Morality and War in Gaza from the Israeli Perspective

here is the link or click on the title (video is fuzzy for a few seconds): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seoAh8yJKLw

With the humanitarian uproar following the Gaza strike, one must wonder where the Israeli/Jewish moral tradition stands on this issue. This post acknowledges the Israeli's conflict with morality and war in Gaza; Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman analyses the justification for the Israeli strike:

There are two kinds of wars:

• A war of self-defense

  • Israel claims their war falls into this category because of the rockets Hamas had been launching into Southern Israel

  • is a moral war

• A war of agression

  • is an immoral war

The issue with the war in Gaza:

• although it is a moral war, the question is whether it can be fought on moral terms

• A war can only be fought on moral terms when those attacked are "those who actively engage in threatening you or your society" (do not involve the civilian population).

The great challenge:

• with Hamas, it is "impossible to surgically attack the combatants alone"

• Dr. Hartman notes that Hamas uses the population as a human shield

Reaction to this challenge:

• Dr. Hartman acknowledges that these casualties are unacceptable and challenges the "Israeli moral story and moral vision".

• I'd like to note that popular, anti-Israel comparisons between their war activities in Gaza and Nazi war activities (or other undesired metaphors) may strike at the heart of this insecurity. Can they now claim a moral high ground? Following the Gaza strike, have they lost their moral credibility?

Dr. Hartman concludes by saying that the war on Gaza is a war of self-defense (and thus a moral war). Although there is difficulty in fighting this war on moral terms, Israelis still have a right to protect itself. At the end, Dr. Hartman summarizes it as a battle against the immoral (terrorists), where those with moral standards must be able to survive. That civilians must be involved is "the tragedy of terrorism".

Rebuilding Gaza

The question of how to rebuild Gaza holds an obvious amount of complexity and political tension. Looking into information on donors and the international community's commitment to it, it seems that many countries have the means and will to undertake the project, but are still unclear how the planned and funded reconstruction will come to fruition.

As of yet, International donors have pledged 4.5 billion dollars to rebuild the Gaza strip and prop up the Palestinian Authority as a whole. The money (to be spent over the next two years) is intended to repair the damage caused by the Israeli offensive against Hamas militants. According to Egyptian organizers of the fundraising event, "the outcome exceeded their expectations." Leading up to the conference, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas requested three billion dollars in order to make adequate reparations. From the 70 or so countries that made donations to the fund, Saudi Arabia, the United States and the EU promised the most money. Donors insisted that the funds were not to be channelled through Hamas...

However, the United Nations and aid agencies have made frequent statements stating that rebuilding the coastal enclave would be a daunting task so long as border crossings with battered Gaza remained as closed and tight as they are currently. "The situation at the border crossings is intolerable. Aid workers do not have access. Essential commodities cannot get in," UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon told donors at a conference on Gaza in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheikh.

Bringing it all back home, an article from the Jerusalem post states...

"US President Barack Obama and the European Union favour channelling aid through the PA - although the European Commission Representative in Jerusalem, Christian Berger, said the EU was waiting to see the outcome of Egyptian-brokered reconciliation talks between the Palestinian factions. "

In the meantime, International agencies are still assessing the scale of the destruction in preparation for a drive for reconstruction pledges, possibly through the use of NGO's.
But with the international community refusing to deal directly with Hamas, the militant group which controls Gaza, how is the money able to be spent? Whom does the 'international community' direct the multiple-billions to, and who will be heading these initiatives? Palestinians? Humanitarian Aid workers? Israel? I'm not insinuating that the money be filtered throough Hamas, just that this political hairball will be down a lot of throats until it comes close to a solution; which, as usual, seems like a long and difficult hall.

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5832431.ece

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/03/20093262554962541.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/02/gaza-aid-conference-donor_n_171035.html

A few videos on the topic can be found in the links below...

http://palestinianpundit.blogspot.com/2009/03/al-jazeera-video-focus-on-gaza.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HISSZ_puckc&feature=PlayList&p=BFB9DD480AE51572&index=4

Before You Boycott Israel

I found this video on YouTube elaborating the accomplishments of the Jewish and of Israel. It describes how boycotting Israel would be nearly impossible because so many things that people use daily incorporates innovations produced by the Jewish nation, such as computer chips and certain medicines.
It is impossible to miss the sarcasm in the narrator's voice as he describes how to effectively boycott Israel to show lack of support. In addition to the sarcasm, the narrator paints Israel as a Western state essential to civilized living. In the end especially, it shows Israel as the victim of terrorists (while it doesn't specifically say Palestinians) and anti-Israel groups.
The disrespectful discourse on the comment board shows how there is clearly more opinions than the one shown in the video. I find the comments particularly interesting. The majority of them do not reference the video at all, but rather attack Islam and Muslim culture. However, there are some extremely hateful comments about Israel and the Jewish faith. As I am writing this, a particularly hateful one was posted by the user "WeKnowz."
The reaction the the video, in my view, is more powerful than the actual video. It shows how radical some people are about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Although it is uncertain whether these users would be saying such things if they could not do so anonymously, it is a bit of a shock to see how much hate some people have toward another group. Although I am certainly aware that it exists, I was still startled when I read some of the comments.

