The Jewish Chronicle this week has apologised for running a Gaza Appeal advert by the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) after complaints from its readers. There is a fundamental problem with complaining about running an advert from a charity. It's a charity. We like charities, we think they do good work helping people who suffer for all manner of reasons. There is an even bigger problem when a Jewish newspaper receives complaints about an advert calling to help Gaza's children. It looks like the Jewish readership of the JC somehow fundamentally objects to helping Gaza's children, or at least objects to advertising an appeal for Gaza's children. It also strikes me as incredibly unlikely that one of these readers complained to The Guardian after they published arguably a far more controversial advert than the JC have and they probably responded to those who did by crying for free speech. There is a problem with the DEC however, which I will get to later.
The JC's apology, first off, is worth noting. They claim that the advert is "not an expression of the JC's view". What? An advert calling for money to go to the children suffering in Gaza? I would very much hope it was an expression of the JC's view, an expression of every decent human being's view. As I have repeated, you can support Israel vehemently (as I do) and still support the Palestinians, have sympathy for their plight (whoever you blame for it) and wish to help them. This idea that somehow publishing (=supporting?) anything that highlights the situation in Gaza is anti-Israel/pro-Hamas is ludicrous and needs to go. No, it does not even matter if the advert does not mention Hamas and just focuses on children suffering. The cause is irrelevant.
I have no doubt, for a minute, that some of those objecting to the JC's publication of the advert do so because they feel to have any support for Gaza or the plight of Palestinians in Gaza is somehow to support Hamas, the group that is undoubtedly (also) responsible for their suffering. If you have been reading my last few blogs, you will know that I am not interested in the blame game and frankly even if you had the most convincing arguments regarding Hamas' complicity in the plight of Gazans, that does not make any appeals on their [Gazans] behalf any less important. Just because you believe Hamas, and not Israel, is to blame for the situation Palestinians in Gaza find themselves in, you cannot object to organisations trying to alleviate that suffering. 'Hamas is to blame therefore we don't have to care'?
Nor do I buy this idea that any money going into Gaza somehow ends up in the hands of Hamas. I don't really want to have this argument, but it is incredibly lazy just to state 'Gaza = Hamas' and somehow any money donated to relieve the undoubted suffering of Palestinians in Gaza must be going to Hamas. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that you have to be careful with donations and charities have to be careful when working in areas with such immense corruption, but to simply dogmatically assert that money going to Gaza goes to Hamas will not do.
There is a small facebook group calling for a boycott of the JC until they apologise, which I suppose is unsurprising. Upon receiving the apology, the group's admin posted a status complaining that it was not good enough. It commits an awful example of genuine 'whataboutery' (as opposed to those Owen Jones and Mehdi Hasan often like to complain about) asking why the JC chose to print a Gaza appeal and not one for an Israeli charity as if somehow the JC was faced with a direct choice. As if somehow advertising a Gaza appeal means you do not support the work of Israeli charities. It then asks if an Islamic paper would post a Magen David Adom appeal. I am inclined to agree that such a paper would not. Does this make an iota of difference? Of course not! Just because an Islamic paper may not publish a Magen David Adom advert does not mean a Jewish paper cannot publish a Gaza appeal advert. What a nonsense. It then tells me that the JC has chosen money over the sensitivity of the Jewish Community. I do not wish to be part of this Jewish Community then. Anyway, the group has fewer likes than my average per-post readership so I suppose I should leave them alone.
Inspite of all of that, there is reason to object to supporting the DEC (and by extension the JC's decision to run an advert by them). Obviously the JC do not support the organisation and were merely advertising a worthy message. Rather than object to the cause it supports, it is possible to object to the charities that collectively form the DEC. This idea that somehow charities are all saintly organisations is as much a nonsense as the idea that supporting the plight of Palestinians is anti-Semitic or pro-Hamas. Of the charities that form the DEC, three have been reported on by Stand For Peace an organisation that I have previously worked for, as having links to extremism. Those are Christian Aid, Oxfam and Islamic Relief. These are worrying reports and reports that do mean supporting the DEC should be approached with some caution - though it is worth noting there are 10 other charities that make up the organisation. We all have a right to know that our money going to Gaza to help children that need help right now will not end up in the hands of Hamas and be used to build terror tunnels or rockets. It is a great tragedy for the Israeli civilians that live at risk of these attacks but it is an even greater tragedy for the Palestinians who could so benefit from the money flooding into Gaza if it were all used correctly and to alleviate their suffering rather than to inflict it upon Israelis.
