Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
The Gaza Strip: Arabs don’t count
|
Here’s a headline from Israel Today that you didn’t see in many local papers: ‘US, Australia back Gaza strike; rest of the world doesn’t.’ Yes, another Coalition of the Willing has been assembled and, yes, once again we’ve enrolled in its lonely ranks. The Australian army won’t, of course, see action in Gaza but then the service John Howard provided for George Bush was always far more political than military. Australian support added a veneer of legitimacy to Bush’s illegal invasion – and, as the Israeli press notes, that’s the part Gillard’s playing now. In fact, with most of the world erupting in anti-war demonstrations, if you close your eyes, it might be 2003 all over again. The attack on Gaza began with what the Israeli newspaper Haaretz inevitably described as ‘shock and awe’. Once more, we were told that high-tech wonder weapons would surgically separate the belligerents from the combatants. Once more, this proved utter nonsense. Despite Israel’s exclusion of foreign journalists from Gaza, we know that the IDF has attacked a university, a school, a mosque, many civilian police stations, a television station, the Palestinian parliament, the ministry of education, the ministry of housing, and the ministry of foreign affairs. As with Iraq, the military campaign follows a crippling regime of sanctions, the effects of which were largely ignored by the Western press. Famously, in 1996, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when confronted by the figure of half million Iraqi children dead because of the blockade, responded: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price – we think the price is worth it.” The Israelis arrived at the same calculation about Gaza where, even before the attacks, Palestinians were suffering from malnutrition. As to their state now, well, you can either believe Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (there is, she says, “no humanitarian crisis in Gaza”) or Amnesty International (“The health sector in Gaza lacks equipment, medicine and expertise at the best of times and has been further depleted due to the prolonged Israeli blockade. It is now completely overwhelmed and unable to cope with the large number of casualties.”) The conventional narrative about Gaza holds that Hamas provoked the crisis, flouting a ceasefire and increasing its rocket launches in early December. Like the dog-and-pony show about Iraqi WMDs, this is entirely misleading. As Jeremy Hammond notes, in reality, the ceasefire actually came to an end on 4 November because, with the media’s attention focused on the US elections, Israel launched an airstrike into Gaza that killed five Palestinians. Perhaps more importantly, though it’s rarely acknowledged in the Western media, for some time now Hamas has indicated that it would accept a two-state solution. In April this year, MSNBC reported the following:
As recently as 23 December, Hamas was still making similar offers.
One doesn’t have to admire Hamas’ political philosophy or strategic orientation to recognize that it’s not an amorphous expression of innate evil, firing missiles at Israel just for the hell of it. Given that the blockade of Gaza has been condemned by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and just about every reputable human rights organisation in the world, Hamas’ insistence on the opening of the border as a precondition of peace seems entirely reasonable. But, in 2003, we were told that Saddam refused admission to weapons inspectors (when in fact they were withdrawn by Richard Butler), and today we hear constantly that Hamas that makes negotiations impossible. There’s a final comparison between Iraq and Gaza, and it’s even more important. More than anything, the invasion of Iraq re-accustomed the Western world to colonial violence on a massive scale, not simply because it resulted in the deaths of perhaps a million people but also because the day-to-day business of an occupation necessarily normalizes brutality, with Abu Ghraib merely the most overt example. Defending the indefensible in Iraq steeled a generation of apologists to accept a hitherto unthinkable level of cruelty – so long as it was inflicted on Arabs. Today, Salon’s Glenn Greenwald draws attention to Michael Goldfarb, the editor of the Weekly Standard (an American version of Quadrant), writing about Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader.
In September, President Bush lectured the United Nations on terrorism. “No cause,” he said, “can justify the deliberate taking of innocent human life”. The naïve might think that killing little children fits his description exactly, even if their father belongs to Hamas. But that would be to miss the point. What the world learned from Iraq is that Arabs don’t count. And that’s what we’re seeing again in Gaza. |
|
|
18 Comments
Glenn Greenwald is the best.
James K puts in yet another gem of his zionist right wing bullshit -get your facts right dickhead. but i forgot you couldn’t give a flying freddie how many Palestinian children are murdered by Israel and have been continuously. whats the body count at now? how many palestinan lives add up to 1 israeli life -i’m guessing around 300 dead.? such a simplistic idiotic fox news murdoch empire view of the world, read some history. btw how do you justify the last israeli ‘war’ in lebanon? 1 million cluster bombs dropped on the last day, surely thats not enough to maim and kill enough arab kids. get a life.
Here you go!
Actually James K there is utility in your incomplete/proximate chronology. As John Lyons in the Oz today pointed out why did Israel mainstain the blockade even tighter by Nov 09 on humanitarian supplies? Not tunnels, not contrabrand, not weapons. Food and medical. That’s deliberately cruel and known in the trade as collective punishment for voting for Hamas.
Anyone who has seen a cat with a still living mouse will understand.
Secondly the approaching Israeli election in Feb 2009, and the departure of killers Cheney and Bush on Jan 15. The story so far indeed.
Congratulations, Jeff for penning this excellent piece.
You will, of course, be pounced on subtly by Zionists and be denounced as “anti Semitic”.
Their control of the media is outstanding.
I wish there were more brave commentators in Australia, able to fearlessly say what must be said.
And congratulations also to Crikey;
this alone justifies my subscription.
Best regards with admiration.
John Smith
Unlike ‘eric blair’, I did not as he suggests express views. The irony here is not lost on anybody with half a brain.
Who initiated this conflict? Hamas. At least Egypt and Julia Gillard are not mistaken on that score.
Who is offering a reasonable way out? Israel.
All countires and peoples need to and have a right to defend themselves from direct attack.
can we expect any difference in US policy under Barack Messiah? His CoS’ dad was a Zionist terrorist.
well put Jeff, never fear it won’t be too long before you’re accused of antisemitism. question or criticize Israeli policy and you must be anti-semitic. as for brad, pull your head out mate, you have no idea what so ever. a genocidal attack on a civillian population because of homemade rockets flying into disputed territory. the IDF has been planning this attack for 18mths. I guess it’s ok too for israeli settlers to shoot at palestinian farmers trying to harvest their olives, for the israeli state to build a giant barrier wall that makes the berlin wall look like a colourbond fence, claiming ‘defence against terrorism’ whilst appropriating productive farming land & water aswell as the countless other crimes against humanity committed by the fascist state of Israel. just because we support palestinian self-determination does not mean we support the destruction of israel. many many israelis want peace but it ain’t gonna happen with the current band of neo-con war mongers.
Jeff Sparrow, you speak for me.
As did the Uk protester who uttered “Contemptible!
I am sickened by the silence of Australia in response to the”justified” killing of civilians,including children,by the Israelis.
There is an old saying suitable for israeli consideration and ours too, ” Reap what you sow.
I am fascinated by Israel’s foreign minister being ignorant of the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Funny how Muslims will always come out and demonstrate about violence when it concerns them - and bleeding heart apologists support them.
But not a peep from Muslims about their OWN violence - and theirs is a violent regime - political, not religious. Suicide bombers are OK with them - as is the repression of women - honor killings - stoning to death of innocents for public entertainment - hanging innocent young girls from the backs of trucks, etc.
as I live in Victoria, I would be amazed if the though police donlt round me up for this opinion - as I believe under the new act of not being able to indulge in free speech in such matters I am probably destined for gaol. (Or, if in Iraq et all - a hand cut off).
God won’t sharia law be wonderful. Going shopping wrapped like a mummy in a sheet - in case someone sees my big toe and faints! Of course, hubby will be OK - he;ll be quite comfortable in his short sleeved shirt and light trousers.
World domination and nothing less - that’s what Muslims are after.
Thanks for a good article.
We need more objectivity in reporting the Arab/Israel conflict. Israel has ignored every UN resolution in the last 30 years and the press never reminds us of that. The instant the Arabs fail to toe the UN line 99% of journalists cane the Arabs.
The US is a stingy country when it comes to foreign aid, but to make that worse, 50% of US foreign aid is to Israel in the form of armaments.
The middle east is a complex problem and it will fester on for ever if we don’t think hard about pressing Israel into observing the 1967 borders and denying them the latest military weapons if they fail to comply. Yes there are some thorny bits to this suggestion. The Jewish diaspora are immensely powerful and have the ear of governments around the world. That does not make them right.
Australia must get out from under the Jewish lobby position that either you support Israel or you are a terrorist. David Ben Gurion was the terrorist that lit the torch fueling much of today’s middle east problems. Australia must be genuinely neutral in this dispute.
Brian
Hey Brad…you’re a friggin’ idiot if you think Israel will hold onto all of Jeruslaem…bit nervy down at Dover Heights right now, are we, with Barack the unknown quantity.
