Blame it on the victim

[Violet_Crumble]

THE June 25 Palestinian fighters’ raid on an Israeli military post near the Gaza-Egypt border has sent Israel "scrambling to defend itself," the voice of a BBC news reporter declared on the evening news.


The report was followed by an unchallenging interview with a spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry, then another with an Israeli daily newspaper reporter in Washington. No Palestinian voice was heard for days. The two Israelis communicated the same, tired, albeit ominous discourse that seems to understand, thus convey any event based on the misguided assumption that only Israeli lives matter.

There was hardly any international news source in English — including those originating from Middle Eastern countries — that accepted the Palestinian predawn attack on the Israeli military base as a clear act of retaliation and a dignified one at that. After all, Israel has murdered scores of Palestinian civilians in the last few weeks, while Palestinians have refrained from following the same course, instead targeting the same Israeli soldiers who have inflicted untold hurt on the residents of Gaza.

Could it be possible that Middle East arms of major news media have mistakenly overlooked what has been happening in the Gaza Strip since the supposed Israeli withdrawal in September 2005? It all started with extremely loud sonic booms, mock bombardments and Israeli fighter jets flying low over the overpopulated and impoverished Gaza Strip. Palestinians called on the international community to interfere to stop Israeli provocations. Their calls, as usual, fell on deaf ears

With such scare tactics, Israel wished to convey to Palestinians a loud and clear message: there is nothing for you to celebrate; we are still the masters of your destiny, and unlike the South Lebanon 2000 withdrawal, we are leaving Gaza triumphantly, and possibly just temporarily.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile...

[The Magistrate]

1. As The Author, Ma'am, Refers To "Alleged" Rocket Attacks

It is pretty clear he is not too interested in pressenting an analysis that proceeds from, and accounts for, the facts of the situation.

It is unfortunate that various Arab Palestinian militant bodies refused to cease all attacks; we can only speculate what the result of that would have been, but it strikes me, at least, as very unlikely the Israelis would have crossed into Gaza now, had that been the case.

[Violet_Crumble]

2. At no point in this article did he claim they didn't happen...

What he said about them was this: 'Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz justified the wanton killing of civilians, along with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as an unintended mistake, vowing to continue to fight ‘terrorists’ who fire homemade rockets against the Israeli town of Sderot. In the same period in which 90 Palestinians were killed and hundreds more maimed and wounded, Israeli army radio reported one injury resulting from rocket fire. No other source has confirmed the lone injury claim.

However, Western media, including the BBC, is determined to equate blowing up Palestinian families with Israeli allegations of Palestinian rocket attacks: it’s a tit for tat, or so it seems.'


Why is it that you don't ever say it's unfortunate that Israel refused to cease all attacks?

[The Magistrate]

3. That Is What "Allegations Of Palestinian Rocket Attacks" Means, Ma'am

To refer to statements of their occurance as allegations means to suggest either that they did not really occur, or were not carried out by Arab Palestinians. It suggests a certain frame of mind on the author's part.

As to your closing question, Ma'am, to me the sequence of the events is of some importance. The rocket attacks by the militant bodies provide pretext for the Israeli actions, and it is this that strikes me as the regretable element. The fact is that there is no real military option available to the people of Arab Palestine, and both the refusal of various militant groups to recognize this, and the failure of legitimate Arab Palestinian authorities to curb the actions of such groups, are what keeps this situation intractable. My objection is to the futility and counter-productive nature of the actions. The longer they continue, the worse the situation of the people of Arab Palestine will become. Whatever else one might say about the actions of the Israeli government over the last half-dozen years or so, their actions cannot be described as either futile or counter-productive, from the Israeli point of view.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Not with the paragraph prior to it...

Clear as day he said they happened, so why jump on one word and pretend the entire paragraph prior to that didn't exist?

The sequence of events is that the reinvasion of Gaza has zero to do with rocket attacks. It's because of the capture of an Israeli soldier, a legitimate action which has given Israel the pretext to respond by committing war crimes. btw, there have been periods during this conflict where there has been no violence from any Palestinian groups and there has still been violence from Israel, so I think to act as though all violence would end if the Palestinians stopped any and all violence is the stuff of fantasy...

[The Magistrate]

14. Then He Ought To Have Refrained From The Usage, Ma'am

Self-control is useful even to a propagandist; it is unwise to let slip these little clues to the mind behind the communication.

The entire current tension flows from the continued attempt by militant bodies to press military actions that are futile and counter-productive in military and political terms. The attack on the soldiers was legitimate, if one accepts that the relation of the peoples is one of war, but this works both ways, and legitimizes acts of war by Israel aimed at recovering the soldier, or achieving any other legitimate military end, including destruction of an enemy force in being.

The question the leadership and people of Arab Palestine must ask and answer is not whether a right to military resistance exists, but whether that is the wisest course available to gain their legitimate ends. My contention is that it is not.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I must remind myself that I'm a propagandist for workplace harrassment!

Because having been a HCO, I dealt with allegations of harrassment on a way too regular basis. And every complaint that was made was an allegation. Guess that makes me a propagandist for having called incidents that happened allegations...

I'm failing to see what was counter-productive about the capture of the soldier. Maybe if you look at it through an Israeli prism, it's counter-productive, but from any other perspective there's nothing counter-productive about it. Nothing about it legitimises actions carried out by Israel that are war-crimes, anymore than Israel's ongoing occupation legitimised actions carried out by the Palestinian militants that were war-crimes....

My contention is that there's no course available to the Palestinians that will gain them self-determination in a viable state encompassing Gaza and the West Bank. Doing nothing won't do it and doing something won't do it either...

[The Magistrate]

21. My Comments Regarding Propaganda, Ma'am, Were Not Aimed At You

But at the author of the piece.

What it is that is counter-productive about the taking of the soldier seems to me at least self-evident from the present course of events: it provided pretext for the current military actions of the Israeli government, which are most detrimental to the people of Arab Palestine, most particularly the residents of Gaza. Even if one accepts that this is something the Israeli government were determined on doing in advance, it would not be happening today in the absence of that action. We are probably all in agreement here it would be better were this not taking place.

It lies in the power of the leadership of Arab Palestine to do one large thing that would immeasureably advance their cause, in my view. That is to declare a state of Arab Palestine on the ground currently outside the de facto borders of Israel, to quash whatever militant factions will not accept the authority of that state body to exercise a monopoly of violence for political ends, and to declare what is obvious to any dispassionate observer, that violence against Israel brings no benefit to the people of Arab Palesrine, and that accordingly, it will cease.

[Phx_Dem]

23. Do you think negotiation is a viable course of action?

[eyl]

24. Would you care to tell me

when there was a period when there was no violence from any Palestinian group? I can't remember anything like that, certainly not in the past five years.

[eyl]

28. you might also note that he said

As for the media, there was hardly much to report, since Hamas, along with other Palestinian factions, refused to respond to the provocations with violent retaliation, confining themselves to a unilateral ceasefire they’d reached with PA President Mahmoud Abbas in Cairo earlier.

So if the Palestinian factions "refused to respond to the provocations with violent retaliation, confining themselves to a unilateral ceasefire", who exactly was shooting the rockets?

The author is trying to have his cake and eat it; his argument is basically "the Palestinians took no action against Israel, and those actions they did take caused little harm". Surely you see the contradiction.

And why the assumption that there's only one reason for the attacks on Gaza?

[otokogi]

5. oh, that explains it...

he is biased against israel, too.

i was worried all the israeli artillery, rockets, tanks, helicopters and jets were unjustified.

[pelsar]

6. so lying is justified?

whatever ones opinon of the events doesnt require lying to "prove a point"...but i understand that you disagree.....

[The Magistrate]

7. He Is Certainly A Partisan Committed To One Side Of The Dispute, Sir

That is quite clear. There is nothing wrong with someone taking sides, of course, but it is something to take into account in assessing what a person says in a matter where that person is committed to one side or the other.

[otokogi]

8. everyone takes a side in every dispute, eventually...

those who pretend not to have one after decades of this dispute either don't know or they are posers, imho.

when i am assessing what a person says in this particular matter, i always admire the ones who are speaking up for the oppressed.

eh, call me a liberal ;->

[pelsar]

9. so facts are irrelevent?-thats not liberalism...

i always admire the ones who are speaking up for the oppressed.

eh, call me a liberal ;->

your confused, what your claiming is not liberalism, its more of a philosophy of the "left'. sort of a knee jerk reaction to the "weaker side" irreguardless of events and facts

Part of the liberal definition also includes defending liberal societies/cultures from those that arent.....the palestenian society is not a a liberal society, israel is.

[otokogi]

10. you said that...

and u just effectively said, BURN'm, they are DIFFERENT!!!

Part of the liberal definition also includes defending liberal societies/cultures from those that arent.....the Palestinian society is not a a liberal society, israel is.

and you think you know what liberalism is?

did i just fail the test

[pelsar]

18. yes the societies are different...

but no i dont believe the palestenians should be "burnt"....nor however do I believe that a illiberal culture (as we see in syrian, jordan, egypt, and then tenants of hamas) has any "right to exist as a governing body.

that is liberlism...societies that dont advocate liberal law, civil rights, womens rights, etc as a base (its implementation no doubt will be less than perfect), have in affect stolen the rights from their citizens.

that said i dont believe its appropriate to invade and destroy those societies by military means....

liberalism does not include defending govts that advocate theorcratic rule, moral squads to inforce religion etc....

for more details:
http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_...

[otokogi]

19. so you believe societies not like yours don't have 'any right to exist'

interesting...

but can we please stick to the present facts on the ground, at least the parties involved, palestine and israel?

and also to the words i've typed?

please

[pelsar]

20. stick to the facts?

please do...this started because that was precisly what wasnt done

(off topic and to answer you question: no i dont believe societies like theorcratic iran and saudi arabia have a right to exist...do you?)

[The Magistrate]

11. My Respect, Sir

Is directed towards those who make an attempt to deal honestly with the situation, and do not distort facts and their inter-relations to suit their views, whatever side they may uphold....

[otokogi]

13. goes to the OPPRESSED and those who SPEAK UP for them

i EXPECT them to have a mastery of the facts.

in this matter, sir, the facts are not in dispute...

a whole people, young & old, men, women & children are facing collective punishment by their oppressors, in their oppressors ghettos, shuddering under the terror of tanks, artillery, helicopters, jets, rockets, bombs, fully equipped soldiers, and a flush war chest - thanks to US - not knowing who if anyone can or will stop this horror anytime soon.

and so it goes...

[The Magistrate]

15. Unfortunately, Sir

A number of those who claim to be doing that worthy thing you admire are not masters of the facts, and frequently imagine they can gain some advantage by ies and distortions. The result is, unfortunately for the cause they seek to press, most often that they bring it into discredit and disrepute, rather than advance it.

[otokogi]

16. "ies and distortions."

you said it

anyways, back to the facts at hand...

this collective punishment must be DENOUNCED in the strongest terms possible, no matter what side you are on.

remember for whom the bell tolls...

[pelsar]

4. or this.....

It all started with extremely loud sonic booms,

seems the sequence of events is confusing to the author...i guess he goes by the axim: if the facts dont fit, make em up.

[MrPrax]

22. Fair editorial...

some points missing though:

1) The Israeli counterattack started the moment Hamas won the election -- Israel immediately sent it's diplomats and propagandists out to western gov't to make sure they cut off the PA. At this time Israeli politicians were openly bragging about assassinating the new Hamas leader and it's cabinet. This is standard operating procedure -- they want the occupied terrorities weakened because re-occupation was always the endgame. Israel just needed an acceptable excuse.

2) Acute political crisis in Israel--Sharon's BS withdrawal plan wasn't popular...it shattered the coalition and broke open his party. Israelis were none too happy about settlements being closed and the Gaza strip being given away -- ergo the success of the extreme racist right. Olmert's gov't hangs by a thread and much of this is a desparate attempt to distance himself from the Sharon Plan, which he campaigned on behalf of. They manipulated the situation to produce the 'terror' crisis in order to re-occupy the terrorities.

As the writer points out, all of the actions so far have been provocations by Israel and ONLY Israel to break the Hamas ceasefire -- in fact only last month there was reports and editorials that 'predicted' that a civil war was breaking out between Hamas and Fatah. That one didn't work and so Israel stepped up the provocation and it culminated in the beach massacre and this was inspite of the fact that Hamas was negotiating 'recognition' of Israel.

Of course, Israel doesn't want this and never has given a damn about recognition or anything else...in fact any movement in this area would ultimately force Israel hand into real negotiations. Israel doesn't want a two-state solution or anything other than complete control and if that means the death, expulsion or pacification of the real people of the Palestine, then so be it.

Does anyone else find it rather strange that while this acute crisis in the occupied terrorities is going on the 'mother of all terrorists' and the biggest Israel hater on the planet, Osama Bin Laden is releasing a tape talking only about Somalia and Iraq? Certainly doesn't fit the profile...or does it?

[eyl]

25. BS

the withdrawal was quite popular at the time; what reduced its popularity was the aftermath, when the Qassam fire from the Gaza Strip greatly intensified.

[MrPrax]

26. ...?

Why bother defending the indefensible with such distortion...you only humililate yourself in doing so.

[eyl]

27. I'm speaking as an Israeli

based on personal observation at the time. On what basis are you making your claims?