It is a tricky one for me. I do not think the DEC intends for its donations to be abused but it is a sorry fact that they will be. And it won't just mean the Palestinians continue to suffer, it will mean the money flows directly to terrorism. So we should be vigilant and careful and lobby hard to ensure the charities mentioned, and others, know exactly where their money goes but object to a Jewish Paper running an advert for Gaza? Do me a favour.
Saturday, 16 August 2014
Tuesday, 12 August 2014
This is called 'whataboutery'
I quite like that word. It sounds somewhat funny and it's relatively nice to say. It's also one I've only heard being used twice. Once by Mehdi Hasan and once by Owen Jones, both in reference to pro-Israel supporters attempting to deflect attention from Israel by highlighting other, worse, incidents in the world that somehow escape the world's attention. There is some truth to the idea that this is a cynical ploy and there is no question that the mere fact that IS is painting the Middle East red with the blood of Iraqis and Syrians, for example, does not render the Palestinian deaths in Gaza any less significant or tragic.
There are problems with this dismissing of 'whataboutery'.
Maybe I will concede that bringing up silence on IS in reference to Israel is not a great argument. However, when Owen Jones and others remain silent on Palestinians being oppressed and murdered in, say, Syria because Israel cannot be blamed, then I am perfectly within my rights to point this out. There is some weight to the claim that if you only care about 'human rights' when Israel is involved, then you are not pro-Human rights but just anti-Israel. There is absolutely no denying that if your moral compass only starts working when Palestinians are killed in Gaza but not when they are subject to the same fate in Syria or when they are supposedly oppressed in the West Bank but not when they are throughout the rest of the Arab world, then you have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the Palestinians, merely with bashing Israel. The Palestinian cause is a convenient cloak with which to hide your attacks on Israel and you flirt with anti-Semitism at best and are guilty of it in most cases.
There are problems with this dismissing of 'whataboutery'.
Maybe I will concede that bringing up silence on IS in reference to Israel is not a great argument. However, when Owen Jones and others remain silent on Palestinians being oppressed and murdered in, say, Syria because Israel cannot be blamed, then I am perfectly within my rights to point this out. There is some weight to the claim that if you only care about 'human rights' when Israel is involved, then you are not pro-Human rights but just anti-Israel. There is absolutely no denying that if your moral compass only starts working when Palestinians are killed in Gaza but not when they are subject to the same fate in Syria or when they are supposedly oppressed in the West Bank but not when they are throughout the rest of the Arab world, then you have absolutely no concern whatsoever for the Palestinians, merely with bashing Israel. The Palestinian cause is a convenient cloak with which to hide your attacks on Israel and you flirt with anti-Semitism at best and are guilty of it in most cases.
Thursday, 7 August 2014
A few things I have learnt
Despite Hamas' claims that they will recommence firing tomorrow morning at 8am when the current ceasefire is due to end, I remain optimistic that we may see an end to the fighting for now. With that optimism in mind, I thought I would write a few things that this most recent conflict has taught me.
1. Hamas really are really quite evil aren't they?
From human shields to indiscriminate rocket fire to terror tunnels to storing rockets in schools and firing them from Mosques, they really have shown their true colours once again. What a horrible, disgusting organisation.
2. My Mum is completely mental
As if this needed confirming. My mother took the opportunity to go to Israel at the height of the conflict, which I thought was crazy enough. Whilst I was in Barcelona I was informed that she had gone to Gaza with her hairdresser and had been allowed to hold a rocket. She was told, "Don't drop it or it will explode." Nervy stuff.
