Nine children playing in a Gaza refugee camp were killed, the main public hospital was struck, four Israeli soldiers were killed in a mortar attack and resistants from Gaza infiltrated Israel through a cross-border tunnel.
Intense shelling resumed in Gaza on Monday night as the Israel Defence Forces warned residents of neighbourhoods in northern Gaza – including Shujai'iya, the scene of some of the most intense fighting in the three-week war – to evacuate immediately, suggesting a major escalation of military action was imminent.
Nine children plus at least one adult were killed, and dozens more injured at the beachfront Shati refugee camp mid-afternoon on Monday. Around the same time, the Shifa hospital in Gaza City was hit. The incidents followed the end of a 24-hour unilateral ceasefire declared by Hamas to mark the start of the Muslim holiday of Eid.
As always, Israel denied responsibility for the strike on the hospital or the camp, saying rockets launched by militants had misfired. But medical staff and other witnesses insisted missiles were fired at the hospital from an F16. Israel has previously accused Hamas militants of hiding in the hospital premises, which was never confirmed.
The children were playing on a swing when the strike hit the park, Ayman Sahabani, the head of the emergency room at Shifa hospital, told reporters.
"The B’Tselem human rights organization petitioned the High Court of Justice yesterday against the Israel Broadcasting Authority’s decision not to air a radio advertisement listing the names and ages of several Gaza children who have been killed during Operation Protective Edge", said the Haaretz.
Mais um massacre / Another massacre
Professor Norman Finkelstein comenta o ataque israelense a civis
Professor Finkelstein on the attack on civilians
NO MORE PRESSURE COOKER!
What to do when the bloodshed is over?
To continue the siege until an even more terrible war?
Only a flourishing Gaza, part of sovereign Palestin, can provide us with a quiet border.
GUSH SHALOM, publicado no Haaretz, July 25, 2014
COUNTERFIRE live blog Gaza with videos of London protests, dê uma olhada nos vídeos:
http://www.counterfire.org/news/17330-liveblog-gazaj19-protest-against-israel-s-invasion
STOPWAR: How the BBC and mainstream media follow the Israel Project. Como a BBC e nossas grandes mídias são marionetes do Israel Project.
http://stopwar.org.uk/news/how-a-secret-handbook-helps-israel-twist-the-bbc-round-its-finger#.U9YJ2GAcSUk
http://www.counterfire.org/news/17330-liveblog-gazaj19-protest-against-israel-s-invasion
STOPWAR: How the BBC and mainstream media follow the Israel Project. Como a BBC e nossas grandes mídias são marionetes do Israel Project.
http://stopwar.org.uk/news/how-a-secret-handbook-helps-israel-twist-the-bbc-round-its-finger#.U9YJ2GAcSUk
BBC: What's next?
O avanço nas negociações de cessar-fogo do fim-de-semana foi a inclusão do Qatar e da Turquia para ter alguém próximo aos palestinos. Mas para que qualquer acordo seja realmente válido e respeitado, há de se incluir também o Irã. Embora o Hamas não tenha ligação com Teerã, outras facções para-militares menores em Gaza têm. O Egito só complica tudo, devido aos laços sólidos do general Sissi com Binyamin Netanyahu - os iguais se atraem, sempre - porém, deve sentar-se à mesa porque é vizinho, tem peso em Tel Aviv e também é responsável pelo atual genocídio.
O ideal era Israel sentar com representantes do Hamas e os demas grupos de resistência, mas isto é sonhar.
Porém, Israel voltou a bombardear Gaza esta tarde matando mais mulheres, mais velhos, mais crianças.
The UN Security Council has called for "an immediate and unconditional humanitarian ceasefire" in the Gaza war between Israel and Hamas at an emergency meeting.The council met just after midnight on Monday morning as Muslims started celebrating the Eid al-Fitr holiday marking the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.
The pressure for a ceasefire followed new attacks launched by Israel and Hamas on Sunday despite going back and forth over proposals for another temporary halt to nearly three weeks of fighting.
A 12-hour lull on Saturday, agreed to by both sides following intense US and UN mediation efforts, could not be sustained.
The 20-day Operation Protective Edge has killed more than 1,040 Palestinians, mainly civilians ( at least 225 children). And Israel lost 43 soldiers.
Tzipi Livni, the justice minister, told Kerry on Friday that the proposal was "completely unacceptable" and would "strengthen extremists in the region".
The criticism has spread to the media, where a columnist for the liberal newspaper Ha’aretz dubbed Kerry a "nebbish", a Yiddish word for a sad and clueless individual. "This was a betrayal," wrote David Horovitz, the editor of the Times of Israel, on Sunday.
Much of the criticism seems to stem from Kerry’s decision to involve Turkey and Qatar, strong backers of Hamas, and to reduce the role of Egypt, which was central to mediating the past two truces between Israel and Hamas.
Despite the United Nations call for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza as fighting between Hamas and the IDF soldiers inside the Strip subsided overnight following a series of ceasefire announcements by both sides. And the IDF resumed the strikes killing more women, more children, more elders.
Ontem em Gaza, após a declaração do Hamas de cessar-fogo humanitário de 24 horas, o barulho de explosões ainda durou um pouco, mas no fim da tarde os admiráveis para-medicos da Cruz Vermelha e do Crescente Vermelho puderam sair às ruas procurando sobreviventes entre os escombros que eram até o início de julho bairros cheios de famílias.Binyamin Netanyahu continuuou com seu discurso de sempre de pra quê serve trégua, já que Israel "will take whatever action is necessary to protect our people".