I support all Palestinians rights to the pre 67 border….alll Jews out of the West Bank…that’s ALL JEWS OUT………it will happen within 5 years……. I support Hmas ‘right to represent the poeple who’ve elected it……Nazi pigs, the Israeli Government…there’s no difference
I fail to comprehend why we, as Australians need to be seen as being so Pally with the US, and by extrapolation, the Israelis. It isn’t as though we have anything to gain by the association, we just get seen as suck ups to the yanks and the Jews and we really don’t need that at this time.
It’s bad enough that the Poms were originally responsible for the mess which is Gaza and the West Bank, now we just see Israel with it’s devoted friend, America (and now of course, Australia), rushing off with Haretzian “shock and awe” to kill as many Palestinians as they can, in the shortest possible time, just to ensure the Jews don’t feel obligated to explain themselves to the civilised world.
It beggars belief, that they wait until the Palestinians toss a few of their home made rockets and kill 20 Jews in several years, while the Jews kill 500 in a couple of days and call it a “measured response”.
We should not only not be supporting them, we should describe them as what they are, murderers and ne’er do wells, who want the entirety of Palestine to be called Israel, and kill all the Palestinians. Personally I wonder how long before Iran says “enough” and flicks them a long range message or two, just to be going on with..
Ah well, one can hope, I suppose. In the mean time, I am inclined to support Hamas in their struggle to free themselves of the failed final solution.
While it is nice that Hamas was a truce, there is the small matter of the condition they attached - going back to the pre-1967 borders.
Jeff, you neglected to mention that going to pre-1967 borders would mean Israel giving up Jersusalem, it’s capital city. There are two chances of that mate - buckley’s and none.
While the current hostilties are horrific, I think it would be a productive gesture for Hamas to commit to stop lobbing rockets over the border into Israel? Surely that is not a big ask? Perhaps then the Israeli aggression would be seen in a new light.
The story so far:
Israel and Hamas honoured a ceasefire.
Hamas began bombing Israel after the ceasefire ended and kill Israelis.
Israel demands Hamas stop bombing Israel with essentially no other demands.
Hamas continue bombing unless Israel ceases to exist.
Israel responds predictably and as their democratically elected people require of their government and succeed in killing more Palestinians than Hamas killed Israelis.
Jeff Sparrow and all other blindly leftist twits iare indignant.
I think what would be good would be for the good burghers of Ashkelon to be forced to go into Gaza, and be forced to go through the hospitals, the morgues, and the destroyed houses, and help with the clean up. Ask them then if this is what they want done in their name.
It certainly made the Germans at the end of the second world war think twice about what had been done in their name for the sake of security.
Mmm, I reckon you nailed it too Jeff, and I was echoing your thoughts in my previous comment on the earlier story. Wag the Dog territory (warmongering for elections). Fog of War territory too (deliberately confused factual matrix).
But there is only one extra factor - the nuclear dimension. The Oz last Saturday led with Dimona increasingly being within range of military grade rockets. While I don’t necessarily buy that (even though the Federation of American Scientists estimate up to 130 weapons - probably stored safely underground?), I do buy into the perceived threat by the leadership of Israel for a dirty bomb or tactical nuke courtesy of their enemies in the absence of amenable leaderships of their neighbours like Jordan, Egypt, West Bank.
An episode of the West Wing tv series traversed this with Clinton esque fictional Bartlett centre left regime referring to the proverbial donkey cart ‘high tech’ delivery system. They had a Clinton presser on their content advisory credits - for real. Here are the episode profiles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_West_Wing_episodes
at #112, 113 and 114 broadcast in USA in October/November 2004, or via your local DVD shop any time ( I watched them all 12 months back).
And notice earlier episodes #110 and 111 of May 2004 which are fictionally situated in Gaza with plot line of murder of US delegation members and Camp David type of peace talks. These are just a tv show but they are also probably the perceptions of the elite in US politics and broader audience, with quality script writing.
I said Hamas honoured the ceasefire but that is relative to their subsequent actions. They were firing rockets long before Nov 19.
I agree humanitarian aid should have been and still should be allowed thru’.
Are u suggesting that Hamas did initiate this latest conflict but only under taunting duress from Israel, Tom?
Difficult to ‘make’ Hamas’ actions ‘ligitimate’ even if this were true