Here is the link- I was having major issues embedding it or doing anything else that made sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saeky9I5T9c&feature=channel

Othering the Muslim World

Whilst searching for media for this project, I couldn't help but notice the overwhelming number of Orientalist, and sometimes overtly racist, depictions of Muslims and the Arab world in general. Take these two cartoons. Not only are Arabs and Muslims depicted as violent, barbaric people, but cartoons of this nature have largely gone unnoticed. The cartoons in large part center around depictions of Muslims as bearded, turban-wearing, and somewhat less-than-human, buffoons. In the first cartoon I've posted, members of the Hamas party are depicted as gray-bearded rats that need to be exterminated by Israel, while in the second, Muslims are depicted as barbaric, demented, and, to an extent, mentally challenged (the caption reads "Abdul always knew how to impress the ladies").
It's also key to note that the cartoonist, like many others, has incorrectly depicted the stereotypical Muslim wearing a turban— barely any Muslim men wear a headpiece that looks like this, and yet it is possibly the most embedded symbol in Western depictions of Muslims. Furthermore, there is something very troublesome about mass media infantilizing a serious issue, like the Muslim world's anger with Dutch cartoonists depicting Mohammed, especially when it serves to propagate these types of representations. So, with that, here's a starting question for this post: Why don't we as a society take more issue with these representations?

Question of war crimes in Gaza

As I was mind-sifting through topics to blog about, I thought about a news blurb I saw briefly when I was in Israel... The question of White Phosphorus shells (a chemical weapon that would be absolutley illegal to use in densely populated Gaza although not illegal in itself in war times in order to smokescreen moving troops) being used repeatedly was briefed by BBC news beginning in mid-January.

As I was watching, I really was in disbelief that Israel could be using the substance, especially amidst so many claims of their overly violent offensive in Gaza over those 21 days.

However, I haven't heard much about this massive breach of international code since. Now, looking in to a variety of news and news-related sites and blogs, it has in fact been getting a lot of attention from both the Arab and Euro-Americans.

An article on Amnesty Internation position states that " In response to the claims ... relating to the use of phosphorus weapons, and in order to remove any ambiguity, an investigative team has been established in southern command to look into the issue," the Israeli army said.In response to Amnesty's accusations, a military spokesman said on Monday the army "uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."Amnesty is not the first group to accuse Israel of using white phosphorus -- Human Rights Watch made the accusation on Jan. 10, in the midst of the fighting, and the United Nations also said it believed the munition had been used.

However, Amnesty's accusations were made on the basis of an on-the-ground study by a British weapons expert following the ceasefire put into force by Israel and Hamas on Sunday.Weapons expert Chris Cobb-Smith, who visited Gaza as part of a four-person Amnesty team, said he had found widespread evidence of the use of the incendiary material."We saw streets and alleyways littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli army," he said in a statement.

As an interesting rebuke to these inflammatory accusations Israel's foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, said on Monday she was "at peace" with the actions Israel had taken during the conflict, but also said the nation should be prepared to fend off international accusations of war crimes.

My question is how involved will the US be on these claims, and what will their position obviously suggest? Especially since the US has been accused of using the same white phosphorus in the same illegal method in Fallujah, how tightly bound can we be to Israel's action when they have been decidedly criminal at times?(http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html)

Bringing in the media aspect, why is this not being more heavily reported? And, is this a US media phenomenon, or as with so many war crimes is this simply not the time to bring it to the table in any too-open forum?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11935

The Voice of Hamas Outside the Middle East

Scanning such major Western news outlets as CNN, MSNBC,
and the BBC, I could find plenty of articles mentioning Hamas. One article cites Secretary of State Hillary Clinton describing Hamas as "not only a terrorist organization but...increasingly a client of Iran". Another article will mention Obama's unwillingness to deal with Hamas, even if they did send him a personal letter. But one thing you will rarely hear in the West is the voice of Hamas itself. The only recent articles I could find quoting Hamas officials were simply about the announcement of ceasefires . Since three of the four members of the so-called "Quartet" of intl. mediators (the U.S., E.U., and U.N.) refuse to communicate with Hamas "terrorists", it seems that the Western public is also not allowed to access their point of view.

So I was curious to know if it would be any different with Russia, the one member of the Quartet that does maintain ties with Hamas. Here is some of the evidence I found that Hamas is treated differently in the Russian media (which is mostly state-controlled, by the way, and falls into line with govt. policy). For example, this new article from RIA Novosti ("Russian Information Agency News", one of if not the biggest news source in the country) talks about how Hamas officials have called on the Intl. Criminal Court to issue an order for the arrest of Israeli leaders like Shimon Peres, Ekhud Barak, Ekhud Olmert, and Benjamin Netanyahu (all this comes on the heels of the ICC's indictment of Sudan's president for crimes against humanity). Unfortunately, there isn't an English version of the article, but I'll translate the heart of it:

"In an announcement, Hamas said that the ICC should issue an order for the arrest not of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, but for the leaders of Israel, guilty of crimes against the nations of Palestine and Lebanon...During the recent war with Israel, 1300 people, including a few hundred children, were killed in Hamas-controlled Gaza. About 1400 people, the majority of them peaceful civilians, became victims of Israel's war in Lebanon in the summer of 2006. According to Hamas, the 'unjust' decision of the ICC...is yet more evidence that 'with every day the UN is increasingly turning into a tool in the hands of strong states, primarily the U.S.' and serves their interest 'at the cost of weak nations'...."

