Gaza: Leaders Lie, Civilians Die and the Lessons of History Are Ignored

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Robert Fisk, Independent UK.

We've got so used to the carnage of the Middle East that we don't care any more -- providing we don't offend the Israelis. It's not clear how many of the Gaza dead are civilians, but the response of the Bush administration, not to mention the pusillanimous reaction of Gordon Brown, reaffirm for Arabs what they have known for decades: however they struggle against their antagonists, the West will take Israel's side. As usual, the bloodbath was the fault of the Arabs -- who, as we all know, only understand force.

Ever since 1948, we've been hearing this balderdash from the Israelis -- just as Arab nationalists and then Arab Islamists have been peddling their own lies: that the Zionist "death wagon" will be overthrown, that all Jerusalem will be "liberated." And always Mr Bush Snr or Mr Clinton or Mr Bush Jnr or Mr Blair or Mr Brown have called upon both sides to exercise "restraint" -- as if the Palestinians and the Israelis both have F-18s and Merkava tanks and field artillery. Hamas's home-made rockets have killed just 20 Israelis in eight years, but a day-long blitz by Israeli aircraft that kills almost 300 Palestinians is just par for the course.

The blood-splattering has its own routine. Yes, Hamas provoked Israel's anger, just as Israel provoked Hamas's anger, which was provoked by Israel, which was provoked by Hamas, which ... See what I mean? Hamas fires rockets at Israel, Israel bombs Hamas, Hamas fires more rockets and Israel bombs again and ... Got it? And we demand security for Israel -- rightly -- but overlook this massive and utterly disproportionate slaughter by Israel. It was Madeleine Albright who once said that Israel was "under siege" -- as if Palestinian tanks were in the streets of Tel Aviv.

By last night, the exchange rate stood at 296 Palestinians dead for one dead Israeli. Back in 2006, it was 10 Lebanese dead for one Israeli dead. This weekend was the most inflationary exchange rate in a single day since -- the 1973 Middle East War? The 1967 Six Day War? The 1956 Suez War? The 1948 Independence/Nakba War? It's obscene, a gruesome game -- which Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, unconsciously admitted when he spoke this weekend to Fox TV. "Our intention is to totally change the rules of the game," Barak said.

Exactly. Only the "rules" of the game don't change. This is a further slippage on the Arab-Israeli exchanges, a percentage slide more awesome than Wall Street's crashing shares, though of not much interest in the US which -- let us remember -- made the F-18s and the Hellfire missiles which the Bush administration pleads with Israel to use sparingly.

Quite a lot of the dead this weekend appear to have been Hamas members, but what is it supposed to solve? Is Hamas going to say: "Wow, this blitz is awesome -- we'd better recognize the state of Israel, fall in line with the Palestinian Authority, lay down our weapons and pray we are taken prisoner and locked up indefinitely and support a new American 'peace process' in the Middle East!" Is that what the Israelis and the Americans and Gordon Brown think Hamas is going to do?

Yes, let's remember Hamas's cynicism, the cynicism of all armed Islamist groups. Their need for Muslim martyrs is as crucial to them as Israel's need to create them. The lesson Israel thinks it is teaching -- come to heel or we will crush you -- is not the lesson Hamas is learning. Hamas needs violence to emphasise the oppression of the Palestinians – and relies on Israel to provide it. A few rockets into Israel and Israel obliges.

Not a whimper from Tony Blair, the peace envoy to the Middle East who's never been to Gaza in his current incarnation. Not a bloody word.

We hear the usual Israeli line. General Yaakov Amidror, the former head of the Israeli army's "research and assessment division" announced that "no country in the world would allow its citizens to be made the target of rocket attacks without taking vigorous steps to defend them". Quite so. But when the IRA were firing mortars over the border into Northern Ireland, when their guerrillas were crossing from the Republic to attack police stations and Protestants, did Britain unleash the RAF on the Irish Republic? Did the RAF bomb churches and tankers and police stations and zap 300 civilians to teach the Irish a lesson? No, it did not. Because the world would have seen it as criminal behaviour. We didn't want to lower ourselves to the IRA's level.

Yes, Israel deserves security. But these bloodbaths will not bring it. Not since 1948 have air raids protected Israel. Israel has bombed Lebanon thousands of times since 1975 and not one has eliminated "terrorism". So what was the reaction last night? The Israelis threaten ground attacks. Hamas waits for another battle. Our Western politicians crouch in their funk holes. And somewhere to the east -- in a cave? a basement? on a mountainside? -- a well-known man in a turban smiles.

http://www.alternet.org/audits/115952/gaza...ry_are_ignored/

[Tahoma 2,292]

I have always respected the voice of Robert Fisk. This article offers some much-needed perspective on the current situation in Gaza. However, I would like to hear his take on the historical animosity between the Palestinians and the Israelis...the connection between the expropriation of Palestinian property and the current violence.

[Pooky 3,794]

For someone so experienced in Middle East affairs, experience spanning more than 30 years, Robert Fisk should display a better grasp of basic facts, before he publishes an article.

For a start, the Israelis don't have F-18's. Funnily enough, Boeing don't make F-18's, they make F/A-18's, which are designed for use off aircraft carriers (although it doesn't stop the Finns and the Aussies being obtuse and flying them from dry land. No, the Israelis fly F-15's and F-16's. Score one point for journalistic licence.

This weekend was the most inflationary exchange rate in a single day since -- the 1973 Middle East War? The 1967 Six Day War? The 1956 Suez War? The 1948 Independence/Nakba War?

Taken chronologically, these conflicts are worlds apart from today's assault on Hamas. In 1948, on the day the UN mandate establishing the state of Israel came into effect, six neighbouring Arab nations declared war on the new Jewish state. And there was no disproportionate loss of life. How can there be when some of your "strategic bombing" is carried out by throwing munitions out the cargo doors of C-47 Dakotas? That the state of Israel survived its birth is nothing short of amazing.

In 1956, the Israelis were roped into an undeniably dumb adventure by the British and the French to seize the Suez Canal and upset the government of President Nasser of Egypt. The Israelis may have been opportunistic, but given who they were "supporting", who can blame them? For myself, I blame the old colonial powers of the region, Britain and France, not just for the ill-advised adventure, but also for enabling the Communist crackdown in Hungary, the real tragedy that unfolded at the same time.

In 1967, the Israelis had good reason to fear an imminent assault from their Arab neighbours, particularly Egypt and Syria. The opening to the Six Day War is a textbook example of stopping a war from getting really ugly. Civilian casualties on both sides were negligible and the opening attacks took the wind out of the Arab forces before they had a chance to start.

The Yom Kippur War, in 1973, was the Arab reaction to the Six Day War. With military backing from the Soviet Union, the Egyptians shot down almost 50% of the Israeli air force and their ground forces reached far into the Sinai Desert. It was only a tactical error by the Egyptian commander that let the Israelis take the initiative. By the end of the war, the relative casualties were 3:1 in the Israelis favour. The plain figures, however, hide the fact that the USA was resupplying the Israelis throughout the conflict, just as the Soviet Union was sending arm to the Arab Nations. President Brezhnev even declared that Soviet troops would be deployed to defend Damascus. This was no Arab War. This was an extension of the Cold War.

None of these conflicts had a disproportionate casualty rate even 1% of that going on in Gaza, because these were purely military actions, where both sides played by the same set of "rules". Because contrary to his opinion, the "rules" of the game have changed. No longer does Israel face a "conventional" conflict with an Arab neighbour. Today, it faces a foe whose face can be anything, man, woman, or child. For an experienced journalist like Robert Fisk, the comparisons with today belittle the history of the area.

However, his assessment that Hamas is using Israel to bring terror to the Palestinian people is pretty fair and accurate. Hamas cannot engage in the wholesale slaughter of its own people, although that hasn't stopped it from murder in the past. No, it needs to provoke the wolf next door to keep its people engaged. The cycle of violence will never be broken unless and until one side stops. And that's just plain unlikely, as Hamas loses everything if it stops.

And comparing the situation in Gaza to the situation in Ulster false and misleading. In Ulster, the majority of the population opposed the IRA. In Gaza, this is not the case. The IRA never used suicide bombers, as they valued their members lives. Hamas encourages martyrdom amongst its followers. Lastly, the IRA obtained most of its funds from the USA. Hamas has Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Yes, OBL may be hiding in his bunker in Afghanistan/Pakistan, mainly because Western governments know that if support for Israel ends, there will be a spectacular bloodbath in the region in which millions will die, as someone, quite likely Iran or Syria, pushes Israel a little too far and starts off the next Middle East war. And when a nation fights for its very existence, it will use every weapon in it arsenal.

Iran may be pushing for nuclear weapons, it may not. Israel has them.