Doc's Talk: Where is the context?

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Where is the context?

ABRAHAM RABINOVICH , THE JERUSALEM POST

"All you'll get there is justice," said the grizzled character in an old Western movie, warning away a gunslinger from a gallows-prone town. "And lots of it." . Israel has received more than its fair share of frontier justice from international bodies since Operation Cast Lead in Gaza five months ago and is now the subject of a new UN investigation led by the distinguished South African jurist Richard Goldstone. Jerusalem says it will not cooperate with the latest probe despite Goldstone's stature. This reaction comes in the wake of a lopsided UN inquiry commission report a month ago and the behavior of UN officials in Gaza during the war itself.

The inquiry commission threw the book at Israel for alleged misdeeds during the three weeks of fighting. Entirely missing from the report was context. Without context, the destruction of Dresden and Hamburg by the Allied air forces in World War II, not to mention Hiroshima, were acts of cold-blooded mass murder.

The context for any examination of Operation Cast Lead includes the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians but also the thousands of rockets fired into Israel; the repeated warnings by Israel that it would strike if rocketing continued; Hamas's decision to fight the war from civilian areas; and preparation by Hamas leaders of shelters for themselves while leaving the civilian population unsheltered against the furies of a war the leaders had provoked.

Context also includes the steps taken by Israel, unprecedented in warfare, to warn the Palestinian population of danger during the fighting, including thousands of telephoned warnings to Gaza families before air strikes on their buildings, and the firing of small rockets at the corners of roofs to spur evacuations before the bombs hit.

THE CENTRAL INCIDENT examined by the inquiry commission concerned an UNRWA school in Jabalya. On January 6, IDF mortar shells were reported by Palestinian organizations to have struck the clearly marked school, killing more than 40 civilians sheltering there and wounding scores more. The claim was supported by a UN entity in Gaza, the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Headlines around the world duly trumpeted a "massacre." It seemed for a while that Israel might have to call off its incursion because of international outrage.

Presuming the report true, Israeli spokesmen initially said the shells were directed at Hamas mortarmen firing from inside the school grounds. The IDF spokesman tried to fob off a year-old video clip of Palestinians firing from the school as fresh, a foolish "error" which was soon exposed.

A few days after the war, journalist Patrick Martin of the Toronto Globe and Mail visited the area and learned that no one had been killed in the school and that no shells had hit the school. Three shells had hit an adjacent road where fatalities occurred. Only after Martin's revelation, three weeks after the incident itself, did OCHA acknowledge that the school had not been hit.

John Ging, director of Gaza operations for UNRWA, the main UN agency in the strip, never claimed that shells struck the school. However, in numerous media interviews during the fighting he neglected to refute the charge and sometimes left the distinct impression that it was correct. In an interview with IslamiContent shown on YouTube, for example, Ging spoke of "42 Palestinians killed and over 100 injured at the UN school being used as a shelter for 1,600 people driven out of their homes." Not "near the school" but "at" the school.

In an interview with journalist Martin after the war, Ging said, "I know that no one was killed in the school, but 41 innocent people were killed in the street outside the school. The State of Israel has to answer for that." Ging was undoubtedly well-intentioned but he was compromising the credibility of UN officials everywhere.

UNRWA spokesman Christopher Gunness resorted to similar disingenuousness. In an interview with Democracy Now, an American radio/television news program, a day after the incident, Gunness said that the fatality figure in the Jabalya attack had grown to 40. "The people in the compound... had been told by the Israeli army to leave their houses and move to a safe place... They were coming to what they thought was a neutral United Nations shelter, and then the rest is history - 40 people killed." He did not actually say that shells hit the school but the viewer is left with that clear understanding.

In its own investigation after the war, the IDF, basing itself on Palestinian sources, concluded that 12 Palestinians had been killed outside the school, not 40 or more, when mortars responded to Palestinian mortar fire. Nine of the 12, it said, were militants known by name and Palestinian identity number.

The inquiry commission rebuked Israel for not expressing "adequate" regret over its initial false allegation about Palestinians firing from the school. But the commission had nothing to say about the incendiary claims that Israel deliberately shelled a school filled with refugees, claims to which UN officials in Gaza lent credence. The commission faulted Israel for firing too close to the school but did not rebuke Hamas for positioning mortars there, saying "it was unable to reach any conclusion" about whether there were mortars.

The commission repeatedly faults Israel for damage caused to UN facilities by direct hits or near misses. It voices no criticism of Hamas for storing its armaments in civilian areas, including the proximity of UN facilities, triggering those attacks.

The commission makes reference to the "traumatization" of Palestinian children during the incursion, but there is no mention of the trauma caused Israeli children during eight years of rocketing.

There may be room for exploring whether Israel used excessive firepower in the Gaza operation - there was a lively debate over this within Israel at the war's conclusion - as long as there is context, which in this case should include a look at other wars such as the allied operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In examining with a magnifying glass every nick and casualty on UN premises that Israel was allegedly responsible for, while ignoring Palestinian responsibility for igniting the war, the inquiry commission was acting not like a dispenser of justice, even frontier justice, but like a dodgy ambulance chaser trying to make a case.

It was only the maturity of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who effectively pigeonholed the report, that permitted the UN to emerge from this sorry affair with a measure of its dignity intact.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184868260&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk