In Palestine, a War on Children

[Violet_Crumble]

by John Pilger
June 17, 2006

Arthur Miller wrote, "Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind and is punishing so many innocent people is intolerable. And so the evidence has to be internally denied."

Miller's truth was a glimpsed reality on television on June 9 when Israeli warships fired on families picnicking on a Gaza beach, killing seven people, including three children and three generations. What that represents is a final solution, agreed by the United States and Israel, to the problem of the Palestinians. While the Israelis fire missiles at Palestinian picnickers and homes in Gaza and the West Bank, the two governments are to starve them. The victims will be mostly children.

This was approved on May 23 by the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 361-37 to cut off aid to non-government organizations that run a lifeline to occupied Palestine. Israel is withholding Palestinian revenues and tax receipts amounting to $60 million a month. Such collective punishment, identified as a crime against humanity in the Geneva Conventions, evokes the Nazis' strangulation of the Warsaw ghetto and the American economic siege of Iraq in the 1990s. If the perpetrators have lost their minds, as Miller suggested, they appear to understand their barbarism and display their cynicism. "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet," joked Dov Weisglass, an adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert.

This is the price Palestinians must pay for their democratic elections in January. The majority voted for the "wrong" party, Hamas, which the U.S. and Israel, with their inimitable penchant for pot-calling-the-kettle-black, describe as terrorist. However, terrorism is not the reason for starving the Palestinians, whose prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, had reaffirmed Hamas's commitment to recognize the Jewish state, proposing only that Israel obey international law and respect the borders of 1967. Israel has refused because, with its apartheid wall under construction, its intention is clear: to take over more and more of Palestine, encircling whole villages and eventually Jerusalem.

The reason Israel fears Hamas is that Hamas is unlikely to be a trusted collaborator in subjugating its own people on Israel's behalf. Indeed, the vote for Hamas was actually a vote for peace. Palestinians were fed up with the failures and corruption of the Arafat era. According to the former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, whose Carter Center verified the Hamas electoral victory, "public opinion polls show that 80 percent of Palestinians want a peace agreement with Israel."


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=10442

[pelsar]

1. zmag continues its tradtion....

of slanting and or "forgetting" relevant information:

While the Israelis fire missiles at Palestinian picnickers and homes in Gaza and the West Bank, the two governments are to starve them

does one really have to remind anyone that if the palestenains didnt shoot at israelis from behind civilians in gaza israel wouldnt be shooing at them?.....

and starving?...what happen to Egypt and Rafah?...or the fact that the tax revenues that israel is holding is willing to convert into medical supplies or all those brand new guns that we now see in gaza and the west bank.

and of course we have the Hamas recognizing the 67 borders..this week..or was that last week or sometimes its a truce for 50 years, sometimes its not....

if its the children that hamas is worried about, let them start by not trying to kill israeli children in sederot....it would be a reasonable reaction to israel pulling out of gaza...but that too is not in the article.....

[Violet_Crumble]

2. The tradition is that victims are victims regardless of ethnicity...

A tradition that I've been saddened to find some here don't hold dear to their hearts....

Point by tedious point:

does one really have to remind anyone that if the palestenains didnt shoot at israelis from behind civilians in gaza israel wouldnt be shooing at them?.....

Since when has yr OPINION been relevant information? There is no justification for attacks on civilians, and despite the belief in some circles, that applies to both Israelis as well as Palestinians...

and starving?...what happen to Egypt and Rafah?...or the fact that the tax revenues that israel is holding is willing to convert into medical supplies or all those brand new guns that we now see in gaza and the west bank.

Again, nothing but personal opinion rather than relevent facts. Rafah has been discussed to death. I've also posted information (as opposed to opinion) where an Israeli official states that the Israeli govt understands the importance of Karni being open. Would you like me to link to it yet again for you? And since when have Palestinian children had the magical power not possessed by other children to eat medical supplies and guns?

and of course we have the Hamas recognizing the 67 borders..this week..or was that last week or sometimes its a truce for 50 years, sometimes its not....

