Israel invades Gaza
After a four-hour artillery barrage, Israeli troops moved into the northern part of the Gaza strip on Saturday.
This land operation raises the same question Jonathan Freedland asked about the whole Gaza War, which is whether it is wise and how it will end with any lasting advantage to Israel. Me, I can't see it. The Israelis used to assassinate and attack Hamas when they controlled Gaza, with no success in destroying the movement. So how can they destroy it now when they don't control Gaza and are just making a temporary incursion into a heavily populated, complex territory?
Human Rights Watch has slammed Israel for indiscriminate attacks on civilians during the Gaza operation, which is a war crime.
At 2:06 pm on Saturday 1/3 EST, I was watching CNN, the US feed, which had temporarily switched to the London desk of CNN International. CNN International began an interview with PLO spokesman Saeb Erakat, the first time I have seen a Palestinian commenter on US television during the past week with the exception of the PA envoy to the UN.
CNN US suddenly interrupted the Erekat interview and switched to Ben Wiedeman in Jerusalem to explain the task Israel had before it. It has been 20 minutes and they have never returned to finish the Erekat interview. Have any of the major magazine shows had any Palestinians at all on this week as commenters?
2:31 PM CNN US did a telephone interview with Mustafa Barghouti, who complained that CNN's coverage was all from the Israeli side. He insisted that Hamas had been ready to negotiate a cease-fire and pointed out that Hamas had killed no one during the truce since June and before the Israeli attack. Barghouti has a pretty thick accent and I don't know how well he is understood by US audiences. Why is it that Israeli interviewees all have American accents but no similar Palestinian observers can be found?
Earlier on Saturday CNN invited Gen. David Grange on, one of the military commentators outed by the New York Times as part of a Pentagon influence-peddling scheme for the media. Grange kept talking about what "we" would do if "we" took rocket fire the way the Israelis had from Hamas. Grange did not say what "we" would do if militant European refugees landed at Norfolk, took over Virginia, expelled its population, and then kept the refugees from McLean huddling over in West Virginia in camps for decades with no reparations, recently denying them sufficient food and fuel to avoid a humanitarian crisis. But of course that would never happen to the Granges, so why bother to even mention any point of view but the hawks'?
Besides,the point of CNN US seems to be to prevent voices like Saeb Erekat's from being heard, though they are allowed on adult channels intended for the rest of the world.
/End.

|
20 Comments:
This is expected, but still sad. How did it get so far?
I would like every member of Congress to ask themselves, how many dead is enough? How many is two much? How can such questions be answered, except by a call for an immediate end to the slaughter?
And please, let us not pretend that this isn't ultimately a US decision. Israel, which depends on US weapons and money and diplomatic cover (and, reportedly, ongoing intel) would stop if we gave the word.
I don't even bother with CNN or MSNBC. When Israel runs amok, I watch the History Channel
They never learn do they?
Well I fear in their stiff necked stubbornness , The Israelis have doomed any chance for a two state solution - if they ever wanted it to begin with
Israel destroys itself
Tragic
IMHO, the best part of the HRW report, which I emailed widely to friends last night, was this line.
"Israel continues to exercise effective control over Gaza's borders and airspace as well as its population registry, and remains the occupying power there under international law. "
Tell me, why when this can be written so blatantly by neutral observers versed in the relevant laws, can the Israeli propaganda machine not be called on the lie they propagate?
" This land operation raises the same question Jonathan Freedman asked about the whole Gaza War, which is whether it is wise and how it will end with any lasting advantage to Israel. Me, I can't see it. The Israelis used to assassinate and attack Hamas when they controlled Gaza, with no success in destroying the movement."
In events of child abuse there are three possible outcomes. The child can remain a victim into adulthood, the child can choose to emulate the abuser, i.e., become an abuser to another generation of victims, or with counseling, the child can overcome the trap and become an adult who neither abuses nor tolerates abuse.
