Massacre in slow motion

[IndianaGreen]

Massacre in slow motion

March 9, 2009

THE COURAGEOUS Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has talked about the hermetic siege of Gaza that has been in place for some three years now. Prior to the war, Pappe called this siege "slow-motion genocide," and he was absolutely right.

Even before the war, more than 350 terminally ill people died because Israel refused to allow them to leave Gaza for essential medical treatment. Israel refused to issue them travel permits to be treated in Egyptian or Jordanian hospitals. I'm talking about people with kidney failure, heart problems, cancer.

The war transformed the slow-motion genocide into real genocide--I don't know what else to call it. During the war, more 1,440 people were killed.

We thought that the end of the war would also mean the end of the medieval siege imposed on Gaza. But unfortunately, that hasn't happened since the end of the Gaza massacre--and I really don't want to call it the end of the "war," because the war has continued but in different forms.

Israel failed to achieve any of its three objectives that it declared at the beginning of the war--topping the government of Hamas, putting an end to the launching of rockets, and establishing a new security arrangement in Gaza.

Since they failed at this, they have been trying to achieve politically what they could not militarily--with the help of the U.S., even under the Obama administration, with the complicity of the European Union and with the help of some Arab regimes.

http://socialistworker.org/2009/03/09/massacre-in-slow-motion

[HillbillyBob]

1. This mess is sickening and so very sad, ugly and uncalled for

Now we have the formerly oppressed become the Oppressors.
I had a relative that survived Buchenwald and neighbors that were survivors of Auschwitz. Has Israel forgotten?

[IndianaGreen]

2. Couple this with the cohort of Holocaust deniers being rehabilitated by the Vatican

and it is enough to make any rational person go ballistic.

:nuke:

[Shaktimaan]

3. forgotten the holocaust?

I doubt it. But would you really compare the two in any meaningful way?

Israel was attempting to eliminate the rocket threat coming from Gaza. At a certain point, after pretty much all other options were exhausted, isn't it reasonable to expect the actions Israel has taken?

[Idealism]

4. All other options were not exhausted

Israel's government was not willing to give up the blockade of Gaza in exchange for a renewed tahdiya.

[pelsar]

8. darn those hamasnikim....they simply disagree with you---again!

wouldnt it be nice if the hamasnikim just kept their mouths shut, took a back seat to the "western elites" propaganda machine to demonize israel?....its was so much smoother during arafats ruling...he understood much better, that if you want the cash and the bash israel propaganda, you gottta learn to play the game.

thats the trouble with the hamasnikim religious fanatics the have a tendency toward fascist style dictatorships, they dont really care what their "friends in the west" think. (i guess they dont think those in the 'west" know better than themselves how to "behave."

on the other hand, there will be many who dont know the facts or history and will be more than happy to believe the new fairytales being made up....see the original article, i think it belongs in the fiction/fantasy section of the "library."

[Idealism]

9. This article is utterly worthless and has no bearing on what I said

What I said was correct; Hamas offered to extend the lull if Israel would lift the blockade. If Hamas wanted another condition besides lifting the blockade, do tell with some sources.

[pelsar]

12. and of course listening to what hamas actually says:

they're demands were for open unconditional borders irreguardless of what they do (shoot rockets, attack border patrols etc) and no restrictions on what they "import" via israel.
and more......
they dont get to threaten israel....blackmail is not a good nor wise political position.

though not an exact link/info its pretty close:
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/59784.html

It was in the hope of securing a new cease-fire, ending the sanctions altogether, that Hamas refused to renew the "lull" agreement and began firing rockets in December.

a bit more here:
Hamas demanded that Israel open the crossings that had been closed as a result of the rocket fire. The movement also reiterated its demand that the ceasefire be extended to include the West Bank

It may be that its demands - such as the opening of the crossings, including the Egyptian controlled Rafah Crossing


http://www.bicom.org.uk/newsletter-latest-from-bicom/bicom-analysis--israel-s-difficult-gaza-choices
______

research is your friend....though it does ruin the preferred "israel bad, hamas better" scenario...

[Idealism]

13. You are delusional

I think no such thing about Hamas. I stated, which these articles are just pontificating on the conversations that took place, which is the same thing that I am doing. Everyone knows Hamas offered Israel a renewed lull after initially rejecting the renewal on the grounds that the last did not improve anything in Gaza. Whatever the case may be, Israel decided against taking Hamas up on their offer- safe to say that their offer wasn't generous enough to them. So, they thought war a better alternative.

[pelsar]

16. your right hamas thought war was a better alternative...

thats why they put forth "conditions" that everyone knew was just an excuse to continue the war with israel....oldest trick in the middle east since the west got involved, isnt it amazing how westerners fall for it again and again and again and again....hamas/PLO etc throw out the words: ceasefire, lull etc so many westerners think it means what they want to believe-and without reading the fine print

prime example:
rejecting the renewal on the grounds that the last did not improve anything in Gaza

I guess to some, not being attacked and bombed is not considered an "improvement"...is that your explanation or hamas

[Idealism]

18. That was actually from a former IDF general

but you can pretend its from Hamas if it suits your needs

[Vegasaurus]

20. Hamas's idea of a "lull"

turn their backs while the "other guys" shoot rockets and terrorize Israelis.

[Shaktimaan]

10. Well, they weren't able to reach an agreement, so FAPP that option was exhausted.

Neither side is wholly to blame for the tahdiya not being renewed. Both Israel and Hamas are partially at fault.

But yes, I guess you're technically right. Israel did not pursue the option of ceding to all of Hamas' demands, it's true... (but there are ALWAYS other options available if you're going to look at it that way... for instance, Israel could have also tried surrendering.) It is just not a reasonable option to expect Israel to lift the embargo 100%, and instantaneously, especially since the blockade is entirely a result of the rocket fire and other Hamas violence to begin with.

The level of the blockade has always been tied to Hamas' own actions. And they did reject a renewed tahdiya and begin increasing rocket attacks when Israel didn't meet their terms.

Besides, the first tahdiya didn't exactly work so well. The rockets and mortars never completely ceased at any point in time.

[Idealism]

14. The first lull was actually a surprise to Shin Bet

MI was convinced that Hamas could not keep their end of the bargain up (mainly deterring Islamic Jihad or Al-Aqsa Brigades from shooting rockets and mortars). They were dumbfounded when Hamas cracked down on these groups, bringing rocket fire to an almost dead stop and even arresting those responsible. The border crossings were never completely open and aid not allowed to enter Gaza in the quantities that the Israeli government guaranteed, and they quickly pointed to a few rocket and mortar attacks in a couple of weeks as all the evidence they needed to not hold their end up. Both sides are at fault; Hamas for not arresting more than the dozen or so they did for the rocket attacks, and Israel for holding Hamas responsible for rocket attacks by outside groups that Hamas punished once caught. I don't know what Israel would have preferred Hamas do. They can't stop every rocket attack, and if they continued to make the effort to arrest and imprison those responsible (which they did), I don't know why the Israeli government couldn't be a bit more understanding.

Former Gaza Division IDF commander Shmuel Zakai had some interesting things to say about why Hamas tried for an "improved tahdiyeh" as he calls it:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048931.html

At heart, he says, "The state of Israel must understand that Hamas rule in Gaza is a fact, and it is with that government that we must reach a situation of calm."

Israel must also understand that Hamas is a pragmatic organization, Zakai continues. "The moment that the organization understands that Qassam fire is contrary to its interests, it will stop the fire.

In Zakai's view, Israel's central error during the tahadiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce that formally ended on Friday, was failing to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip.

"We could have eased the siege over the Gaza Strip, in such a way that the Palestinians, Hamas, would understand that holding their fire served their interests. But when you create a tahadiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues, it's obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahadiyeh, and that their way to achieve this, is resumed Qassam fire."

[Shaktimaan]

15. Why would they be surprised?

For several months prior to Israel's pullout in 2005 there weren't many rocket attacks at all. So it was clearly do-able. I take issue with some of your facts here, such as Hamas arresting militants. (They did, but generally released them very shortly afterwards.) I don't know how you could know what Israel "guaranteed" Hamas as the terms of the agreement were never written down and were pretty much in dispute the whole time. Both sides expected more than they received. Hamas expected the crossings to open and imports to meet the level they were pre-blockade, which they didn't get. They did get a reprieve from Israeli military actions in the strip. Israel expected an arrangement on Shalit, Hamas to cease importing weapons and for rockets to stop. They got almost all of the rockets to stop but nothing else. To be fair, Israel only closed the borders following an attack, and still did not do so after every one. The idea was that the crossings would open and imports would increase as long as they weren't attacked, which is reasonable. Hamas didn't really imprison those responsible for very long, but should have.

From Israel's POV, they shouldn't have to negotiate with Hamas to get them to cease committing these crimes, ie: kidnapping attempts and rocket attacks. If Hamas insisted on taking those actions it would eventually lead to war, as it did. Hamas really did not have much of a hand to play here. They began the attacks without cause, to then try and blackmail Israel into getting them to stop doesn't make much sense from Israel's perspective. And having only one or two rockets a week in exchange for opening up their borders completely is obviously a ridiculous deal for Israel to be making. And Hamas is the government in Gaza. They have the ability to prevent any attacks, it just depends on the level of commitment they are willing to put forth.

Still, Israel was willing to deal, Hamas rejected its terms. Just as Hamas was willing to deal yet Israel rejected its terms. At that point though it was still Hamas that was attacking Israeli civilians. Merely failing to achieve an accord doesn't absolve Israel of its responsibility to protect its citizens. Nor does it absolve Hamas of responsibility for the attacks.

At the end of the day Israel doesn't want Hamas to successfully reach a workable agreement which would require Israel to reward Hamas. That's Israel's biggest problem with any potential resolution. But at this point, Hamas hasn't forced Israel into that corner. Israel can't really afford to allow Hamas to seem as though they've gained anything through their actions. Which is the main thing that Hamas is probably interested in. God knows Hamas doesn't give a shit about the actual well-being of the Gazans.

The moment that the organization understands that Qassam fire is contrary to its interests, it will stop the fire.

OK, but then what IS in Hamas' interests? What are they? Clearly they don't coincide with Gaza's best interests.

[Idealism]

19. MI is not as good as they think are?

I don't know why they'd be surprised about the quelling of rocket attacks. From Israel's POV, the settlements shouldn't be a held against them when negotiating with Hamas, but that is unrealistic.

Hamas has no real options for forcing Israel into a compromise that requires Hamas gaining more than Israel. Any compromise, Hamas automatically gains legitimacy, Israel's military looks weak, and the Israeli government looks like appeasers to terrorists in the eyes of their people. It is not a winnable situation from an Israeli politician's short-term standpoint, which prevents this from occurring even if it was in Israel's best interests. Both sides need to see peace as being a common good for them to move forward.

Shalit was not part of the June 19th deal, although there were talks about furthering negotiations once the lull was in place in order to garner his release. This obviously never happened, and I fear that Mr. Shalit is dead unfortunately (just a feeling).

[pelsar]

17. did you just make this stuff up again (#47)?

The first lull was actually a surprise to Shin Bet

They were dumbfounded when Hamas cracked down on these groups,


______

i doubt you have a link.......or anything at all to back it up...but heres your chance...
_____

but more interesting do you just, like, make up this stuff "out of the blue".....or what?

[Idealism]

21. Maybe you should read inside the lines a bit more?

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/One+month+of+calm+in+Gaza+28-Jul-2008.htm
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/lull_290608e.htm

[pelsar]

22. congrats....you made a claim you can backup ...

in the first article:

even Israel’s intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness)

at least you found something where you can back up your claim.....i shall remember this one

[Idealism]

24. Thanks?

I have more here somewhere, I wasn't at home earlier. Sorry for the trouble.

[pelsar]

25. here i believe you....

as long as a claim has some basis from a reputable source......i accept the argument as valid "starting point" and worthy of an discussion or argument based on the assumption that there is some validity to it. Obviously the sources we use here, will not always be correct but until proven otherwise, at least they serve as a base.

but please continue to use some kind of source as a basis for your assumptions and interpretation that come afterwards.....

(in this case i wouldnt know why the "mossad" was surprised, there were other periods of little shooting, which was obviously an internal decision by those that ruled gaza-but that viewpoint does not diminish your point of view, based on your links)

[Idealism]

26. One possible reason I read

had to do with Hamas being seen as collaborators with Israel in the eyes of the even more extreme groups in Gaza, if they kept the truce up. They risked another civil war in essence, at least that was one analysis I read seemed to imply. If Hamas loses its "resistance" mantra and gets labeled as collaborators by the people, they lose all reason for existing. That kills their recruitment and may end up harming their funding, so I think this is a plausible reason as to why it would be harder for Hamas to reign in all these other groups, yet still look like they aren't doing the Israeli governments' work for them.

[pelsar]

28. that is what i think...and have heard/read about it....

there are now quite a few additional resistance groups in hamas far more extreme than hamas...which is not surprising given the very high unemployment, youthful avg age (i believe its about 16) of the population and few real options, more so in a very macho society that celebrates the resistance-posters of suicide bombers and others were everywhere years ago (dont know whats happening now).

Hamas can reign them in, they 've shown its not a moral issue, (shooting up the kids of the people they're after if neccesary), its pure internal politics...The PA (if you read what ProgressiveMuslim believes) is now nothing more than collaborators, since they are now actively working to reduce the violence (and succeeding in many parts). What it took to get them there, to have made the political decision that stopping the violence against israel and being labled "collaborator" is the real question....because its only been the last year or so that they've been effective.

one theory is that, its the only way to keep hamas from taking over the westbank...which is the one i adhere to....and that is far more scary to the Palestinians in the westbank than working with the IDF. (the westbankers as social unit look down upon their cousin in gaza)

a small note on the negotiation for Gilad:
israel wants the prisoners to be brought to gaza, even those that were arrested in the westbank.....(israeli TV)....there is a reason for that.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. I expected it...

Israel was attempting to eliminate the rocket threat coming from Gaza. At a certain point, after pretty much all other options were exhausted, isn't it reasonable to expect the actions Israel has taken?

After all, Israel has a track record of retaliating disproportionately, destroying Palestinian homes,killing many Palestinian civilians, and ignoring things like international law and human rights. It was a no-brainer that the same sort of behaviour would emerge again. Where you and I differ is that I don't think what happened to Gaza was in any way reasonable, nor would I try to justify what was done...

[Shaktimaan]

5. aw... poor socialist worker

It's articles like this that are to blame for so much of the misinformation about Israel that's in circulation today. Why is it so hard for any of these organizations to fact-check their reports prior to publishing them? It's not, which raises the question of whether or not the countless factual errors printed about this conflict are even errors at all.

Do all of the SW's articles contain dozens of factual errors, like this one? Look at this paragraph... it has as many falsehoods as it does sentences:

Number two, Israel is also the only country on the face of the earth that has no constitution. Israel instead has Basic Laws. The first basic law defines Israel as the state of Jews all over the world. You have a theocratic state instead of a state of all of its citizens. This raises the question of what happens to 1.2 million Palestinians who are considered citizens of the state of Israel, but they are not Jews.

I mean, come on! Around 80% of that paragraph's statements were incorrect. To publish an article containing this level of mistakes is just inexcusable. Either the SW is staffed my folks unable to fact-check the most basic statement, or they are willfully disseminating false propaganda. Hmmm... I wonder which one it is?

[IndianaGreen]

6. And you would prefer the neocon-owned Jerusalem Post., no doubt.

Enough of the rest of you!

[Behind the Aegis]

7. LOL!

:rofl:

Your rabid, idiotic remarks in these threads are knee-slapping examples of the amount of bigotry on DU when it comes to Israel. It is ok to lie about Israel. Perhaps I will contact their PR people and tell them to name the country "Chavez" and watch folks like you have your heads explode.

[Shaktimaan]

11. Not that it matters, but yes... of course I would.

I would prefer any news source that's less riven with false propaganda, inaccuracies and errors as this one, regardless of who owned it. Why wouldn't you?

At any rate, what I may read is irrelevant. I could prefer Rush Limbaugh, it still wouldn't make this article one iota more accurate than before. Since when is it preferable to defend falsehoods for any reason whatsoever? Who cares what the SW's politics are like if they aren't able to adequately report facts over fiction?

[shira]

23. fantasy better than reality for Israel haters

facts only confuse them

[pelsar]

27. i agree with Shaktimaan....how does one prefer fantasy over fact?

i found your reaction quite fascinating.....Shaktimaan explain very well how the article was nothing more then mere fantasy with few facts but lots of opinion....and you see to think that is perfectly alright..(when the article is pretending to be based on facts.)

true this is not the first time we've come across such an viewpoint, publishing articles by Electronic Intifada in essence is the samething: articles pretending to be based on facts, but in fact are nothing more than imaginative stories to get to a preferred conclusion.

so the question is...why are facts so irrelevant?....is this a case of "the means justifies the ends"