Quem viver até o fim da tarde de hoje, verá o que isto significa.
Nesse ínterim, Obama ligou para Netanyahu e "pediu" um cessar-fogo "permanente" na base do de 2012. Na base de um acordo, como veremos abaixo, que não mudou nada e só fez piorar a vida dos palestinos na Faixa de Gaza e na Cisjordânia.
Israel quer que o Hamas seja totalmente desarmado e que todos os túneis sejam destruídos para os gazauís ficarem à mercê da IDF sem perdas israelenses.
 |
| Level of destruction |
Hamas said on Sunday that it had endorsed a call by the United Nations for a pause in the fighting in light of the upcoming Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr, which will start on Monday.
Some firing of rockets continued after the time that Hamas had announced it would put its guns aside, while Israeli artillery guns also fired barrages into Gaza, Israeli media reported.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, questioned the validity of the truce, adding that Israel would "take whatever action is necessary to protect our people".
Meanwhile, Barack Obama spoke with Netanyahu on Sunday and "made clear the strategic imperative of instituting an immediate, unconditional humanitarian ceasefire that ends hostilities now and leads to a permanent cessation of hostilities based on the November 2012 ceasefire agreement", the White House statement said.
Netanyahu wants more. Wants all. Naftali Bennet, a member of the Israeli security cabinet sent the message through Facebook "Hamas must be permanently stripped of its missiles and tunnels in a supervised manner. In return we will agree to a host of economic alleviations", no more no less.
Which means that all remains the same. All these deaths for nothing. Why whouldn't Hamas have the right to deffend its people and to fight for freedom? Why shouldn't Palestinians enjoy the same rights as Isarelis?
That too remains a secret.
Israel e suas desculpas para usar violência
Analysing Israel's pretext for Gaza offensive
Analysing Israel's pretext for Gaza offensive
Com a arrogância que lhe é peculiar, mandou o Secretary of State USA John Kerry "plantar batata" e engavetar seu processo de negociação de paz porque queria mesmo era expandir as colônias/invasões até asfixiar os palestinos e riscar a Palestina do mapa. E não cumpriu nenhuma promessa feita a Kerry e a Mahmoud Abbas.
Binyamin Netanyahu é o que se poderia chamar de caloteiro malvado. Seu sarcasmo está na cara. Quando fala, inspira asco.
Porém, parecia indestrutível com o apoio dos lobbies sionistas do mundo inteiro. O dinheiro para as colônias chegava dos quatro cantos do globo e os Estados Unidos mantinham o arsenal da IDF (Forças israelenses de ocupaçã) inesgotável, na ponta da tecnologia e o sistema de propaganda de Tel Aviv (que revelei em blog da semana passada) continuava infalível, enganando quem queria e até quem não queria ser enganado. Além de pôr as palavras "certas" nas bocas de Obamas, Hollandes, Camerons, enganava a imprensa direitinho e esta repetia na escrita e na telinha tudo o que o governo fascista de Israel soprava nos ouvidos dos dirigentes da grande mídia.
Ou melhor, os repórteres davam a informação certa e a hierarquia, não se sabe a que nível, como dizem os colegas da BBC, filtravam tudo o que fosse contrário à cartilha de expansão sionista na Palestina cuja linha de comunicação o Israel Project determina (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html).
Os jornalistas da BBC agradeceram as manifestações feitas contra a rede porque não suportam mais a impotência contra a intervenção que vem de cima e perverte a informação que o telespectador recebe no fim da linha. Por exemplo, o jornalista escreve que Netanyahu recusou o cessar-fogo, e o âncora em vez de dizer isso lê o comunicado que chega de Tel Aviv na mesa do diretor de jornalismo, ou do presidente da rede, ou de Downing Street, do Primeiro Ministro. Mas a intervenção sempre chega. E a notícia é descartada e é substituída por comunicado de imprensa israelense disfarçado em informação legítima.
O Hamas não é chamado de partido legalmente constituído, vitorioso nas últimas eleições democráticas, e nem de grupo de resistência ao ocupante/invasor que o aterroriza. Não, o Hamas é chamado de grupo terrorista e seus militantes não são chamados de resistentes e sim de terroristas. Como se defender seu povo, querer liberdade de movimento, de abastecimento, e proteger sua terra fosse crime.
Israel nunca era chamado de invasor, usurpador, fora da lei e terrorista. Não, Israel era uma super-potência que se defendia.
Trocando em miúdos, até algumas semanas, Netanyahu conseguia convencer o mundo que seu país que ocupava e procedia a uma limpeza étnica não era verdugo e sim vítima. E que o Hamas era um pérfido grupo terrorista.
Para completar este quadro patético, o golpe de Estado do general Sissi no Egito piorou tudo para a Faixa de Gaza e melhorou tudo para Israel que virou o melhor amigo do ditador ligado aos Estados Unidos. Entre afilhados, se entenderam muito bem e Sissi começou a fazer o trabalho sujo de Israel bombardeando todos os túneis de comércio cavados pelos gazauís para sobreviverem ao bloqueio. Até hoje continua bombardeando.
O Hamas estava enfraquecido materialmente, o Fatah enfraquecido politicamente, e a reunião se fez naturalmente. E Khaled Meshaal, líder do Hamas exilado em Doha, no Qatar, entrou na onda diplomática de Mahmoud Abbas.
Os países ocidentais acolheram bem o novo governo. Israel torceu o nariz e continuou na sua lógica da violência.
Israel estava gozando de uma tranquilidade desmerecida, já que o general Sissi estava combatendo o Hamas e os gazauís no lugar dele, mas mesmo assim Netanyahu aproveitou o incidente dos três colonos desaparecidos na Cisjordânia para retomar o ciclo de repressão e agressão na Cisjordânia, uma guerra na Faixa de Gaza para "derrotar" o Hamas, humilhar Mahmoud Abbas e quebrar o governo de união nacional palestina como fez em 2007.
Apesar de Obama repetir as frases do manual fornecido por Tel Aviv, desta vez, o governo isrelense não conseguiu enganar ninguém. Ficou claro que provocou esta guerra desnecessária em um momento propício a negociações realmente de paz, já que desde a morte de Yasser Arafat os palestinos finalmente estavam prontos para falar com uma única voz e assinar acordos válidos.
Mas aí no dia 11 de julho, o Primeiro Ministro israelense fez o que fizera em 2007. Ousou inclusive revelar em uma entrevista coletiva que jamais aceitaria soberania palestina.
Como assim? Soberania de um país deveria depender da ONU e não do país que o invadiu! E Israel quer viver em paz ou não?
De repente a opinião pública internacional e até os grandes desse mundo acordaram e foram obrigados a rasgar o véu que encobre a farsa. Que o governo israelense é um agressor impiedoso e que Netanyahu não é apenas mentiroso, é também um homem perigoso e impiedoso. E de repente, viram também que o judaísmo também fabrica "jihadistas" sem fronteiras, como prova os franceses e estadunidenses judeus que foram a Israel virar soldados para matar crianças em nome de um governo fascista que não está nem aí pra eles. E para nenhuma religiosidade verdadeira.
Alguém deve ganhar muito dinheiro nesse comércio de armas que precisam ser usadas e repostas o tempo inteiro na IDF. E isto prejudica israelenses e palestinos. Pois mostra que Israel não quer paz, quer dominar a qualquer preço.
Israel é como o padrinho gringo. Míope.
Não apenas este governo, mas todos os que já vi passar desde a década de 80. Ytsak Rabin foi uma parêntese de lucidez que durou pouco e que mesmo assim, durante seu governo, não reverteu o processo de colonização e enganou Yasser Arafat na barganha dos Acordos de Oslo.
Israel ainda não entendeu, como os Estados Unidos não tinha entendido no Vietnã e após cometer atrocidades saiu de lá com o rabo entre as pernas, que as guerras mais longas e legítimas são as que um povo luta pela independência contra colonialismo e imperialismo.
Israel está neste tipo de guerra contra um povo que luta por liberdade e independência.
Israel irreleva a História do Século XX, que mostra que nenhuma potência estrangeira conseguiu anhar nenhuma guerra assimétrica contra um povo que resiste para obter soberania.
Nenhum país colonianista ou imperialista conseguiu com o maior e mais sofisticado arsenal dobrar uma guerra de guerrilha que luta por uma causa legítima.
Trocando em miúdos, se Israel não começar a fazer a desocupar os territórios palestinos ocupados, cedo ou tarde, vão ser os israelenses que vão ter de fazer as malas porque suas condições de vida tendem a piorar.
Quanto mais cedo este governo obtuso criar juízo e começar a pensar em seus concidadãos em vez de uma teoria nazisto-sionista de superioridade étnica e a expansão maluca do "Grande Israel", melhor será para todo mundo.
Vivem me perguntando se este conflito Israel vs Palestina tem solução.
Tem.
A solução são os dois Estados soberanos dentro das fronteiras de 1967.
Os colonos/invasores judeus que quiserem ficar na Palestina, que fiquem, mas sob governo do país em que estão. Como cidadãos palestinos, judeus. Como os palestinos cristãos e muçulmanos que sobreviveram à Naqba e ficaram em Israel como cidadãos israelenses.
A solução é simples. Justiça é a única fórmula que existe para que a paz predomine.
Although Israel was enjoying a rather undeserved break, Netanyahu decided to exploit the killings of three young Israelis at the hands of unknown assailants to launch a war on Gaza in order to "defeat" Hamas, humiliate Abbas and break the national unity government.
Binyamin Netanyahu é o que se poderia chamar de caloteiro malvado. Seu sarcasmo está na cara. Quando fala, inspira asco.
Porém, parecia indestrutível com o apoio dos lobbies sionistas do mundo inteiro. O dinheiro para as colônias chegava dos quatro cantos do globo e os Estados Unidos mantinham o arsenal da IDF (Forças israelenses de ocupaçã) inesgotável, na ponta da tecnologia e o sistema de propaganda de Tel Aviv (que revelei em blog da semana passada) continuava infalível, enganando quem queria e até quem não queria ser enganado. Além de pôr as palavras "certas" nas bocas de Obamas, Hollandes, Camerons, enganava a imprensa direitinho e esta repetia na escrita e na telinha tudo o que o governo fascista de Israel soprava nos ouvidos dos dirigentes da grande mídia.
