Israel should not and will not make any apologies for investing heavily in the Iron Dome defence system as well as bomb shelters to protect her citizens. That Hamas choose to keep its leaders safe in bunkers and bomb shelters, leaving its civilian population to look after the rockets kept in homes, schools and places of worship is a horrific war crime, one that leaves ordinary Palestinians fearful for their lives. But it makes you wonder, what exactly is Hamas hoping to achieve? Their genocidal intent is unquestionable and it seems to me that often when I read someone tell me that Hamas rockets don't kill, I sense a twinge of disappointment. Regardless of their obvious dreams to murder as many Israelis as possible, you have to feel that if they cared about Palestinian lives they would not fire rockets at a country they know will respond. It seems an obvious point, but one that is conveniently ignored whenever rockets are dismissed as (usually) ineffectual.
Whatever you think of Israel's response, you must admit that firing rockets into Israel is a ludicrously stupid thing to do - unless you are comfortable with placing every Gazan under the threat of one of the world's largest militaries. Indeed, that rockets have hit the supposedly holy should-be-our-capital Jerusalem as well as actually Palestinian cities in Hebron and Bethlehem, one is inclined to doubt Hamas has any commitment to the Palestinian cause and Palestinian life, rather they are willing to jeopardise both in order to score propaganda victories against Israel. When a Hamas rocket falls short, landing in Gaza, leaves UNRWA warehouses ablaze I think one is entitled to question Hamas' true motives. Palestinian lives are reduced to mere point-scoring machines and when Israel does not kill enough, pictures from Syria that are never before seen in the western media are circulated to make a dire situation seem worse. Over 100 Palestinians, terrorists and civilians, have been killed since the launch of Operation Protective Edge. The only thing more tragic than this number is the fact that Hamas and pro-Palestinian activists on twitter do not deem this enough. Instead, they must steal pictures of dead Palestinians from Syria that no one cared about because Assad, not Israel, was to blame and claim they too are amongst the Gazan dead.
No one truly cares about the Palestinians. Not Hamas and Fatah, the political entities that are supposed to represent them yet endanger their lives by firing indiscriminately at Israeli towns and cities and refusing them access to bomb shelters. Not Arab countries that surround them who either restrict their rights (Lebanon/Egypt/Jordan) or murder them (Syria). Not Western governments who are too busy falling over themselves to confirm that killing people is indeed a bad thing. Not the pro-Palestinian activists littered about on Twitter who value Palestinian life so highly that dead Palestinians outside Gaza are only worthy of mention when not enough die in Gaza for their liking. And certainly not the antisemites who point out that hundreds more Palestinians die than Israelis and this proves the disproportionate nature of the Israeli response, implying that if hundreds of Israelis died too, the Palestinian deaths would be less tragic.
I wish there was a way for Israel to stop rockets raining down on her people without responding with air strikes that will kill innocents. I wish equally, perhaps even more, for the Palestinian people to be represented by political entities and supported by activists that value their lives above delegitimising Israel. That they are not is the real tragedy of Palestinian life.
Showing posts with label Rockets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rockets. Show all posts
Saturday, 12 July 2014
Friday, 11 July 2014
There should be no 'but'
One of my pet hates is starting a sentence like, "I'm not racist..." and following it with a 'but'. Invariably what follows is a racist statement, or a statement justifying racism. There is no but. It should just be "I'm not racist." I've noticed few examples of this that have frustrated me.
The first is "The Palestinian deaths are tragic but..." The next bit is, "Israel must defend herself," and something about how they are unavoidable and/or, "It is Hamas' fault." Both are true. Both are/should be irrelevant when discussing the tragic nature of Palestinian deaths. We need to distance ourselves from this culture where justifying death is permissible. There should be no but, there is no justification for the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. Rather, let's say, and mean, "The Palestinian deaths are tragic and we pray there is a way to end them whilst still protecting Israeli civilians." Because you know what? There is. The removal of Hamas, but that is a political point we do not need to argue here.
This works the other way, the second is: "Israel has a right to defend herself but..." or "The rocket attacks are terrible but..." The but is usually followed by some reference to no Israelis dying or the fact that Palestinians do or some other statement contradicting the principle of the bit before the but. Again, there is no but. Israel has a right to defend itself, full stop. The rockets are terrible full stop. It's the same as above, stop justifying rocket attacks and stop reducing the capacity of Israel to defend herself.
Owen Jones is responsible for an awful example of the above, whilst his latest piece in The Guardian is horrific for other reasons.
Firstly, he quotes a human rights activist saying that Israel is targeted by "shitty rockets" and that Israel has bomb shelters etc whilst Gaza does not. The former is an example of "The rockets are wrong but..." That the rockets aren't very good is no excuse, is no justification for their use. This reward for Hamas' incompetence vs Israel's ability to protect her civilians is bizarre. The latter is simply false. Gaza is awash with bomb shelters. It's just that the civilians are not allowed to use them, Hamas forces them into the firing line using them as human shields.
Secondly, Owen, in one brilliant paragraph manages to both justify Hamas rockets into civilian areas *and* belittle the fear amongst Israelis that he states you should not belittle. It really is a feat of journalism not to be sniffed at. The first sentence of the second paragraph gets off to a good start. There is no defence for Hamas' firing of rockets into civilian areas and you should not belittle the fear that it causes Israelis in the bomb shelters. What he then goes to do is say 'but Israel has weapons and the rockets aren't very good' defending exactly what he states there is no defence for and belittling exactly that which he claims should not be belittled. What relevance does the ineffective nature of the rockets (which do kill, which do injure and which do damage property all whilst instilling a sense of fear into Israelis running for the bomb shelters) have? Similarly, why should the fact that Israel can defend herself and defend herself well make any difference to whether Hamas rockets are indefensible or Israelis should be scared of them? These two facts bear no relevance, not to media coverage (I mean, if Hamas fires a rocket into Israel, should the fact that Israel has "nuclear bombs" change the fact that Hamas fired a rocket into Israel?) and not to the initial statements that Owen makes and then dismisses.
Owen then tells us that 565 Palestinians were killed since January 2009. He also tells us that 28 Israeli civilians and 10 Israeli security personnel have been killed in the same period. Seems a huge difference, right? Firstly, this has the horrible implication that somehow if 565 Israelis died, this would be okay. It is not Owen's intention, but the implication is some sort of barbaric bible-style eye for an eye justice would be preferable, as if somehow the 565 Palestinian deaths would be less bad if 565 Israelis had died. What's worse is Owen's deliberate misleading of his readers. In order to make it seem like more Palestinian civilians have been killed, he does not distinguish between, civilians and terrorists on the Palestinian side, but does distinguish between civilians and security personnel on the Israeli side. If you click on the link he provides, you will find that the number of civilians that died is about half that which Owen suggests it is, an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. Why distinguish on the Israeli side but not the Palestinian side? Is it because 565 reads much worse than the lower figure representing solely civilian casualties? Anything to make Israel seem even worse, eh? The irony of it all is, is that 242 civilians killed in the Gaza strip is still a horrifically high number, 242 higher than Israel wanted. 242 is still a tragically shocking number. Owen Jones, however, feels he needs to distort the facts to paint Israel in a bad light to suit his agenda. 242 deaths is not enough for Owen apparently.
Finally, in a bizarre move, Owen tells us that Human Rights Watch is not a "den of lefties." Perhaps. The organisation has its own anti-Israel bias that Owen would no doubt agree with. Its director, for example, finds it impossible to condemn unequivocally the kidnapping of Israeli teens. Every time he tried to, he managed to criticise Israel for her actions or mention the teens were settlers. As if either justifies the kidnapping and murder of innocents. Kidnapping teens is awful but...
Update 12/07/2014
I've just read Mira Bar Hillel's piece in the independent. Her overriding point is bizarre - because, in a democracy, there are politicians who believe and say horrible things, she is considering burning her Israeli passport. By her logic when Nick Griffin became an MEP we should have all been on the verge of burning our passports. Regardless, that's not what is wrong with the article. No, what's wrong with it is that she commits the cardinal 'but' sin. Not only does she make the same mistake as our friend Jones above, justifying Hamas terror because Israel can defend herself but she also places Israel and the Nazis on the same level. "I'm Jewish and the Holocaust was terrible - I should know right? My aunt and children perished but..."
