open Democracy News Analysis - Déja vu in Gaza, Vera Gowlland-Debbas - Comments

Agilis Lux on "Déja vu in Gaza"

Agilis Lux — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:19:57 +0000

Mary,
to compare the Warshaw Ghetto with the Ghetto in Gaza, is a little too!! Being of German origin myself, I think that by using such organised bureaucratic genocide as an example you also could have choose Stalin, Pol Pot or all the other terrorists that have surfaced in recent year in the twilight of candlelight politics. Just ask Eli Wiesel. He will give you a better answer on this.
Lets put it simple: since we got used to the universe of concentration camps on this planet (Gitmo is just a new name for Auschwitz because there are Hundreds more!) Gaza will (and has to be) out of the main stream news once there is the new president in this USA.
We should worry much more about the indispensable contributions for our cultures from Hebrew people that lived everywhere all around the world. Their liberal principals are brought to the grave. Mr Olmert & Co may don't care, - like all the other ones who don't know that superciliously comes before the fall. Experts in conflict-resolution usually describe post mortem negotiation (Oslo) as success. Since the world goes Obama there will be a peace in Gaza, a cemetery peace - soon to be read in the new if someone cares anyway....

JFox on "Déja vu in Gaza"

JFox — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:47:55 +0000

ethan II

You appear not to have understood my contribution and your attempt at a rebuttal merely underscores most of the points I tried briefly to make. May I suggest you re-read it, calmly. You might then grasp that - without in any way exonerating the terrorist activities of Hamas - it is directed at the other party in the conflict - Israel. A much larger contribution in the same vein can be found on Open Democracy here. It is by Avi Shlaim - a former soldier in the IDF and currently a don at St Anthony's College, Oxford.

BigC on "Déja vu in Gaza"

BigC — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:40:50 +0000

Big C replies: No. A Zionist ideology compared to Nazi ideology. Oh, it's ZIONISTS as Nazis, put into debate via a snide phrase in German. Case closed.

Well I suppose it is closed if that's your only reply.

Big C, I did reply to your "they want to kill or expell all Arabs",

What I actually said was "Though the intention of most (though not all) Zionists is not to kill or drive out the Palestinians but to contain them in bantustans where they can be exploited and kept in check as required."

Which part of the word "not" is giving you trouble?

He was a career army officer (Oh--and how is that possible in "Apartheid" Israel, Big C.?)

Why would it not be possible? There were black career officers in the South African army.

As for Camp David and Taba, you are now more rejectionist than Arafat, Big C. At least we know where you stand. You prefer war to peace, and then complain about the results.

You don't know where I stand except where I have said where I stand. You have no right to assume anymore than that. It is an arrogant (and grossly inaccurate) presumption. It is not my place to be rejectionist or otherwise. I am not a Palestinian. It is they who decide what to reject or accept: Not the PLO, not Hamas, not me, not you.

In any case, Hamas had already fired 500 rockets into Israel between June and November, 2008, so if you are looking for someone breaking the "truce", Big C, there it is. Oh, Oh--facts, facts, facts!

perhaps you'd like to reveal a source for 500 rockets? I trawled around and could only find this: reddit worldnews . Not really a formal academic source but perhaps you have something more accurate?

In medieval times military conquest was considered a legitimate way of acquiring territory. In modern times it is not. The Nazis attempted to reverse that convention but most people support it to the extent that it is one of the most basic principles of international law. If you contend that it is permissable then you should not be surprised when others make comparisons between your views and those of the Nazis.

That the Israelis gave back Gaza was a step for peace which was opposed by many people in Israel.

For the third time, the israelis haven't "given back" Gaza. They still retain control over it's borders, airspace and coast. Not that it was ever theirs to give in the first place.

MY evidence is the economic boomlet on the West Bank since 2006.

How exactly is that evidence of Israeli intentions? As far as I can see, what little development there has been has been in spite of Israeli activity. Not because of it.

If Big C thinks Morris' work 10 years ago was valuable and scholarly, why would Big C not think his work ten years on was valuable and scholarly--except that Big C no longer likes where Morris ended up after additional research?