Here is another article, concerning the recent intl. conference on foreign aid and the reconstruction of Gaza (to which Hamas was not invited). Translated excerpt:

"...'Ignoring the legal power that exists in Gaza [i.e. Hamas] may be seen as a deliberate frustration of the efforts at reconstructing the region,' said official Hamas representative Fauzi Barkhum, whose words were broadcast by the Arab media. According to him, Palestinians consider the aid a humanitarian action and ask that politicization of the question be avoided...In the opinion of observers, the beginning of work on Gaza's reconstruction could get held up, despite all the international efforts, because of the Israeli blockade of the enclave and internal Palestinian antagonisms. ...According to Makhmud Abbas, the international aid should be put at the disposal of the Palestinian Admin. on the West Bank. At the same time, representatives of Hamas believe that the intl. aid should be given directly to those who are governing Gaza..."

At first, I was totally perplexed why Russia would recognize Hamas as a legitimate force in Palestine since they have the same negative discourse about "Islamic terrorism" that we have (recall the protracted debacle with guerilla separatists in Chechnya). Perhaps this is part of Russia's attempt to re-assert its role as a world superpower and a counter-point to the influence of America and her Western allies? Or maybe it's part of a practical solution, as Russian officials claim: "the reconstruction of Palestinian unity is necessary in order to decide urgent questions regarding the overcoming of the destructive consequences of the recent bloodshed in Gaza and, above all, for the attainment of a lasting truce."

Regardless of the motive, articles like these show that currently Hamas is not dismissed (and hence silenced) as a terrorist organization in Russia; nor is the "Arab media" spurned as a tool of the terrorists--it is cited as a source like any other. I would hardly argue that Russia's media is free and progressive, but here is at least a willingness to listen to "the other side" (officially, Russia supports Abbas's regime) and report their point of view to non-Middle Eastern audiences.

BBC News: Gaza homes destruction 'wanton'

While I was looking at the BBC News today, I noticed this article and the accompanying audio slideshow. I felt that, in many ways, it connects well with Rhiannon's post on "who teaches Palestinians to hate" and the "creation" of "terrorists."

The article cites an Amnesty International report that argues that Israel is breaking international law with the destruction of Palestinian homes. The Israelis countered, saying that the destruction was in accordance with international law and the destruction was necessary because of "operational needs." This is contradicted within the article by the citing of Breaking the Silence, which includes testimonies of Israeli soldiers, and the statements that many of the destructions were not necessary and taken out without an immediate threat. In many cases, according to the Amnesty International group, the destruction occured after the Israeli military controlled the area. This, coupled with the fact that few of the homes had legitimate reason to be destroyed (ie, booby trapped, hiding militants, etc), the destruction was "wanton." The Israeli Defense Forces countered the arguments, stating that the terrorist organizations "operated from within the civilian population, using them as a cover and made cynical use of the IDF's strict rules of engagement, opening fire from within civilian population centres, mosques, schools, hospitals and even private residences of citizens in the Gaza Strip... The IDF emphasises that the terrorist organisation, Hamas, and its infrastructure were the target of Operation Cast Lead, and not the civilian population in Gaza." That, however, is difficult for the civilians, and their families, physically, emotionally or psychologically hurt by the destruction caused by the Israeli military.

The audio slideshow focuses on a specific family who's house and livelihood were destroyed by the Israeli Defense Forces. The pictures show the destruction of the house while the audio includes the father's commentary on how everything was destroyed when the house was attacked. He couldn't understand why his house was targeted. He had built the house for his wife and seven children to have someplace to be safe. Now that haven is gone and there is no way to rebuild because there is nothing left in Gaza. One of the most poignant comments he makes is, "I hope there will be a future, but I don't see any future." In many ways, these articles connect to Rhiannon's post on the creation of terrorists through, in part, personal experiences and hatred of "the enemy." The idea of losing one's home through a military attack (natural disaster, possibly, military attack no) is often unfathomable in the West/United States but is seemingly common in the Occupied Territories/Palestine. And the West wonders why the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is still so heated and so contested.

After reading the article, I went to the websites of CNN and MSNBC to see if they had reported anything similar to the BBC article citing the Amnesty International findings (that being, the destruction of Palestinian homes or even listing the attacks on Palestinian civilians). Neither sited listed anything. Both, however, listed stories of the Palestinian driver in Jerusalem that drove a construction vehicle into a bus and police car on Thursday. They also listed the missile strikes on a town in southern Israel that prompted retaliation in Gaza. Thus, Israel is defending itself against hostile, barbarous, stubborn Arab neighbors with no emphasis on the other side of the story. The Palestinians are lumped as a single entity, one identified as the terrorist Hamas organization.