Yesterday a factory in the South of Israel was destroyed by a rocket launched from Gaza. Whether this was a serendipitous strike or a demonstration of Hamas' ability to hit specific targets, is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that in recent weeks there has been an up-tick in mortar and rocket attacks from Gaza, and Israeli retaliation.
Does the Huffington Post, the New York Times or the plethora of anti-Israel media-outlets from Russia to Britain, or UNHRC report this or other "minor" events?
Where is this going? If Israel is attacked continuously eventually even Israel will respond. But its response will not only reflect the most recent rocket attacks ("only a few rockets, that have no aim and do little damage"), but the months or even years of provocation (6000 rockets, that have not killed many by pure chance, but have reduced whole cities into trenches and traumatized thousands).
What does this mean for the million plus Gazans? Does it mean the blockade will be lifted? Does it mean that somehow Israel will disappear and HAMAS will have what its Charter declares?
No!
It means that hundreds of teenagers turned terrorists will be killed, and along with them scores of human shields that inevitably "happen" to be in the vicinity. It means that hospitals, schools, and jobs will be destroyed. It means that Palestinians will suffer, not just the shame of being searched for terror weapons that some carry when entering Israel, but that in their own homes they will be die as sure as their roof is used for launching pads.
When will the international community protest HAMAS' and other terror groups' methodical, predictable, and repetitive use of yellow journalism BEFORE blood has been spilled?
Instead of falling prey to the chicanery of HAMAS and like minded terrorists -responding retroactively to the mayhem and destruction- condemn HAMAS for every rocket.
Let there be no question amongst their leadership, population, or region what will happen if they continue.
Today it is a handful of rockets and the destruction of a tunnel, tomorrow...
When will the international community defend the people of Gaza?
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gaza. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (1)
In a recent piece published in Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/to-the-free-gaza-movement_b_602061.html),one amongst many, David Harris, the President of the American Jewish Congress (AJC), asked the now infamous question of the Free Gaza Movement, "why not them".
The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.
Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.
But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .
The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?
Is this a legitimate argument?
Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.
Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.
1. The implications perspective.
The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.
Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).
The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.
This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.
The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.
Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.
But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .
The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?
Is this a legitimate argument?
Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.
Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.
1. The implications perspective.
The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.
Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).
The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.
This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Israel Should Stop Delivering Aid from Ships Running the Gaza Blockade
Until recently Israel could afford to both display its humanity and sympathy for the Gaza population (despite its masochistic decision to elect the Terrorist HAMAS group), and stop arms smuggling. Israel achieved this by stopping ships, sifting through the aid material and then sending the aid, minus any materials that could be used for weapons or weapons-making, via Israel-Gaza border crossings. Thereby showing that it is not seeking to punish Gaza with the blockade but only to prevent another war.
Yet I wonder, with all the anti-Israel sentiment out there it would seem foolish to think that "activists “have any interests other than to publicize and challenge Israel’s blockade. They disguise this by brining aid, implying that aid is needed or the starving Gaza population.
If these “activists” really cared about the "starving" Gaza population then they would deliver their aid like most truly caring nations -through Israeli channels, because it would reach Gaza's faster.
But the activists care more about depicting Israel in a negative light then they care about helping Gaza's population (who according to all credible reports are receiving all basic necessities minus HAMAS political opponents who are deprived of international aid). Considering Israel’s determination not to be cowed by these moral hypocrites, and not to end the unfortunate but necessary blockade, this, like past attempt, had zero chance of braking the blockade.
At the same time the activists have every incentive to increase the tempo of delivering aid in this twisted manner, especially after the recent provocation.
Israel should turn the tables on them and expose them from what they are, how? By implementing a policy to stop delivering aid from ships running the Gaza blockade. At least, when the tsunami of flotillas continue, and they will continue, it will be clear to all what their intentions are.
Yet I wonder, with all the anti-Israel sentiment out there it would seem foolish to think that "activists “have any interests other than to publicize and challenge Israel’s blockade. They disguise this by brining aid, implying that aid is needed or the starving Gaza population.
If these “activists” really cared about the "starving" Gaza population then they would deliver their aid like most truly caring nations -through Israeli channels, because it would reach Gaza's faster.
But the activists care more about depicting Israel in a negative light then they care about helping Gaza's population (who according to all credible reports are receiving all basic necessities minus HAMAS political opponents who are deprived of international aid). Considering Israel’s determination not to be cowed by these moral hypocrites, and not to end the unfortunate but necessary blockade, this, like past attempt, had zero chance of braking the blockade.