Israel is ruled by a mindset that seeks to escape the status of victim by perpetrating the domination of a different ethnic group. What is the result in Gaza if the inhabitants are imprisoned (within the walls of Gaza), denied food, freedom and hope? How does this differ qualitatively from events in Europe prior to 1948?
A fact often missed is that the Israeli Defense Ministry stubbornly refused to employ or even test technological means to intercept the Kassam rockets fired from Gaza.
To make a long story short, Israel refused to protect its attacked citizens with a C-RAM system based on the Phalanx canon or a laser canon. Both said to be tested successfully in Iraq for similar aims.
There were serious public objections to this policy, even a semi-campaign led by the Haaretz newspaper to at least try one of these weapon systems but the MoD stood firm.
Why? Some says the MoD is afraid that using these systems will harm future export of a currently developed anti-missile missile system called Kipat Barzel. This system has already proved unsuitable for intercepting Kassams due to its very long response time.
Another theory is that the Kassams provide an excuse for the Gaza siege and a campaign of "targeted assassinations" against the Hamas. This campaign already took about 1000 lives before the current war started. Hiding political interest behind humanitarian concern seems to be a trait of both Israel and the US.
Given Gaza's lack/loss of potable water, food, energy, medical care, transportation, education and income, the hundreds killed by bombs and bullets are just a fraction, the down payment. Months and years of war mortality will follow. Ruined lives falling like withered fruit from impoverished family trees, inspiring siblings and children to continue the war.
As I listen to the press analysis, no one (including the Israeli press) seems able or willing to answer the question of what the Israeli strategic goal is. Tactically supressing Hamas sanctioned rockets, destroying infrastructure and gov't in Gaza, Israel recruits for Hamas' anti-gov't supporters in Egypt, actively foments revolt in Egypts army. It strengthens Hezbollah and Iranian influence in Syria. It erodes tolerance for the US-Israel alliance among Arabs in Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, moslems in Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, on and on.
In terms of Israel's looming elections, the long-term fallout may be seen as acceptable, with the risks of war saving Likud's coalition from facing responsibility for Lebanon 06 and Olmert's corruption scandal.
One benefit of this war for Olmert and 'Eretz Israel' is to deepen the blood feud between Hamas base in Gaza, and the PLO base in the West Bank. A politically divided Palestine can't treat for a return of territory that Isreal seized and occupied since 1967.
After 60 years of intermittent war, the baseline trend is one of continuing expansion of the Jewish state, from the sea to the Jordan R., at the expense of existing Palestinian populations.
I've been listening to CNN online while writing this. I sense a sea change, an impatience with 100:1 reprisals, occupation and collective punishment, a willingness to listen to Palestinian voices, to question the Israeli line. But the NYT continues to put a human face on tragic Israeli victims of rockets, while characterizing faceless Gaza casualties as '30% civilian'. Gaza police stations targeted by aerial rockets are apparently just so many dead orcs.
A relatively few Israeli deaths and wounded has inspired heavy bombardment and occupation. Again. Reprisal, collective punishment and civil insecurity is the bane of COIN. What sort of response in return should Israel expect?
BBC NewsHour just interviewed Erekat. NewsHour has been broadcasting from Jerusalem all day. An outstanding range of coverage.
Best single news broadcast on the planet:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/newshour.shtml
Israel destroys itself
If only they were allowed to, they might choose a different strategy.
What Israel has done and is doing is beyond all conscience.
Check http://www.alternet.org/audits/116855/america%27s_hidden_role_in_hamas%27s_rise_to_power/
Money quote:
Still, at the time of the Oslo Agreement between Israel and the PLO in 1993, polls showed that Hamas had the support of only 15 percent of the Palestinian community. Support for Hamas grew, however, as promises of a viable Palestinian state faded as Israel continued to expand its colonization drive on the West Bank without apparent U.S. objections, doubling the amount of settlers over the next dozen years.