I have never said that I liked Morris's conclusions ten years ago. Then as now he argued the case for Zionism an ideology which, by definition, is racist and which I find repugnant. I was referring to the atrocitiies which he documented not the conclusions he came to. I don't doubt his scholarly credentials now or then though I do believe he regretted bringing much of the information he brought into the public domain because it has been validly used to argue against the position he holds.

And I have not slandered him. To do that I would have had to say a deliberate untruth about him. Holding a derogatory opinion of someone is not a slander. Claiming that someone said something they didn't or holds views they don't is a slander - though of course a written slander is in fact a libel.

Flattered as I am that you have devoted so much time to countering my views, I feel that we are hijacking a thread which is actually about the comparison between the Warsaw Ghetto Rising and Gaza. If you wish to continue the discussion on a general basis then perhaps it should be taken to the forums where you will also find more people to engage in the debate.

EthanII on "Déja vu in Gaza"

EthanII — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:16:24 +0000

As someone who knows Benny Morris personally I need also to say that I find despicable and slanderous Big C's proposal that Morris changed his historical understanding about any pre-1948 plan to expell Palestinians (no, there was none) because of political pressure and a desire to fit in.

Does Big C know Morris? No--not anymore than he knew the Druze officer who was killed and whom he also savagely slandered. If Big C thinks Morris' work 10 years ago was valuable and scholarly, why would Big C not think his work ten years on was valuable and scholarly--except that Big C no longer likes where Morris ended up after additional research? And because Big C no longer likes where Morris ended up after additional research, he slanders him and calls him intellectualy corrupt.

EthanII on "Déja vu in Gaza"

EthanII — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:28:48 +0000

Jerusalem Post, Jan. 12:

A Fatah official in Ramallah on Sunday launched a scathing attack on Hamas and described its leaders as "criminals."

Speaking to The Jerusalem Post on condition of anonymity, the Fatah official denounced Hamas as a "black and bloody militia" that was responsible for the "catastrophe" in the Gaza Strip.

Hamas--not Israel. Oh, well, Big C: this is just another one of those "Jews working for the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto", isn't it? No doubt this PA official is biased, but should we discount his opinion entirely? It's certainly ONE way to deal with information that might make you question your position, Big C--and no doubt you will use it.

EthanII on "Déja vu in Gaza"

EthanII — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:42:03 +0000

I wrote: "a nasty Jews-as-Nazis comparison that the left has come to love."

Big C replies: No. A Zionist ideology compared to Nazi ideology. Oh, it's ZIONISTS as Nazis, put into debate via a snide phrase in German. Case closed.

Big C, I did reply to your "they want to kill or expell all Arabs", by pointing out the significant percentage of Israeis who are Arabs. You evidently missed that. I also pointed out the heroic Druze soldier--and your reply to this was to turn this soldier into a Jew working fo the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto. There we have the Zionists-as-Nazis trope again, plus the slander of the dead. Pretty foul on your part. Did you know Lutfi Nasereldeen? He was a career army officer (Oh--and how is that possible in "Apartheid" Israel, Big C.?)

As for Camp David and Taba, you are now more rejectionist than Arafat, Big C. At least we know where you stand. You prefer war to peace, and then complain about the results.

The "ceasefire" of June-December was broken when Hamas tried to send a squad to kidnap another Israeli soldier. This was a counter-terror tunnel operation in early November. I guess that's your "death squad". In any case, Hamas had already fired 500 rockets into Israel between June and November, 2008, so if you are looking for someone breaking the "truce", Big C, there it is. Oh, Oh--facts, facts, facts!

My point about the Arab conquests is that this is the way of the world in that part of the world. Only Israelis are expected to give back their conquests; the Arabs and Muslims certainly don't intend to give back theirs; on the contrary, they have "naturalized" them. That the Israelis gave back Gaza was a step for peace which was opposed by many people in Israel. The result: Gaza was turned into a launching platform for thousands of missiles of increasing size, range and lethality, putting a million Israelis at risk. That is not Israel's fault. That is Hamas' fault.

If you think the Israelis don't want a peaceful and prosperous Gaza, as opposed to a violent Talibanized Gaza--what's your evidence? MY evidence is the economic boomlet on the West Bank since 2006.

Your reply about schools? When I said that terrorism was a cultural choice of Palestinians, and that you don't find the descendants of expelled penniless Jews blowing up schools in Tunis, you replied they were blowing up schools in Gaza. Take a look at the IDF videos of the terrorists using those schools to shoot rockets from, Big C. But if you think Israelis enjoy blowing up schools per se, there's nothing I can do for you. The IDF just showed today a video with a school rigged by HAMAS to explode (perhaps to create another telegenic incident). That's the purpose of human shields, which you perhaps remember you DENIED as merely Israeli propaganda (that was Tuesday at 20:32--nice move!)--a position you have perhaps modified when I showed Hamas officials boasting of it!

BigC on "Déja vu in Gaza"

BigC — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:50:00 +0000

Addendum: the only mosques being hit by "Jews" are those which are being used to shoot missles and store weapons.

The word was "schools" not mosques. And is the placing of inverted commas around "Jews" another clumsy attempt to infer anti-semitism?

Your inference that I support acts of terrorism against Israelis (or any other Jews, Gentiles, Arabs or Hottentots for that matter) is an even more disgusting slur - at which I am not in the least bit surprised. Resorting to wild and unsupported accusations shows how weak your arguments are and how little you know of the people who disagree with you.

BigC on "Déja vu in Gaza"

BigC — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:39:04 +0000

No. I don't misunderstand Benny Morris's position. I disagree with it. And I'm not surprised he's back-tracked. His previous book made him a pariah amongst Zionists.

a nasty Jews-as-Nazis comparison that the left has come to love.

No. A Zionist ideology compared to Nazi ideology. A clumsy attempt to make the standard anti-semitism accusation. I note you sidetepped the argument too.

You keep repeated this nonsense about Israel withdrawing from Gaza as if it was some sort of concession. it was not. It was done because it was becoming increasingly difficult to protect the illegal settlements. And after "withdrawing" Israel retained control of Gaza's borders, airspace and coast. It was purely tactical.

And in any case, tell your theory to the Muslims, who conquered the entire Middle East in a century, including Jerusalem (not without blood) and now believe it is *natural* for them to have it. In fact, Allah gave it to them to rule because they worship Him correctly and it is intolerable for there to be anyone else there who is independent.

So you are justifying your position by referring to medieval Arabian history? An alternative reason for Palestinians considering they have a right to Palestine is the fact that they lived there first.

And what percentage of the PA and Gaza is Christian--compared to 20 years ago? And when you've looked up those facts, what conclusion should you draw about intentions?

I know Hamas intentions as well as you do and I know full well that Hamas zealots have targetted Christians. But I do not support Hamas so I don't know what your point is. And I don't see what he religion of Israeli soldiers has to do with this. There were Jews who worked for the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto and they may well have been among the first to fall in the rising. So what? Arabs citizens in Israel are effectively second class citizens suffering all kinds of discrimination.

Proof? Look at the offer made by israel at Camp David and Taba, which Clinton blamed Arafat (and Arafat blamed himself) for rejecting! Would Arafat have blamed himself if what was being offered was"bantustans"? (This is simply another nasty propaganda crack from Big C, equating Israel with South Africa.)

Arafat was a corrupt and ineffectual leader. It was his organisation's willingness to make impossible concessions to Israel which delivered the Palestinians into the hands of Hamas. The derisory offer to which you refer didn't even meet the bare minimum of 1967 borders. The Palestinians would have been left with a tiny percentage of Palestine, even less of the water - and under supervision!

The comparison with South Africa is apposite. There are two grades of citizenship: Jewish and non-Jewish. That is apartheid. And every thing in the world is "real". South African apartheid was the "real world" once.

My conclusion from Big C's rhetoric is that he doesn't think Israel has any right to exist at all, and this enables him to label himself a humanitarian and feel good about himself though he knows little about the facts.

You haven't the slightest idea what I think nor what labels (if any) could be attached to me. Concluding that someone takes an alternative view because they are less well informed than yourself is pure arrogance.

There can be no doubt that if Hamas stopped shooting rockets, then Israel would be only too happy to see Gaza prosper, because that would be a way of getting Palestinians to abandon Hamas with its genocidal and global-messianic message. Do you doubt it, Big C?

Yes. You may recall that there was a ceasefire which Israel broke by sending a death squad into Gaza on 6 November to murder some Hamas officials (When other matters were distracting US newspapers)

The political goal of the current fighting, in my view, is in fact to weaken Hamas greatly and to simultaneously strengthen the PA so that Israel has someone to talk to. it may not work, but that is the simple and goal--as opposed to Big C's paranoid and baroque interpretation.

Then perhaps you should take a look at The independent on Saturday. The popularity of Hamas is up and the credibility of the PLO and Abbas is at rock bottom. You would have to be incredibly stupid to expect any other outcome. But then that confirms my conclusions about you.

Ethan II on "Déja vu in Gaza"

Ethan II — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:30:43 +0000

Addendum: the only mosques being hit by "Jews" are those which are being used to shoot missles and store weapons. That's why there are secondary explosions coming from those mosques. The info on these mosques is being supplied to Israel, correctly, by someone.

Now, Big C--this is DIFFERENT from intentionally blowing up a bus filled with schoolchildren in, say, Tunis by "enraged" descendants of Jewish refugees from the 1950s . And it is DIFFERENT from the al-Qaeda plan to blow up the Milan Cathedral (2002). And it is different from al-Q actually blowing up the Golden Mosque in iraq in 2005 (which was a purely religious site). Can you, uh, see the difference or not?

Ethan II on "Déja vu in Gaza"

Ethan II — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:26:34 +0000

Big C, you simply don't understand Benny Morris' position on any pre-1948 plan to throw out the Palestinians. His current position, in his new book, is that lots of Palestinians fled the war, and some were expelled, the latter was an atrocity, but it was also an exigency of the war started by the Palestinians and Arabs, not a pre-existing plan. Please read: "1948".

Gaza is certainly not an example of "Ein Volk, ein Land"--a nasty Jews-as-Nazis comparison that the left has come to love. Israel withdrew from Gaza, and had to force its own people to leave. The response was the turning of Gaza into a launching pad for rockets of increasing range, accuracy and lethality--6,000 of them. One million Israelis are no in range. No country would stand for this.

To the victor belongs the spoils is a bad idea? Fine--I agree. But that is also the real world. And in any case, tell your theory to the Muslims, who conquered the entire Middle East in a century, including Jerusalem (not without blood) and now believe it is *natural* for them to have it. In fact, Allah gave it to them to rule because they worship Him correctly and it is intolerable for there to be anyone else there who is independent.

As for the intention of the Zionists to drive out or kill all Arabs-- Really? Then tell me, Big C: what percentage of israel is Arab?. And what percentage of the PA and Gaza is Christian--compared to 20 years ago? And when you've looked up those facts, what conclusion should you draw about intentions? You project onto the Israelis what the Palestinian Muslims are doing. It's perverse. The first Israeli casualties in the Gaza fighting was a Druze Muslim-Arab Israeli soldier.

I don't believe Israel has any territorial ambitions against its neighbors: they may well have had that once, but I think that--in the real world (something you object to, Big C)--they've learned their lesson. Proof? Look at the offer made by israel at Camp David and Taba, which Clinton blamed Arafat (and Arafat blamed himself) for rejecting! Would Arafat have blamed himself if what was being offered was"bantustans"? (This is simply another nasty propaganda crack from Big C, equating Israel with South Africa.) My conclusion from Big C's rhetoric is that he doesn't think Israel has any right to exist at all, and this enables him to label himself a humanitarian and feel good about himself though he knows little about the facts.

The children of Gaza live in a war zone, courtesy of Hamas. So do the kids in Sderot and southern Israel, for the past eight years, also courtesy of Hamas. No one drove the Palestinians into the hands of Hamas--except Hamas-PA infighting. Was Israel responsible for that infighting, Big C, or might it just be that the Palestinians ought to take some responsibililty for something? And Gaza wasn't "under siege" in 2005 or into 2006. And Egypt, not Israel alone, is involved in non-recognition of Hamas' coup of June 2007.

BigC on "Déja vu in Gaza"

BigC — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:38:26 +0000

Yet you don't see Jews blowing up schools in Tunis.

No. Some of their number seem to be happy blowing them up in Gaza though. Preferably after telling people to shelter in them first.

There are consequences to losing, as the Arabs learned and--I think one may believe--the israelis well understood both in 1948 and later. One consequence of defet was that Arab lands were seized NOW (only now) by the victorious Israelis.

