November 17, 2012
Top Ten Myths about Israeli Attack on Gaza
Juan Cole in Informed Comment:
1. Israeli hawks represent themselves as engaged in a ‘peace process’ with the Palestinians in which Hamas refuses to join. In fact, Israel has refused to cease colonizing and stealing Palestinian land long enough to engage in fruitful negotiations with them. Tel Aviv routinely announces new, unilateral house-building on the Palestinian West Bank. There is no peace process. It is an Israeli and American sham. Talking about a peace process is giving cover to Israeli nationalists who are determined to grab everything the Palestinians have and reduce them to penniless refugees (again).
2. Actions such as the assault on Gaza can achieve no genuine long-term strategic purpose. They are being launched to ensure that Jewish-Israelis are the first to exploit key resources. Rattling sabers at the Palestinians creates a pretext for further land-grabs and colonies on Palestinian land. That is, the military action against the people of Gaza is a diversion tactic; the real goal is Great Israeli, an assertion of Israeli sovereignty over all the territory once held by the British Mandate of Palestine.
3. Israeli hawks represent their war of aggression as in ‘self-defense.’ But Israel’s chief rabbi admitted on camera that that the Gaza attack actually ‘had something to do with Iran.’
More here.
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 12:16 PM | Permalink
Comments
Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of Britain not Israel, and his comment isn't completely clear in its intent.
The reality is bad enough, there is no need for Cole to exaggerate things.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Nov 17, 2012 3:01:47 PM
When will Israel end its occupation of Palestine?
When will Russia end its occupation of Georgia?
When will Morocco end its occupation of Western Sahara?
When will the United States end its occupation of Northern Mexico?
When will Canada end its occupation of Quebec?
When will Denmark end its occupation of Greenland?
When will Europe end its occupation of the Americas?
When will Muslims end their occupation of Southern Europe?
When will the Turks end their occupation of Asia Minor?
When will the Palestinians end their occupation of Israel? Wait, our outrage went back in time so far we ended up on the wrong side. Let's pick a more convenient time to stop caring about occupations. Suggestions?
Posted by: X | Nov 17, 2012 5:13:04 PM
In this litany of false equivalencies, X may pick any time he wishes. I persist in condemning the Israeli occupation of these fifty years as legitimized purely by monopoly of force.
Posted by: Erich | Nov 17, 2012 5:21:58 PM
The Holocaust will forever remind us of man's inhumanity to man.
Now, almost 80 years later, the descendants of Jews that perished in the concentration camps are taking punitive measures against Palestinians that come close to actions by Hitler's Third Reich.
And nations of the world mostly remain silent, some actively supporting military operations with materiel.
Posted by: waqnis | Nov 17, 2012 5:45:23 PM
Good questions from X. At least he is recognizing that Israel is occupying lands. The answer is pretty straightforward. Any occupation of other country's lands after the establishment of United Nations and implementation of it's resolutions. If he wants the other occupations to end, he should fiirst get a UN resolution passed.
Posted by: Raza Husain | Nov 17, 2012 5:50:35 PM
"the descendants of Jews that perished in the concentration camps are taking punitive measures against Palestinians that come close to actions by Hitler's Third Reich."
Is this statement a considered appraisal of the situation (ie more people perished in Syria in the last 8 weeks than Gaza in the last 20 years) or the result of the indoctrination of the ummah with the Palestinian narrative (ie as the planets greatest sufferers) from birth?
Posted by: Troy | Nov 17, 2012 7:33:52 PM
@Troy
“Ummah”! I am not part of such allegiance.
It was not the number of casualties but attacks by a vastly superior military power and scale of destruction that lead to my comments. The casualties will mount, especially if ground war breaks out. Perhaps that would make the world community speak out forcefully.
Even within Israel there are many voices that do not support current military actions by the Netanyahu government. Recent items in Haaretz.com (Israel’s oldest daily newspaper) leave no questions about that.
Here is an item:
*****
Fear and loathing in Gaza as offensive continues
Rain of fire and destruction conjures up memories of Operation Cast Lead and fear for the future.
Amira Hass Nov 17, 2012
"The damage to infrastructure, such as the roads, creates obstacles and delays in reaching the wounded. Sometimes roads are blocked by a bomb crater, or rubble from destroyed houses and ambulances can't get through," Murad says. "The paramedics have to go on foot and carry the injured risking their own lives, and naturally get to the injured later at a time when every minute can be the difference between life and death."
"One of the biggest dangers is when a place is bombed for a second time, when medical teams are already on their way," he continues. "There have been cases where the same place was bombed twice, with a few minutes to half an hour or an hour in between, which endangers rescue teams."
*****
http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/fear-and-loathing-in-gaza-as-offensive-continues.premium-1.478619
Posted by: waqnis | Nov 17, 2012 8:35:54 PM
re 1. According to this view, Israel risks bloody warfare, international condemnation and economic boycott/embargo, and the destruction of their public image and standing among nations just so that they can steal some thousand square kilometers of barren desert from penniless Palestinians. This must appear to any rational person as prima facie a rather unconvincing interpretation of the frustrated peace process. It really does not seem to be a plausible account from any perspective, other than, of course, the familiar one that sees jews as the essence of evil in the world, as the authors of the protocols of the elders of zion, as eager to murder palestinian children in order to make jew pastries with their blood. I suppose from this perspective it does make perfect sense that chief among Israel's national goals is the keeping of Palestinians impoverished for its own cruel sake and in perpetual refugee status.
re 2. Diversion tactic? Greater Israel? What is the evidence that Israel (israelis? the gov't? which gov't? does the author realize, or maybe just ignores, the fact that Israel's is a democratic gov't of multiple and ever shifting parties w/ diverse, non-unitary ideologies and policies?) secretly harbours goals of waging wars against Jordan to win the whole of their barren, oil-less land? What purpose would this serve?
re 3. I simply don't understand this point. Moving on...
re 4. This point seems a little frantic, desperate, a few too many non sequiturs to tease apart precisely what "myth" author desires to dispel. Author says, "Israel does not accept Palestine’s right to exist..." Palestine is the name of a geographic region. How is it that someone denies its right to exist?
re 5. Again, what exactly is the myth that author is trying to dispel here? It seems like he wants to claim that Gaza is not a hostile entity, but then he goes on about how small and poor it is and so on, which all seems quite beside the point unless you still live in the 20th c. when the only conceivable threat could come from a economically robust nation with a large, well-equipped standing army. The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are poorer than Gazans yet they seem to be doing quite well against ..umm.. one of the strongest military forces in the history of the world. Next..
re 6. I doubt any fair minded observer of the situation in Gaza is bewildered by their rage, so this seems like a red herring. No one disputes that the Palestinians are poor and subject to demoralizing Israeli security protocols. The issue is whether these protocols are rationally related to any legitimate state interests of Israel's. Israel supporters say yes, and the Author would say no. That is one aspect of the larger debate. Let us not get off track and confuse an already fraught issue with pointless red herring arguments.
re 7. Gazans are not "followers" of Hamas any more than Americans are followers of Democrats or Obama after US elections. The fact that minors do not vote, as in most other democracies, has nothing to do with the fact that what political entities a demos elects into power does and must say something about the political dispositions of that demos, whether one wants to play semantic games with the word "followers" or not.
re 8. refer to point 5. Indiscriminate bombing campaigns?
re 9. I read and reread this short point searching for a coherent argument until I finally realized it was another non-sequiter in the garb of argument. And...
re 10. Well, I guess our "informed comment" author just plain ran out of steam here -- didn't even try to dress this point up as a "myth", so there is really no substance to respond to here.
My primary aim is not to win points or win an argument. I sincerely do not understand many aspects of the position that people such as the author of this list have re the conflict in Palestine. By "do not understand" I mean to say that it is not merely a matter of I have my facts and you have yours, but more that I truly do not even comprehend the subjective logic of some of the positions people take against israel. Please help me understand the logic of your positions.
Posted by: Max | Nov 17, 2012 11:42:13 PM
As to be expected, 3QD - a usually excellent site which I read several times a week - demonstrates one its blind spots, linking to ludicrously mendacious piece. Can I add another couple of myths:
11. Israel being at fault for Gazan civilian deaths. In fact, Hamas deliberately stations military command units and stockpiles weapons in and near schools, hospital and other sites whose destruction will generate propaganda points. Even if you are generally pro-Palestinian - do you genuninely think Israel should just let Hamas - bloodthirsty extremists by anyone's judgement - attempt to kill as many Israelis as possible?
12. Greater number of Gazan deaths meaning that Israel is the culpable party, deserving trial and execution by media and public opinion. However, what about the fact that Hamas is trying to maxmise Israeli civilian casualties, while Israel is trying to minimise them? Isn't the figure discrepancy simply a result of Israel's greater firepower and Hamas military units choosing to operate in dense population centres? Would an equal number of deaths equal moral equivakency - and why?
13. Israel being the agressive party. Hamas, and its recently executed military leader, openly and repeatedly call for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Isaraeli Jews. Hamas' recent actions bear out their words - trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible.
And please - comparisons between the Holocaust and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is absurd. Just because the juxtaposition has a facile ring to it - just as moronic media commentators delight in referring to prominent atheists as 'priests of irreligion' and atheism as a faith, despite the accusation being nothing more than shallow word-play - doesn't mean its valid. The two situations have nothing to do with each other and have pretty much zero equivalence. An authoritarian mind cannot tolerate ambiguities, to mangle Adorno - I'm looking at you, "Waqnis". Why can't you just admit that both are bad, to varying degrees, which some superficial similarities shared by other conflicts, rather than resorting to facile comparisions relying more on easy conjunction than content.
Posted by: Ohilibamah | Nov 18, 2012 6:16:49 AM
Right Juan Cole, everyone here knows that Israel, not Hamas, is the aggressor. Hamas wants peace. It is democratic and humanistic. It just wants Palestine within Gaza, and The West Bank for its people. It is willing to accept Jews living in the land, I meant next door in Israel-Miami Beach-Poland (Oops, not as nice a beach there) as equals, that is. And those rockets fired into Israel, hardly a big deal, "largely ineffectual" as you say, though some have “hurt” some people, but usually not too bad; so why are the Israelis whining, and being so nasty? Just Jewish complaining or exaggerating I guess-kind of like all those bad things people said about Ahmadinejad-Khamenei, but you corrected, or tried to get them to straighten out their devious ways, and hopefully will some day; (it’s not “wipe off the face” its “erase from the page”). I think some Israelis should make up for their bad attitude, and extend some hospitality to you and your family (they can’t do it for the Palestinians right now, so they’ll just have to do it for you), say in Sderot, or Ashkelon, for a nice outdoor camping trip just outside of town, or better yet in one of its parks. I hear they cook pretty well over there, especially in Sderot, with its largely Jewish community, expelled, I mean self-transplanted from the Arab world; it’s almost like Palestinian food. If more rockets from Gaza land nearby, well the few living cripples, still living there, can reassure you and your family that those “largely ineffectual” flying things guaranteed them medical coverage for life, so no need to worry in different ways you will, or can be covered.
Posted by: T.L. | Nov 26, 2012 7:08:07 PM
Post a comment