Ou melhor, os repórteres davam a informação certa e a hierarquia, não se sabe a que nível, como dizem os colegas da BBC, filtravam tudo o que fosse contrário à cartilha de expansão sionista na Palestina cuja linha de comunicação o Israel Project determina (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israelgaza-conflict-the-secret-report-that-helps-israelis-to-hide-facts-9630765.html).
Os jornalistas da BBC agradeceram as manifestações feitas contra a rede porque não suportam mais a impotência contra a intervenção que vem de cima e perverte a informação que o telespectador recebe no fim da linha. Por exemplo, o jornalista escreve que Netanyahu recusou o cessar-fogo, e o âncora em vez de dizer isso lê o comunicado que chega de Tel Aviv na mesa do diretor de jornalismo, ou do presidente da rede, ou de Downing Street, do Primeiro Ministro. Mas a intervenção sempre chega. E a notícia é descartada e é substituída por comunicado de imprensa israelense disfarçado em informação legítima.
O Hamas não é chamado de partido legalmente constituído, vitorioso nas últimas eleições democráticas, e nem de grupo de resistência ao ocupante/invasor que o aterroriza. Não, o Hamas é chamado de grupo terrorista e seus militantes não são chamados de resistentes e sim de terroristas. Como se defender seu povo, querer liberdade de movimento, de abastecimento, e proteger sua terra fosse crime.
Israel nunca era chamado de invasor, usurpador, fora da lei e terrorista. Não, Israel era uma super-potência que se defendia.
Trocando em miúdos, até algumas semanas, Netanyahu conseguia convencer o mundo que seu país que ocupava e procedia a uma limpeza étnica não era verdugo e sim vítima. E que o Hamas era um pérfido grupo terrorista.
Para completar este quadro patético, o golpe de Estado do general Sissi no Egito piorou tudo para a Faixa de Gaza e melhorou tudo para Israel que virou o melhor amigo do ditador ligado aos Estados Unidos. Entre afilhados, se entenderam muito bem e Sissi começou a fazer o trabalho sujo de Israel bombardeando todos os túneis de comércio cavados pelos gazauís para sobreviverem ao bloqueio. Até hoje continua bombardeando.
O Hamas estava enfraquecido materialmente, o Fatah enfraquecido politicamente, e a reunião se fez naturalmente. E Khaled Meshaal, líder do Hamas exilado em Doha, no Qatar, entrou na onda diplomática de Mahmoud Abbas.
Os países ocidentais acolheram bem o novo governo. Israel torceu o nariz e continuou na sua lógica da violência.
Israel estava gozando de uma tranquilidade desmerecida, já que o general Sissi estava combatendo o Hamas e os gazauís no lugar dele, mas mesmo assim Netanyahu aproveitou o incidente dos três colonos desaparecidos na Cisjordânia para retomar o ciclo de repressão e agressão na Cisjordânia, uma guerra na Faixa de Gaza para "derrotar" o Hamas, humilhar Mahmoud Abbas e quebrar o governo de união nacional palestina como fez em 2007.
Apesar de Obama repetir as frases do manual fornecido por Tel Aviv, desta vez, o governo isrelense não conseguiu enganar ninguém. Ficou claro que provocou esta guerra desnecessária em um momento propício a negociações realmente de paz, já que desde a morte de Yasser Arafat os palestinos finalmente estavam prontos para falar com uma única voz e assinar acordos válidos.
Mas aí no dia 11 de julho, o Primeiro Ministro israelense fez o que fizera em 2007. Ousou inclusive revelar em uma entrevista coletiva que jamais aceitaria soberania palestina.
Como assim? Soberania de um país deveria depender da ONU e não do país que o invadiu! E Israel quer viver em paz ou não?
Alguém deve ganhar muito dinheiro nesse comércio de armas que precisam ser usadas e repostas o tempo inteiro na IDF. E isto prejudica israelenses e palestinos. Pois mostra que Israel não quer paz, quer dominar a qualquer preço.
Israel é como o padrinho gringo. Míope.
Não apenas este governo, mas todos os que já vi passar desde a década de 80. Ytsak Rabin foi uma parêntese de lucidez que durou pouco e que mesmo assim, durante seu governo, não reverteu o processo de colonização e enganou Yasser Arafat na barganha dos Acordos de Oslo.
Israel ainda não entendeu, como os Estados Unidos não tinha entendido no Vietnã e após cometer atrocidades saiu de lá com o rabo entre as pernas, que as guerras mais longas e legítimas são as que um povo luta pela independência contra colonialismo e imperialismo.
Israel está neste tipo de guerra contra um povo que luta por liberdade e independência.
Israel irreleva a História do Século XX, que mostra que nenhuma potência estrangeira conseguiu anhar nenhuma guerra assimétrica contra um povo que resiste para obter soberania.
Nenhum país colonianista ou imperialista conseguiu com o maior e mais sofisticado arsenal dobrar uma guerra de guerrilha que luta por uma causa legítima.
Trocando em miúdos, se Israel não começar a fazer a desocupar os territórios palestinos ocupados, cedo ou tarde, vão ser os israelenses que vão ter de fazer as malas porque suas condições de vida tendem a piorar.
Quanto mais cedo este governo obtuso criar juízo e começar a pensar em seus concidadãos em vez de uma teoria nazisto-sionista de superioridade étnica e a expansão maluca do "Grande Israel", melhor será para todo mundo.
