap that is his wont.
-
maasetuvia
20 January 2007 at 07:45 99.4 per cent of the children we studied suffer trauma ... In scientific terms, this would be called a selected sample. I gues the statsitics that folow must also stem from the same selected sample. Scientifically selected samples never demonstrate percentages in the 90's. Such equivocal evidence surely undermines the evidence given by Pilger for genocide in Gaza, in general.
-
pfr
21 January 2007 at 12:44 It is so hypocritical to observe holocaust memorial day whilst allowing a 'holocaust' of the Palestinian people. This may be to strong a word, but Israeli historian Illan Pappe' states, "Israel is conducting genocidal in Gaza" . He says, "A creeping transfer in the West Bank and a measured genocidal policy in the Gaza Strip are the two strategies Israel employs today." He shows concern about, "the escalating intentional killing" of Palestinians, by the Israelis.
Why the genocide and ethnic cleansing? Answer: To achieve an expanded Israel only for Jews, at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian population, i.e. racism. And the policy is working; Palestinians are being ghettoized into ever smaller Bantustans, making life unbearable and there are now over 7 million Palestinian refugees in the world today.
-
21 January 2007 at 16:09 maasetuvia, are you implying that only 90% of Gazan children are traumatised and not the 99.4% quoted by Pilger? If you are then he should stop whining about only 90% of children being traumatised, hey?
It is ironic that the culture that has been most brutalised in recent history are now guilty of repeating similar- and worse- crimes.
-
Mick
21 January 2007 at 19:32 "The People of Gaza Cry Out For Better." - And so they should! The ongoing brutal daily violence in the Gaza Strip is between the Palestinians themselves, or more specifically between the Iranian sponsored Hamas and the old guard Fatah for control of the Palestinian Authority and is actually nothing to do with Israel.
The real shame is that the Palestinians have never had and will never have a leadership capable of taking their people forward. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip for nothing, leaving all the working infrastructure in place responsible for many thriving agricultural export businesses. Gaza also boasts beautiful natural coastline and the opportunity was surely there to take advantage of the World's goodwill and billions of dollars worth of foreign aid to lay the foundations for the beginnings of a working viable Palestinian state. Sadly, the infrastructure was trashed and destroyed and the foreign aid has been spent on weapons. As Abba Eban said so many years ago about the Palestinian leadership; "They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
-
22 January 2007 at 12:56 in response to mick, i think you forget that Israel is the occupier, and is the oppressor. Israel is directly responsible for the continuous violation of human rights, and the violation of numerous international laws. Israel is the recipient of billions of dollars in AID from its friend, America, and its arms are coming mostly from our government. Please do not ignore the repugnant role that Israel is playing. The infighting is a result of frustation on the part of the Palestinians. how could you expect in such an overpopulated area no frustrations? they democratically elected a viable government and because of that are further suffering, without food, without education, at the hands of a pathetic international community. It is not in any way the fault of the oppressed.
-
Mick
22 January 2007 at 14:15 Hi PeopleB4profit.
Israel does not occupy Gaza and has not done so since August 2004 when it forcibly withdrew its citizens from The Strip. The response to this withdrawl has been continuous terrorist missile fire into Israel from Gaza. Since the beginning of the "ceasefire" at the end of November,over 60 Qassam rockets have been fired into Israel, causing death, destruction and many injuries.
Whenever possible, the terrorists deliberately fire these rockets from civilian areas, hoping for maximum propaganda value should a retaliatory strike be forthcoming.
The simple fact is that no country in the world can be expected to tolerate continuous missile strikes against its civilians on its undisputed sovereign territory.
The Israeli Government accept the principle of a 2 state solution and have made domestic political and territorial sacrifices to move towards this. The Palestinian Leadership must similarly accept the principle of Israel's right to exist (and not merely offer a temporary truce). When this happens, the international goodwill can help create a lasting framework for both Israeli and Palestinian civilians to live in the peace they deserve.
-
23 January 2007 at 11:48 The willingness of Pilger to believe and spread slander about "vicious Zionists" etc. can only be explained by anti-semitism. Only last week a writer in this magazine referred to the Holocaust as somehting that might be questioned (and explained it by claiming the Nazis did not intend to commit genocide!). Now we have a fake genocide and a non-existent medieval siege. Palestinians can enter and leave Gaza via the Egyptian border. There is no Israeli occupation. Despite signing an agreement in return for recognizing Israel the Palestinians elected a fundamentalist government whose founding principles include ethnic cleansing and arguably genocide of the Jewish population. Pilger may be a smart man but he is blinded by hatred and prejudice. The tendency to blame all problems on the Jews has a long history in Europe and is clearly reflected in this article.
-
Tim Holmes
23 January 2007 at 12:38 Mick - you display considerable, lamentable ignorance of the subject on which you are commenting.
"Israel does not occupy Gaza and has not done so since August 2004 when it forcibly withdrew its citizens from The Strip."
As Human Rights Watch stated plainly, the occupation continues regardless of whether the troops are stationed within or around the territory, controlling its borders and reserving the right to re-enter.
"The response to this withdrawl has been continuous terrorist missile fire into Israel from Gaza."
The missile fire being a response - however illegitimate - to the continuing occupation, and notably to the constant overflights with which the Israelis terrified the residents of Gaza.
"The simple fact is that no country in the world can be expected to tolerate continuous missile strikes against its civilians on its undisputed sovereign territory."
Does that include the Palestinians, who have to endure a level of bombardment beyond anything the average Israeli could imagine, including the routine bombardment of residential areas? Does it include the people of Lebanon, whose country's economy was pushed back 20 years, suffered ecological devastation and mass civilian death?
"The Israeli Government accept the principle of a 2 state solution and have made domestic political and territorial sacrifices to move towards this."
A state, or blocs of bantustanised territory still under effective Israeli control? Would the Israelis accept such an arrangement if it were proposed for their own country?
And the Israelis have made "territorial sacrifices"? What a laughable statement! Perhaps you'd care to name one ...
In fact, it is the Palestinians who made the most significant territorial sacrifice, in accepting the international consensus on a two-state solution, confining a future Palestinian state to Gaza and the West Bank.
"The Palestinian Leadership must similarly accept the principle of Israel's right to exist"
Does that apply reciprocally? Does Olmert recognise the Palestinians right to Judea and Samaria, to which he said Israel would retain its historic right "for all eternity"? If the Palestinian leadership made statements like this with regard to their claim on Israeli territory while supposedly supporting a settlement, would commentators accept it? Or would they huff and puff about Palestinian rejectionism? Have a guess.
-
Mick
23 January 2007 at 21:04 Hi Tim;
Sorry to have upset you with some facts in my last comment. Here are some more facts to hopefully answer some of the points that you raise.
1) Israel does not occupy Gaza and there is currently no Israeli civilian or military presence within the Strip. Israel controls its own border with Gaza from within Israel. Egypt's failure to effectively control its border with Gaza has resulted in a continuous flood of weapons (no doubt bought with EU aid money) into the Strip which continues to fuel the daily violence between the Palestinians themselves. I don't see how the Israelis can be blamed for the Palestinians continuing to kill and injure each other in what is after all, supposed to be their own Country. As for HRW, I hear no protest from them when Israeli citizens in undisputed sovereign territory are continually targeted with rocket and missile attacks.
2). The Palestinians do not have to endure bombardment and there is no routine bombing of civilian areas. When Israel itself is threatened by rocket and missile attack, it naturally retains the right to defend itself and its civilians by attacking the missile source. The Town of sderot and the Western Negev region have suffered hundreds of rocket and missile attacks since the Israeli army left Gaza in 2004. The fact that the missiles are usually stored and launched from the midst of civiliain areas (as they were in Lebanon in the summer) is one of the huge tragedies in this region and proof that the terrorists and their supporters couldn't care less about the people whose rights they're supposedly fighting for. Israeli civilians living in the north suffered a greater number of rocket attacks in a four week period this summer than Britain suffered in the Blitz throughout the Second World War! Would Britain retain the right to defend its citizens living on the coast if they were subject to rocket and missile attack from France?
3) Israel has done far more to facilitate a Palestinian State than either Egypt when they "occupied" Gaza between 1948-1967 and Jordan when they "occupied" Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem between 1948-1967. Strange that there was apparently no call for a Palestinian State of any kind in those times! In fact the Palestinians were treated appallingly by their fellow Arabs, but perhaps HRW were still at school in those days.
Israeli politicians made huge political sacrifices (Rabin with his life) to engage with Arafat, sign up to the Oslo Accords and The Roadmap and disengage from the Gaza Strip. The political will exists now in Israel to implement a two state solution and for further exchanges of land in return for a lasting peace, Nothing has moved forward because the Palestinian Leadership refuses to effectively accept the right of Israel to exist in any form.
Have a nice day!
-
pitinkie
24 January 2007 at 14:44 there is no such entity as a "palestinian"
-
Tim Holmes
02 February 2007 at 21:44 Mick - you display considerable, lamentable ignorance of the subject on which you are commenting.
"Israel does not occupy Gaza and has not done so since August 2004 when it forcibly withdrew its citizens from The Strip."
As Human Rights Watch stated plainly, the occupation continues regardless of whether the troops are stationed within or around the territory, controlling its borders and reserving the right to re-enter.
"The response to this withdrawl has been continuous terrorist missile fire into Israel from Gaza."
The missile fire being a response - however illegitimate - to the continuing occupation, and notably to the constant overflights with which the Israelis terrified the residents of Gaza.
"The simple fact is that no country in the world can be expected to tolerate continuous missile strikes against its civilians on its undisputed sovereign territory."
Does that include the Palestinians, who have to endure a level of bombardment beyond anything the average Israeli could imagine, including the routine bombardment of residential areas? Does it include the people of Lebanon, whose country's economy was pushed back 20 years, suffered ecological devastation and mass civilian death?
"The Israeli Government accept the principle of a 2 state solution and have made domestic political and territorial sacrifices to move towards this."
A state, or blocs of bantustanised territory still under effective Israeli control? Would the Israelis accept such an arrangement if it were proposed for their own country?
And the Israelis have made "territorial sacrifices"? What a laughable statement! Perhaps you'd care to name one ...
In fact, it is the Palestinians who made the most significant territorial sacrifice, in accepting the international consensus on a two-state solution, confining a future Palestinian state to Gaza and the West Bank.
"The Palestinian Leadership must similarly accept the principle of Israel's right to exist"
Does that apply reciprocally? Does Olmert recognise the Palestinians right to Judea and Samaria, to which he said Israel would retain its historic right "for all eternity"? If the Palestinian leadership made statements like this with regard to their claim on Israeli territory while supposedly supporting a settlement, would people accept it? Or would they huff and puff about Palestinian rejectionism? Have a guess.
Posted below is an excellent video I discovered recently, of George Monbiot's investigation on Newsnight into the pseudoscience peddled by big oil companies, particularly ExxonMobil - and the startling discovery that their campaign to quash environmental understanding was rooted in an earlier campaign of misinformation on the part of the tobacco companies. An extraordinarily eye-opening report, and well worth watching.
For a more in-depth treatment, see Monbiot's latest book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, of which there is an illuminating excerpt on the climate change denial industry available here.
Dear Mick,
Just a brief rejoinder for the benefit of anyone who thinks you are telling the truth, rather than promoting an ideological fanatic's view of the world. Much of your reply simply reiterates your first claims, with no attempt to support them. One obvious example is the claim that Israel does not occupy Gaza - as I pointed out, this is flatly untrue, as HRW's legal assessment noted.
"As for HRW, I hear no protest from them when Israeli citizens in undisputed sovereign territory are continually targeted with rocket and missile attacks."
This demonstrates only that you do not read HRW's reports.
"The Palestinians do not have to endure bombardment and there is no routine bombing of civilian areas."
Except that according to Btselem, HRW, and Amnesty International, they do; and there is.
"Israeli civilians living in the north suffered a greater number of rocket attacks in a four week period this summer than Britain suffered in the Blitz throughout the Second World War!"
Would you like to provide comparative casualty figures of (a) Israel and WWII Britain (b) Israeli and Palestinian casualties (Btselem put them at 30:1 this year. Nice one Israel.)
"Would Britain retain the right to defend its citizens living on the coast if they were subject to rocket and missile attack from France?"
More importantly, would France have the converse right if it were occupied by Britain? Or, to take a more historically-grounded example, if it were occupied by Germany? What rights of legitimate resistance would the French have in such a situation? Be specific.
"Nothing has moved forward because the Palestinian Leadership refuses to effectively accept the right of Israel to exist in any form."
That is one barrier; another is the continued construction of the wall, the settlements, and the roads connecting them, carving up the West Bank and effectively annexing Palestinian territory, all of which, the just-published Parliamentary International Development report noted, is destroying the viability of a Palestinian state. And yet you speak, extraordinarily, of Israeli territorial concessions!
Another barrier, of course, is the recent Israeli escalation, which coincided with a very real prospect of a compromise between the Palestinian factions. That prospect now appears to be rather slight.
-
Mick
03 February 2007 at 16:35 Hi Tim;
Not sure what an "ideological fanatic" is supposed to believe in, but I have spent enough time in the only democracy in the Middle East to know and stand by the actual facts. Sorry that you continue to find these unpallatable.
1) Israel does NOT occupy Gaza, whatever HRW may say. If you don't believe me, go and see for yourself and see how many Israelis you can spot. Watch that you don't get caught in the ongoing Hamas-Fatah crossfire though - they're going at it hammer and tongs at the moment, although they still found time to fire 3 rockets into Israel on Thursday night.
2) Israel does NOT bomb civilian areas. It does retain the right to respond when sovereign undisputed Israeli territory and its civilians within are deliberately targeted with rockets and missiles. The fact that the terrorists deliberately launch these missiles from Palestinian civilian areas is one of the great tragedies of this conflict.
3) Israeli civilians in the North this summer suffered a DAILY average of between 100-150 katyusha rocket and missile attacks. On the day before the ceasefire, 250 rockets were launched at purely civilian targets. To put this into context, the affected area was no greater than the size of London.
4) Don't know what you mean by France/Germany/Britain, etc. The point is that ANY Country where it's civilians are continually targeted by rocket and missile attacks would retain the right to defend its infrastructure and citizens.
5) The security wall is being built as a defensive measure to protect Israeli civilians who have been subject to continuous terrorist suicide bombings in their own Towns and Cities from 2002 onwards. The bomb in Eilat only this week, proves that the ever present terrorist threat is still there.
6) As to the "Very Real Prospect of Compromise Between the Palestinian Factions" - Have a look at the ongoing death, destruction and carnage currently being waged in Gaza which is solely between the Palestinian Organisations themselves. Not much hope for the future of a Palestinian State if this is what goes on in the autonomous area subject to their exclusive control and jurisdiction.
I feel sorry for the innocent Palestinian civilian population who are caught up in this.
-
Tim Holmes
04 February 2007 at 01:24 Dear Mick,
You don't respond to any of my challenges, but with another barrage of hysteria. Nonetheless, let's pick you up on a few things.
1) "If you don't believe me, go and see for yourself and see how many Israelis you can spot."