And that sort of attitude displays to me what I consider to be the extreme stances taken on the conflict. Depending on what side one takes, some work from the assumption that their side is upfront and totally trustworthy, but anything the other side says or does is to be pooh-poohed as not to be taken seriously, unless of course it's threats of attacks...

if its the children that hamas is worried about, let them start by not trying to kill israeli children in sederot....it would be a reasonable reaction to israel pulling out of gaza...but that too is not in the article.....

Can you point me to where Hamas has stated its intention is to kill Israeli children in Sederot? And yet again, I'm finding the habit of blaming the Palestinians for Israeli attacks to be morally bankrupt...

[BayCityProgressive]

3. hm

I'd say that is covered by them stating they don't want Israel to exist. I'd say that is a threat to Israeli kids, wouldn't you? Not to mention terrorists like Hamas ALWAYS target the civilian population...then they hide among their own as human shields.

[TomClash]

4. When Shanab accepted the Saudi peace plan in 2002

the Israeli government and their supporters ridiculed the peace proposal and Hamas' acceptance of it. There was no movement at all on the Israeli side. What incentive does Hamas have to accept Israel's right to exist without a return to the '67 borders?

The IDF always targets "terrorists" where civilians are located and then calls it collateral damage - as if that excuses their conduct.

[BayCityProgressive]

5. under CampDavid

they would have gotten 95% of their land back and 30 billion dollars. Now considering how many wars Palestine and the Arab nations have waged against Israel..I would say thats a pretty generous offer. You can bet your ass no European country or the US would give a country all of it's land back after being attacked that many times!

[TomClash]

8. Not true

They may have gotten 95% of land not including the settlements by giving up the right of return, codified by UN Resolution 194. You can read Robert Malley's New York Review of Books piece about this faux offer.

And even if it were true, which it is not, guess who would have paid the $30 billion. Here's a hint: it's not Israel.

If the occupation was about security you'd have a good point. However, this argument becomes a canard when you look at Tel Aviv's wealth and Israel's 100 nuclear weapons. And Egypt, Syria and Jordan have been effectively neutralized. The Palestinian military position is so pathetic that it is reduced to children throwing stones and the desperate tactic of suicide bombing. And at the end of the day, it is not Israel's land - not the suburbs ringing Arab East Jerusalem, not the slums of Ramallah, not the Gaza City bantustan.

[pelsar]

9. 73 war?....

may not mean anything to you...but it does to us israelis.....and Egypt is hardly 'neutralized"....The Palestenian military position is so pathetic that they keep on attacking and never learn.....and they're lives just get more and more miserable. There was a lesson in intifada I, that they either didnt want to accept or couldnt internalize.....either way they keep making their own situation worse....missles from gaza are not going to win them anything but more dead and more misery.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Tell me what the 73 war means to you, pelsar...

I'd like to hear what the war aims of Syria and Egypt were :)

[pelsar]

14. 73 war....

first and foremost it was an attempt to "win back some honor" for the egyptians and syrians....a surprise attack on israel, that in itself was worth some of that honor.....but those who know wars, know that when the first bullet flies, the plans start changing.

had the syrians knew there was no credible defense on the s. golan...they would no doubt have continued...so too with the Egyptians, had they not been stopped, they would have kept right on going to take back their sinai and perhaps some more if given the chance.


but then again i dont pretend to understand the innerworkings of the politicians and military men of a culture that is not my own...i am not so ethnocentric.

fact is they did attack...Egypt got back the entire sinai, just by signing a peace agreement, thats all it took. They're attacking wasnt necessary from an israeli point of view.

Syria might try the same strategy, but they arent.....Jordan did and they got all they wanted (getting rid of the westbank).

thats how simple it is: two countries said "no more war" got all they wanted from israel and there is peace....the others havent figured that out yet.

[pelsar]

6. the Hamas incentive?

how about no more killing?...hows that for an incentive....they're other option is to do what they've been doing since pre 1947...keep on attacking israelis and keep on losing and watch as their lives get more miserable by the year.

and this is a classic:

The IDF always targets "terrorists" where civilians are located...maybe thats because thats where the palestenain "shooters" hide out?

[pelsar]

7. hamas is the govt?

they are responsable for the children of palestine in gaza...they are responsable for the missles aimed at israelis......

they're may be no justification for attacks on civilians...unfortunatly in the year 2006 there is no way for missles and bombs to figure out the difference between shooters and civilians....


outside of the 'moral outrage for civilians being killed, choices are very limited.....


________________________________
how about this scenario: israel stops shooting at gaza, no matter what the palestenains do......would that satisfy you?

[Violet_Crumble]

11. There MAY be no justification for attacks on civilians??

Correction - there is NO justification for attacks on civilians. There's not some convenient clause somewhere that says it's not justified when Israelis civilians are attacked and it's okay when Palestinian civilians are attacked because (insert latest weak excuse here while ignoring the fact that the same logic can also be applied to Israeli civilians).

[pelsar]

15. unfortunately...

when shooters hide behind civilians.....one doesnt have much choice....unless one prefers to let oneself be murdered.

some people have the luxuary of declaring hi moral values, while never being in a situation where choices have to be made. If you like i can give you many of them...(without the 30 seconds some have to make a decision).....but that would mean making tough decisions...where morality becomes very subjective.

I doubt you'll take me up on the offer.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. The advantages of using a different computer...

I hadn't logged in at my work one, so I got to see posts I don't see on my computer at home...

I doubt you'll take me up on the offer.

You may have missed it, but I told you yesterday that you were going on ignore, and after this post, that's where yr going back to. I have nothing but deep contempt for any stance that involves being totally opposed to any attacks on Israeli civilians under any circumstances while continually justifying attacks on Palestinian civilians and going so far as to blame the victims for it, and I'm not the slightest bit interested in anyone who holds those views lecturing me about morality...

[cali]

10. Purple prose, bathos

and yellow journalism are the words that come to mind upon reading this piece. Making claims that Israel and the US have agreed to a "final solution" regarding the Palestinians is beyond the pale. Nothing new for zmag which is simply a counterpoint to such wretched erags as Frontpage

And for the record, I believe the Israelis are absolutely responsible for this, and that firing on a beach where there very well could be civilians, is indefensible. The response to Palestinian rockets is completely out of scale and over the top.

There are ways to responsibly write about what is happening. This ain't it.

[cali]

13. Hmm, Interesting that

no one has addressed the language in this article. Worth bringing up. I'm curious if anyone actually believes that the US and Israel have a final solution in mind for the Palestinians. And let's face it, use of such language in this context, means only one thing.

[pelsar]

16. used to it?

i thought about "addressing it"..but i realized that its so commonplace for me, that i thought i would save some "bandwidth'.

The accusations about me "targeting children", booby traping houses, targeting journalists, behaving like nazis, gaza the concentration camp.....or israel starving the palestenians....is so mundane, so day to day, that the "final solution" was simply one more.

and the author?...frankly I dont understand such writings. The truth has to be dug up from all the crap around it, so why bother?

it reminds me of when i read articles by the extreme settlers, the hamasnik and the extreme left...their beliefs are such that the "truth and facts" just get in the way....sad thing is that some actually take those articles for truth including the terminology.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Not particularly...

I think I'd be more interested in a post that showed someone had read an entire article and not just two words of it and wasn't attacking zmag for publishing it, when it's been published in the New Statesman...

[pelsar]

18. i read more...

and its still garbage:

evokes the Nazis' strangulation of the Warsaw ghetto

[cali]

21. I've read the whole article. It's reprehensible. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Why is the entire article reprehensible?

n/t

[cali]

25. I though I already explained that

first of all the claim that Israel and the US have a 'final solution' for the Palestinians, clearly implying that the plan is extermination, then there's the claim that the occupied territories are akin to the Warsaw Ghetto, which as we all know, was merely a holding facility for those who were to be shipped in cattle cars to extermination camps. There's the claim that Israel is merely a military base for the US and more. The language used in the article? As I said, bathos and deep purple prose. Not to mention highly manipulative. Sorry you can't see any of that. I have nothing contempt for such screeds, and I couldn't give a fig where it was first published.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. You went on about two words out of the article...

And no, I can't see any of that, coz it's purely yr interpretation, and an interpretation I don't agree with at all in the case of John Pilger....

btw, the only reason I mentioned where it was first published was because you were attacking zmag for publishing it :)

[cali]

28. I think that's truly sad

It demonstrates that bias blurs clarity. And I brought up far more than two words. However, had it been but the claim that the US and Israel plan to exterminate the Palestinians, that should be enough for any reasonable human being to recognize that this was not a credible article. In addition, the Magistrate brought up the rather outlandish claim that the vote for Hamas was a vote for peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

29. People don't have to agree with you. Get used to it..

I can't help or care about how sad you are. The fact is that you've made claims about the entire article based on yr own interpretations, and I don't agree with them. Especially when it involves accusations that Pilger claimed things he didn't say (eg. insistence that him saying 'final solution' is actually him saying 'israel and the us have an extermination policy' and falsely claiming that he said israel is MERELY a military base for the us.)

Yr original contribution to this thread was focused on two words of the article, as well as a misplaced dig at zmag.

So, for the record. As with most of what john pilger writes, this reasonable human being considers it a credible article....

[cali]

32. No they don't

and expressing my opinion on an article or an idea is not demand that that anyone agree with me. Really, it's not that hard to tell the difference.

I"m glad you posted this article. It demonstrates clearly that your claims to fairness re Israel and Palestine are hollow.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. There's a difference between expressing opinions on an article and...

...making false accusations about what was said in the article. Also, comments such as 'that should be enough for any reasonable human being to recognize that this was not a credible article' aren't expressing an opinion on an article - it's having a go at anyone who dares to disagree with the interpretations put forward...

btw, where are these supposed claims of mine to fairness? You might have to point me to them coz I don't remember posting them....

[The Magistrate]

19. It Is Hard To Argue, Ma'am

With a man who can write "...the vote for Hamas was actually a vote for peace."

[cali]

20. Why?

I'm not clear whether you're being tongue in cheek here. Do expand on your statement.

[The Magistrate]

22. My Tongue, Ma'am, Seldom Leaves My Cheek For Long....

That statement is so bizarre as to leave a reader breathless.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. It's no more bizarre than...

...claims that the separation barrier is a peace fence or that Sharon was interested in peace, wouldn't you agree?

[The Magistrate]

34. The First Is Certainly In The Same League, Ma'am

It is simply a propagandist's coinage. The second requires some consideration of definitions. Sharon probably was interested in achieving a great reduction of violence, though insistent that this occur in a manner as favorable to Israel as possible. There are certainly definitions of peace that this would not fit, but if a defiition rooted in the simple absence of violence is employed, the statement could stand without too much wobbling about.

If the man who turned that phrase had been interested in making an accurate statement, rather than producing drivel, he might have written something along such lines as "A majority of people who voted for Hamas favor a two-state solution and are willing to co-exist with Israel on reasonable terms, and so the success of Hamas in the recent election should not be taken as a wide endoresement by Arab Palestinians of its rejectionist stance." That is almost certainly true. A great proportion of the votes for Hamas were a species of protest against corruption in the older political bodies, cast because it's leaders have the name of honest and upright men who can be trusted not to steal or show excessive partiality to their cousins.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Actually, it's not...

The first I mentioned was definately propaganda inspired nonsense, but what you label as 'drivel' most definately wasn't. Let's put what John Pilger said in context. 'The reason Israel fears Hamas is that Hamas is unlikely to be a trusted collaborator in subjugating its own people on Israel's behalf. Indeed, the vote for Hamas was actually a vote for peace. Palestinians were fed up with the failures and corruption of the Arafat era. According to the former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, whose Carter Centre verified the Hamas electoral victory, "public opinion polls show that 80 percent of Palestinians want a peace agreement with Israel."' Exactly where is he saying that the reason Palestinians voted for Hamas is coz they wanted Hamas to bring peace? Because he states very clearly that the reason Palestinians voted for Hamas was because of the corruption of Fatah. If Pilger were to say about our elections (and I'm sure he has spoken about it, seeing as how he's Australian) that the vote for the Howard government was actually a vote for sucking up really hard to Bushco, he'd have been right, even though the overwhelming reason people reelected Howard was a scare campaign implying that he, not the Reserve Bank, controls interest rates. So when he says that a vote for Hamas was a vote for peace is correct in the context of what he was saying. Hamas have made sometimes confusing attempts to moderate their stance, but what it's clear they won't do is moderate to the point where they are merely collaborators to do Israel's bidding and willingly hand over territory to Israel.'

And, no. Sharon was not interested at all in a great reduction in violence. The only way that could be argued is to ignore the massive amount of violence against the Palestinians during his era...

[The Magistrate]

49. The Statement, Ma'am

That the vote for Hamas was a vote for peace is propagandist drivel: Hamas desires peace in precisely the same manner and to exactly the same degree as Sharon. The fact that the man said some more sensible things around that corker does not alter its character; it simply demonstrates that he actually knows better than to say that. So long as acceptance of the actual circumstances of the situation and resolve to act within them is described as being "collaborators to do Israel's bidding" the situation will continue intractable and fraught with violence.

[Englander]

30. 'I am ashamed'

'If you kill enough children, enough times, you become a child killer. Yair Lapid on Ghalia family tragedy

I am ashamed. Deeply, painfully humiliated, ashamed of us and what we have done, where we have ended up. I’ve been ashamed in my life but not like after what happened at the beach in Gaza, in front of the small bodies of the Ghalia family. I am ashamed because we have become child killers.

So what if they started it and yes it was an errant rocket shell and yes it’s impossible to live with the fact that they are always trying to kill us. It’s all true but if you kill enough children, enough times, that is what you become: a child killer.

It took me a long time to be ashamed. I believed for so long that if they are shooting at us, they leave us no choice. I am a Jewish patriot, always have been. Not everyone is equal in my eyes. The lives of Jewish children in Sderot are more important to me, their blood is redder and I feel their anguish more deeply.

>snip

It was comfortable not to feel ashamed. It solved a lot of problems for me. If I could continue like this I would. But I can’t because it is unacceptable that our way has come to this: a little girl standing and screaming on a beach that is soaked with the blood of her relatives, their bodies strewn on the beach, the only people she loved in the world.

How many times can we say it was an accident? Twice? Three times? 20? How many times will it take until we admit that this is what we have become: People who open fire on places where there are children.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3264384,00.html

[cali]

31. Good article.

Thanks for posting it. And the author makes his points in way that starkly contrasts with the OP in this thread.

[Englander]

36. The conclusions reached were the same.

Which was the point being made, that children are the targets of this US-supplied colonialist
adventure. I thought it interesting that a writer at the mainstream Israeli newspaper should
agree with a famous leftist on this issue.

[cali]

37. I wrote a long response

and then my computer froze. i haven't the patience to recreate it, so I'll make this far briefer. No, they don't agree, except on the obvious truism that the vast majority of us agree on- killing children is bad. Nor, I suspect would Mr. Lapid agree with your characterization "that children are the targets of this US-supplied colonialist." He states unambiguously that he has no problem with targeted killings, that he knows that children aren't the targets, but that firing missiles into locations where children are likely to be present amounts to callous indifference. He states that Israeli lives mean more to him than Palestinian lives. No, I doubt that Mr. Lapid would agree that he and the author of the OP, are saying the same thing.

Words mean something. Use them in an inflammatory, dishonest and hateful way, and you diminish the power of your argument. I've pointed out the misuse of language in the OP, and the clear subtext in prior posts. My points haven't been addressed, except for the rather weak accusation that I was complaining about two words.

There's a world of difference between the two articles. The one you posted is a heartfelt cry from the heart, and an examination of conscience. The OP is merely a screechy polemic trying to cast the Israelis as Nazis.

[Englander]

38. There's too many fallacies/misrepresentations in there, really.

You're complaining about the misuse of language, whilst grotesquely misusing language, which does
seem a bit odd. The point I was making was that the conclusion reached by these articles is the
same, the major point they're agreeing on is that children are the targets of this adventure in
colonialism. Pilger claims it's an intentional policy on the part of the US/Israeli Govts, Lapid
claims it's unintentional/accidental, they've both reached the same conclusion. Clearly, they're
disagreeing on other aspects, but just focusing on those aspects, whilst completely ignoring the
point I made, does not negate that point.

[cali]

39. Let me toss

the grotesque label right back at you, and suggest that making an accusation of fallacy, misrepresentation, and misuse of language without providing ONE example, is indeed grotesque. Also, your use of the word targeting is just incorrect. To target is to intentionally aim at. Now, like Mr. Lapid, I consider the deaths of children from missiles, indefensible, but to claim that the IDF is targeting them is a misuse of language. Just as the OP strongly infers that the Israelis intentionally fired on a family picnic on the beach, is a misuse of language.

And let me ask you, do you believe that the US/Israel have a 'final solution' for the Palestinians? Do you understand why that language truly is grotesque? Try not to pussy foot around the phrase 'final solution'.

[Englander]

40. Again with the misuse of language.

Claiming, falsely, that Pilger's article is making accusations of Nazism, or similar grotesque
claims that genocide was hinted, or implied, is a grotesque misuse of language. The article doesn't
make the claims you've presented, repeatedly making those claims doesn't mean that it does.

Every week the idf/iaf targets civilian structures, or crowds, it happenned again yesterday, two
members of a family were killed, that's another eg to support Lapid/Pilger's claim, that children
are being targeted, deliberately or not. That isn't an abuse of language, that's a reflection of
reality. How many children have been killed in the past few months?

No, I don't, obviously, that's a very silly question. Really, what's the point of asking such a
'question'? If you think that anyone holds such views, then what would be the point of wasting
time trying to discuss anything, or trying to find their opinions? Clearly you disagree with myself
on intent of Pilger's artcile, & are intent on misrepresenting the article, but that's kinda
ridiculous, just repeatedly focusing on a two-word phrase.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lithos]

42. The language is there

And given the structure of the article, it was deliberate on his part and intentionally used it when he was trying to frame the debate in emotional terms (evoke a feeling from the user, develop his "hook"). Pilger bounces back and forth between emotional hooks and the odd fact he's trying to sell, many writers of I/P do that. The question at hand is whether such use of loaded language was necessary.

My feeling is probably not. To me the article is weak and his thesis very mis-focused. He depends more on emotion than any real substance to try and drive his point home. Unfortunately he does so in a very sloppy manner.

L-

[Englander]

45. Well, that's just Pilger, that's his style, it has been for 30 yrs.

I thought the egs he provided were specific, he was talking about historical blockades & sanctions.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Yep, I just went and reread some of his older articles...

..on East Timor and indigenous issues here, and he uses the same style in them....

[pelsar]

47. his emotional hooks...

"Pilger bounces back and forth between emotional hooks"....

well his use of holocaust emotional hooks may work with the "anti-zionistic/semetic crowd, but for us israelis its not only grotestic but it reenforces and/or creates our emotional reaction that nothings really changed in the last 2,000 years. Hes just one more of thousands who just cant seem to help themselves in demonizing us jews/israelis (and probably he has some jewish friends.....)

so were still with our back to the wall, still the lesser humans....thats the emotional response he gets from us.....

[pelsar]

43. is this english?

it happenned again yesterday, two
members of a family were killed, that's another eg to support Lapid/Pilger's claim, that children
are being targeted, deliberately or not.

how can one target childen deliberately or not?...either they are targeted or they are not....i dont believe one can "accidently target children"....this is definitly a missuse of the english language....

but thats the basic difference in the articles: Pilger claims the IDF does (among other "nazi like" claims....Lapid says no....and inorder to claim that they articles are similar, one has to "rape" the english language.

[pelsar]

44. Lapids write up..

is the fear that many of us as parents have....that our kids will learn to be callus toward the "other."...which infact has been happening for the last few years. Whereas it was that fear/actuality that brought an end to intifada I and the Oslo agreement. Intifada II with its suicide bombers is a different situation

[undergroundrailroad]

48. Children don't ask to be born. On both sides, this saddens me deeply.