Vivem me perguntando se este conflito Israel vs Palestina tem solução.
Tem.
A solução são os dois Estados soberanos dentro das fronteiras de 1967.
Os colonos/invasores judeus que quiserem ficar na Palestina, que fiquem, mas sob governo do país em que estão. Como cidadãos palestinos, judeus. Como os palestinos cristãos e muçulmanos que sobreviveram à Naqba e ficaram em Israel como cidadãos israelenses.
A solução é simples. Justiça é a única fórmula que existe para que a paz predomine.
Israel boasted of its technological military superiority and lampooned the cowardice of Hamas. But there is no pride in killing people using the latest and most lethal US gadgets. By bringing its wrath to bear on the people of Gaza, Israel has lost much of its deterrence capability, as Hamas's rockets shook it to the core.
Despite belated attempts at blaming Hamas for the escalation, there is little or no doubt Netanyahu has instigated the violence. "Israel provoked this war", wrote Henry Siegman, president of the US/Middle East Project and former director of the American Jewish Congress. "The notion that it was Israel, not Hamas, that violated a cease-fire agreement will undoubtedly offend a wide swath of Israel supporters. To point out that it is not the first time Israel has done so will offend them even more deeply." Alas, such is the reality.
To add insult to injury, Netanyahu revealed his true intentions in a July 11 press conference, when he ruled out future Palestinian sovereignty. He went as far as ridiculing Washington's approach to Israeli security even when the Obama administration has gone out of its way and compromised its own credibility to defend him. To no avail.
As the onslaught continues and Israel warns of more of the same over the coming days, the mounting civilian deaths and destruction of public services, schools, and entire communities can be explained in three ways:
By default: Urban wars are messy, and mistakes are bound to happen when Israel tries to destroy Hamas' capabilities in the midst of populated areas. It's all "collateral damage", a despicable term meant to mystify the suffering of war
By design: Israel's military recognises the danger to civilians but persists, illegally, in bombing countless locations it suspects of harbouring weapons, militants, or their supporters. Then, rather disingenuously, it blames Hamas for using people as human shields.
By strategy: The Israeli government exploits the security pretext in order to cripple the Gaza Strip once and for all, by destroying its civic and economic infrastructure. And then, it will insist that any rebuilding or lifting of the siege be conditional on demilitarising and de-Hamasising the strip.
Which of the three explanations is most plausible? It remains to be seen as more is revealed about the thinking from within the inner circle of the Israeli security establishment. To be sure, it doesn't have to be either/or, indeed it could be all three combined: The war is messy, and its motivations are cynical and strategic.
Which of the three explanations is most plausible? It remains to be seen as more is revealed about the thinking from within the inner circle of the Israeli security establishment. To be sure, it doesn't have to be either/or, indeed it could be all three combined: The war is messy, and its motivations are cynical and strategic.
And it could be even worse: "We are in the midst of a colonial story. Not the oppression of a nation but its elimination as a political entity", so wrote Yitzhak Laor, the editor of the Hebrew journal, Mitaam.
Why did Israel agree to a truce? Because if the spread of the confrontations to the West Bank including Jerusalem continues, it could be a game-changer.
The intensification of the clashes throughout Palestine would break the isolation of Gaza and expand the landscape of conflict towards Israeli-populated areas, including Jerusalem and the settlements.
This will give momentum to a new popular uprising, and possibly one that could be far from peaceful depending on the attitude of the Palestinian Authority's security forces.
All of which leaves the door wide open for whole new scenarios that are no less dramatic. On the one hand, it could lead to internal strife among Palestinians on the West Bank, leaving both Abbas and Hamas weakened.
Or inversely, it could galvanise the Palestinians around the resistance, a situation that could either undermine the Israeli government, or provide the pretext for Netanyahu to destroy the PA institutions as Ariel Sharon did in 2002.
Any which way, a return to the status quo ante is no longer possible. Nor can US allies impose another ceasefire arrangement on the Palestinians without taking into full consideration their legitimate demand to live free of military siege and occupation.
It's clear that Israel could break up Palestine into miserable enclaves, but it cannot break its resistance or its passion for freedom from occupation.
Israel's most ardent enemy, Hamas, was getting marginalised; now it's central to any future arrangements in Palestine. And Israel's most reliable ally and security partner in the history of the conflict, Abbas, has been terribly weakened and might not be able to recover without massive western and Egyptian intervention to impose him on the Palestinians.
Netanyahu was flying high just a few weeks ago, now he's flying low, even crawling towards a ceasefire.
Arrogance all too often breeds stupidity.
Unlike conventional wars, the longest and most legitimate wars of all have been the people's fight for independence from colonialism.
Israel is in the midst of such a fight against a people's struggle for freedom and independence and it makes similar, if not identical claims, to those made by other colonial powers of the past.
But not one foreign power big or small was able to win a single asymmetrical war against a people resisting colonialism throughout the entire 20th century.
This definite and paradoxical conclusion - the most instructive, and yet ignored of all lessons of war is categorical: Not one great power possessing superior firepower has won against a weaker, less organised and less professional resistance against occupation.
Not the French, not the English, not the Belgians, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Afrikaners, etc. Not one! In the end, they all lose. And if they don't, then it's not the end.