To the victors the spoils eh? Might is right. Sounds like fascism to me. It's utterly disingenuous to say that there was no plan to evict the Arabs. That was the intention from Herzl onwards and I'm sure Ethan is well aware of that.

That really brings us back to the author's comparison between the Warsaw Ghetto and Gaza. It is a tenuous comparison but the intention of the Zionists is pretty much the same as the Nazis: Ein Volk, Ein Land. Though the intention of most (though not all) Zionists is not to kill or drive out the Palestinians but to contain them in bantustans where they can be exploited and kept in check as required.

As for Hamas. Yes they're a very nasty piece of work. But they wouldn't even exist if Israel had honoured UN resolutions in the first place. And they would pretty quickly have the rug pulled from under them if the Israelis went in good faith to negotiations in which both both sides would have to give up something. The unspoken sub-text to what is currently happening is the intention to drive the Palestinians into the arms of an organisation which will not negotiate thus relieving Israel of the responsibility for it's own intransigence.

And Israel is not exchanging land for peace with anyone. The land it has been willing to "exchange" doesn't belong to it in the first place! As long as Israelis think that 1967 borders is the maximum that they have to give up rather than the minimum then they are not really willing to give up anything and cannot claim that they are willing to negotiate in good faith.

Ethan II on "Déja vu in Gaza"

Ethan II — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 14:34:20 +0000

Quite a distortion from Bandara.

Up until 1948, EVERY piece of land that came into Jewish hands was land that was SOLD by its Arab owners to Jews, and at inflated prices. Some of the sellers included the leading families in Palestinian Arab society. No land was "siezed", and no Arabs were "driven from their lands".

The war of 1948 changed that. But the war of 1948 was initiated by Palestinians and Arabs, after Israel was established by a UN vote. The war wasn't started by the Israelis. The Arab goal was genocidal, but the Palestinians and Arabs lost that war. There are consequences to losing, as the Arabs learned and--I think one may believe--the israelis well understood both in 1948 and later. One consequence of defet was that Arab lands were seized NOW (only now) by the victorious Israelis.

As for Deir Yassin, I suggest that Bandara read Benny Morris' article on this: "The Historiography of Deir Yassin", Journal of Israeli History 2005; then we could talk. The figures cited by Bandara are out of date and exaggerated (about triple the actual death-toll); Morris used both Israeli and Palestinian sources to show this. There were bad atrocities committed (by the Stern Gang and Irgun, not by the Haganah), but there were no rapes. (On the contrary--believe it not, some scholars argue that the ABSENCE of rapes of Palestinians by the Israeli armed forces is a sign of...wait for it...racism.)

Bandara might also want to look up the Mt. Scopus Massacre, which occurred a couple of days later: 70 Jewish doctors and patients burned to death by Palestinians as the British stood by. My point: it was an ugly war.

The defeated Palestinians turned to terrorism against civilians from the first, from the 1950s. This was not some decision made after decades of patience. You can read about the terrifying anti-semitism already being promulgated in Gaza in the 1950s when one reads Nonie Darwish, whose father, an Egyptian colonel, organized the first terrorism campaigns in the 1950s. Terrorism against civilians remained the preferred Palestinian response for the next 50 years. It hasn't worked. They keep doing it. This is a matter of leadership (see below).

BTW, up until 1967 Gaza was officially part of Egypt and the West Bank was officially part of Jordan; you can see it on all pre-1967 maps; both areas had been "conquered" in 1948 (by Egypt and Jordan respectively); no one protested. Why not?

The 1967 war was a direct result of threats to Israel's existence. The Israelis made a dreadful mistake afterward, out of hubris, in attempting settlements on the West Bank, and as far as I am concerned, those settlements should be removed.

But every time the Israelis have actually withdrawn from an area as a gesture towards peace--Gaza is the most recent case--the area has been turned into a launching platform for attacks on Israeli civilians. There are consequences to this, too.

The Israelis believed in trading land for peace; this was Israeli policy both by the government and by the populace for a long time; they traded away the land and got no peace. The consequences are the result of the Palestinians' actions.