I think the settlers are the key stinkers here. Most Arabs and even Palestinians could IMHO realistically accept an Israel inside the proverbial pre-1967 borders and live with that. Jerusalem would still be an issue, but leave that aside for now. The settlers in WB etc. really rankled Palestinians and egged them on when otherwise some peace and statehood solution could have been worked out. Look how close it came, I suppose, with Bill Clinton working on it.
For what it's worth, NPR news shows have had both Palestinian and Israeli commentators on over the past week.
Why are most if not all the comments here anonymous? It makes me wonder who might be doing all of the commenting. It also makes me think that if the author(s) of the comments cannot name him/her/themselves perhaps they and what they say are not really worthy of thoughtful consideration...or any consideration at all.
Valerie Printemps
Washington, DC
On behalf of the EU, Czhechs just declared Israeli actions in Gaza defensive, not offensive. This remarkable observation immediately reminds another, equally defensive operation by the USSR 40 years ago, in 1968.
Settlements are and have been the primary obstacle to peace. This isn't complicated. It takes a lot of complicated rationalization and bias to make everything the Palestinians' fault, just as it takes a lot of rationalization and bias to portray this assault/slaughter "defensive".
Here's what I would guess MIGHT have been an effective defense - phalanx anti-missile systems. Or, better yet, good faith negotiations towards peace and normalization.
For the record, the Israeli strategy in Gaza seems to lack any wisdom or long-term vision. However:
"Human Rights Watch has slammed Israel for indiscriminate attacks on civilians during the Gaza operation, which is a war crime." Isn't aiming unguided rockets in the general direction of Israeli cities an indiscriminate attack on civilians and therefore a war crime? Has Human Rights Watch had anything to say about that?
"Grange kept talking about what 'we' would do if 'we' took rocket fire the way the Israelis had from Hamas. Grange did not say what 'we' would do if militant European refugees landed at Newport Beach, took over Virginia, expelled its population, and then kept the refugees from McLean huddling over in West Virginia in camps for decades with no reparations, recently denying them sufficient food and fuel to avoid a humanitarian crisis." I think you mean Newport News; Newport Beach is in California. But in any case the analogy would be better if it were Native Americans, conquered and decimated in the 17th century, who landed at Newport News to reclaim the land from which they had been displaced.
I read in Israeli newspapers that only 19 to 21% of the population approve of a ground invasion. Yet, watching CNN international news tonight, I heard 3 commentators ask guests what the Israeli people thought of the invasion, and they evaded giving the poll results, saying either they had support or they could only give their opinion or that they had significant support. Why doesn't the CNN reporter have these poll results and confront the guests with them? Chicago
Is it just me?
The consequences of the Gaza seige that Freedland points out seem more than obvious to anyone who has knowledge in basic human behavior let alone knowledge about the Israel-Gaza situation? If Gazans or Lebanese are being attacked by Israelis, that's who they will blame. I cannot believe that anyone buys this Israeli move as a sensible strategy but I am shocked and surprised repeatedly by supporters of Israel. This Gaza seige is a deathblow to peace in the region and will lead to a growth of extremism.
This seems more than obvious to me but unfortunately voices such as Freedlands are falling on deaf ears!
Also in response to your last comment about the disproportionate coverage of the Israeli side of things.
I keep reading this quote by President elect Obama in Sderot in several newspapers. Something to the tune of, "If my daughters were threatened by rocket fire I would do exactly what Israelis are doing." Nowhere do I see a quote saying, "If my daughters were starving in some refugee camp in Gaza, or facing heavy artillery fire..." Why?
Gil said:
If my daughters were starving in some refugee camp in Gaza, or facing heavy artillery
you know what I'd do in the usa I'd put my daughter into medical school. Yes if someone was shooting at me I'd get my children to safety, then do something about it. NOT shoot back, but move my chidren to safety.
Post a Comment
<< Home