In the final analysis, if Israel doesn't start packing and leaving the occupied territories sooner, many Israelis will start leaving it later because conditions are bound to get much worse.
Late is better than never learning the primary lesson from this conflict: It's the occupation, stupid.
"In recent weeks, Israel has unleashed what amounts to the worst one-sided barbarism against one of the world's most densely populated areas - Gaza. In the process, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pulled back the curtain to proudly show the world how, under his leadership, Israel has defeated North Korea for the rogue state par excellence award.
How else could one describe a state that is officially sustained by a belligerent apartheid system; a state that occupies the land of another and systematically carries out ethnic-cleansing; and a state that relentlessly demonstrates a rejectionist attitude toward UN resolutions, international law and institutions?
In its latest campaign of brazen aggression, Israel has caused colossal destruction of lives, homes and critical infrastructure.
The official Israeli line, often parroted by key international media groups, is that Israel had to carry out this brutal massacre as "self-defence" since three teenage settlers were kidnapped and killed by Hamas - a charge that the latter categorically denied.
Since then, it has emerged that Israel knew that Hamas was not responsible for the death of the three Israelis. Clearly Netanyahu's government had concocted a plan to create an emotionally charged atmosphere at home and abroad to smooth the way for an attack on Gaza.
Since its founding, the state of Israel has enjoyed exclusive and, indeed, absolute impunity that shielded it from international law. Hence, Israel never experienced any repercussions for its routine manoeuvres outside international norms and legal constraints that protect weaker nations from the predatory tendencies of the stronger ones. This above-the-law status - secured mainly by the US - has emboldened Israel to become the most dangerous bully in the Middle East.
'Give this man what he wants'
Nowhere is context more important than in understanding the impetus that drives action and reaction in Israel and Palestine.
In September 2013, Presidents Obama and Rouhani had a historic one-on-one telephone conversation to discuss issues of strategic interests. Back then Netanyahu openly expressed his dismay of being sidelined.
Netanyahu, who expressed in no uncertain terms his eagerness to attack Iran at a 2013 General Assembly meeting, was hit in the face with the reality that his Western allies did not see such military provocation in their respective national interests. Instead, they opted for a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran - something that Netanyahu adamantly opposed.
In April 2014, despite Israel's objection and threats warning against such unity, Fatah and Hamas signed an agreement to engage Israel in peace talks as a single Palestinian entity - an act welcomed by many nations including the US.
Despite Israel's claim that it faces an existential threat from Hamas, the latter has on a number of occasions expressed willingness to negotiate a long-term truce with Israel within the framework of a two-state solution to the conflict. On each of those occasions, Israel had a way of torpedoing progress.
A month after Fatah and Hamas united, Pope Francis visited both Israel and Palestine. On May 25, the Pope visited the separation wall that runs through Bethlehem. The picture of him praying at the graffiti-covered wall next to a "Free Palestine" slogan dominated the news. This simple gesture reminding the world of the plight of the oppressed Palestinian people outraged Netanyahu and his ultra-Zionist political base. Israeli journalist Caroline Glick had the following to say on this occasion: "Until this week, the Catholic Church stayed out of the campaign to dehumanize Jews and malign the Jewish state."
These three historical developments sent Netanyahu and his supporters a strong message that the world has grown profoundly impatient with Israel's never-ending "peace" talks and that it was time to get serious about peace settlement with the Palestinians.
So Netanyahu did what his mentor, Ariel Sharon, would've done under such circumstances: pull a violent trick from his hat. Israel's illogical objective is to maintain the "status quo (minus Hamas rockets)". In other words, keep the Gaza occupation, oppression, and systematic genocide to make life unbearable for Palestinians. Keep the economic strangulation and the ever-expanding land grab in the West Bank, while preaching to the international community about "the right to self-defence".
Genocide is something others do
Several years ago, I was invited by an interfaith group interested in bringing the Save Darfur "anti-genocide movement" to our local community. At our first brainstorming meeting, I raised a point that needed to be clarified.
I introduced myself as a Muslim who is profoundly pained by the atrocities committed against Darfurians by their own Muslim brothers in what was indeed genocide. Furthermore, I confessed my cynicism toward the political groupthink that galvanises people and lends them the moral clarity to selectively recognise genocide.
I talked about how the massacre in Rwanda was ignored internationally until the number of victims reached hundreds of thousands. I also pointed out the callous disinterest in the genocide in Palestine. So, I suggested we find an internationally accepted definition of genocide to get us all on the same page. Two of the committee members were assigned to find an official definition.
In our next meeting copies of the definition were distributed. I read it and I declared my unequivocal endorsement and my commitment to be part of the movement so long as the group was willing to use that definition against any and all groups and nations that fall within its parametersn. Not all agreed.
To understand why what happened in Darfur is officially considered genocide and Israel's brutal ethnic-cleansing of the Palestinian people is not, one must read Mahmood Mamdani's The Politics of Naming. As he explains: "It seems that genocide has become a label to be stuck on your worst enemy, a perverse version of the Nobel Prize, part of a rhetorical arsenal that helps you vilify your adversaries while ensuring impunity for your allies."
As much as Israel is trying to misrepresent what it is doing in Palestine and move away from the word "genocide", it is clear that its strategy is failing. While Israel has Gaza in the cross-hairs, international public opinion has Israel in its cross-hairs as well. Netanyahu must accept the fact that the Palestinian people, like their cousins - the Jewish people - are too resilient in their drive to survive and reclaim their land.