At the same time the activists have every incentive to increase the tempo of delivering aid in this twisted manner, especially after the recent provocation.
Israel should turn the tables on them and expose them from what they are, how? By implementing a policy to stop delivering aid from ships running the Gaza blockade. At least, when the tsunami of flotillas continue, and they will continue, it will be clear to all what their intentions are.
Should Israel End the Gaza Blockade? Three Answers and Two Ironies
There are reports emerging that the Turkish Foreign minister Ahmet Davutogu, has offered to normalize relations with Israel if Israel lifted the blockade of Gaza (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/turkey-to-normalize-israeli-ties-if-gaza-blockade-ends-1.293757).
I should ask whether Israel’s relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey has ever been normal, but I won’t, instead.
What if Israel did lift the blockade?
Probably three interrelated developments.
1. If Israel were to allow Hamas to decide what comes into Gaza then Hamas, as it did in the past, would bring in readily available weapons, from Iran and Syria. Then they would use those weapons against Israel. Then after, say, a year of terror attacks Israel would respond with a cast-led-like war. How many will be victims? Many more Israelis and Gaza-Arabs, then the nine "peaceful activists" killed in self defense on-board the Turkish vessel.
2. If Israel again needs to suppress Hamas terror, and Hamas does what it does best –using civilians to shield their attacks. Than the international fallout and leftwing/Islamist PR campaign against Israel will make this latest tsunami of anti-Israel sentiment look like a water fountain.
3. Every time Israel comes under international condemnation it is weakened. One because it distracts the international community from the real problem, Iran and its nuclear weapons. Two, because Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and now Erdogan can galvanize the mass hate that is so prevalent in the middle-east for their own gains. Of course their gain would be Israel’s loss...
Israel’s blockade also offers up two ironies:
1. as most Israel's and rational people know. At the end of day is Israel is sacrificing its own security, and tremendous material and political resources so as to prevent a war with HAMAS, and the terrible civilian deaths that are an inevitable consequence of war with terror. In other words Israel is being condemned as inhuman for doing the most humane thing possible, under these circumstances.
2. Turkey which is condemning Israel’s brutality, while completely excusing their role in the provocation, is again setting up Israel for another fall. Put otherwise just as Erdogan’s Turkey is to a large degree responsible for the violence and then condemn Israel for it. So too would ending the blockade of Gaza foster violence, which Erdogan’s Turkey would no-doubt condemn.
I should ask whether Israel’s relationship with Erdogan’s Turkey has ever been normal, but I won’t, instead.
What if Israel did lift the blockade?
Probably three interrelated developments.
1. If Israel were to allow Hamas to decide what comes into Gaza then Hamas, as it did in the past, would bring in readily available weapons, from Iran and Syria. Then they would use those weapons against Israel. Then after, say, a year of terror attacks Israel would respond with a cast-led-like war. How many will be victims? Many more Israelis and Gaza-Arabs, then the nine "peaceful activists" killed in self defense on-board the Turkish vessel.
2. If Israel again needs to suppress Hamas terror, and Hamas does what it does best –using civilians to shield their attacks. Than the international fallout and leftwing/Islamist PR campaign against Israel will make this latest tsunami of anti-Israel sentiment look like a water fountain.
3. Every time Israel comes under international condemnation it is weakened. One because it distracts the international community from the real problem, Iran and its nuclear weapons. Two, because Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syrian, and now Erdogan can galvanize the mass hate that is so prevalent in the middle-east for their own gains. Of course their gain would be Israel’s loss...
Israel’s blockade also offers up two ironies:
1. as most Israel's and rational people know. At the end of day is Israel is sacrificing its own security, and tremendous material and political resources so as to prevent a war with HAMAS, and the terrible civilian deaths that are an inevitable consequence of war with terror. In other words Israel is being condemned as inhuman for doing the most humane thing possible, under these circumstances.
2. Turkey which is condemning Israel’s brutality, while completely excusing their role in the provocation, is again setting up Israel for another fall. Put otherwise just as Erdogan’s Turkey is to a large degree responsible for the violence and then condemn Israel for it. So too would ending the blockade of Gaza foster violence, which Erdogan’s Turkey would no-doubt condemn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