3. There is no military solution
Combined with this, Israel is not the entity to destroy Hamas. On her travels my Mum was informed that any operation to destroy the tunnels would take upwards of a year and reports from cabinet meetings is that it may be closer to five years. This would obviously be at the risk of thousands of lives, both civilian and those of Israeli soldiers. Hamas cannot be destroyed militarily.
4. Thousands more Palestinians will die needlessly
The reason does not matter. The sorry, sad fact remains that they will die and they will die in their thousands and people will pretend to care only insofar as they can blame Israel or Hamas. Their deaths won't bring about the end of Hamas nor the end of the conflict nor does proving Israel is responsible or Hamas is responsible actually achieve anything. This blame culture is almost as predictable as the cycle of violence and whilst it is not as destructive, it is as pointless and futile.
5. Anti-Semitism is growing
And growing fast. My old History teacher remarked that Russia's incursion into the Crimea gave his history students a unique opportunity to relive the events of the Crimean war of the 19th Century. Unfortunately, the latest escalation in Israel-Gaza has given Europeans a unique insight into what 1930's Germany was like. Synagogues were blockaded and destroyed, Jewish cemeteries vandalised, swastikas appeared on Jewish owned homes and property and just randomly, Jews were boycotted and the whole sorry affair is beginning to look eerily familiar to any European of a certain age. When you cry Free Palestine but harass a Jewish woman in Oxford Street; weep for dead Palestinians but draw a swastika on a home in Hendon; or scream anti-Zionism whilst throwing bricks through the windows of a synagogue you are an anti-Semite. Pure and simple.
6. People are ignorant
People accuse Israel of a disproportionate action when they have no idea what that actually means. People scream war crimes when their knowledge of international law is non-existent. People talk about human shields as if it makes a gram of difference to the Palestinians whose lives have been ended and destroyed. People tell Israel to stop complaining about harmless rockets conveniently forgetting they have no idea what living under rocket fire would be like. People call for Israel to flatten Gaza as if somehow every Palestinian should pay for the crimes of Hamas. Frankly, I'm sick of it all.
1. Hamas really are really quite evil aren't they?
From human shields to indiscriminate rocket fire to terror tunnels to storing rockets in schools and firing them from Mosques, they really have shown their true colours once again. What a horrible, disgusting organisation.
2. My Mum is completely mental
As if this needed confirming. My mother took the opportunity to go to Israel at the height of the conflict, which I thought was crazy enough. Whilst I was in Barcelona I was informed that she had gone to Gaza with her hairdresser and had been allowed to hold a rocket. She was told, "Don't drop it or it will explode." Nervy stuff.
3. There is no military solution
Combined with this, Israel is not the entity to destroy Hamas. On her travels my Mum was informed that any operation to destroy the tunnels would take upwards of a year and reports from cabinet meetings is that it may be closer to five years. This would obviously be at the risk of thousands of lives, both civilian and those of Israeli soldiers. Hamas cannot be destroyed militarily.
4. Thousands more Palestinians will die needlessly
The reason does not matter. The sorry, sad fact remains that they will die and they will die in their thousands and people will pretend to care only insofar as they can blame Israel or Hamas. Their deaths won't bring about the end of Hamas nor the end of the conflict nor does proving Israel is responsible or Hamas is responsible actually achieve anything. This blame culture is almost as predictable as the cycle of violence and whilst it is not as destructive, it is as pointless and futile.
5. Anti-Semitism is growing
And growing fast. My old History teacher remarked that Russia's incursion into the Crimea gave his history students a unique opportunity to relive the events of the Crimean war of the 19th Century. Unfortunately, the latest escalation in Israel-Gaza has given Europeans a unique insight into what 1930's Germany was like. Synagogues were blockaded and destroyed, Jewish cemeteries vandalised, swastikas appeared on Jewish owned homes and property and just randomly, Jews were boycotted and the whole sorry affair is beginning to look eerily familiar to any European of a certain age. When you cry Free Palestine but harass a Jewish woman in Oxford Street; weep for dead Palestinians but draw a swastika on a home in Hendon; or scream anti-Zionism whilst throwing bricks through the windows of a synagogue you are an anti-Semite. Pure and simple.