Israel has three options to choose from: To allow a free and an independent Palestinian state to form and exist side by side with that of Israel; allow a bi-national state in which both peoples would have to learn to live together as in South Africa; or keep pushing the Palestinian people against the wall till the youth snap and their wrath explodes. Keep in mind that Palestinian youth are at ground zero and they have nothing to lose!"
Ambassador Abukar Arman, is the former Somalia special envoy to the United States and a foreign policy analyst.
Despite belated attempts at blaming Hamas for the escalation, there is little or no doubt Netanyahu has instigated the violence. "Israel provoked this war", wrote Henry Siegman, president of the US/Middle East Project and former director of the American Jewish Congress. "The notion that it was Israel, not Hamas, that violated a cease-fire agreement will undoubtedly offend a wide swath of Israel supporters. To point out that it is not the first time Israel has done so will offend them even more deeply." Alas, such is the reality.
To add insult to injury, Netanyahu revealed his true intentions in a July 11 press conference, when he ruled out future Palestinian sovereignty. He went as far as ridiculing Washington's approach to Israeli security even when the Obama administration has gone out of its way and compromised its own credibility to defend him. To no avail.
As the onslaught continues and Israel warns of more of the same over the coming days, the mounting civilian deaths and destruction of public services, schools, and entire communities can be explained in three ways:
By default: Urban wars are messy, and mistakes are bound to happen when Israel tries to destroy Hamas' capabilities in the midst of populated areas. It's all "collateral damage", a despicable term meant to mystify the suffering of war
By design: Israel's military recognises the danger to civilians but persists, illegally, in bombing countless locations it suspects of harbouring weapons, militants, or their supporters. Then, rather disingenuously, it blames Hamas for using people as human shields.
By strategy: The Israeli government exploits the security pretext in order to cripple the Gaza Strip once and for all, by destroying its civic and economic infrastructure. And then, it will insist that any rebuilding or lifting of the siege be conditional on demilitarising and de-Hamasising the strip.
Which of the three explanations is most plausible? It remains to be seen as more is revealed about the thinking from within the inner circle of the Israeli security establishment. To be sure, it doesn't have to be either/or, indeed it could be all three combined: The war is messy, and its motivations are cynical and strategic.
Which of the three explanations is most plausible? It remains to be seen as more is revealed about the thinking from within the inner circle of the Israeli security establishment. To be sure, it doesn't have to be either/or, indeed it could be all three combined: The war is messy, and its motivations are cynical and strategic.
And it could be even worse: "We are in the midst of a colonial story. Not the oppression of a nation but its elimination as a political entity", so wrote Yitzhak Laor, the editor of the Hebrew journal, Mitaam.
The intensification of the clashes throughout Palestine would break the isolation of Gaza and expand the landscape of conflict towards Israeli-populated areas, including Jerusalem and the settlements.
This will give momentum to a new popular uprising, and possibly one that could be far from peaceful depending on the attitude of the Palestinian Authority's security forces.
All of which leaves the door wide open for whole new scenarios that are no less dramatic. On the one hand, it could lead to internal strife among Palestinians on the West Bank, leaving both Abbas and Hamas weakened.
Or inversely, it could galvanise the Palestinians around the resistance, a situation that could either undermine the Israeli government, or provide the pretext for Netanyahu to destroy the PA institutions as Ariel Sharon did in 2002.
Any which way, a return to the status quo ante is no longer possible. Nor can US allies impose another ceasefire arrangement on the Palestinians without taking into full consideration their legitimate demand to live free of military siege and occupation.
It's clear that Israel could break up Palestine into miserable enclaves, but it cannot break its resistance or its passion for freedom from occupation.
Israel's most ardent enemy, Hamas, was getting marginalised; now it's central to any future arrangements in Palestine. And Israel's most reliable ally and security partner in the history of the conflict, Abbas, has been terribly weakened and might not be able to recover without massive western and Egyptian intervention to impose him on the Palestinians.
Netanyahu was flying high just a few weeks ago, now he's flying low, even crawling towards a ceasefire.
Arrogance all too often breeds stupidity.
Unlike conventional wars, the longest and most legitimate wars of all have been the people's fight for independence from colonialism.
Israel is in the midst of such a fight against a people's struggle for freedom and independence and it makes similar, if not identical claims, to those made by other colonial powers of the past.
But not one foreign power big or small was able to win a single asymmetrical war against a people resisting colonialism throughout the entire 20th century.
This definite and paradoxical conclusion - the most instructive, and yet ignored of all lessons of war is categorical: Not one great power possessing superior firepower has won against a weaker, less organised and less professional resistance against occupation.
Not the French, not the English, not the Belgians, the Dutch, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Italians, the Soviets, the Chinese, the Afrikaners, etc. Not one! In the end, they all lose. And if they don't, then it's not the end.
In the final analysis, if Israel doesn't start packing and leaving the occupied territories sooner, many Israelis will start leaving it later because conditions are bound to get much worse.
Late is better than never learning the primary lesson from this conflict: It's the occupation, stupid.
