Israel continues its assault on Gaza

Photo Courtesy of Al Jazeera

Since I last posted on this blog on December 29th, the situation in Gaza has continued to spiral downwards. Every morning, there's another horrific story which displays the Israeli army's utter contempt for civilian life: The Israeli armed forces have killed aid workers from the Red Cross, bombed a United Nations school, killing 40 innocent civilians, killed 9 women and 11 children in their homes just so they could assassinate a single Hamas leader, and deliberately targeted police officers, likely with the intention of undermining order and sowing chaos in the strip. There are even reports that Israel may be dropping white phosphorous, a poisonous chemical which can burn human flesh to the bone, on Gaza. Of course if this is true, Israel is committing a war crime, but you don't have to be an expert in international humanitarian law to know that dropping a chemical which causes severe burns on an enclosed, densely populated area is utterly despicable and likely to cause civilian injuries.

One of the many unfortunate realities of the violence in Gaza is that it repeats a familiar historical pattern. As Noam Chomsky and other astute observers have long pointed out, Israel would not be able to occupy the West Bank and Gaza and could not have committed many its myriad other crimes over the course of its existence without the military, economic, and political support of the United States. Israel's current round of war crimes are no different. Immediately, President Bush and Speaker Pelosi offered strong rhetorical support for Israel's actions. At the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. first blocked a resolution calling for a ceasefire on January 4th and then abstained from voting on January 8th. Just yesterday, Nancy Pelosi sponsored a resolution in the House backing Israel's actions which passed with an overwhelming majority of 390 to 5, with 22 members abstaining. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the resolution reflected "the will...of the American people". And as always, much of the Israeli military equipment used against Gaza is American made and/or designed.

Another historical constant, also documented by Chomsky, is the quiescence of the mainstream American media in the face of Israeli (or American) state crimes. The justification offered by the Israeli and United States governments are absolutely ridiculous, yet of course, the entire mainstream American media nonetheless parrots their claims. If you're interested in more specifics, check out this piece by Jennifer Lowenstein, who completely debunks the U.S./Israeli arguments for the violence and Paul Street for an analysis of the criminal role of the U.S. media in the Gaza Massacre. In fact, just check out anything that's appeared on ZNet over the past several weeks on the violence in Gaza. Norman Finkelstein also did a great job of debunking the U.S./Israeli arguments for violence and providing historical context for the massacre on Thursday's Democracy Now.

There's little to nothing new I can say about the carnage in Gaza that hasn't already been said more eloquently by the victims of the atrocities themselves or other persons of conscience. Nonetheless, I do have a few thoughts.

Firstly, I have to say that watching Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, debate Norman Finkelstein on Democracy Now on Thursday was a very strange, puzzling experience. Ambassador Indky, who served under the Clinton administration, was a direct and active participant in the Camp David and Taba talks of 1999-2000 and just wrote a book about these talks. Despite his direct participation, Dr. Finkelstein points out that his recount of the events at these talks is not only inaccurate but if you compare his statements with official U.S. government documents, you'll find that Ambassador Indyk's version of history is almost the complete opposite of what actually happened. In Dr. Finkelstein's own words:

According to Mr. Indyk’s account of the negotiations that culminated in the Camp David and Taba meetings, he says it was the Palestinians that were blocking a settlement. What does the record show? The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.

The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.

Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They were willing to allow Israel to keep 60 percent of the settlements, 80 percent of the settlers. They were willing to compromise on Jerusalem. They were willing to give up basically on the right of return. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions. How is this rendered in Martin Indyk’s book? It’s rendered as, quote, “Barak’s bold and courageous initiatives for peace” and “Arafat and the PLO rejecting the bold and courageous initiatives of Barak.”

As for the current violence in Gaza, according to Mr. Indyk, Israel's assault is an act of self-defense and a response to Hamas breaking its five-month ceasefire with Israel:

I think that what happened here was that there was a ceasefire, an informal ceasefire, between Hamas and Israel that had lasted for about five months. Hamas decided to break that ceasefire with a prolonged series of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians in southern Israel. And the Israeli government responded with overwhelming force, designed, as they have said, to try to reestablish deterrence, to prevent Hamas from doing that again

Yet, Dr. Finkelstein points out that Indyk's claims about the current violence are also completely false and contradict the official documentary record:

Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.

Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one, as Mr. Indyk I think correctly points out, to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.

After witnessing Mr. Indyk's performance on Democracy Now, I would really like to know what actually goes on inside his head. Is he just a terrific liar and actor who makes claims on the show and in his book the he knows are false, or has he somehow convinced himself that his incredibly distorted versions of contemporary history are true? More generally, I suppose that same question could be posed to the various U.S. and Israeli politicians and media elites who have participated in and/or closely followed events in Israeli-occupied Palestine. Some day I would really like to know the answer to that question. I suppose George Orwell would say I was just witnessing a spectacular instance of doublethink, where in the interests of serving the powerful, Indyk and others are actually capable of holding two completely contradictory thoughts at once. Whatever the case, I suggest you read some of Chomsky or Finkelestein's work on the actual history of Palestine and then listen to Indyk's debate with Finkelstein. It really is a mesmerizing, though also maddening and horrifying experience.

Lastly, I have to take issue with Harry Reid's repugnant claim that Friday's House resolution in favor of Israel's massacre of the Palestinians represents "the will...of the American people". For one, my girlfriend, family, friends, acquaintances, and I who know better and oppose Israel's actions are Americans, too, and the resolution certainly doesn't reflect our will. Moreover, it's not just a small cadre of Arab-Americans/America haters/ hippies/ commies/ anarchists (add whatever category of non-persons here you'd like) who oppose Israel's actions. In fact, according to Max Blumenthal, a December 31st Rasmussen poll revealed that 44% of Americans supported Israel's attack on Gaza and 41% opposed it. Given that the casualty figures have risen dramatically since then, it's entirely likely, in my opinion, that even fewer Americans support the so-called "war". In other words, Mr. Majority Leader, if the House resolution represented the "will of the American people" it would have been a much closer vote. Unless of course by "American people" you meant the military-industrial complex and segments of high-tech industry which benefit from Israeli violence, our nation's opinion elite, and AIPAC, the Anti-Defamation League, and the rest of the Israel lobby, in which case I certainly agree with you.

As offensive as the House resolution is, which the entire Connecticut delegation despicably voted for, the results of the Rasmussen poll are encouraging. The poll shows that, despite the near unanimous support of Israeli aggression among politicians from both parties and the utter lack of objective information on the Israeli occupation in the mainstream media, there is a large swath of the population which opposes American-supported Israeli violence. This suggests to me that there is significant potential for popular organizing. The myriad protests across the country are already a good sign and step in the right direction. And, as a side note, as I am living in Costa Rica, there was a protest of more than 1,000 people at the Israeli Embassy in San Jose last Friday in solidarity with the people of Gaza. Given it's much smaller population, the protest on Friday was equivalent to a 75,000 person protest in the U.S. It was an amazing show of public support for peace and justice, especially given that the Costa Rican media and political elite are also incredibly biased towards Israel. In order to have a real impact on the situation in the Palestinian territories, I agree with Naomi Klein and most Palestinian civil society that these protests, in Costa Rica, The United States, and around the world ought to be channeled into an international movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions of Israel. Israel is small enough and so dependent on international trade that such a movement could have a real impact. Leading up to and until then, we all have a responsibility as Americans to write, call, and lobby our congresspeople, demonstrate, employ civil disobedience, and do everything and anything we can (Absent acts of violence, of course) to bring an end to the siege of Gaza. As U2 sang decades ago about a different imperial occupation at a different time in history: No More!