Add to Technorati Favourites
Add to
Monday, January 12, 2009

Urge Overkill

Posted by Tariq al Haydar

I was thinking about writing something about the wacky NFL Playoffs, about how happy I am that the Philadelphia Eagles and Baltimore Ravens are in their respective Championship games and how I hope they collide in the SuperBowl. I wanted to write about how moving it was to see Brian Dawkins cry after the victory over the Giants, but really... during this time I feel that sports are so inconsequential; who really gives a crap if Donovan McNabb finally gets a ring or if Kurt Warner makes it back to Super Sunday? Not me. At least not now. So instead I thought I'd share this article:
How Israel brought Gaza to the Brink of Humanitarian Catastrophe
Oxford professor of international relations Avi Shlaim served in the Israeli army and has never questioned the state's legitimacy. But its merciless assault on Gaza has led him to devastating conclusions

Avi Shlaim
Wednesday January 7 2009
The Guardian

The only way to make sense of Israel's senseless war in Gaza is through understanding the historical context. Establishing the state of Israel in May 1948 involved a monumental injustice to the Palestinians. British officials bitterly resented American partisanship on behalf of the infant state. On 2 June 1948, Sir John Troutbeck wrote to the foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, that the Americans were responsible for the creation of a gangster state headed by "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". I used to think that this judgment was too harsh but Israel's vicious assault on the people of Gaza, and the Bush administration's complicity in this assault, have reopened the question.

I write as someone who served loyally in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s and who has never questioned the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. What I utterly reject is the Zionist colonial project beyond the Green Line. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the June 1967 war had very little to do with security and everything to do with territorial expansionism. The aim was to establish Greater Israel through permanent political, economic and military control over the Palestinian territories. And the result has been one of the most prolonged and brutal military occupations of modern times.

Four decades of Israeli control did incalculable damage to the economy of the Gaza Strip. With a large population of 1948 refugees crammed into a tiny strip of land, with no infrastructure or natural resources, Gaza's prospects were never bright. Gaza, however, is not simply a case of economic under-development but a uniquely cruel case of deliberate de-development. To use the Biblical phrase, Israel turned the people of Gaza into the hewers of wood and the drawers of water, into a source of cheap labour and a captive market for Israeli goods. The development of local industry was actively impeded so as to make it impossible for the Palestinians to end their subordination to Israel and to establish the economic underpinnings essential for real political independence.

Gaza is a classic case of colonial exploitation in the post-colonial era. Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace. They are at once the instrument of exploitation and the symbol of the hated occupation. In Gaza, the Jewish settlers numbered only 8,000 in 2005 compared with 1.4 million local residents. Yet the settlers controlled 25% of the territory, 40% of the arable land and the lion's share of the scarce water resources. Cheek by jowl with these foreign intruders, the majority of the local population lived in abject poverty and unimaginable misery. Eighty per cent of them still subsist on less than $2 a day. The living conditions in the strip remain an affront to civilised values, a powerful precipitant to resistance and a fertile breeding ground for political extremism.

In August 2005 a Likud government headed by Ariel Sharon staged a unilateral Israeli pullout from Gaza, withdrawing all 8,000 settlers and destroying the houses and farms they had left behind. Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement, conducted an effective campaign to drive the Israelis out of Gaza. The withdrawal was a humiliation for the Israeli Defence Forces. To the world, Sharon presented the withdrawal from Gaza as a contribution to peace based on a two-state solution. But in the year after, another 12,000 Israelis settled on the West Bank, further reducing the scope for an independent Palestinian state. Land-grabbing and peace-making are simply incompatible. Israel had a choice and it chose land over peace.

The real purpose behind the move was to redraw unilaterally the borders of Greater Israel by incorporating the main settlement blocs on the West Bank to the state of Israel. Withdrawal from Gaza was thus not a prelude to a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority but a prelude to further Zionist expansion on the West Bank. It was a unilateral Israeli move undertaken in what was seen, mistakenly in my view, as an Israeli national interest. Anchored in a fundamental rejection of the Palestinian national identity, the withdrawal from Gaza was part of a long-term effort to deny the Palestinian people any independent political existence on their land.

Israel's settlers were withdrawn but Israeli soldiers continued to control all access to the Gaza Strip by land, sea and air. Gaza was converted overnight into an open-air prison. From this point on, the Israeli air force enjoyed unrestricted freedom to drop bombs, to make sonic booms by flying low and breaking the sound barrier, and to terrorise the hapless inhabitants of this prison.