6. People are ignorant
People accuse Israel of a disproportionate action when they have no idea what that actually means. People scream war crimes when their knowledge of international law is non-existent. People talk about human shields as if it makes a gram of difference to the Palestinians whose lives have been ended and destroyed. People tell Israel to stop complaining about harmless rockets conveniently forgetting they have no idea what living under rocket fire would be like. People call for Israel to flatten Gaza as if somehow every Palestinian should pay for the crimes of Hamas. Frankly, I'm sick of it all.
- Israel's actions may or may not be disproportionate but let me tell you one thing, it has virtually nothing to do with numbers.
- War crimes is a very serious accusation
Israel may or may not be guilty of war crimes but I can be sure as hell that everyone that accuses her of them has no idea what a war crime constitutes and certainly would never dream of accusing Hamas of anything anywhere near as serious. Firing petty rockets is the worst ever leveled at Hamas.
- Palestinians die
This is tragic. End of. Stop justifying. Stop making it less bad.
- Rockets do kill
This is a simple one. I won't even bother discussing the impact of rockets on the lives of Israelis. They do kill and they do injure and there is no defence for them. End of.
- As I have said before, there is no military solution in Gaza
Sure as hell flattening Gaza would not achieve a solution. It is a horrific thing to suggest and just as Jews are rightly horrified when people chant death to the Jews and incite genocide against them, so we should be when our very own do the exact same.
People are ignorant and horrible and stupid and just wrong. It's offensive and counterproductive. Proving Hamas is to blame brings peace no closer than proving Israel is to blame.
And finally, 7. There is still hope.
Despite everything I am still hopeful. Despite anti-Semitism and Western commentators suddenly finding moral compasses they can use to bash Israel and the persistent justification of death and everything else I have mentioned, I still have hope. I am moved by groups on Facebook that I have recommended before - Israel loves Palestine and Palestine loves Israel. I still read updates on those groups and believe that peace is possible, that the majority, even if they don't love Palestinians or Israelis, just want to get on with their lives and give their children a world free of shelling and rockets. I am moved by the Mayor of Sderot who tells me he wants to test peace with his neighbours. I am moved by pictures drawn by a boy in Sderot.
I remain hopeful that we can move beyond the past as two peoples and reach out to our common humanity. When you realise the other side is just the same as you, maybe with a different favourite film or sport or whatever, you realise there is no 'other side'. When you realise there is no other side, there can be peace. Let's pray for that.
Wednesday, 23 July 2014
"Give them back their childhood"
I recently went to my local synagogue for the first time in a few years to hear the former mayor of Sderot speak. He spoke remarkably well, especially given English is not his native language and without notes. A lot of what he said was nothing I haven't heard before, though it made me emotional hearing it said with such passion and feeling. It was also, perhaps crucially, nothing that even the most casual of Facebook commentators on Israel-Palestine won't have heard so I won't repeat it here, but two things really stuck with me:
1. He asked us to imagine children born in Sderot in 2001.
They would have just had their Bar and Bat Mitzvahs and all they will have known is rocket fire. 8000 rockets worth. 13 years of constant running for shelters and living in fear with the first thing they learnt being "Tzeva Adom" or red alert, the Israeli rocket siren alert. They've grown up such that they are unlikely to lead normal lives, every detail in their lives geared towards missile defence from ballistic windows in schools, playground toy structures that double up as bomb shelters and concerted efforts to ensure that wherever they are, they are never 15 seconds from a bomb shelter.
It made me think of the Guardian article I was reading earlier. (Bear with me!) It made the point that there have been 3 wars in Gaza in the last 6 years. That means a 7 year old Gazan child, lucky enough to survive so far, has grown up, much like his/her fellow child a few miles away, with war. Imagine it for a minute. If your little brother or sister had seen 3 wars. Heck, if you had seen 3 wars. Lived through them.
When you consider the lives of children in Sderot (and other cities near Gaza and, unfortunately, increasingly more distant cities) and Gaza are so tragically similar, you realise there is a humanity missing from vehement supporters on both sides. Of course there arguments there to be had and ignorance to be dispelled - I would find it impossible not to defend Israel against cries of disproportionately and anti-Semitic libels (all too common amongst even the most learnéd of my friends) - she remains my country and a Jewish homeland that the protests across Europe are ironically yet unfortunately continually confirming the need for, but you realise what is truly important.
No child should have to grow up like this. This is no way for a child to live.
2. "I hope one day to test peace with my neighbours"
There was a shake in his voice that made this the most genuine thing he said all night. Of course I felt moved by his entire story, everything he had to say but this was one of the last things he said to us and the way he said it was so heartfelt and moving. He, just like most on both sides of the border, wants to live in peace. He wants his children to never have to see the inside of a bomb shelter. He wants the children in Gaza to live long lives, in prosperity that could have been theirs prior to Hamas. It's a genuine desire, one that most Israelis and most Palestinians genuinely harbour. It is one that is all to easy to forget about, to ignore when bashing Israel or defending her actions. It is one that is almost easier to dismiss as if it is not important, when it is the most important thing to remember during this conflict. He spoke movingly about peace, a Palestinian state and a Jewish homeland, about there being enough land for everyone to enjoy and prosper in.
It's easy to forget about the regular people on the ground when we discuss Hamas or Israel and the big players in the region. There are just two people, wanting to get on with their lives. Why don't we let them?
1. He asked us to imagine children born in Sderot in 2001.
They would have just had their Bar and Bat Mitzvahs and all they will have known is rocket fire. 8000 rockets worth. 13 years of constant running for shelters and living in fear with the first thing they learnt being "Tzeva Adom" or red alert, the Israeli rocket siren alert. They've grown up such that they are unlikely to lead normal lives, every detail in their lives geared towards missile defence from ballistic windows in schools, playground toy structures that double up as bomb shelters and concerted efforts to ensure that wherever they are, they are never 15 seconds from a bomb shelter.
It made me think of the Guardian article I was reading earlier. (Bear with me!) It made the point that there have been 3 wars in Gaza in the last 6 years. That means a 7 year old Gazan child, lucky enough to survive so far, has grown up, much like his/her fellow child a few miles away, with war. Imagine it for a minute. If your little brother or sister had seen 3 wars. Heck, if you had seen 3 wars. Lived through them.
When you consider the lives of children in Sderot (and other cities near Gaza and, unfortunately, increasingly more distant cities) and Gaza are so tragically similar, you realise there is a humanity missing from vehement supporters on both sides. Of course there arguments there to be had and ignorance to be dispelled - I would find it impossible not to defend Israel against cries of disproportionately and anti-Semitic libels (all too common amongst even the most learnéd of my friends) - she remains my country and a Jewish homeland that the protests across Europe are ironically yet unfortunately continually confirming the need for, but you realise what is truly important.
No child should have to grow up like this. This is no way for a child to live.
2. "I hope one day to test peace with my neighbours"
There was a shake in his voice that made this the most genuine thing he said all night. Of course I felt moved by his entire story, everything he had to say but this was one of the last things he said to us and the way he said it was so heartfelt and moving. He, just like most on both sides of the border, wants to live in peace. He wants his children to never have to see the inside of a bomb shelter. He wants the children in Gaza to live long lives, in prosperity that could have been theirs prior to Hamas. It's a genuine desire, one that most Israelis and most Palestinians genuinely harbour. It is one that is all to easy to forget about, to ignore when bashing Israel or defending her actions. It is one that is almost easier to dismiss as if it is not important, when it is the most important thing to remember during this conflict. He spoke movingly about peace, a Palestinian state and a Jewish homeland, about there being enough land for everyone to enjoy and prosper in.
It's easy to forget about the regular people on the ground when we discuss Hamas or Israel and the big players in the region. There are just two people, wanting to get on with their lives. Why don't we let them?
Sunday, 20 July 2014
We're doing it wrong
I have recently liked two groups on facebook: 'Palestine Loves Israel' and 'Israel Loves Palestine'. I didn't know they existed until I read what I think is the best piece I have read on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but I am glad to have found them. They put everything into perspective.
Whilst I sit here and argue with people on Facebook on whether or not Israel is committing genocide; post links complaining about BBC bias; and try to expose Hamas' use of human shields and their culpability in Palestinian deaths there are Palestinians, innocent civilians like you and me, fleeing their homes, living in fear and dying.
Whilst pro-Palestinians accuse Israel of genocide; suggest all Jews are responsible for the shelling of Gaza; blockade Jews inside Synagogues and the anti-Zionist-but-not-anti-Semitic brigade are out in force on twitter and the streets, innocent civilians are running from rocket attacks, living in fear and, also, dying.
Whilst we all rush to lay blame at the feet of Hamas or the feet of Israel homes are being reduced to rubble, livelihoods destroyed and families destroyed.
Whilst we all clamber to the moral high ground, accusing pro-Palestinians of deafening silence over Syria and Iraq or hiding anti-Semitism behind the cloak of legitimate criticism of Israel and sympathy for the Palestinian people, there are two groups of people who just want to earn a wage, feed their families and enjoy their lives.
Enough really is enough. I've had enough. I don't want to argue against ignorant anti-Semites on Facebook and Twitter anymore. It won't get me anywhere. I don't want to have constructive discussions with intelligent critics of Israel about settlements and Israeli policy. It won't get peace any nearer.
It's time for more of us regular civilians, pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian and hopefully pro-both, to 'like' Palestine Loves Israel and Israel Loves Palestine on Facebook and listen to stories from civilians under fire. It's time for more of us, including myself, to stop engaging in fruitless Facebook discussions. And what is more, it is time for peace. Peace doesn't come if you can prove Israel acted disproportionately. Peace doesn't come if you can prove that Palestinian deaths are tragic but somehow inevitable and therefore okay. We, mostly, all want the same things. Israelis no more want to live under fire than Palestinians want them to live under fire. Palestinians no more want to be shelled and live under Hamas than Israelis want them to be shelled and live under Hamas. When we realise that, we may get closer to peace.
Peace comes when you reach out to what is the other side in a genuine attempt to understand their situation and realise that we're all the same.
Whilst I sit here and argue with people on Facebook on whether or not Israel is committing genocide; post links complaining about BBC bias; and try to expose Hamas' use of human shields and their culpability in Palestinian deaths there are Palestinians, innocent civilians like you and me, fleeing their homes, living in fear and dying.
Whilst pro-Palestinians accuse Israel of genocide; suggest all Jews are responsible for the shelling of Gaza; blockade Jews inside Synagogues and the anti-Zionist-but-not-anti-Semitic brigade are out in force on twitter and the streets, innocent civilians are running from rocket attacks, living in fear and, also, dying.
Whilst we all rush to lay blame at the feet of Hamas or the feet of Israel homes are being reduced to rubble, livelihoods destroyed and families destroyed.
Whilst we all clamber to the moral high ground, accusing pro-Palestinians of deafening silence over Syria and Iraq or hiding anti-Semitism behind the cloak of legitimate criticism of Israel and sympathy for the Palestinian people, there are two groups of people who just want to earn a wage, feed their families and enjoy their lives.
Enough really is enough. I've had enough. I don't want to argue against ignorant anti-Semites on Facebook and Twitter anymore. It won't get me anywhere. I don't want to have constructive discussions with intelligent critics of Israel about settlements and Israeli policy. It won't get peace any nearer.
It's time for more of us regular civilians, pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian and hopefully pro-both, to 'like' Palestine Loves Israel and Israel Loves Palestine on Facebook and listen to stories from civilians under fire. It's time for more of us, including myself, to stop engaging in fruitless Facebook discussions. And what is more, it is time for peace. Peace doesn't come if you can prove Israel acted disproportionately. Peace doesn't come if you can prove that Palestinian deaths are tragic but somehow inevitable and therefore okay. We, mostly, all want the same things. Israelis no more want to live under fire than Palestinians want them to live under fire. Palestinians no more want to be shelled and live under Hamas than Israelis want them to be shelled and live under Hamas. When we realise that, we may get closer to peace.
Peace comes when you reach out to what is the other side in a genuine attempt to understand their situation and realise that we're all the same.
Saturday, 12 July 2014
The Tragedy of Palestinian life
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)