Frankly, burn your passport Mira. Burn it now. We don't want Hamas apologists and Jews who compare Israel to the Nazis on our side.
Update 13/07/2014
Mira Bar Hillel read my blog. But she didn't read it very well.
The first is "The Palestinian deaths are tragic but..." The next bit is, "Israel must defend herself," and something about how they are unavoidable and/or, "It is Hamas' fault." Both are true. Both are/should be irrelevant when discussing the tragic nature of Palestinian deaths. We need to distance ourselves from this culture where justifying death is permissible. There should be no but, there is no justification for the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians. Rather, let's say, and mean, "The Palestinian deaths are tragic and we pray there is a way to end them whilst still protecting Israeli civilians." Because you know what? There is. The removal of Hamas, but that is a political point we do not need to argue here.
This works the other way, the second is: "Israel has a right to defend herself but..." or "The rocket attacks are terrible but..." The but is usually followed by some reference to no Israelis dying or the fact that Palestinians do or some other statement contradicting the principle of the bit before the but. Again, there is no but. Israel has a right to defend itself, full stop. The rockets are terrible full stop. It's the same as above, stop justifying rocket attacks and stop reducing the capacity of Israel to defend herself.
Owen Jones is responsible for an awful example of the above, whilst his latest piece in The Guardian is horrific for other reasons.
Firstly, he quotes a human rights activist saying that Israel is targeted by "shitty rockets" and that Israel has bomb shelters etc whilst Gaza does not. The former is an example of "The rockets are wrong but..." That the rockets aren't very good is no excuse, is no justification for their use. This reward for Hamas' incompetence vs Israel's ability to protect her civilians is bizarre. The latter is simply false. Gaza is awash with bomb shelters. It's just that the civilians are not allowed to use them, Hamas forces them into the firing line using them as human shields.
Secondly, Owen, in one brilliant paragraph manages to both justify Hamas rockets into civilian areas *and* belittle the fear amongst Israelis that he states you should not belittle. It really is a feat of journalism not to be sniffed at. The first sentence of the second paragraph gets off to a good start. There is no defence for Hamas' firing of rockets into civilian areas and you should not belittle the fear that it causes Israelis in the bomb shelters. What he then goes to do is say 'but Israel has weapons and the rockets aren't very good' defending exactly what he states there is no defence for and belittling exactly that which he claims should not be belittled. What relevance does the ineffective nature of the rockets (which do kill, which do injure and which do damage property all whilst instilling a sense of fear into Israelis running for the bomb shelters) have? Similarly, why should the fact that Israel can defend herself and defend herself well make any difference to whether Hamas rockets are indefensible or Israelis should be scared of them? These two facts bear no relevance, not to media coverage (I mean, if Hamas fires a rocket into Israel, should the fact that Israel has "nuclear bombs" change the fact that Hamas fired a rocket into Israel?) and not to the initial statements that Owen makes and then dismisses.
Owen then tells us that 565 Palestinians were killed since January 2009. He also tells us that 28 Israeli civilians and 10 Israeli security personnel have been killed in the same period. Seems a huge difference, right? Firstly, this has the horrible implication that somehow if 565 Israelis died, this would be okay. It is not Owen's intention, but the implication is some sort of barbaric bible-style eye for an eye justice would be preferable, as if somehow the 565 Palestinian deaths would be less bad if 565 Israelis had died. What's worse is Owen's deliberate misleading of his readers. In order to make it seem like more Palestinian civilians have been killed, he does not distinguish between, civilians and terrorists on the Palestinian side, but does distinguish between civilians and security personnel on the Israeli side. If you click on the link he provides, you will find that the number of civilians that died is about half that which Owen suggests it is, an intentional misrepresentation of the facts. Why distinguish on the Israeli side but not the Palestinian side? Is it because 565 reads much worse than the lower figure representing solely civilian casualties? Anything to make Israel seem even worse, eh? The irony of it all is, is that 242 civilians killed in the Gaza strip is still a horrifically high number, 242 higher than Israel wanted. 242 is still a tragically shocking number. Owen Jones, however, feels he needs to distort the facts to paint Israel in a bad light to suit his agenda. 242 deaths is not enough for Owen apparently.