As HRW pointed out, the issue of the positioning of troops within the territory is irrelevant:
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/isrlpa9577.htm
2) "Israel does NOT bomb civilian areas."
Lol! I may frame this. It's a bit like shouting "Please regard me as having zero credibility".
Those who care about basic facts will have bothered to check Btselem, HRW and Amnesty - or the relevant citations in news reports ... just to take a couple:
'The mass-circulation Yedioth Aharonoth headlined a quote from an unnamed military commander: “Every village from which a Katyusha is fired must be destroyed.” ' (FT, 28 July, p. 5)
3) "The point is that ANY Country where it's civilians are continually targeted by rocket and missile attacks would retain the right to defend its infrastructure and citizens."
I repeat my last question: what legitimate rights of resistance do the occupied French have against the Germans? Do they have a right to defend themselves? If so, how?
That you don't understand why I ask is strange - I want to establish some general principles about what counts as acceptable resistance to foreign occupation.
4) "The security wall is being built as a defensive measure"
... which just so happens to annex plum areas of the West Bank. If its only purpose is defensive, why is it not built on or within the Green Line?
5) "Have a look at the ongoing death, destruction and carnage currently being waged in Gaza which is solely between the Palestinian Organisations themselves."
This is not taking place in isolation from international events: the international community and Israel have attempted to isolate the democratically elected government of the PA, trying instead to prop up their own candidate. The resultant breakdown of the whole PA infrastructure was quite predictable, and predicted - naturally a power struggle has erupted between the dominant factions (see the latest International Development Committee report). This does not alter the fact that a compromise of sorts was being fleshed out before Israel's latest escalation.
'Fears of an Israeli assault on Gaza have all but overshadowed the agreement between Hamas and Fatah over the so-called "prisoners' document", which brings to an end months of tensions that have seen gun battles between armed forces loyal to the two groups... the "prisoners' document" is hoped to address international concerns by toning down Hamas' insistence on armed force and its implacable opposition to the existence of Israel. Negotiator Salah Zeidan said preparations were being made for a formal signing ceremony. "All political groups are prepared for a mutual ceasefire with Israel," he said.' (Guardian, 27 June)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1807199,00....
Times Foreign Editor Bronwen Maddox remarked: 'From Hamas, which has steadily advocated the annihilation of Israel, this amounts to a dramatic about-turn.' (29 June, p. 36)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2248104,00.html
Predictably, the military escalation pushed Hamas away from moderation. Which is quite a useful card to play if you don't want to negotiate yourself ...
-
Mick
04 February 2007 at 22:25 Greetings Tim;
1) You appear to be basing your knowledge of the current situation in Gaza on a HRW Document issued on 29 October 2004, expressing Sarah Leah Whitson's OPINION of what might happen when Israel disengaged from The Gaza Strip. Israel actually left Gaza and handed it over to The Palestinian Authority in August 2005, some 10 months after this Document was issued. The author has been proven wrong by events. Israel has no military or civilian presence inside Gaza and The Palestinian Authority is responsible for the area and the welfare of the civilian population within.
2) Once again, Israel does NOT routinely bomb civilian areas and it is a gross distortion of fact to suggest that it does. Israel does retain the right to respond if its civilians in undisputed sovereign territory are attacked with rockets and missiles. The fact that the terrorists habitually and cowardly use the Palestinian civilian population as shields behind which to launch the attacks and store/manufacture the weapons is one of the great tragedies of this conflict. Feel free to frame this if you like.
3) The rights of the "Occupied French" against the Germans don't really concern me. My point is that Israel has exactly the same right to exist as any other Country (including the numerous Arab States surrounding it). If its civilians in sovereign undisputed territory are attacked, then Israel has the same rights as any other Country in that unfortunate position to defend itself and its citizens.
4) The horrendous wave of suicide bombings which began in Israel in 2002, have killed and injured hundreds of Israeli civilians. Targets have included buses, shops, bars,hotels,weddings, retaurants, schools and discos. Had it not been for this ongoing wave of terror, (suicide bomber killed 3 civilians in an Eilat bakery shop last week), the Security Wall would not be necessary and would never have been built.
5) Re: The breakdown in the palestinian infrastrucure - You quote a Guardian Article from 27 June 2006 and an opinion from Bronwen Maddox in The Times from 29 June 2006. Trouble is Tim, we're in February 2007 and events in the Middle East particularly, move on at a blistering pace. Hamas and indeed Hizbullah are now controlled, funded and armed by Iran as are Syria and Lebanon. The Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians have just as much interest as Israel in opposing this and are working with the Americans to bolster Fatah. Bottom line is that any Palestinian politician or leader who does any sort of a meaningful deal with Israel will not die in his bed (Does Anwar Sadat of Egypt ring any bells).
Cheerio.
-
Tim Holmes
18 February 2007 at 05:27 Mick,
1) You will notice that HRW juxtapose the facts of PA authority and overall Israeli control in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs up.
Mick: "The author has been proven wrong by events. Israel has no military or civilian presence inside Gaza ..."
HRW: “Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/10/29/isrlpa9577.htm
Thus your statement, which you have repeated several times now, is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand. Yet you still employ it as if it represents some sort of refutation.
2) Let's take a look at a couple of your statements.
i. "Israel does NOT bomb civilian areas."
ii. "The fact that the terrorists habitually and cowardly use the Palestinian civilian population as shields behind which to launch the attacks and store/manufacture the weapons is one of the great tragedies of this conflict."
Amnesty of course notes Israel's "shelling and air strikes in densely populated residential areas" in 2006. The "deliberate use of human shields" on the part of Palestinian militants allegation has never been substantiated by evidence (althought its practice by Israeli soldiers has been extensively documented). It was also refuted by HRW in the case of Hizbullah last year, which didn't stop the claim proliferating widely.
But the question remains: if Israel does NOT bomb civilian areas, as you claim, why is the supposed hiding of terrorists in such areas a "tragedy", as you also claim? You are getting your propaganda lines confused. It is a tragedy that terrorists hide among civilians, because Israel is then forced to bomb them - except it doesn't, which is, er, one of the great tragedies of this conflict. Spurious would be a kind description of that line of argument.
3) MICK: "The rights of the "Occupied French" against the Germans don't really concern me. My point is that Israel has exactly the same right to exist as any other Country (including the numerous Arab States surrounding it). If its civilians in sovereign undisputed territory are attacked, then Israel has the same rights as any other Country in that unfortunate position to defend itself and its citizens."
OK. Israels's occupation is preventing the existence of the Palestinian state, which has a right to exist confirmed in international law, just as Israel does. Presumably, then, in order to safeguard this right, the Palestinians may legitimately bombard indiscriminately civilian targets and employ massive and disproportionate force against civilians inside Israel.
The same point applies to security considerations, only moreso, given that the security problems imposed by Israel on the Palestinians are far more grave than vice versa. On both counts you are effectively legitimating massive, disproportionate Palestinian violence within Israel.
4) "The horrendous wave of suicide bombings which began in Israel in 2002, have killed and injured hundreds of Israeli civilians. Targets have included buses, shops, bars,hotels,weddings, retaurants, schools and discos. Had it not been for this ongoing wave of terror, (suicide bomber killed 3 civilians in an Eilat bakery shop last week), the Security Wall would not be necessary and would never have been built."
They began in 2002, did they?
If you want to understand the roots of the Intifada, incidentally, the Mitchell report is well worth reading. It notes that the general picture was of massive repression on the part of the Israelis, applied mainly against unarmed Palestinians, well before a single suicide bombing took place.
On the wall, I repeat my earlier question: if its purpose is defensive, why is it not built on the Green Line?
5) "Re: The breakdown in the palestinian infrastrucure - You quote a Guardian Article from 27 June 2006 and an opinion from Bronwen Maddox in The Times from 29 June 2006. Trouble is Tim, we're in February 2007 ..."
I also mentioned the British Parliamentary International Development report, which naturally you ignored, and with good reason.
-
Mick
21 February 2007 at 16:11 Hello Tim;
1) You're still quoting HRW's Report dated 29/10/2004 as your evidence that Israel maintains a presence in Gaza. Israel in fact withdrew from Gaza in August 2005. Israel has no civilian, government or military presence there. Sorry that what has actually happened on the ground and what is ocurring there now doesn't tie in with HRW's 2004 Report! If you're going to take the principles of HRW Report as gospel, surely you should be criticising Egypt, who illegally annexed Gaza Strip in 1948, "occupied" it until 1967, denied its "citizens" aid and all human rights and of course now controls its border with Gaza, refusing to allow Gazans to pass freely into Egypt.
2) Israel does not routinely bomb civilian areas and it is a gross distortion of the facts to say that it does. The Palestinian terrorists continue to launch kassam rockets at Sederot and the Western Negev from the midst of the Gaza civilian population on an almost daily basis. The Hizbullah attack on northern Israeli civilian communities in summer 2006 (more rockets in 4 weeks than hit London during the entire Blitz) were all deliberately launched from civilian areas. This is a tragedy for the Palestinian/Lebanese civilian population, because they are forcibly coerced into supporting terrorists and suffering any consequences when Israel is forced to defend itself, as it is fully entitled to do.
3) NOTHING entitles terrorists to "legitimately bombard indiscriminately, civilian targets and employ massive and disproportionate against civilians in Israel," or for that matter ANYWHERE ELSE (read London, New York, Washington, Madrid, Bali, Goa, etc etc). Frankly, your comment absolutely disgusts me and I hope for your sake that the remains of anyone you know or know of, never have to be scraped off a pavement or the inside of a train carriage and positively identified.
Fact is; the Palestinians could have had a state on numerous occasions over the years, had their leadership been capable of grasping the opportunities on offer. Israel has done far more to facilitate an independent Palestinian State than either Egypt or Jordan when they respectively illegally annexed and "occupied" Gaza Strip and West Bank between 1948 and 1967. Strangely enough, there was actually no call for an independent Palestinian State during these times!
I'll stick to the facts. You keep the propaganda coming.
Have a nice day!
-
Tim Holmes
22 February 2007 at 16:26 Mick,
As anyone with half a brain cell who bothers to read this exchange will now be fully aware, you have all the nuance, rationality and regard for fact of a broken record. You have clearly not read my replies, nor the evidence presented in them. Trying to debate with you is a waste of time.
-
Mick
23 February 2007 at 14:24 Hi Tim,
I've certainly read all your replies and have enjoyed them all immensely, even though your "evidence" is extremely historic and somewhat repetitive ("broken record" as you say).
Debate is never a waste of time.
As a matter of interest, have you ever been to Israel, Lebanon, West Bank, etc, or are your "facts" merely assumed from what you have read?
Have a very nice weekend,
-
06 March 2007 at 11:24 '...The Gaza situation is a terrible injustice..." - poetryforpalestine.spaces.live.com - "...There is no Israeli occupation..."???
-
whatshappenedtotheleft
08 October 2007 at 19:07 I find John Pilgers attitude towards Israel no different from the Nazi attitude towards the Jews. Gaza could be a normal society if Iran and Syria got off thier case and allowed Palestinians to live as Palestinians and not a proxy of mad mullahs or bigoted rightwing islamic fundamentalists. To compare Gaza with the Holocaust shows the naked barbarism and racism, international socialism has descended into. The collapse of the Soviet Union really has damaged some antiwar activists mindset. I suggest therapy. I hope your therapist is a zionist.
Lol.
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
