Israel's Shame
2 Comments Published by Tom Gara on Tuesday, November 18 at Tuesday, November 18, 2008.
Jonathan Cook is getting righteous in The National on Israel's slow-motion strangulation of 1.5 million people:
There are likely to be few witnesses to Gaza’s descent into a dark and hungry winter. In the past week, all journalists were refused access to Gaza, as were a group of senior European diplomats. Days earlier, dozens of academics and doctors due to attend a conference to assess the damage done to Gazans’ mental health were also turned back.Journalists aren't allowed witness Israel's Apartheid 2.0 for security reasons, I presume.
What a fantastically one-sided post this is. The article is even more astonishingly one-sided.
One has to wonder whether your paper really is independent like you claim it is or is appeasing/acting on behalf the government like many of the region's news agencies.
The article makes two measly mentions of the rockets that are shot into Israel by Hamas. The first reference is immediately followed with a "but" statement and the second is particularly outrageous: "In truth, however, the growing catastrophe being unleashed on Gaza is only indirectly related to Hamas’s rise to power and the rocket attacks." Give me a fucking break.
What kind of complete bullshit is this: "Israel is at war with every single man, woman and child." How can any self-respecting 'journalist' write in this manner?
The article is a mishmash of misconstrued "facts" and is blatantly one-sided. This is proven by the fact that Cook refers positively to Haniyeh's 'long-term truce' offer (i believe it was for 10 years) while ignoring that it was followed by a commitment to never enter into peace with Israel.
And Tom, for you to cap it off by calling it "Apartheid 2.0" is appalling. I know that you are far more aware of the complexities involved and I would have thought that you would be more sensible than branding such a sad and difficult situation with a sweeping catch phrase like that. I recall you making fun of the ridiculous taglines on CNN, well you just did the same buddy.
Roi
Hey Roi,
I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind on this, but am happy to debate for the fun of it :)
A few things:
- If you read the Middle East coverage at The National I think you will see that we have some pretty good, genuinely independant foreign reporters in each country calling things as they see it. This article about Hizbollah's weapons arsenal in Lebanon is a good example.
- Re the rockets, Israel has every right to respond to rocket fire in whatever way it sees fit. It will also be judged on that response.
When the response includes blocking access to medicine, energy, humanitarian aid and international observers/media, it is fair to criticise that response as a broad assault on an entire people, rather than an anti-terrorism operation. Its called a siege, and it hasn't got much prettier or more humane in the last 3000 years.
- On apartheid: Wouldn't you agree that it is now fairly clear that Israel will not accept a viable, independent Palestinian state? It will obviously never accept a single state democracy either.
The result is a people - a majority - unable to lead equal lives in their own homeland.
The West Bank continues to be cut up into smaller and smaller islands of Palestinian land encircled by walls, settlements and fenced-off, Israeli-only roads. What is happening to the village of Nilin is a good example.
The longer this keeps happening - and there is nothing on the horizon suggesting it will stop - means it will be basically impossible for a Palestinian state to emerge.
This is 21st centure apartheid. The South Africans were open about their intention to use force to keep an internal majorityv living as second class non-citizens. The effect of what Israel is doing is similar, perhaps without the popular support of its own people, but the result is the same.
If you are born a Palestinian today you are not free to leave the country, cannot vote for the government that rules you, cannot move freely in your own land, and are subject to the whims of a military and political class that you cannot join.
Perhaps settlers will steal your land, or maybe the military (the one you can't join) will annex it and fence it off behind a wall you are not free to cross. Resisting this rule non-violently will get you tear gassed and rubber bulleted. A curfew will be put on your town and people who break the curfew can be shot dead with no legal ramifications.
Resisting it violently is terrorism and your town will be bombed and strafed by helicopters.
You may feel that Palestinians have brought this situation on themselves and that it is a necessity to keep Israelis safe. But is there anything there that is not true?