Israel likes to portray itself as an island of democracy in a sea of authoritarianism. Yet Israel has never in its entire history done anything to promote democracy on the Arab side and has done a great deal to undermine it. Israel has a long history of secret collaboration with reactionary Arab regimes to suppress Palestinian nationalism. Despite all the handicaps, the Palestinian people succeeded in building the only genuine democracy in the Arab world with the possible exception of Lebanon. In January 2006, free and fair elections for the Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority brought to power a Hamas-led government. Israel, however, refused to recognise the democratically elected government, claiming that Hamas is purely and simply a terrorist organisation.

America and the EU shamelessly joined Israel in ostracising and demonising the Hamas government and in trying to bring it down by withholding tax revenues and foreign aid. A surreal situation thus developed with a significant part of the international community imposing economic sanctions not against the occupier but against the occupied, not against the oppressor but against the oppressed.

As so often in the tragic history of Palestine, the victims were blamed for their own misfortunes. Israel's propaganda machine persistently purveyed the notion that the Palestinians are terrorists, that they reject coexistence with the Jewish state, that their nationalism is little more than antisemitism, that Hamas is just a bunch of religious fanatics and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. But the simple truth is that the Palestinian people are a normal people with normal aspirations. They are no better but they are no worse than any other national group. What they aspire to, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity.

Like other radical movements, Hamas began to moderate its political programme following its rise to power. From the ideological rejectionism of its charter, it began to move towards pragmatic accommodation of a two-state solution. In March 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government that was ready to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel, however, refused to negotiate with a government that included Hamas.

It continued to play the old game of divide and rule between rival Palestinian factions. In the late 1980s, Israel had supported the nascent Hamas in order to weaken Fatah, the secular nationalist movement led by Yasser Arafat. Now Israel began to encourage the corrupt and pliant Fatah leaders to overthrow their religious political rivals and recapture power. Aggressive American neoconservatives participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to pre-empt a Fatah coup.

The war unleashed by Israel on Gaza on 27 December was the culmination of a series of clashes and confrontations with the Hamas government. In a broader sense, however, it is a war between Israel and the Palestinian people, because the people had elected the party to power. The declared aim of the war is to weaken Hamas and to intensify the pressure until its leaders agree to a new ceasefire on Israel's terms. The undeclared aim is to ensure that the Palestinians in Gaza are seen by the world simply as a humanitarian problem and thus to derail their struggle for independence and statehood.

The timing of the war was determined by political expediency. A general election is scheduled for 10 February and, in the lead-up to the election, all the main contenders are looking for an opportunity to prove their toughness. The army top brass had been champing at the bit to deliver a crushing blow to Hamas in order to remove the stain left on their reputation by the failure of the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July 2006. Israel's cynical leaders could also count on apathy and impotence of the pro-western Arab regimes and on blind support from President Bush in the twilight of his term in the White House. Bush readily obliged by putting all the blame for the crisis on Hamas, vetoing proposals at the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire and issuing Israel with a free pass to mount a ground invasion of Gaza.

As always, mighty Israel claims to be the victim of Palestinian aggression but the sheer asymmetry of power between the two sides leaves little room for doubt as to who is the real victim. This is indeed a conflict between David and Goliath but the Biblical image has been inverted - a small and defenceless Palestinian David faces a heavily armed, merciless and overbearing Israeli Goliath. The resort to brute military force is accompanied, as always, by the shrill rhetoric of victimhood and a farrago of self-pity overlaid with self-righteousness. In Hebrew this is known as the syndrome of bokhim ve-yorim, "crying and shooting".

To be sure, Hamas is not an entirely innocent party in this conflict. Denied the fruit of its electoral victory and confronted with an unscrupulous adversary, it has resorted to the weapon of the weak - terror. Militants from Hamas and Islamic Jihad kept launching Qassam rocket attacks against Israeli settlements near the border with Gaza until Egypt brokered a six-month ceasefire last June. The damage caused by these primitive rockets is minimal but the psychological impact is immense, prompting the public to demand protection from its government. Under the circumstances, Israel had the right to act in self-defence but its response to the pinpricks of rocket attacks was totally disproportionate. The figures speak for themselves. In the three years after the withdrawal from Gaza, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire. On the other hand, in 2005-7 alone, the IDF killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children.

Whatever the numbers, killing civilians is wrong. This rule applies to Israel as much as it does to Hamas, but Israel's entire record is one of unbridled and unremitting brutality towards the inhabitants of Gaza. Israel also maintained the blockade of Gaza after the ceasefire came into force which, in the view of the Hamas leaders, amounted to a violation of the agreement. During the ceasefire, Israel prevented any exports from leaving the strip in clear violation of a 2005 accord, leading to a sharp drop in employment opportunities. Officially, 49.1% of the population is unemployed. At the same time, Israel restricted drastically the number of trucks carrying food, fuel, cooking-gas canisters, spare parts for water and sanitation plants, and medical supplies to Gaza. It is difficult to see how starving and freezing the civilians of Gaza could protect the people on the Israeli side of the border. But even if it did, it would still be immoral, a form of collective punishment that is strictly forbidden by international humanitarian law.

The brutality of Israel's soldiers is fully matched by the mendacity of its spokesmen. Eight months before launching the current war on Gaza, Israel established a National Information Directorate. The core messages of this directorate to the media are that Hamas broke the ceasefire agreements; that Israel's objective is the defence of its population; and that Israel's forces are taking the utmost care not to hurt innocent civilians. Israel's spin doctors have been remarkably successful in getting this message across. But, in essence, their propaganda is a pack of lies.

A wide gap separates the reality of Israel's actions from the rhetoric of its spokesmen. It was not Hamas but the IDF that broke the ceasefire. It di d so by a raid into Gaza on 4 November that killed six Hamas men. Israel's objective is not just the defence of its population but the eventual overthrow of the Hamas government in Gaza by turning the people against their rulers. And far from taking care to spare civilians, Israel is guilty of indiscriminate bombing and of a three-year-old blockade that has brought the inhabitants of Gaza, now 1.5 million, to the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe.

The Biblical injunction of an eye for an eye is savage enough. But Israel's insane offensive against Gaza seems to follow the logic of an eye for an eyelash. After eight days of bombing, with a death toll of more than 400 Palestinians and four Israelis, the gung-ho cabinet ordered a land invasion of Gaza the consequences of which are incalculable.

No amount of military escalation can buy Israel immunity from rocket attacks from the military wing of Hamas. Despite all the death and destruction that Israel has inflicted on them, they kept up their resistance and they kept firing their rockets. This is a movement that glorifies victimhood and martyrdom. There is simply no military solution to the conflict between the two communities. The problem with Israel's concept of security is that it denies even the most elementary security to the other community. The only way for Israel to achieve security is not through shooting but through talks with Hamas, which has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders for 20, 30, or even 50 years. Israel has rejected this offer for the same reason it spurned the Arab League peace plan of 2002, which is still on the table: it involves concessions and compromises.

This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.

Avi Shlaim is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World and of Lion of Jordan: King Hussein's Life in War and Peace.

Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2009


BET said...

i find it cute we are having this discussion again. I will not take part in it after i write my views.

Currently after assesing the situation i have come to the conclusion that peace in this region is not obtainable.

Think about it: Hamas hates Israel and does not recognize it as a country. They want to destroy Israel and are using all their resources to do it. The 'disproportional force' thing is bull shit. Hamas is using all the force it has. It is firing as many rockets as it can from Gaza every day. IF Hamas had a air force they would most certainly have used it to kill Israeli civilians, because it is part of Hamas's goal to kill all Israelis civilians and armed forces. Did you think of why Israel is refusing a Cease Fire as of right now? They want to make sure Hamas can not get more weapons to kill Israeli civilians.

On the other end is Israel. Israel has always been at war and when you are always at war you come to hate all people that identify with your enemy. This runs both ways and is redoubtably true in this region. When Israel is dealing with a 'terrorist' (as labeled by the European Union and America) like Hamas they are going to try and whipe Hamas out by using all their force.

The result? Hamas hides in its under ground bunkers while INNOCENT PEOPLE DIE. It is a shame Israel does not re-adjust their strategy. They are scared to because they would loose a hell of a lot more people. However it would also lower civilian causalities which is needed.

As of right now, i think two main things:

1. What Israel is doing in principle is right- Hamas is a group founded on the destruction of Israel. So they started shooting rockets and killing innocent Israelis, Israel warned them then they finnaly had enough. IF Israel could kill 100% Hamas i would be fine with it. However they cant, which brings us to the next point:

2. How Israel is carrying this out is wrong. Innocent people are dying. IF i planned this i would have bombed places where i knew Hamas was. I would have also taken into consideration how dence Gaza is. Civilian deaths were going to happen, but Israel should not have been so reckless and just bombed areas where 'they thought Hamas was'. I would have used more ground troops with aide from people in Gaza (who before this were around a 50/50 support of Hamas) to find where Hamas is and where they were firing rockets so i could destroy them. But thats me planning, i am not a Middle Eastern country with American backing.

So how will all this end?

Well 1 of 2 things could happen

1. Israel strengthens its relations with Egypt and pulls out of Gaza after it destroys the last rocket firing position. Once it does that Israel and Egypt should work together to keep Hamas from smuggling weapons.
During all this fighting Hamas killed several Egpytian Border guards in order to continue their fight. With Egypt aiding Israel this could stop.

2. Clusterfucked- A hell of a big war could erupt from this. With all the terroist groups in the region and with all the countries that have fed up civilians and Israels trigger happy ablities, its only a matter of time. Add that with Iran being one of the most 'radical' lead countries ( i can call them radical if their president had a convention about the Holocaust not happening) and the world's need for oil? Its only a matter of time.

Is peace obtainable? I doubt it. As long as Israel gets its way 100% of the time and as long as terroist groups like Hamas will never admit Israel has the right to exist this conflict cannot end. It does not matter what any president does. Israel may be able to have good relations with almost all the countries in the region at one point in the future, but their will always be groups on both sides looking to sezie power and destroy the people that have different beliefs.

And thats because i know yall really care what the hell i think.

BET said...

redoubtably = undoubtably

Tariq al Hayder said...


Do you know that the Arab League has had a peace treaty on the table since 2002, and that Israel refuses to negotiate?

Tariq al Hayder said...

I'm also bemused that you find the whole situation "cute". I'm sure you wouldn't use the same adjective to describe the suffering of people in 9/11.

In fact, try to apply your logic to 9/11. America has ALWAYS been fucked up foreign-policy-wise. So I guess you can't blame Al Qaeda for blowing up the towers because "If you could go after %100 American military I would be fine with it". And since you can't, then it's OK to kill civilians. That's the logic you're using, and it's nonsense. The people who carried out 9/11 are criminals. The people who are killing HUNDREDS, soon to be thousands of civilians in Gaza are also criminals.

And how many Israelis have died in all this?


Tariq al Hayder said...


When I point out the relatively miniscule number of Israeli dead, I'm not trying to trivialize the actual human suffering. 11 dead are 11 too many. I'm just saying that Israel are itching for any kind of semi-excuse to carry out full-scale genocide. It's like stabbing someone in the testicles for taking your juice box. (which isn't actually yours).

BET said...

Tariq i was talking about resuming this conversation here after we had a 53 comment thing on it last time. Not the situation

BET said...

and its as much of a 'genocide' as any other bombing campagin has ever been. When America bombed the hell out of Japan in WW2 was that genocide? No it was a war crime against humanity, but its not genocide. Just because the people bombing look different than the people getting bombed does not make it genocide.

The end.

BET said...

"So I guess you can't blame Al Qaeda for blowing up the towers because" Al Queda is not a organized country. They are a terroist group that is not particularly based in any country that has no planes so they feel the need to steal ours.

HOWEVER if i aply your statement to afgahnistan in the sence of the way AMERICA handled the war (because they also had killed lots of civillians) then i guess Bush would have had a lot higher of a approval ratting when he left office. THe less civilians killed the better, whats wrong with my logic?

BET said...


When I point out the relatively miniscule number of Israeli dead, I'm not trying to trivialize the actual human suffering. 11 dead are 11 too many. I'm just saying that Israel are itching for any kind of semi-excuse to carry out full-scale genocide. It's like stabbing someone in the testicles for taking your juice box. (which isn't actually yours)."

Well maybe Hamas shouldnt be giving them excusses and maybe the people of Gaza shouldnt be putting Hamas in power.

Now i am done

TADOne said...

I'm willing to bet that BET will be back.

B. Long said...

If I ever run for president, Tariq is gonna be my Condeleeza Rice, BET is gonna be my Joe Biden, and Tad is gonna be head of Secret Service.

TADOne said...

What about Eboy?

Hursty said...

Can I be head of Asia-Pacific? Cos y'all got no idea on that right here.

Eboy said...

Minister of Misinformation, please.

Hursty said...

What about semi-foreign relations minister?

ASPOV said...

And I'd make all y'all knuckleheads bow to THE QUEEN!!!! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (in my best Vincent Price maniac laugh)

ASPOV said...

Thanks for posting this, Tariq.

Tariq al Hayder said...

Thanks for reading it, Cheryl.