Finally, in a bizarre move, Owen tells us that Human Rights Watch is not a "den of lefties." Perhaps. The organisation has its own anti-Israel bias that Owen would no doubt agree with. Its director, for example, finds it impossible to condemn unequivocally the kidnapping of Israeli teens. Every time he tried to, he managed to criticise Israel for her actions or mention the teens were settlers. As if either justifies the kidnapping and murder of innocents. Kidnapping teens is awful but...
Update 12/07/2014
I've just read Mira Bar Hillel's piece in the independent. Her overriding point is bizarre - because, in a democracy, there are politicians who believe and say horrible things, she is considering burning her Israeli passport. By her logic when Nick Griffin became an MEP we should have all been on the verge of burning our passports. Regardless, that's not what is wrong with the article. No, what's wrong with it is that she commits the cardinal 'but' sin. Not only does she make the same mistake as our friend Jones above, justifying Hamas terror because Israel can defend herself but she also places Israel and the Nazis on the same level. "I'm Jewish and the Holocaust was terrible - I should know right? My aunt and children perished but..."
Frankly, burn your passport Mira. Burn it now. We don't want Hamas apologists and Jews who compare Israel to the Nazis on our side.
Update 13/07/2014
Mira Bar Hillel read my blog. But she didn't read it very well.
Monday, 7 July 2014
What exactly is 'proportionate'?
As you probably know from my Facebook and Twitter posts, I have recently downloaded the 'red alert' app, which sends a push notification every time a rocket is fired into Israel. About an hour ago, my phone couldn't keep up with the barrage of rockets that had been fired, with at least 80, reportedly, being fired into Israeli territory just today. Whilst Israelis run for cover, media outlets and Western politicians - as they did after the brutal murder of 3 Israeli teens last week - will call for Israel to act with restraint and no doubt accuse Israel of a disproportionate response. It is amazing how easy it is to clamber to the moral high ground when your starting place is a comfortable arm chair, sheltered (pun not intended) from the rocket fire that kills and injures Israelis. I ask two simple questions of everyone calling, perhaps with good intentions, on Israel to act with restraint:
1. What would you do? Just think about it for a minute.
2. What exactly is a proportionate response to indiscriminate rocket fire? Israel responds with targeted air strikes. Perhaps, simply returning rocket fire tit for tat would be proportionate?
I despair for the situation in the Middle East, truly I do. The cycle of violence looks like it is about to escalate, which will only lead to more needless Israeli and Palestinian deaths. (Initially that sentence read "deaths on both sides", but I decided to change it. This culture of "sides" and "us against them" is unhelpful.) What makes me irate, however, is people preaching at Israel, dictating what she should or should not do in response to attacks on her civilians, aimed at killing as many of them as possible.
I ask each and every one of you to download the app 'red alert'. Let your phone notifications reveal to you not only the joy of a new mention on twitter or a text from that person you're flirting with but also the horror and frequency of rocket fire into Israel. Perhaps you can change the sound to the actual alert sound thousands of Israelis will hear when you hear it, the only difference being they will run for cover and you will tell their government to act with restraint.
Update (8 July)
It has been pointed out to me that 'proportionately' does have a legal definition in international law. I must confess to not being aware of this, though initial research suggests that Israel is acting well within international law. What is important to make clear is that when I ask the question, I do so without reference to international law, knowing those who accuse Israel of disproportionate responses, make such accusations in the same way. When 'tweeter x' tells me Israel killed a Gazan woman and therefore did not act proportionately, s/he means that because Hamas are unsuccessful in their attempts to murder Israelis, Israel acts disproportionately when she responds and causes, regrettable, civilian casualties. S/he does not mean that Israel's act go against international law (though s/he may claim as much). Thus when I ask what would be a proportionate response, I do so (obviously) rhetorically but also in direct response to this individual. What exactly would be a proportionate response given Israel does act in accordance with international law? It is not enough for a response to be proportionate as far as international law is concerned for those who accuse Israel of disproportionate responses, so what exactly is proportionate?
1. What would you do? Just think about it for a minute.
2. What exactly is a proportionate response to indiscriminate rocket fire? Israel responds with targeted air strikes. Perhaps, simply returning rocket fire tit for tat would be proportionate?
I despair for the situation in the Middle East, truly I do. The cycle of violence looks like it is about to escalate, which will only lead to more needless Israeli and Palestinian deaths. (Initially that sentence read "deaths on both sides", but I decided to change it. This culture of "sides" and "us against them" is unhelpful.) What makes me irate, however, is people preaching at Israel, dictating what she should or should not do in response to attacks on her civilians, aimed at killing as many of them as possible.
I ask each and every one of you to download the app 'red alert'. Let your phone notifications reveal to you not only the joy of a new mention on twitter or a text from that person you're flirting with but also the horror and frequency of rocket fire into Israel. Perhaps you can change the sound to the actual alert sound thousands of Israelis will hear when you hear it, the only difference being they will run for cover and you will tell their government to act with restraint.
Update (8 July)
It has been pointed out to me that 'proportionately' does have a legal definition in international law. I must confess to not being aware of this, though initial research suggests that Israel is acting well within international law. What is important to make clear is that when I ask the question, I do so without reference to international law, knowing those who accuse Israel of disproportionate responses, make such accusations in the same way. When 'tweeter x' tells me Israel killed a Gazan woman and therefore did not act proportionately, s/he means that because Hamas are unsuccessful in their attempts to murder Israelis, Israel acts disproportionately when she responds and causes, regrettable, civilian casualties. S/he does not mean that Israel's act go against international law (though s/he may claim as much). Thus when I ask what would be a proportionate response, I do so (obviously) rhetorically but also in direct response to this individual. What exactly would be a proportionate response given Israel does act in accordance with international law? It is not enough for a response to be proportionate as far as international law is concerned for those who accuse Israel of disproportionate responses, so what exactly is proportionate?
Thursday, 6 December 2012
The World's Gone Crazy
I live in a Western Liberal Democracy. My mum as a woman has full human rights; I am free to practise my religion; I do not live in fear of suicide bombers or a repressive regime. I really have no reason to be fed up, to have had enough, to be frustrated but for some reason, I am. Why? Because the world's gone crazy.
I live in a world where it is debated by Human Rights Watch whether Iran's repeated calls for the destruction of Israel are illegal with the ultimate conclusion, so far, that this is just fine but the worlds' leaders and media fall over themselves to blast Israel for authorising plans to build houses in land that is rightfully theirs under Oslo.
I live in a world where the murder of anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 (your guess is as good as mine) Syrians is completely acceptable provided they are murdered by conventional means and not through the use of chemical weapons but where Israel's fundamental right to self-defence against terrorists committed to her destruction is called into question.
I live in a world where Hamas and Fatah fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians but it is only Israel's retaliation aimed at killing terrorists and only terrorists that is deemed worthy of media attention.
I live in a world where Syrian babies are dying daily but this brought to the world's attention only through Hamas' use of pictures of the Syrian war dead as pictures from Gaza.
I live in a world where the UN debates 21 resolutions on Israel and only one on Syria, setting a on hour time limit for this resolution leaving the rest of the day to debate an Israeli one, but it is Israel's reaction to constant rocket fire that is deemed disproportionate.
I live in a world where there is an Arab state in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, UAE, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti and Comoros but it is the existence of the one Jewish State which prevents peace.
I live in a world where the Arab World refuse to recognise a (Jewish) State of Israel; sponsor, partake and glorify terror; refuse every peace deal that has ever been offered; have declared wars of destruction against Israel on more than one occasion and a Palestinian Authority that rejects negotiations in favour of unilateral moves; has no authority in half the state set aside for a future Palestinian one yet it is Israeli actions which are deemed counter productive to peace.
I live in a world where the Palestinian Leadership and Arab world harbour no desire for peace, seek the ultimate destruction of Israel and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve this goal, but the world presses Israel to do more to achieve peace.
Finally, I live in a world where all of the above is true for the simple fact that Israel is a Jewish state.
I live in a world where it is debated by Human Rights Watch whether Iran's repeated calls for the destruction of Israel are illegal with the ultimate conclusion, so far, that this is just fine but the worlds' leaders and media fall over themselves to blast Israel for authorising plans to build houses in land that is rightfully theirs under Oslo.
I live in a world where the murder of anywhere between 60,000 and 120,000 (your guess is as good as mine) Syrians is completely acceptable provided they are murdered by conventional means and not through the use of chemical weapons but where Israel's fundamental right to self-defence against terrorists committed to her destruction is called into question.
I live in a world where Hamas and Fatah fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli civilians but it is only Israel's retaliation aimed at killing terrorists and only terrorists that is deemed worthy of media attention.
I live in a world where Syrian babies are dying daily but this brought to the world's attention only through Hamas' use of pictures of the Syrian war dead as pictures from Gaza.
I live in a world where the UN debates 21 resolutions on Israel and only one on Syria, setting a on hour time limit for this resolution leaving the rest of the day to debate an Israeli one, but it is Israel's reaction to constant rocket fire that is deemed disproportionate.
I live in a world where there is an Arab state in Egypt, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Somalia, UAE, Libya, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Djibouti and Comoros but it is the existence of the one Jewish State which prevents peace.
I live in a world where the Arab World refuse to recognise a (Jewish) State of Israel; sponsor, partake and glorify terror; refuse every peace deal that has ever been offered; have declared wars of destruction against Israel on more than one occasion and a Palestinian Authority that rejects negotiations in favour of unilateral moves; has no authority in half the state set aside for a future Palestinian one yet it is Israeli actions which are deemed counter productive to peace.
I live in a world where the Palestinian Leadership and Arab world harbour no desire for peace, seek the ultimate destruction of Israel and are willing to go to any lengths to achieve this goal, but the world presses Israel to do more to achieve peace.
Finally, I live in a world where all of the above is true for the simple fact that Israel is a Jewish state.
Posted with BlogsyMonday, 12 November 2012
Find me a dead Israeli: There maybe a story here.
Violence in the Middle East is not a new thing. Rockets being fired into Israel and Israeli responses are events that, for the citizens of Gaza and Israel, have become quite commonplace. The media response is, too, nothing new. Nor is the justification for the media response (or lack of it). The most common is, "But the rockets don't kill anyone". This is then either extended to suggest it is 'not newsworthy' or, even more extreme, "Israel shouldn't make a fuss about it". How anyone can be so irreverent to rocket fire, I do not know, but I shall attempt to debunk both of these views here.
The argument can be formulated as follows:
1 1. The rockets, in the main, do
not kill anyone
2 2. That which is aimed to kill but doesn’t kill is not:
a.
Newsworthy
or
b.
Something that warrants a reaction/condemnation
3 3. Therefore rockets (which aim to kill), in the main,
are not:
a.
Newsworthy
or
b.
Something that warrants any
reaction/condemnation
If 1 and 2 are true it follows that 3 is also true. Ignoring the obvious complication that rockets can and do kill people for now, premise 2 is clearly false. In other words it is not the case that things which aim to kill but fail are neither newsworthy nor something that warrants a reaction for 6 reasons:
1. The rockets still have a profound effect. In England, students look forward to "snow days" as a day off school. In the southern parts of Israel, students have rocket days where it is deemed school cannot be opened, not because they may slip and fall or because the coach service cannot run as per snow days, but because it is deemed that the threat of a rocket attack means students are in the position where they may go to school but not return. Thus, a day in rocket shelters is the solution. Whatever way you look at the situation - whether you argue Israel is an occupying power and the rockets are only in retaliation to IAF strikes on the Gaza strip or not, the fact rocket fire targets schools and prevents children from attending school is not only newsworthy, something that warrants a reaction from Israel but also just plain wrong. To note an example, when schools are shut in England due to snow, that is deemed newsworthy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-16903487 - just one example of this being reported). When schools are shut due to rocket fire, because the rocket fire hasn't resulted in dead Israelis, it is not newsworthy. If anything, it should be the other way round.
2. The rockets may not (always) kill, but they inflict damage and do cause injuries. Simply put, since when did 'deaths' become the criteria for what warrants a reaction or is newsworthy. Multiple Israelis are injured in rocket fire - the attitude that no deaths=not newsworthy/not worthy of a reaction can be crudely put as, "If there are no dead Israelis, I do not care enough to report it and/or Israel has no right to react". It makes me worry for some people that I genuinely have to explain why 'deaths' as the criteria upon which something becomes newsworthy or deserving of a reaction, is simply absurd. The unsuccessful nature of the rockets doesn't render them not bad nor does it mean that indiscriminate rocket fire is neither newsworthy nor deserving of a reaction.
3. Linking both of the above points, the rockets aim and have the potential to kill. They are fired at children forcing them to miss school and spend the day in a rocket shelter. Hamas are not on some mission to disrupt the schooling of Israeli children. They wish to kill Israeli school children. They are fired into villages and cause damage to buildings and injuries to civilians. Hamas is not on some mission to keep Israeli builders and doctors in work. They wish to destroy villages and kill civilians. Again, when something is aimed to kill and has the potential to kill, only in the case of Israel is the failure to kill deemed a reason not to report about the rockets and/or to condemn any reaction by Israel to the rockets. Firstly, foiled terror plots haven't killed anyone yet they are still deemed newsworthy (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/times_square_car_smoke_scare_TyBE8K6vF3PzScpS9xG0XP) - as they, of course, are. The fact the terror plot failed doesn't then render it irrelevant to news organisations. (Unless, Israel is on the receiving end). Indeed, in the case of the Times Square scare, it was deemed newsworthy even though nothing even exploded, unlike rocket fire which, in itself is successful, even if it fails to kill (many). Secondly, the fact that the rockets don't kill (many) doesn't mean Israel has no right to attempt to prevent the rocket fire. What government's defence of her citizens is only justifiable if a citizen has died? That the rockets can (and does) kill civilians is enough to warrant a reaction from Israel to prevent the rocket fire.
4. The rockets are a barrier to peace. If we work from the assumption that a Palestinian state will compromise of the Gaza Strip and, as of yet, an undetermined amount of the land known commonly as the West Bank, then a future Palestinian state will include the land where the rocket fire emanates from and the people that fire the rockets. In other words, the actions of the ruling party from an area of land that is generally assumed to form part of any future Palestinian State is indiscriminately firing (albeit useless) rockets into Israel, actions which by definition are not peaceful. Not only should this make the situation newsworthy - whether peace is attainable in the Middle East is surely newsworthy and thus actions which, without doubt a a barrier to peace must also be newsworthy, but it means that a response from Israel is more than justified. Again, whether or not you also deem the Israeli response as a barrier to peace and not justifiable in the face of Hamas' regime of terror is besides the point - the rockets into Israel are a barrier to peace, regardless of whether or not there exist other barriers to peace.
5. Israel has spent millions on mechanisms to prevent the rockets from being deadly - iron dome defence system, bomb shelters etc etc. It is not the rockets themselves that mean Israeli deaths are few and far between but Israeli efforts to ensure this is the case. Why, therefore, should Hamas essentially get the credit for the Israeli efforts? By getting the credit, I mean not having the rocket attacks condemned or covered as extensively as, especially 100+ rocket bursts, should be.
5. Israel has spent millions on mechanisms to prevent the rockets from being deadly - iron dome defence system, bomb shelters etc etc. It is not the rockets themselves that mean Israeli deaths are few and far between but Israeli efforts to ensure this is the case. Why, therefore, should Hamas essentially get the credit for the Israeli efforts? By getting the credit, I mean not having the rocket attacks condemned or covered as extensively as, especially 100+ rocket bursts, should be.
6. The rockets do kill people. The amount is irrelevant. (OK, granted, this is more to disprove premise one, rather than two, but the point is valid nonetheless)
If premise 2 is false, then not only should the world's media report the rocket fire more extensively than it does, rather than taking the view that Israelis are not dying therefore it is not important but more crucially, Israel absolutely has a right to respond to rocket fire. You can argue to the ends of the Earth about the force it should use, the force it does use but the fundamental point remains that Israel, no matter how useless Hamas are, has a right to defend her citizens and put an end to rocket fire. That Hamas care not for the citizens of Gaza not only putting there lives in danger through attacking Israel but also using them as active human shields to further endanger them, is not Israel's problem.
It is perhaps ironic that the one thing preventing Hamas from obtaining weapons which would, according to the proponents of the above argument, mean that attacks against Israel were newsworthy/deserving of a reaction is the blockade of Gaza which they all oppose. Surely preventing weapons of a more deadly nature entering Gaza is in the interests of the proponents of the above argument. They need a reason not to report on Hamas' attacks. If Hamas starting killing more Israelis, that already absurd reason would float away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)