How else could one describe a state that is officially sustained by a belligerent apartheid system; a state that occupies the land of another and systematically carries out ethnic-cleansing; and a state that relentlessly demonstrates a rejectionist attitude toward UN resolutions, international law and institutions?
In its latest campaign of brazen aggression, Israel has caused colossal destruction of lives, homes and critical infrastructure.
The official Israeli line, often parroted by key international media groups, is that Israel had to carry out this brutal massacre as "self-defence" since three teenage settlers were kidnapped and killed by Hamas - a charge that the latter categorically denied.
Since then, it has emerged that Israel knew that Hamas was not responsible for the death of the three Israelis. Clearly Netanyahu's government had concocted a plan to create an emotionally charged atmosphere at home and abroad to smooth the way for an attack on Gaza.
Since its founding, the state of Israel has enjoyed exclusive and, indeed, absolute impunity that shielded it from international law. Hence, Israel never experienced any repercussions for its routine manoeuvres outside international norms and legal constraints that protect weaker nations from the predatory tendencies of the stronger ones. This above-the-law status - secured mainly by the US - has emboldened Israel to become the most dangerous bully in the Middle East.
'Give this man what he wants'
Nowhere is context more important than in understanding the impetus that drives action and reaction in Israel and Palestine.
In September 2013, Presidents Obama and Rouhani had a historic one-on-one telephone conversation to discuss issues of strategic interests. Back then Netanyahu openly expressed his dismay of being sidelined.
Netanyahu, who expressed in no uncertain terms his eagerness to attack Iran at a 2013 General Assembly meeting, was hit in the face with the reality that his Western allies did not see such military provocation in their respective national interests. Instead, they opted for a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran - something that Netanyahu adamantly opposed.
In April 2014, despite Israel's objection and threats warning against such unity, Fatah and Hamas signed an agreement to engage Israel in peace talks as a single Palestinian entity - an act welcomed by many nations including the US.
Despite Israel's claim that it faces an existential threat from Hamas, the latter has on a number of occasions expressed willingness to negotiate a long-term truce with Israel within the framework of a two-state solution to the conflict. On each of those occasions, Israel had a way of torpedoing progress.
A month after Fatah and Hamas united, Pope Francis visited both Israel and Palestine. On May 25, the Pope visited the separation wall that runs through Bethlehem. The picture of him praying at the graffiti-covered wall next to a "Free Palestine" slogan dominated the news. This simple gesture reminding the world of the plight of the oppressed Palestinian people outraged Netanyahu and his ultra-Zionist political base. Israeli journalist Caroline Glick had the following to say on this occasion: "Until this week, the Catholic Church stayed out of the campaign to dehumanize Jews and malign the Jewish state."
These three historical developments sent Netanyahu and his supporters a strong message that the world has grown profoundly impatient with Israel's never-ending "peace" talks and that it was time to get serious about peace settlement with the Palestinians.
So Netanyahu did what his mentor, Ariel Sharon, would've done under such circumstances: pull a violent trick from his hat. Israel's illogical objective is to maintain the "status quo (minus Hamas rockets)". In other words, keep the Gaza occupation, oppression, and systematic genocide to make life unbearable for Palestinians. Keep the economic strangulation and the ever-expanding land grab in the West Bank, while preaching to the international community about "the right to self-defence".
Genocide is something others do
Several years ago, I was invited by an interfaith group interested in bringing the Save Darfur "anti-genocide movement" to our local community. At our first brainstorming meeting, I raised a point that needed to be clarified.
I introduced myself as a Muslim who is profoundly pained by the atrocities committed against Darfurians by their own Muslim brothers in what was indeed genocide. Furthermore, I confessed my cynicism toward the political groupthink that galvanises people and lends them the moral clarity to selectively recognise genocide.
I talked about how the massacre in Rwanda was ignored internationally until the number of victims reached hundreds of thousands. I also pointed out the callous disinterest in the genocide in Palestine. So, I suggested we find an internationally accepted definition of genocide to get us all on the same page. Two of the committee members were assigned to find an official definition.
In our next meeting copies of the definition were distributed. I read it and I declared my unequivocal endorsement and my commitment to be part of the movement so long as the group was willing to use that definition against any and all groups and nations that fall within its parametersn. Not all agreed.
To understand why what happened in Darfur is officially considered genocide and Israel's brutal ethnic-cleansing of the Palestinian people is not, one must read Mahmood Mamdani's The Politics of Naming. As he explains: "It seems that genocide has become a label to be stuck on your worst enemy, a perverse version of the Nobel Prize, part of a rhetorical arsenal that helps you vilify your adversaries while ensuring impunity for your allies."
As much as Israel is trying to misrepresent what it is doing in Palestine and move away from the word "genocide", it is clear that its strategy is failing. While Israel has Gaza in the cross-hairs, international public opinion has Israel in its cross-hairs as well. Netanyahu must accept the fact that the Palestinian people, like their cousins - the Jewish people - are too resilient in their drive to survive and reclaim their land.
Israel has three options to choose from: To allow a free and an independent Palestinian state to form and exist side by side with that of Israel; allow a bi-national state in which both peoples would have to learn to live together as in South Africa; or keep pushing the Palestinian people against the wall till the youth snap and their wrath explodes. Keep in mind that Palestinian youth are at ground zero and they have nothing to lose!"
Ambassador Abukar Arman, is the former Somalia special envoy to the United States and a foreign policy analyst.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário