The events off the coast of Gaza in the early hours of Monday morning were a significant moment in the history of the State of Israel. More than that, they were a dual tragedy.
Before we go any further, it must be made abundantly clear that neither I nor anyone I know rejoices in the deaths of these activists. It is not in our nature to celebrate the deaths of anyone, not even those who were part of a group that had earlier chanted “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud, Jaish Muhammad saya'ud," meaning "Jews remember Khaybar, the army of Mohammed is returning," a reference to a seventh-century Muslim massacre and expulsion of Jews from Khaybar, which is in modern-day Saudi Arabia. Despite this despicable loathsomeness, with the benefit of hindsight, I'd much rather that the ships had safely docked in Gaza than lives being needlessly wasted.
At the time of going to press, 15 people have died as a result of the IDF’s boarding the flotilla as it approached Gaza, but this does not mean that I criticize the actions of the IDF. Neither do I reserve criticism of the actions of these "human rights" activists. Taking a glance at some of the headlines from the world media, one would be forgiven that Israel had stormed aid ships for no particular reason. "Deadly clashes at sea as Israel intercepts Gaza-bound aid ships," reports the Times of London. "10 Reported Killed as Israel Raids Boats Headed to Gaza" announces the New York Times.
Even reading the headline on the Jerusalem Post, "At least 15 activists dead, dozens hurt in flotilla clashes", it is hard to get away from the pervading sense of injustice felt from that now all too familiar of situations; Israeli troops acting heavy-handedly and killing unarmed civilians. Irrespective of whether their actions were right or wrong, the balance appears so lop-sided, peace activists on the one hand and soldiers on the other, that most people's minds are made up well before they read the articles themselves.
But a serious question lies at the heart of the affair. How and why did a supposedly passive peace demonstration turn rowdy to the degree for the military forces who had boarded the boat to feel threatened enough to open fire? The answer has been stated repeatedly of the last few days and stares us in the face: these were no peace activists. These were no human rights activists, these people had a very clear agenda in mind: the delegitimization of Israel.
Much has been said of this deligitimization of Israel, but what is it? What is being delegitimized, exactly? Well, Israel's right to defense, for one. When every single defense operation is questioned, criticized and consequently condemned, we would do well to realize that we are witnessing the systematic denial of Israel’s right to defend herself.
Similarly, when events like the death of Mohammed Al-Dura in 2000, the so-called “Massacre in Jenin” in 2002, the bombing of Hezballah forces in Qana, Lebanon in 2006, and the “disproportional” Israeli offensive on Hamas in Operation Cast Lead are spun out of all proportion, we must understand that the damage done to Israel’s image is long lasting and its ability to strike out at terrorists is being methodically wiped out.
There’s one question I’ve asked myself repeatedly over the last few years: “And how would you handle it?” I’ve imagined this question being asked of Kofi Annan, Barack Obama, Gordon Brown and now I ask it of these activists and their supporters. Maybe Israel’s actions aren’t always correct, but Israel has the sovereign right to act in the way it deems fit. If you don’t like the way we deal with terrorists, how about proposing an alternative solution to prevent Hamas proliferating its stockpile of military grade weaponry? If you don’t like human shields, and you shouldn’t if you care about human rights, how do you propose that the IDF tackles Hamas, an extremist group bent on Israel’s destruction that also happens to make extensive use of this tactic?
News agencies worldwide reported that the Israeli Navy stormed a flotilla carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists and tons of supplies for Gaza on Monday morning. But they didn’t give more than passing mention to the fact that these pro-Palestinian activists had intentionally and deliberately provoked the IDF into acting. Amid reports from the IDF which claims that soldiers were met by well-planned lynch involving concealed handguns, knives, bats and metal pipes, we would do well to note that prior to boarding the flotilla, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom, Commander of the Israeli Navy, briefed the forces who participated in the interception of these protest boats, and called on them not be dragged into provocations with the passengers of the ship.
Referring to previous experience with such protesters, Marom explained that no matter what “provocation that they may create, and there are here a number of soldiers that participated in past events, for example to throw cigarettes, spitting, cursing, and so forth; we do not respond to these types of actions.” While Marom correctly identified these “peace activists” as paradoxically unpleasant to deal with, even he could not have predicted that there would be those amongst their number who would attempt to steal the soldiers’ guns, let alone stab them. But that is precisely what occurred. For us to regard these people as genuine peace activists would be a real tragedy.
Gen. Maj. Marom explained that “we have no intention of harming any of these people”, but that was sadly not the case with the activists. Beyond physically hurting the soldiers, their intention to give Israel’s image a good hiding could not be clearer. We may call them pro-Palestinian activists, but that would be a fib, for they had plenty of other options available to them, but instead went for the cheap PR stunt. And yet the PR stunt is the one way that wins. Israel yet again emerges as the loser, it’s entitlement to protect its population damaged. Worse still, this affair sets a dangerous precedent. Even after the criticism has faded and the media move on to the next big story, Israel will be left as many as 15 “Rachel Corries” to explain, 15 more images of Israeli brutality, injustice, violent excess. No matter whether the deceased foolishly tried to provoke soldiers in their last moments, they will become icons for the anti-Israel movement for an eternity.
The events off the coast of Gaza in the early hours of Monday morning were a dual tragedy. People died, and for that I grieve. But if Israel’s right to defend itself continues to be eroded, and if a precedent has been set here, more people will die. And that would be an even greater tragedy.
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hamas. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
The Terrorists Speak of Morality
This is a guest post by a friend, Channah Barkhordari.
I read an article in The Jerusalem Post tonight that has made me more sickened than perhaps any other I have read this year.
As many of you may know, there is a bill pending ratification in the Knesset that is meant to take away some of the supreme benefits being afforded to the Hamas terrorists in Israel's prisons. The logic behind the bill is that since Gilad Schalit has been held captive by Hamas for over four years, (the terrorist group refusing to reveal one iota of information regarding his whereabouts and living conditions, and continually breaking international law by restricting access to him by even the Red Cross,) it seems quite superfluous to provide amenities to Hamas terrorist prisoners that stretch over and above the legal requirements. Removing them is meant to provide some pressure on Hamas to return Gilad. (Jerusalem Post Editorial, 25/5/10)
At first I was relieved that Gilad was once again being focussed upon and that we are doing something. But if you asked me yesterday whether I thought the move would affect any serious progress, I would have said no — not because, as I discovered tonight, I should have known the sickening depth with which the leaders of Hamas deal in unconditional terror, but because the bill is simply not enough.
For one thing, I was unaware that Hamas terrorists were receiving such a range of stimulating benefits in Israel's prisons, from the option of pursuing higher education at Israel's Open University, to multi-channel cable TV. Yes, this is horribly ironic. Hamas restricts these basic rights, objective higher education and free press, from the Palestinians under their control on a consistent basis. What could make the situation clearer when the best place for a Hamas terrorist to go, or any Palestinian of Gaza for that matter, is an Israeli prison?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it makes sense that when your own soldiers (yes, soldiers plural—for Gilad we have the most hope, but there are more of our brothers missing—) are hidden behind circumstances so precarious we daily wonder at their life or death, that perhaps we shouldn’t make our enemies so comfortable?
But I digress. The source of my disgust was not that article, but this one. As I read, it became clear that Hamas’ reaction to the bill was an immediate threat against Gilad. And this does not mean taking away his books, TV, or visitation rights. He, of course, has none of these, and as we may guess has suffered far worse than we know. Though Israel has considered quarantine for Hamas prisoners, Gilad is already in the remotest of isolation. The exact wording of Hamas representatives is that he will “suffer,” that they will not stop those guarding him from “retaliating,” and that they would treat Schalit “according to what its religion tells it and in a way that satisfies its God.” We know what this implies; the Hamas charter spells it out clearly. This is their desire for the destruction of our people in the symbol of one IDF soldier. This may well be, G-d forbid, a threat to torture him, possibly maintaining the vitals of his physical life so they can continue to use him as a bargaining chip for freeing over a thousand Israel-kept prisoners…or possibly eventually returning him to us, G-d forbid, as they did Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser...
Yet I would expect that from Hamas. I would expect the threat, in its all-too-well-understood gravity, as they have continually called for our destruction and total annihilation, continually attempted to make it a reality. But what made me sick, though I can’t explain why, was what Jamal Nassar, Hamas legislator in Gaza, then proceeded to say. And I quote The Jerusalem Post, “The ‘Gilad Schalit Bill’ reflected the ‘moral decline’ of the Israeli government and signaled the beginning of its collapse, Nassar said” (Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, 26/5/10). The “moral decline” of the Israeli government…
Many people this year have told me that things bother me too much; that I ought not let them bother me. That I’m too sensitive, that I allow things get to me, that if I learned how to let go I would be happier. "What do I care if he says it?" they say. "Let him say it." And perhaps they are right. But something so unjust, so inverted, so absolutely evil is embodied in that one statement that the word “hypocrite” is like a weak and trite pebble in the mountain of what is being invoked here. Something indescribably black and foul is hiding in the soul of its message, something that goes against humanity itself.
I will acknowledge, but not concede to those who say I have wasted my time in writing this. Perhaps I felt it simply needed to be said, or that I needed to say it. Perhaps in truth I believe that it is our sensitivity that makes us human, and that it is specifically the G-d given sensitivity of עם ישראל that defines being a “light unto the nations.” But one thing I know for sure — what happens to Gilad will be so much more than the life of a single soldier. What happens to Gilad will serve as the emotional and political barometer of a nation who has had enough of terror, a nation that seeks peace and pursues it. There can be no other outcome, because like Jerusalem, we will never forget Gilad.
Awaiting the speedy return of our brother in safety and peace.
I read an article in The Jerusalem Post tonight that has made me more sickened than perhaps any other I have read this year.
As many of you may know, there is a bill pending ratification in the Knesset that is meant to take away some of the supreme benefits being afforded to the Hamas terrorists in Israel's prisons. The logic behind the bill is that since Gilad Schalit has been held captive by Hamas for over four years, (the terrorist group refusing to reveal one iota of information regarding his whereabouts and living conditions, and continually breaking international law by restricting access to him by even the Red Cross,) it seems quite superfluous to provide amenities to Hamas terrorist prisoners that stretch over and above the legal requirements. Removing them is meant to provide some pressure on Hamas to return Gilad. (Jerusalem Post Editorial, 25/5/10)
At first I was relieved that Gilad was once again being focussed upon and that we are doing something. But if you asked me yesterday whether I thought the move would affect any serious progress, I would have said no — not because, as I discovered tonight, I should have known the sickening depth with which the leaders of Hamas deal in unconditional terror, but because the bill is simply not enough.
For one thing, I was unaware that Hamas terrorists were receiving such a range of stimulating benefits in Israel's prisons, from the option of pursuing higher education at Israel's Open University, to multi-channel cable TV. Yes, this is horribly ironic. Hamas restricts these basic rights, objective higher education and free press, from the Palestinians under their control on a consistent basis. What could make the situation clearer when the best place for a Hamas terrorist to go, or any Palestinian of Gaza for that matter, is an Israeli prison?
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it makes sense that when your own soldiers (yes, soldiers plural—for Gilad we have the most hope, but there are more of our brothers missing—) are hidden behind circumstances so precarious we daily wonder at their life or death, that perhaps we shouldn’t make our enemies so comfortable?
But I digress. The source of my disgust was not that article, but this one. As I read, it became clear that Hamas’ reaction to the bill was an immediate threat against Gilad. And this does not mean taking away his books, TV, or visitation rights. He, of course, has none of these, and as we may guess has suffered far worse than we know. Though Israel has considered quarantine for Hamas prisoners, Gilad is already in the remotest of isolation. The exact wording of Hamas representatives is that he will “suffer,” that they will not stop those guarding him from “retaliating,” and that they would treat Schalit “according to what its religion tells it and in a way that satisfies its God.” We know what this implies; the Hamas charter spells it out clearly. This is their desire for the destruction of our people in the symbol of one IDF soldier. This may well be, G-d forbid, a threat to torture him, possibly maintaining the vitals of his physical life so they can continue to use him as a bargaining chip for freeing over a thousand Israel-kept prisoners…or possibly eventually returning him to us, G-d forbid, as they did Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser...
Yet I would expect that from Hamas. I would expect the threat, in its all-too-well-understood gravity, as they have continually called for our destruction and total annihilation, continually attempted to make it a reality. But what made me sick, though I can’t explain why, was what Jamal Nassar, Hamas legislator in Gaza, then proceeded to say. And I quote The Jerusalem Post, “The ‘Gilad Schalit Bill’ reflected the ‘moral decline’ of the Israeli government and signaled the beginning of its collapse, Nassar said” (Khaled Abu Toameh, The Jerusalem Post, 26/5/10). The “moral decline” of the Israeli government…
Many people this year have told me that things bother me too much; that I ought not let them bother me. That I’m too sensitive, that I allow things get to me, that if I learned how to let go I would be happier. "What do I care if he says it?" they say. "Let him say it." And perhaps they are right. But something so unjust, so inverted, so absolutely evil is embodied in that one statement that the word “hypocrite” is like a weak and trite pebble in the mountain of what is being invoked here. Something indescribably black and foul is hiding in the soul of its message, something that goes against humanity itself.
I will acknowledge, but not concede to those who say I have wasted my time in writing this. Perhaps I felt it simply needed to be said, or that I needed to say it. Perhaps in truth I believe that it is our sensitivity that makes us human, and that it is specifically the G-d given sensitivity of עם ישראל that defines being a “light unto the nations.” But one thing I know for sure — what happens to Gilad will be so much more than the life of a single soldier. What happens to Gilad will serve as the emotional and political barometer of a nation who has had enough of terror, a nation that seeks peace and pursues it. There can be no other outcome, because like Jerusalem, we will never forget Gilad.
Awaiting the speedy return of our brother in safety and peace.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
A question on campaigning
Last Friday, shortly before Israel entered into the Jewish festival of Sukkot, Israel (and her supporters around the globe) came together as one in joy, as we learned that Gilad Schalit is alive, and seemingly well.
If and when Gilad Schalit does finally return from Gaza, I hope that he publishes his story. I am sure he had many interesting experiences over his time as a prisoner of one of the most extreme terrorist organisations on the planet. But more than anything, I want to know if he was aware of the campaign for his return.
Recently I posted my reservations about the campaign on this blog, but I now feel that a revision of my thoughts is needed. Or more accurately, a question has been posed.
The question is simple, but exceedingly difficult to answer: would Gilad Schalit have been killed had the campaign not been as strong and as vocal as it was. In previous years, Israel has had soldiers captured, but not once has a soldier returned to Israel alive.
My gut feeling is that in previous cases, most times a soldier went missing in action in enemy territory, the soldier died either while falling, or before falling, into enemy hands. I have a suspicion, however, that maybe one or two Israeli soldiers have been captured alive previously. Schalit was alive when captured, but over the course of the last three years, I, and many others, have wondered whether he had been killed by his captors.
One of the slogans adopted by the campaign has been the hopeful and yet firm, "Gilad is still alive." Many people have responded strongly against this slogan, ranging from statements that it's best not to get our collective hopes up, to messages I've seen left on facebook stating that "people should stop being so silly; Hamas realised that Israel would do a deal with them regardless of whether he was alive or dead and have almost certainly killed him by now."
Mercifully, such pronouncements have been proven false. Moreover, given that for the first time ever, a captive Israeli soldier has been proven to be alive in enemy hands, I am lead to ask the important question of whether the campaign for Schalit's release actually ended up keeping him alive. Even though I remain extremely concerned on two counts that the campaign is counter-productive, (that a swap of hundreds of terrorists for one man is dangerous and sets a precedent, and that by campaigning so publicly, we are only reducing the chances of a deal being done; for more, read my previous blog entry,) the possibility that the campaign contributed to keeping Schalit alive one that intrigues me.
I have to reconcile these concerns with the possibility that by campaigning as publicly as we did, Schalit's life was spared. We don't know much, hence my interest in hearing Schalit's story, but we do know he is alive. We take this as a given, but maybe the continuous high-profile campaigning provided Schalit with a stay of execution (quite literally). Normally when we talk about perspective, we state that it is vital to look at things in the long-term, as the short-term is less important. But in this case, while I do take issue with the long-term effect of the campaign, if it is proven that it saved Schalit's life, then I believe that it has proved itself to be worth all these ramifications.
What do you think?
If and when Gilad Schalit does finally return from Gaza, I hope that he publishes his story. I am sure he had many interesting experiences over his time as a prisoner of one of the most extreme terrorist organisations on the planet. But more than anything, I want to know if he was aware of the campaign for his return.
Recently I posted my reservations about the campaign on this blog, but I now feel that a revision of my thoughts is needed. Or more accurately, a question has been posed.
The question is simple, but exceedingly difficult to answer: would Gilad Schalit have been killed had the campaign not been as strong and as vocal as it was. In previous years, Israel has had soldiers captured, but not once has a soldier returned to Israel alive.
My gut feeling is that in previous cases, most times a soldier went missing in action in enemy territory, the soldier died either while falling, or before falling, into enemy hands. I have a suspicion, however, that maybe one or two Israeli soldiers have been captured alive previously. Schalit was alive when captured, but over the course of the last three years, I, and many others, have wondered whether he had been killed by his captors.
One of the slogans adopted by the campaign has been the hopeful and yet firm, "Gilad is still alive." Many people have responded strongly against this slogan, ranging from statements that it's best not to get our collective hopes up, to messages I've seen left on facebook stating that "people should stop being so silly; Hamas realised that Israel would do a deal with them regardless of whether he was alive or dead and have almost certainly killed him by now."
Mercifully, such pronouncements have been proven false. Moreover, given that for the first time ever, a captive Israeli soldier has been proven to be alive in enemy hands, I am lead to ask the important question of whether the campaign for Schalit's release actually ended up keeping him alive. Even though I remain extremely concerned on two counts that the campaign is counter-productive, (that a swap of hundreds of terrorists for one man is dangerous and sets a precedent, and that by campaigning so publicly, we are only reducing the chances of a deal being done; for more, read my previous blog entry,) the possibility that the campaign contributed to keeping Schalit alive one that intrigues me.
I have to reconcile these concerns with the possibility that by campaigning as publicly as we did, Schalit's life was spared. We don't know much, hence my interest in hearing Schalit's story, but we do know he is alive. We take this as a given, but maybe the continuous high-profile campaigning provided Schalit with a stay of execution (quite literally). Normally when we talk about perspective, we state that it is vital to look at things in the long-term, as the short-term is less important. But in this case, while I do take issue with the long-term effect of the campaign, if it is proven that it saved Schalit's life, then I believe that it has proved itself to be worth all these ramifications.
What do you think?
Friday, August 21, 2009
Coming up against censorship
My internship at the Jerusalem Post now half-way through, I guess it's only normal that I should start coming up against some of the issues that real journalists have to contend with. And so it proved this week; when twice I came up censorship.
The first time I was prevented from working on a story was not such a bother to me - the story (that of a Chabad man who had gone missing and was suspected of having been abducted and murdered) was always going to go to a reporter more senior than myself, but the second instance of censorship was at once annoying and intensely gratifying.
About three weeks ago, I was sent an email by an ex-intern detailing a potential story about a solidarity and pressure campaign on Twitter being run by a New York-based organisation called the JIDF for Gilad Shalit. As it happens, I already knew about the story. I wasn't sure about running it though, as there have been so many rallies and solidarity drives for Shalit over the last three years. Another reason for my hesitation was that the person running the JIDF has a reputatation for sowing discord within the online Zionist community, sometimes even resorting to underhanded tactics to get his own way. Despite my reservations, upon seeing that somebody else thought this campaign was indeed newsworthy, I decided to do some research on it. I contacted the founder of the JIDF, investing quite a lot of his (and my) time in messaging him and interviewing him via email. I got some good quotes and I started typing up an article. As far as I was concerned, this thing was going to run, albeit as a smaller piece.
I should mention at this point that my news editor is a very busy man who never seems to have much time to be relaxed. It's not that he isn't a nice guy; he's dropped in to the lounge (the area of the Jerusalem Post offices where the interns would congregate) from time to time and had a laugh with us, but it's very rare that he hasn't got a lot on his plate.
At any rate, Wednesday afternoon was fairly quiet and he came in to the lounge area for a few minutes to speak to another intern. As he was leaving, I told him that I was working on this story. I expected him to approve it, as it was fairly topical given that Shalit's 23rd birthday is next Shabbat. To my surprise he turned around and firmly and almost sharply, said "No!" Censorship #2.
I was taken aback, but regained my poise sufficiently to ask why he didn't want to run such an article. The answer he gave, as I mentioned above, irked and delighted me in equal measure. My editor's logic was that "we want him [Shalit] back... do you think that if we continue running articles like this it will make it any easier? No, of course not!" The fact is that Hamas sees our media, and realises full well that we are desperate for his release, and makes the terms of any swap deal that much higher.
If we stop to ask ourselves who we are lobbying, the simple truth is no-one but our own government - and they want him back too, of course, so what's the point? If we are demonstrating to raise awareness in other countries, the question we have to ask ourselves is, "Do we really expect Hamas to listen to popular opinion, or external pressure?"
By campaigning endlessly for Shalit's release, all we do end up doing is perpetuating his suffering. The slogan used by Habonim Dror after the Second Lebanon War, "אל תתנו לאדישות להרוג אותם - Don't let indifference kill them," until Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev's bodies were eventually returned to Israel particularly irked me - I doubt that there's even one person in Israel who didn't care about Ehud and Eldad's fate. To imply that Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora don't care about their captured soldiers is wrong, and overlooks the real reason why the two were only returned to Israel two years after the war ended, and why Shalit has not yet been released.
The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah and Hamas understand that Israel is willing to enter into deals whereby one side gains far more than the other, and hence try and squeeze Israel as much as possible. If we didn't campaign as much as we did, the story would be out of the press, and the stakes wouldn't be anywhere near as high as they are now. Israelis and Jews care hugely for their soldiers, and would give almost anything for Shalit's safe return, but not quite everything. If the price is so high as to be intolerable, then we can't turn around and accuse the government of being unsympathetic bastards - quite the opposite is true.
And so my I came up against censorship once more. But this time, paradoxical though it may sound, I was relieved and glad to be told to throw away hours of work. I might want to get my name in the paper, but it was good that my editor had his thinking cap on, kept the ever-willing intern in check and ensured that Shalit stands a better chance of returning home.
The first time I was prevented from working on a story was not such a bother to me - the story (that of a Chabad man who had gone missing and was suspected of having been abducted and murdered) was always going to go to a reporter more senior than myself, but the second instance of censorship was at once annoying and intensely gratifying.
About three weeks ago, I was sent an email by an ex-intern detailing a potential story about a solidarity and pressure campaign on Twitter being run by a New York-based organisation called the JIDF for Gilad Shalit. As it happens, I already knew about the story. I wasn't sure about running it though, as there have been so many rallies and solidarity drives for Shalit over the last three years. Another reason for my hesitation was that the person running the JIDF has a reputatation for sowing discord within the online Zionist community, sometimes even resorting to underhanded tactics to get his own way. Despite my reservations, upon seeing that somebody else thought this campaign was indeed newsworthy, I decided to do some research on it. I contacted the founder of the JIDF, investing quite a lot of his (and my) time in messaging him and interviewing him via email. I got some good quotes and I started typing up an article. As far as I was concerned, this thing was going to run, albeit as a smaller piece.
I should mention at this point that my news editor is a very busy man who never seems to have much time to be relaxed. It's not that he isn't a nice guy; he's dropped in to the lounge (the area of the Jerusalem Post offices where the interns would congregate) from time to time and had a laugh with us, but it's very rare that he hasn't got a lot on his plate.
At any rate, Wednesday afternoon was fairly quiet and he came in to the lounge area for a few minutes to speak to another intern. As he was leaving, I told him that I was working on this story. I expected him to approve it, as it was fairly topical given that Shalit's 23rd birthday is next Shabbat. To my surprise he turned around and firmly and almost sharply, said "No!" Censorship #2.
I was taken aback, but regained my poise sufficiently to ask why he didn't want to run such an article. The answer he gave, as I mentioned above, irked and delighted me in equal measure. My editor's logic was that "we want him [Shalit] back... do you think that if we continue running articles like this it will make it any easier? No, of course not!" The fact is that Hamas sees our media, and realises full well that we are desperate for his release, and makes the terms of any swap deal that much higher.
If we stop to ask ourselves who we are lobbying, the simple truth is no-one but our own government - and they want him back too, of course, so what's the point? If we are demonstrating to raise awareness in other countries, the question we have to ask ourselves is, "Do we really expect Hamas to listen to popular opinion, or external pressure?"
By campaigning endlessly for Shalit's release, all we do end up doing is perpetuating his suffering. The slogan used by Habonim Dror after the Second Lebanon War, "אל תתנו לאדישות להרוג אותם - Don't let indifference kill them," until Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev's bodies were eventually returned to Israel particularly irked me - I doubt that there's even one person in Israel who didn't care about Ehud and Eldad's fate. To imply that Israelis and Jews in the Diaspora don't care about their captured soldiers is wrong, and overlooks the real reason why the two were only returned to Israel two years after the war ended, and why Shalit has not yet been released.
The fact of the matter is that Hezbollah and Hamas understand that Israel is willing to enter into deals whereby one side gains far more than the other, and hence try and squeeze Israel as much as possible. If we didn't campaign as much as we did, the story would be out of the press, and the stakes wouldn't be anywhere near as high as they are now. Israelis and Jews care hugely for their soldiers, and would give almost anything for Shalit's safe return, but not quite everything. If the price is so high as to be intolerable, then we can't turn around and accuse the government of being unsympathetic bastards - quite the opposite is true.
And so my I came up against censorship once more. But this time, paradoxical though it may sound, I was relieved and glad to be told to throw away hours of work. I might want to get my name in the paper, but it was good that my editor had his thinking cap on, kept the ever-willing intern in check and ensured that Shalit stands a better chance of returning home.
Monday, February 02, 2009
The Power of A Letter
A letter that was printed in the Israeli daily, Ma'ariv, has been circulating on the internet recently; on facebook, emails and blogs. The letter in question had apparently been written by an Israeli soldier, a reservist who was called up by the IDF and who consequently found himself in Gaza. The letter was purportedly left to the owners of a property held by the IDF in which the soldier spent an unspecified period of time during Operation Cast Lead.
The letter provoked some heated debate. Many doubted its veracity; some voiced their scepticism loudly, dubbing the letter shameless "propaganda," while others like myself were more passive and took the letter at face value. In the end, (and I suppose that it is a shame that more people don't know this,) the letter was proved to be a fake; a friend of mine who is currently serving in Golani stated quite clearly that no reserve soldiers actually entered Gaza and so this letter cannot have been authentic.
I still feel however that there is something very telling about this letter. While it transpires that it was not really written by an Israeli soldier who entered Gaza, I still find it deeply revealing of Israeli culture and Israelis' attitude to the Palestinian people. The "JBlogosphere," (a term coined for the worldwide network of jewish blogs,) seized upon this letter and quickly republished it. Arutz Sheva, a 'parallel' media outlet that leans very much to the right-wing, did too. All over the world, dedicated Zionists and Jews read this letter and felt connected to the letter's compassion for the Palestinian people. The letter is in no way apologetic for Israeli actions; it makes very clear that the writer believes that Israel's actions were just and neccessitated by Hamas' callous terrorism, but it nevertheless does reach out to the Palestinians, and attempts to empathise and sympathise with their pain.
What made this letter so believable is that its tone is very much in line with the norm in Israel. After terror attacks people often are polarised and given to repeating mindless mantras like "Kill all the Arabs," or "Carpet-bomb Gaza, that'll teach Hamas," but to be honest that is not the way most people think most of the time. The average Israeli, while proud of his country, also recognises the effect that this operation, and ones like it before, have had on the people "on the other side."
Yes, it is most likely that this letter is cleverly crafted propaganda, but that somebody who aligns themselves with the Israeli side of this conflict would so much as dream of writing a letter like this to people on the other side is already rather telling.
Any Palestinian who goes out of their way to make peace with Israelis is immediately dismissed as an apologist or is slurred and termed a "puppet" of the evil Zionists. Note how Hamas accuse Mahmoud Abbas (leader of Fatah and self-proclaimed Holocaust denier) of being exactly that.
The Israeli peace lobby, on the other hand, has a very real place in Israeli society. Dissenting voices are not demonised, they are respected, and ultimately have a very real (and, take note Hamas, *truly democratic*,) effect on the military's actions. Organisations such as B'Tselem, Yesh Din and Machsom Watch all place a tremendous amount of value on Palestinian human rights, often to the detriment of Jewish and Israeli human rights.
The reason why the letter touched so many people is because it was a perfect reflection of Israeli and Jewish attitudes to the people of our enemy. Though we might be engaged in a bloody war with Hamas (and even with a great number of other Palestinians, too) we never celebrate the spilling of blood, even of our enemies. Though Israel is locked in a painful war of attrition with Hamas, we do not wish our enemies dead; we would much rather that they prosper. There is very rarely an absolute proof for anything in this world, but while the so-called "civilised" countries in the West might well accuse us of war crimes, the best proof I can think of is that such atrocities are completely out of character with the genuine compassion that is so innate within the Jewish people.
This letter may well be propaganda, but for it to flourish it required another crucial ingredient; that it would be well received by Israelis and Jews around the world. The letter has spread around the world like wildfire, and it is no surprise to me why that is so. The point of this letter is one that resonates profoundly within Jews around the world. The point of the letter is that beyond the politics and the posturing, many of us Jews and Israelis are acutely uncomfortable with the effects of this (and any other) military operation on the people of "the other side." We are not apportioning blame, though we might make it exceedingly clear where we feel the blame lies for this needless and tragic loss of life, rather we are lamenting the hideous suffering that we have been compelled to impose upon another people.
The letter provoked some heated debate. Many doubted its veracity; some voiced their scepticism loudly, dubbing the letter shameless "propaganda," while others like myself were more passive and took the letter at face value. In the end, (and I suppose that it is a shame that more people don't know this,) the letter was proved to be a fake; a friend of mine who is currently serving in Golani stated quite clearly that no reserve soldiers actually entered Gaza and so this letter cannot have been authentic.
I still feel however that there is something very telling about this letter. While it transpires that it was not really written by an Israeli soldier who entered Gaza, I still find it deeply revealing of Israeli culture and Israelis' attitude to the Palestinian people. The "JBlogosphere," (a term coined for the worldwide network of jewish blogs,) seized upon this letter and quickly republished it. Arutz Sheva, a 'parallel' media outlet that leans very much to the right-wing, did too. All over the world, dedicated Zionists and Jews read this letter and felt connected to the letter's compassion for the Palestinian people. The letter is in no way apologetic for Israeli actions; it makes very clear that the writer believes that Israel's actions were just and neccessitated by Hamas' callous terrorism, but it nevertheless does reach out to the Palestinians, and attempts to empathise and sympathise with their pain.
What made this letter so believable is that its tone is very much in line with the norm in Israel. After terror attacks people often are polarised and given to repeating mindless mantras like "Kill all the Arabs," or "Carpet-bomb Gaza, that'll teach Hamas," but to be honest that is not the way most people think most of the time. The average Israeli, while proud of his country, also recognises the effect that this operation, and ones like it before, have had on the people "on the other side."
Yes, it is most likely that this letter is cleverly crafted propaganda, but that somebody who aligns themselves with the Israeli side of this conflict would so much as dream of writing a letter like this to people on the other side is already rather telling.
Any Palestinian who goes out of their way to make peace with Israelis is immediately dismissed as an apologist or is slurred and termed a "puppet" of the evil Zionists. Note how Hamas accuse Mahmoud Abbas (leader of Fatah and self-proclaimed Holocaust denier) of being exactly that.
The Israeli peace lobby, on the other hand, has a very real place in Israeli society. Dissenting voices are not demonised, they are respected, and ultimately have a very real (and, take note Hamas, *truly democratic*,) effect on the military's actions. Organisations such as B'Tselem, Yesh Din and Machsom Watch all place a tremendous amount of value on Palestinian human rights, often to the detriment of Jewish and Israeli human rights.
The reason why the letter touched so many people is because it was a perfect reflection of Israeli and Jewish attitudes to the people of our enemy. Though we might be engaged in a bloody war with Hamas (and even with a great number of other Palestinians, too) we never celebrate the spilling of blood, even of our enemies. Though Israel is locked in a painful war of attrition with Hamas, we do not wish our enemies dead; we would much rather that they prosper. There is very rarely an absolute proof for anything in this world, but while the so-called "civilised" countries in the West might well accuse us of war crimes, the best proof I can think of is that such atrocities are completely out of character with the genuine compassion that is so innate within the Jewish people.
This letter may well be propaganda, but for it to flourish it required another crucial ingredient; that it would be well received by Israelis and Jews around the world. The letter has spread around the world like wildfire, and it is no surprise to me why that is so. The point of this letter is one that resonates profoundly within Jews around the world. The point of the letter is that beyond the politics and the posturing, many of us Jews and Israelis are acutely uncomfortable with the effects of this (and any other) military operation on the people of "the other side." We are not apportioning blame, though we might make it exceedingly clear where we feel the blame lies for this needless and tragic loss of life, rather we are lamenting the hideous suffering that we have been compelled to impose upon another people.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
A bitter pill to swallow
So the policy is now out in the open. Two years ago when I was in the army, I was doing guard duty near Ariel with another soldier. We had a fixed position and once an hour or so, one of us was to walk about 25 meters down the road from us and back to check the area. My colleague asked me if I understood the instructions we received earlier in the day. I replied to the negative; I hadn't a clue as I was still getting a feel for Ivrit at the time. He told me that if, while he was on his short patrol, I were to hear yelling from his direction I should shoot in the air to ward off any potential attackers. If I could see that we were getting into a kidnap situation, then I would have to do my best to neutralise the threat.
He went on to say that if the situation was that the terrorists looked to be succeeding in their struggle to kidnap him, and that I could not discern between his outline and the terrorists', I should shoot to kill all parties involved.
My friend explained that after the shenanigan that was the Second Lebanon War, the army is aware that terrorists are seeking to capture IDF soldiers to use as bargaining chips. He continued, saying that while this was not official army policy, it certainly has been unnoffically encouraged practise.
Yesterday, the cat was let out of the bag when a briefing given by the Magad (Battalion Commander) to Golani's 51st Battalion before they entered Gaza was was aired on Channel 10. The recording captures the Commander telling his soldiers that "Hamas' strategic weapon is to kidnap another soldier and I don't have to tell you, but no soldier from Battalion 51 gets kidnapped at any price and under any situation even if it means that he has to blow up his grenade together with those who are trying to kidnap him."
The IDF has furiously denied that these words were meant literally, and claims that this was motivational rhetoric in the commander's pep talk to his soldiers. The truth is somewhat different. Unfortunately, the IDF is all too familiar with the ramifications of a succesful soldier kidnap attempt. However, instructing a soldier to commit suicide grates with the IDF's ethos of leaving no man behind, and while it may be the best option available, it remains a bitter pill to swallow, and as such, has not been formally approved as policy. Additionally, as such a suicide (even under circumstances as extenuating these,) could well be against Halacha, the IDF has decided to adopt an informal apprach to this policy, opting to allow it spread via word-of-mouth. It would seem that this specific Battalion Commander inadvertently crossed the line by mentioning it to his soldiers formally, but the policy is equally effective when officially prescribed as when it is advisory practise.
Unsurprisingly, Jewish and Israeli blogs have seen a furious debate erupt over this policy. For a more in-depth look, read this page on VosIzNeias. Make sure to scroll down to read the comments people have left in response to the main article.
He went on to say that if the situation was that the terrorists looked to be succeeding in their struggle to kidnap him, and that I could not discern between his outline and the terrorists', I should shoot to kill all parties involved.
My friend explained that after the shenanigan that was the Second Lebanon War, the army is aware that terrorists are seeking to capture IDF soldiers to use as bargaining chips. He continued, saying that while this was not official army policy, it certainly has been unnoffically encouraged practise.
Yesterday, the cat was let out of the bag when a briefing given by the Magad (Battalion Commander) to Golani's 51st Battalion before they entered Gaza was was aired on Channel 10. The recording captures the Commander telling his soldiers that "Hamas' strategic weapon is to kidnap another soldier and I don't have to tell you, but no soldier from Battalion 51 gets kidnapped at any price and under any situation even if it means that he has to blow up his grenade together with those who are trying to kidnap him."
The IDF has furiously denied that these words were meant literally, and claims that this was motivational rhetoric in the commander's pep talk to his soldiers. The truth is somewhat different. Unfortunately, the IDF is all too familiar with the ramifications of a succesful soldier kidnap attempt. However, instructing a soldier to commit suicide grates with the IDF's ethos of leaving no man behind, and while it may be the best option available, it remains a bitter pill to swallow, and as such, has not been formally approved as policy. Additionally, as such a suicide (even under circumstances as extenuating these,) could well be against Halacha, the IDF has decided to adopt an informal apprach to this policy, opting to allow it spread via word-of-mouth. It would seem that this specific Battalion Commander inadvertently crossed the line by mentioning it to his soldiers formally, but the policy is equally effective when officially prescribed as when it is advisory practise.
Unsurprisingly, Jewish and Israeli blogs have seen a furious debate erupt over this policy. For a more in-depth look, read this page on VosIzNeias. Make sure to scroll down to read the comments people have left in response to the main article.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Here we go...
And a little over a week after the one-week ceasefire was announced, what passed for peace here in Israel might be crumbling. I desperately hope not, but after events this morning, we'll have to wait and see. In case you didn't know, an Israeli soldier was killed and three were wounded this morning when the jeep they were in hit a mine during a standard patrol on part of the Gaza strip perimeter. Consequently Israel was drawn into a relatively low-key gun battle with terrorists and an Arab farmer caught in the crossfire was killed. A number of drones and helicopters were deployed on aerial patrols and one caused a sonic boom over Gaza by way of a statement from the IDF. (EDIT: Later on in the afternooon, 20 tanks and 7 armoured bulldozers backed up by air support entered Gaza but did not engage in heavy fighting. An air strike targeted a terrorist on a motorbike, causing him and a bystander severe injuries, but other than that nobody was reported injured.)
People have asked me whether the ceasefire will hold and I have told them that I am very pessimistic. Hamas undoubtedly want to attack Israel, and have never seen a ceasefire as a reason to actually cease their fire. During the six month period between June and December last year when an uneasy calm existed between Israel and Gaza, there were still over 300 rockets and mortars fired into Israeli terrirtory in defiance of the supposed "Hudna." If Olmert, Livni and Peres were serious when they said Israel had to change the status quo and that it will no longer tolerate such a threat and will respond to each and every rocket, then all Hamas has to do to grab the initiative is to fire a high volume of rockets into Israel. If we do not respond, we will be externally perceived as weak and internally perceived as unable to back up our assurances to the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, and if we respond then the ceasefire will disappear and we will back in a war-like situation. I fully expect Hamas will most likely wait till closer to the elections and then step up rocket attacks once again to test this theory out. Either way, the Israeli government made a terrible mistake in withdrawing from Gaza as it did - it undermined a huge amount of progress. Hamas can now rebuild it's tunnels, (it already is, and furiously so,) and wait till the right time to attack again.
When will we learn?
People have asked me whether the ceasefire will hold and I have told them that I am very pessimistic. Hamas undoubtedly want to attack Israel, and have never seen a ceasefire as a reason to actually cease their fire. During the six month period between June and December last year when an uneasy calm existed between Israel and Gaza, there were still over 300 rockets and mortars fired into Israeli terrirtory in defiance of the supposed "Hudna." If Olmert, Livni and Peres were serious when they said Israel had to change the status quo and that it will no longer tolerate such a threat and will respond to each and every rocket, then all Hamas has to do to grab the initiative is to fire a high volume of rockets into Israel. If we do not respond, we will be externally perceived as weak and internally perceived as unable to back up our assurances to the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, and if we respond then the ceasefire will disappear and we will back in a war-like situation. I fully expect Hamas will most likely wait till closer to the elections and then step up rocket attacks once again to test this theory out. Either way, the Israeli government made a terrible mistake in withdrawing from Gaza as it did - it undermined a huge amount of progress. Hamas can now rebuild it's tunnels, (it already is, and furiously so,) and wait till the right time to attack again.
When will we learn?
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Finally a (grudging) mention
This article went online on the BBC's website last night. At first, I was pleased. A good article, so I thought, that refrained from blaming Israel. For that I should be grateful, I supposed.
But as I thought about what I had just read, I realised that several key points were missing. I realised that I was looking at yet another example of our enlightened left-wing, liberal-minded media studiously avoiding painting a full picture of what is happening in the Middle East.
I am currently studying for the American SAT. One of the subjects tested will be my essay writing skills. During my revision, I have learned that a good essay will take various sources and will make observations and progress to a mature conclusion. In that context, I am utterly dismayed that nowhere in the article is there mention of the word terrorist. True, that is unsurprising given the media's preference for the more sterile "militant," but "militant" doesn't appear either. "Hamas" is mentioned, but not once in connection with the suffering of the residents of Sderot at the hands of the rockets that they fire. Where would the BBC have us believe that these rockets appear from? Are they hoping to delude the public into thinking that rockets land in Sderot out of thin air?
Once again, the BBC is guilty of painting a misleading picture. The article mentions that the rockets come from Gaza, which is very true, but the point is that Hamas as administrators of the Gaza strip have both actively fired and passively overseen the firing of rockets aimed at civilians in Israeli towns such as Sderot. Which touches another point, that these rockets were aimed at civilians.
Why had such an article not been written before Israel's attack against Hamas? Why didn't the BBC feel that the situation, something that has been daily conversation here in Israel now for over two years, warranted a full-length article long ago? Why is it that when Israel responds to the terrorists the whole world sits up and takes notice, thoroughly condemning their "disproportionate" actions, but as rockets continued to hit Sderot throughout a ceasefire, the press' reaction was one of silence. Where was the international condemnation then? Where were the students protesting outside the embassies in solidarity with their Israeli brothers? (OK, I'm deluding myself a little there, but you surely catch my drift.)
Only after five days of this incursion/war in response to Hamas' insufferable provocation do the left-wing loonies at the BBC see fit to describe the suffering that Sderot residents are enduring. By way of comparison, countless articles have been posted online describing the suffering of Gazan residents as a result of the Israeli blockade and over these last five days many more have been published detailing their suffering in the latest bout of the conflict.
I have a sneaking feeling that the only reason why this article was compiled was merely so that their reporting of the situation could be perceived as balanced. To have masses of editorials online documenting the suffering of the helpless Palestinians, yet not one about the victims of Hamas's reprehensible "bad habit" of firing military grade weapons at civilians would be clearly indefencible proof of bias. Even the BBC would cannot tolerate such an absurdly assymetrical level of reporting.
By grudgingly producing the mimimal number of "pro-Israel" articles however, (and by that I mean "non-pro-Palestinian" articles,) the lefties can claim to be neutral and falsely assert that they are willing to equally report both sides of the conflict. They will self-righteously point to the few articles of this nature, and thus impudently deflect criticism of their one-sidedness. Do not be fooled.
But as I thought about what I had just read, I realised that several key points were missing. I realised that I was looking at yet another example of our enlightened left-wing, liberal-minded media studiously avoiding painting a full picture of what is happening in the Middle East.
I am currently studying for the American SAT. One of the subjects tested will be my essay writing skills. During my revision, I have learned that a good essay will take various sources and will make observations and progress to a mature conclusion. In that context, I am utterly dismayed that nowhere in the article is there mention of the word terrorist. True, that is unsurprising given the media's preference for the more sterile "militant," but "militant" doesn't appear either. "Hamas" is mentioned, but not once in connection with the suffering of the residents of Sderot at the hands of the rockets that they fire. Where would the BBC have us believe that these rockets appear from? Are they hoping to delude the public into thinking that rockets land in Sderot out of thin air?
Once again, the BBC is guilty of painting a misleading picture. The article mentions that the rockets come from Gaza, which is very true, but the point is that Hamas as administrators of the Gaza strip have both actively fired and passively overseen the firing of rockets aimed at civilians in Israeli towns such as Sderot. Which touches another point, that these rockets were aimed at civilians.
Why had such an article not been written before Israel's attack against Hamas? Why didn't the BBC feel that the situation, something that has been daily conversation here in Israel now for over two years, warranted a full-length article long ago? Why is it that when Israel responds to the terrorists the whole world sits up and takes notice, thoroughly condemning their "disproportionate" actions, but as rockets continued to hit Sderot throughout a ceasefire, the press' reaction was one of silence. Where was the international condemnation then? Where were the students protesting outside the embassies in solidarity with their Israeli brothers? (OK, I'm deluding myself a little there, but you surely catch my drift.)
Only after five days of this incursion/war in response to Hamas' insufferable provocation do the left-wing loonies at the BBC see fit to describe the suffering that Sderot residents are enduring. By way of comparison, countless articles have been posted online describing the suffering of Gazan residents as a result of the Israeli blockade and over these last five days many more have been published detailing their suffering in the latest bout of the conflict.
I have a sneaking feeling that the only reason why this article was compiled was merely so that their reporting of the situation could be perceived as balanced. To have masses of editorials online documenting the suffering of the helpless Palestinians, yet not one about the victims of Hamas's reprehensible "bad habit" of firing military grade weapons at civilians would be clearly indefencible proof of bias. Even the BBC would cannot tolerate such an absurdly assymetrical level of reporting.
By grudgingly producing the mimimal number of "pro-Israel" articles however, (and by that I mean "non-pro-Palestinian" articles,) the lefties can claim to be neutral and falsely assert that they are willing to equally report both sides of the conflict. They will self-righteously point to the few articles of this nature, and thus impudently deflect criticism of their one-sidedness. Do not be fooled.
In case we weren't absolutely sure why Israel launched this operation (Part 2):
Here is a short but powerful clip from Aish.com highlighting the effects of Hamas's terrorism that have caused Israel's recent operation.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
So who's fault is it?
Foreign governments trying to be "neutral" (see my earlier post about what that's all about,) experience real difficulty in admitting the reality of the current situation in and around Gaza, but ironically enough the Egyptians have no such qualms.
(Hat tip to Little Green Footballs and in turn, to Aaron.)
(Hat tip to Little Green Footballs and in turn, to Aaron.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