The Palestinians have suffered a trauma; but it was a trauma that happened to many groups during the chaotic ten years after WWII as the British Empire (among others) collapsed For instance, 850,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim lands in the period 1948-1960, which is 100,000 more victims than Palestinians in 1948. Every single one of them arrived in the U.S., Britain or Israel penniless. Some Muslim is enjoying their property as we speak, but this is not an issue at the UN. Yet you don't see Jews blowing up schools in Tunis. 300,000 Greeks were expelled from Egypt in the mid-1950s in a classic case of ethnic and religious cleansing of peaceful citizens by the Nassir government) the refugees arrived in Greece penniless, some Muslim is enjoying their property as we speak, but this is not an issue at the UN, but you don't see Greeks blowing up busses in Alexandria.

The Palestinian resort to violence is therefore a cultural choice. Again, they have to live with the consequences.

The Palestinians are where they are because they backed Germany and the Ottomans in WWI, the Nazis in WWII, the USSR in the Cold War, Saddam Hussein in 1990-1991 (which led to the expulsion of 300,000 Palestinians from Kuwait, but no one talks about that), and Saddam Hussein in 2003, and global-jihad kill-all-Jews Hamas now. It is a very sorry record of leadership. Leadership is of course a central issue: Namely, when the Palestinians themselves have taken their own destiny upon their own shoulders without 'help' from their obdurate and short-sighted leadership, there will be a chance for peace.

But the preference for resort to intentional violence against civilians (with its genocidal message) rather than negotiation is a major problem. In my view, the phenomenon comes (1) the exploitation of the Palestinian issue by corrupt Arab governments, keeping the pot boiling and encouraging Palestinian terrorism and (2) something much deeper, a cultural issue: To feel shame, to be beaten, and especially by Jews, who used to be helpless dhimmis, cuts very deep. Somehow that shame must be wiped out, and the only answer has been--has ALWAYS been--violence against Jewish civilians.

But most of the issue between Israel and the Palestinians is a nationalist clash. Clashes of nationalism can be resolved by negotiation, though it is difficult.

But this is different from Hamas, for whole Israel is a *theological* threat. The existence of israel is a stain on Allah, on the honor of Allah, who promised rule over the Middle East (actually, over the entire world) to Muslims because they worship Him directly. In Hamas' view, every minute that Israel exists is an insult to Allah. There can be no negotiation or argument with the celestial. Read the Hamas Charter.

Mr. B won't agree with a lot of what I say. But his version of Israeli history is grossly distorted and he better understand that there are competent people who see things quite differently. This, in a normal world, would suggest discussion. In Gaza, it means Grad rockets hitting Beersheva--and Israeli response.

Bendara on "Déja vu in Gaza"

Bendara — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:39:31 +0000

The origins of this terrible conflict start way back in 1897 when Theodor Herzl and other Zionists, sick and tired of the pogroms and anti-Semitism of Europe, formally declared at their inaugurate congress to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. Twenty years later the Balfour Declaration to Lord Rothschild, patron of the Zionists, gave the green light for Jews to settle on what was then British colonial territory. The document made explicit that non-Jewish people not be disadvantaged in any way but Herzl later stated that he wanted Palestine to “be as Jewish and England is English” and that “Jewish frontiers will be as great as Jewish energy for getting Palestine”. Herzl later said that the Jewish state “must be built up slowly, gradually and systematically... through intermediary stages” protected by powerful allies.

In the following years to 1939 violent confrontations at Jaffa, Jerusalem, Hebron and many other places led to increasing violence and desperation from both Jews (who seized more land) and Arabs (who tried to hold onto their properties). The Zionists were educated, with European sophistication while the Arabs were still largely nomadic. The Arabs responded with violence while the Jews used violence and diplomacy to gain British acquiescence. By the 1930’s massive Jewish immigration had driven thousands of Arab families from their homes and created mass unemployment. A new approach to Arab resistance called Jihad was born, highlighting the desperation that now existed in the Arab psyche.

The end of the war saw massive immigration to Palestine as a direct result of the Holocaust and the ensuing sympathies of the world to the horrors committed by the Nazis. At the same time a massacre at Deir Yassin by the Urgan and Stern militias left 254 people dead (many women and girls had also been raped). This led hundreds of thousands of villagers to flee their homes and although Zionist organisations condemned the massacre, they still sponsored further attacks against villagers.

In 1948 the state of Israel was established and in 1956, 1967 and 1973, Israel expended its territory significantly. The United States had by this time replaced Britain as Israel’s powerful ally. In 2004 Ariel Sharon succeeded in convincing President Bush to recognise Israeli sovereignty of the West Bank in return for removal of Jewish settlements in Gaza.

Source: The Gun and the Olive Branch by David Hirst.

The history of Israel has been, and continues to be, one of conquest and expansion. The current conflict in Gaza over Qassam rockets is an example of the endless action and reaction that has plagued Israelis and Palestinians for over a century.

MARGARET CASSAR on "Déja vu in Gaza"

MARGARET CASSAR — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:23:44 +0000

Ethan II. Apology accepted.

With over 800 Palestinians and 10 Israelis killed as a result of the Israeli government's recent decision to bomb Gaza it is important that the Palestine/Israel issue is discussed with clarity and fairness.

Your latest posting once again makes assumptions about my views. I have never claimed to support Hamas. I recognize it as the democratically elected government of Gaza in the same way I recognised the democratically elected Liberal government of John Howard in Australia. This does not imply support for all their actions.

Ethan II on "Déja vu in Gaza"

Ethan II — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 14:45:43 +0000

Margaret, if I have misconstrued your position, I apologize.

You defended Hamas' shooting 6000 rockets into pre-1967 Israel on the grounds that Hamas has a right to resist "occupation." But Gaza isn't occupied, and the PA runs the West Bank. So, what "occupation" did you mean when you defended shooting 6000 rockets at civilians in pre-1967 Israel? I concluded that by "occupation" you meant (as many people now do) pre-1967 Israel, and hence that the end of "occupation" meant the end of Israel as an independent state. It was logical. But if I am wrong, then I apologize, and ask you to please explain your posiiton.

By the way, Hamas isn't interested in Palestine per se. HAMAS is an acronym in for "Islamic Resistance Movement"-- the name "Palestine" doesn't occur, and it is the only significant party among the Palestinians where that is so. That is because the goal of Hamas isn't Palestine but global and messianic, the establishment of a proper Islamic empire from Indonesia to Spain. To Hamas ideologues such as the late Sheikh Ahmad Yassin the ideological leader of Hamas, love of Palestine as a nation is in fact a form of "sherk"--that is to say, false worship or idolatry. Hamas sees Palestinian *nationalists* such as Abu Mazen as traitors to Islam. In Hamas, hatred of Israel for being a Jewish state in the Muslim world is not nationalist but theological--Israel and its existence (and its success) is a violation of the honor of Allah who decreed that Muslims should be in control in the Middle East. That is why Israel must be wiped out.

Did you know any of this?

Now--if my other arguments which I have posted are so weak, as you claim, please refute them.

Déja vu in Gaza, Vera Gowlland-Debbas

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:38:03 +0000

Through the lens of history, remember the famous attempt by Jews to resist the Germans in armed fighting in the Warsaw ghetto? As recounted by The Holocaust Encyclopedia, the Warsaw ghetto was established by German decree on October 12, 1940 and sealed off from the rest of the city. “The ghetto was enclosed by a wall that was over 10 feet high, topped with barbed wire, and closely guarded to prevent movement between the ghetto and the rest of Warsaw. The population of the ghetto…was estimated to be over 400,000 Jews. German authorities forced ghetto residents to live in an area of 1.3 square miles, with an average of 7.2 persons per room.”Vera Gowlland-Debbas is Professor of Public International Law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.

She has been Honorary Professor at University College London and Visiting Fellow at all Souls College, Oxford.

It continues to describe how Jewish organizations within the ghetto attempted to keep alive a trapped population that suffered severely from starvation, exposure, and infectious disease and how the miserable food allotments rationed by the Germans had to be supplemented by widespread smuggling of food and medicines into the ghetto. It goes on to recount the Warsaw ghetto uprising in April 1943 when Jews decided to organize resistance against the occupiers using small arms smuggled into the ghetto and homemade weapons. The resistance was finally brutally crushed and we know at what terrible cost...

Today, partly as a result of the shocked reactions to the crimes perpetrated during World War II, fundamental and intransgressible rules and principles of international law, including of human rights and humanitarian law, directed to the protection of the essential values and interests of the international community as a whole, now provide the foundations of contemporary international society.

The obligation of each and every State to prevent their flagrant violation was reiterated in the recent September 2005 General Assembly World Summit Outcome document, in which all States members of the United Nations pledged that: “The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means…to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”, and that “we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by case basis…should peaceful means be inadequate."

How can this duty on the part of the international community be reconciled with its manifest inaction in the current situation of Israeli "shock and awe" tactics, of massive air strikes against Gaza and indiscriminate killing of its population? The UN’s roadmap for Palestine since 1948 includes a spate of Security Council resolutions – all unheeded by Israel – declaring the illegality of Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, within its 1967 borders, condemning Israeli use of force, violations of human rights and humanitarian law, including demolition of homes and collective punishment, and pronouncing invalid its measures to change unilaterally the borders of this former mandate and self-determination territory. (See among others, Security Council resolutions 237 (1967), 242 (1967), 271 (1969), 298 (1971), 338 (1973), 446 (1979), 476 and 478 (1980), 681 (1990), 799 (1992), 904 (1994) and 1322 (2000).)

The International Court of Justice – the principal judicial organ of the United Nations - in a milestone Opinion handed down in 2004, (Endnote 1) has determined that the construction of a wall by Israel within these borders is illegal and could be seen as a de facto annexation of parts of the West Bank. It has unanimously, including its US Judge, declared the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory illegal and a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, which entails individual criminal responsibility. It has called on the international community as a whole to assume its responsibility to ensure that Israel ceases its illegal actions and make reparations for all the destruction it has caused to Palestinian homes, land and property, as well as not to recognise the results of Israel's illegal actions or to assist it in any way.

The UN Secretary-General’s "mea culpa" in the cases of Rwanda and Srebrenica had underlined that the international community as a whole had to accept its share of responsibility for failing to take action to prevent the tragic course of events. In a recent case involving Bosnia against Serbia, the International Court of Justice underlined a duty of prevention, the failure of which entails guilt and complicity. And in a Human Rights Council statement, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories has this to say: "The Israeli airstrikes today, and the catastrophic human toll that they caused, challenge those countries that have been and remain complicit, either directly or indirectly, in Israel's violations of international law. That complicity includes those countries knowingly providing the military equipment including warplanes and missiles used in these illegal attacks, as well as those countries who have supported and participated in the siege of Gaza that itself has caused a humanitarian catastrophe."

Will the inaction of the permanent members of the Security Council, the parties to the Geneva Conventions, who undertake to "respect and to ensure" international humanitarian law, in particular Switzerland as the depositary, the European Union, the pillars of which are said to be based on the rule of law and democracy, and the international community as a whole, mean that this "responsibility to protect” is nothing but a mere pious buzz word, conveniently used only as a cover for furthering interests?

Reactions to such blatant violations of international law would normally take the form of UN and regional sanctions, civil boycotts and criminal pursuit of individuals. Precedents in the region (remember the reactions to Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait and the $26 billion compensation it was forced to pay?) and elsewhere abound. It is ironic therefore that far from measures to ensure Israeli compliance with UN resolutions and international law, the Palestinians themselves over the past few years have been condemned, sanctioned and strangled. Such double standards are totally incompatible with the key principle of the rule of law in international affairs which states that the rules apply equally to all, and can only pave the way for more frustration, incomprehension, anger and violence on the part of the victims.

Endnotes
1.The author served as Legal Counsel to the Arab League in the /Wall Opinion./ The case before the Court was argued by such eminent British figures as Professor Vaughan Lowe, Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford, Professor James Crawford, formerly Director of the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law and Professor of Public International Law at Cambridge (Counsels for Palestine), and the late Sir Arthur Watts, former legal counsel to the British Government (Counsel for Jordan). The written and oral statements may be found on the web-page of the Court. For further reading, see among other commentaries on this Opinion, Vera Gowlland-Debbas, “The Responsibility of the Political Organs of the UN for Palestine in Light of the ICJ’s /Wall /Opinion”, in Marcelo G. Kohen (ed.), /Promoting Justice, Human Rights and Conflict Resolution through International Law/. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff, 2006, pp. 1095-1119, and Ian Scobie, “Unchart(er)ed Waters?: Consequences of the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory for the Responsibility of the UN for Palestine”, 16 /European Journal of International Law /(2005), pp. 941-961.

Average rating

(8 votes)