Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Gaza War! Hunh! What was it Good For?

According to UNICEF, their preliminary estimate of the damage done by the Israeli military to Gaza infrastructure is $1.9 billion. Note that this is Gaza infrastructure, not Hamas infrastructure.

So at least the war weakened Hamas's political control of Gaza, right? Not so much.

So then, the Israeli military boasted that it destroyed 60% of the tunnels whereby Gazans smuggle food, medicine and other goods into Gaza (the Israelis say they bring in explosives for rocket-making as well; but since rockets can be made from simple materials and petroleum products, and since the rockets are so primitive, they can't be bringing in very good explosives). So at least, the Israeli war on the people of Gaza permanently reduced the capacity of those tunnels, right? Naw, the Gazans are working Caterpillar backhoes to rebuild the tunnels, already!

If the goal was to stop the rockets, so the ceasefire last June stopped the rockets from Hamas for 4 months until Israel broke the truce. Negotiation had been proven to work. Henry Siegman has decided that the Israeli narrative of the lead-up to the Gaza War was just lies, which American media largely bought, hook, line and sinker. He outlines what really happened.

How unpopular Israel made itself in Europe with this war was still visible nearly a week after it ended, when 20,000 protesters marched in Paris on Saturday, still protesting the war.

On the other hand, if the ceasefire holds, I suppose that this weekend will witness the last big demonstrations. And then the US Congress will go back to giving the Israeli military $30 billion in arms, and Israeli colonization of the West Bank will proceed apace, and the statelessness and expropriation of the Palestinians will worsen. And those quotidian processes won't generate any headlines or massive protests, and they will proceed inexorably because no one is pressuring the US congress day to day except the Israel lobbies.

For Democratic congressional representatives, at least, there is now a web site where American voters can give campaign support to those who declined to jump through AIPAC's hoops and did not assent to a resolution, the purpose of which was to garner support for this dirty war.

A CNN poll found that 63% of Americans felt that Israel's war on Gaza was right. They say only 17% of Americans supported the Palestinians.

An earlier Rasmussen poll found that 44% of Americans supported the war and 41% opposed it. That may be an artifact of the way the question was asked. Americans like Israelis (and I am among them), so if you ask them if they support the Israelis or the Palestinians, you get a skewed answer. The question is whether this war was a good idea, or was prosecuted honorably. Moreover, there was a big difference among political parties, with only 45% of Democrats supporting the Gaza War. (I'll bet you a lot of the opposition to the war within the party came from Jewish American liberals).

CNN has a lot of gall, since their coverage was completely one-sided and helped produce the results found in the poll. I can remember that they had Michael Oren on in uniform, speaking for the Israeli army, a Sunday afternoon. But they had no Palestinian policeman from Gaza. And then Oren dishonestly published an op-ed in the LA Times without identifying himself as being active duty Israeli military. This is a guy who claims to tell us the balanced historical narrative of the 1967 war or of American-Muslim relations? CNN never agressively challenged the lies of Israeli spokesmen the way British journalists did. And, of course, American channels seldom interviewed journalists based inside Gaza.

No wonder millions of Americans went to Aljazeera English on the Web for the other side of the story. By the way, the argument that Aljazeera English is not carried by the satellite television companies in the US because of lack of interest is ridiculous. They carry stations in obscure languages for which the audience must be tiny. I get Aljazeera Arabic; would the English really be less watched? Aljazeera English was most likely kept off because the Bushies made threats behind the scenes. The Obama administration should open up the airwaves.

But anyway, even a 60-30 split in the US for Israel in a war strikes me as not such great news for Tel Aviv. Surely in 1967 it was almost 100 percent in favor. And Rasmussen was probably closer to the truth with 44/41, which is in American terms an absolute disaster for Israeli public relations.

I fear the Israeli public is going to elect that maniac Binyamin Netanyahu on Feb. 10, and that will be the complete end of any 2-state solution, and we just have to live with a horrific Apartheid for decades, which will cause more conflict and further poison much of the world against the United States. (The Right-Zionists have been complaining about me wanting to put America first. For that I don't apologize.)


End/ (Not Continued)



29 Comments:

At 3:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, many others are saying the same: Bob Simon of 60 Minutes spoke with Charlie Rose on why the 2-state solution is likely dead. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9900

 
At 5:36 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

1,000 dead, 6,000 wounded. How can this be good for Israel ?

btw : I get Al Jazeera (English) streaming via Live Station.

 
At 5:45 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Juan -
"CNN never agressively challenged the lies of Israeli spokesmen the way British journalists did"

Not sure what your referring to, but as an American who lives in London, I'm constantly amazed at the absence of criticality from BBC presenters, namely Radio 4. But if you need evidence of the beeb's so called adherence to impartiality, then look no further:
They won't even broadcast the DEC charity appeal for Gazans! (Now ITV and Channel 5, or 4, can't remember, are going to go ahead with the appeal).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/24/bbc-gaza-palestine-aid-appeal

 
At 6:06 AM, Blogger Matt Osborne said...

Even if Israel could destroy Hamas -- which they have not -- no one can destroy political Islam. Indeed, an escalation in violence only makes radicals more extreme and more violent.

The two-state solution is dead. The one-state solution has gotten some press, but maybe it's time for a three-state solution and a massive UN effort at nation-building.

 
At 7:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the tip about Act Blue. I've been giving money and otherwise supporting the year-old J Street blog, which I thought is now the main organized opposition to the israel Lobby here and the hard right in Israel. Act Blue appears to support a broader range of Democratic Party issues. But perhaps I'm wrong. I'd be interested to know what others think.

 
At 8:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Within the past year, I have been on contract
(accounting, business, and Internet consultant)
with 12 different companies. In short, these
large, yet family owned, companies pay me
a monthly fee for my opinion, design work,
and software. These are successful - intelligent,
people in California.
So - as a typical 60s liberal - I find it interesting
that FOUR of those owners (33%) have no
trouble at all using terms like "President Coon"
or "the nigger president". And with all but one,
these are people who consider themselves
"religious" or "Christians".
Have we actually grown up yet ?
I wonder.

 
At 8:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a good commentary. What I have been wondering is the impact of the agreement Bush signed to allow us to help decrease arms entering the Gaza Strip. In principle, I think having a 3rd party police arms is much better. There is so much dehumanization, it is hard to understand its level of pettiness unless you have traveled through the check points with Palestinians to understand just how much animosity it can breed.

At the same time, I worry about making our role in the conflict more structural vs. arms shipments. We are already blamed for the conflict, what would happen if we had troops on the ground policing the Occupation for Israelis? So, I wonder how far this new agreement could obligate us.

I agree about Al-Jazeera English. When I am in homes with satellite TV, that is what is watched, not Al-Jazeera Arabic. I figured the reason it was not allowed is its more detailed coverage of the war in Iraq. Bush struggled to keep the human aspect of Iraqi lives out our media.

 
At 8:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Americans support the Zionists because we are a nation of conservative values. In the conservative value system, morality is a consideration that applies only to sex/reproduction and biblical interpretation. Killing of civilians has no more moral content than a football game. After all, the Supreme Judeo-Christian Deity engaged in it freely himself-- so what’s the problem??

Further, I doubt that this latest violence has much to do with Hamas. Hamas is a valuable public relations asset for the Zionists, but if not Hamas, then something else. I suspect the long-term goal is to remove all Arabs from Greater Israel. Peace talks, ceasefires, truces, agreements will come and go. They will always be broken. There is no real two-state solution. The best hope of the Palestinians is some sort of reservation status, but even that seems unlikely. Ghetto status is most likely in the short-medium term, with extinction or exodus being the preferred final solution.

I have friends who tell me I am pessimistic. I don’t see myself that way. I see myself as simply realistic.

 
At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've always wondered about those tunnels...if the locations are known, why didn't the Israelis just fill them in? Or collapse them with explosives? And if "the whole world" knows that bulldozers are rebuilding the tunnels, surely the Israelis could take out the bulldozers with artillery or aircraft. It almost seems like the Israelis must want those tunnels operating. (If so, why?)

 
At 11:45 AM, Blogger easyplankin said...

I think we need to recognize that Obama has swallowed Bush administration framing hook, line and sinker re. nearly every global situation. No compromise with Iran. Not talking to Hamas or Hezbollah. Total commitment to unquestioning support for Israel, no matter what. No talking to the Taliban. Continued bombing of Pakistan. Threats against Chavez. No lifting of Cuba embargo.

Peace does not have a friend in the White House. But I still believe that Peace does have a friend in the American People.

 
At 11:52 AM, Blogger Econoclast said...

Well, didn't the war against Gaza show that Israel does not need U.S. help anymore?
Jim Devine

 
At 1:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The skewed reporting in the US not only misleads the public (as it is supposed to do) but also puts a decent politician (and there are a few in the US) in a difficult spot, because (s)he can hardly support the Gazans when Hamas is so universally made out to be villainous, and the raizing and reduction of Gaza as a response to Hamas has been so universally portrayed as reasonable, correct, moral, and lawful.

By the time the correct facts become available (but not, of course, become widely public -- the principal/unprincipled media will still hide the facts), the politician has already voted.

 
At 1:15 PM, Blogger Econoclast said...

Jasmine says: >I doubt that this latest violence has much to do with Hamas. Hamas is a valuable public relations asset for the Zionists, but if not Hamas, then something else. I suspect the long-term goal is to remove all Arabs from Greater Israel.<

Hamas does seem a good PR asset for Likud, etc. But it's a mistake to think that there's some kind of unified goal for the Zionist movements. It involves coalitions, not unified purposes.
Jim D.

 
At 1:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you see that Ehud Barak is already in Washington?

 
At 2:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why won't Juan Cole, the informed one, try to live 8 days, not 8 years in Sderot.

We'll see then if the bombs that will rain on him every day are so primitive, especially those who can reach 40 km.

Had the Palestinians smuggled food and medicine instead of rockets, things would have been different.

 
At 4:14 PM, Blogger giorgschwartzenberger said...

I find it both interesting and frightening how all of us dance around the truth when we talk about the power of the Israel lobby or the possibility that in our relationship with Israel, the tail wags the dog. Of course there are consequences when we dare to speak truth to power (eg. Norman Finklestein), especially when we consider more frightening aspects of our special interest democracy - for example, "who controls the media". There are courageous voices - Jewish dissenters and truth tellers - people like Finklestein and Chomsky and Lillienthal and Siegman and RICHARD BLANKFORT, who has compiled a detailed list of media ownership and management that is largely indivisible from a pertinent example of what the Professor calls "a single issue interest group". There is nothing more important to the idea of a democracy than the free flow of information. So, when the Professor asks the question "why doesn't the mainstream media report the truth?" or questions why Al Jazeera is not allowed in the land of free speech, I suggest we summon some courage and dare to have a discussion about the control of our media. If and when we do, we will be attacked - accused of anti-semitism, hatred and bigotry - and images of Nazi attrocities will be conjured up. But if we have the courage for such intellectual rather than bigoted dialogue as promised by the First Amendment to our Constitution - if we have the courage to have this dialogue for the purpose of protecting our democracy - we may through such free discussion come to understand why the media did not report the truths about Gaza that Henry Siegman ("Israel Lies") or the Professor speak about, but also why the media failed to ask the tough questions leading up to the Iraq war and why the media may not deliver us from another war, this time against Iran. If we cannot have this discussion, then we should ask ourselves this question: "are we really free?"

 
At 4:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was no real cease-fire before in Gaza and there is no real cease-fire now. The main requirement for any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip must be the opening of the border crossings. There can be no life in Gaza without a steady flow of supplies. But the crossings were not opened, except for a few hours now and again. The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war, as much as any dropping of bombs or launching of rockets. It paralyzes life in the Gaza Strip: eliminating most sources of employment, pushing hundreds of thousands to the brink of starvation, stopping most hospitals from functioning, disrupting the supply of electricity and water.
Those who decide to close the crossings – under whatever pretext – know that there is no real cease-fire under these conditions.

 
At 5:32 PM, Blogger salmonrising said...

I was surprised to find 21 representatives and 2 senators on the list at ACTBLUE, because news accounts I have seen never have listed more than 10 representatives voting against these AIPAC inspired resolutions. Does the total include names from different years or just 2009?

 
At 8:13 PM, Blogger rb said...

Thank you, Juan, for your link to the "Dream of Peace..." ActBlue webpage supporting candidates who are working for peace and justice for the peoples of Israel and Palestine Also, an enormous THANK YOU to your readers who have generously donated, so far.

In less than one day, almost $3,000 has been collected. At the suggestion of several of your readers, a few more candidates, who voted "PRESENT" for HR 34, have been added to the list.

Please visit http://www.actblue.com/page/adreamofpeace, share it with your friends and family members, and help show Washington that there is political grass-roots support for truly Pro-Peace candidates.

 
At 8:17 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Israel's F-16 aircraft and 100's of tons of bombs which were dropped on one of the most densely populated areas on earth were all supplied by the US. The settlement moneys are provided by the US. Without the financial support of the US, Israel would have had to give up their terror operations long ago.

 
At 9:30 PM, Blogger karlof1 said...

Here is the link to the Chomsky essay Obama on Israel-Palestine that I sent in whole earlier. I provide just a snippet:

'Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."

'Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.

'The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel - in the context - repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.' [Emphasis in original.]

Many of us are as smart as Professor Chomsky in seeing the above outlined subterfuge, which informs our positions. By continuing such abominations, Obama makes himself an enemy of all peace and freedom seeking peoples--a fact you've been unwilling to publish.

 
At 10:08 PM, Blogger blue photon said...

“Why won't Juan Cole, the informed one, try to live 8 days, not 8 years in Sderot.”

Why doesn’t avvv try to live 8 days, not 8 years in Gaza? We will see how it is to live in a virtual prison where food and medical medicine are deliberately withheld from the population by an occupying power. Israel may not have soldiers in Gaza but they they control most of Gaza’s borders. (Of course, Egypt controls the rest.) Mainly Israel can decide what goes in and comes out of Gaza.

Let’s remember, Israel imposed an embargo on Gaza when Hamas won the election in 2006. As a response, Israel drastically reduced the food and medical supplies entering into one of the most impoverished areas in the world. Many Gaza children were suffering from severe malnutrition.

Hamas reacted to this crime by a violent response. Now, shooting rockets indiscriminately into Sderot is a war crime. But it is a response to a far greater war crime by Israel. No other country in the world could get away with imposing such collective punishment on another group of people.

 
At 10:16 PM, Blogger blue photon said...

Had the Palestinians smuggled food and medicine instead of rockets, things would have been different.”

Actually, many of the tunnels are used to transport food and medicine into Gaza. These tunnels exist mainly for that purpose, though unfortunately rockets as times do get smuggled in. Now the question to avvv is: why are these tunnels needed? If Israel followed international law and allowed the Gazans the basic amenities of humanity, most likely these tunnels would not need to exist in the first place.

 
At 11:31 PM, Blogger rb said...

Dear Salmonrising:

Thanks for your comment on the ActBlue fundraising page. The list of elected officials on the ActBlue page was created by looking at votes, official letters, and sponsorship of resolutions relating to Israel/Palestine and Pro-Peace issues. Not all of the candidates supported each measure, but these members supported multiple items, and have spoken out publically in favor of peace & justice for these two Peoples.

Over the next week, the page will be edited to give more information regarding each candidate. I urge you, and all of the readers, to read their websites and call their offices to find out their positions with respect to this issue. When you do, please let us know the results.

In the meantime, if you are so inclined, please visit htpp://www.actblue.com/page/adreamofpeace and contribute to any or all of the candidates on the list.

 
At 12:07 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Nice article.

I was a bit confused/dissapointed by the Act Blue funding page.

I would love to start serious fundraising for politicians who support a truly even-handed approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues, but I can't tell from the description on the site what exactly the fundraising group stands for.

Since i don't know the records of all the congresspeople on that list, I'm not sure whether or not to contribute as a result. Everyone says they want "peace" -- it's calling out atrocities in a fair way and balancing humanitarian needs fairly that needs to be supported.

 
At 6:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems most of the article, and the comments, have things backwards. See, Israel's occupation did not cause the last 40 years of violence. Israel's occupation was THE RESULT of violence against it, in yet another attempt to exterminate it. The rockets from Gaza started in 2000. There was NO BLOCKADE when the rockets started. Israel's response to defend itself at the time was targeted assasinations and incursions, all condemned by your contributors. When that did not work, Israel hoped elections and a unilateral withdrawal would work. When the rockets kept coming, THEN the embargo was put in place. The tahadiye agreed to, informally by Hamas bound Hamas to stop the rockets. Over the following 6 months, 250 rockets were fired against Israeli civilians. Hamas was to stop smuggling in more weapons. Tons of armaments and Grad rockets continued to be smuggled, obviously. Israel was to gradually relax the embargo. Every time they tried, another rocket caused a further tightening, together with the continued smuggling. Loosening the embargo under those circumstances would have just facilitated mor re-arming, and assured more Israeli deaths whenever Hamas decided to end the calm. Israel reserved the right to go into Gaza after "ticking bombs." The tunnel being dug towards Israeli territory, with the intention of adding more hostages to Gilad Shalit was such a "ticking bomb," and Israel was within its full agreed rights to go in and prevent another kidnapping.

 
At 6:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

William Bilek - how does Israeli settlement expansion and land grabbing in Palestine fit into your fantasy of Israel as the victim?

 
At 6:22 PM, Blogger blue photon said...

In his first sentence, Mr. Bilek himself agrees that the violence has been occurring in the occupied territories for the last 40 years. Then he goes on to neglect all the intermediate years between 1967 and 2000 as if they never occurred. He claims that says rockets were fired from Gaza into Israel in the year 2000. These tit-for-tat attacks have been going on long before 2000, even longer than since 1967. The real conflict started in 1948.

Upon saying that, what makes the years of the occupation unique is not some violent mind set of the Arabs but Israel’s deliberate policy annexing land and displacing Palestinians from the occupied territories, which is illegal under international law. Despite peace negotiations under the premise of “land for peace” settlement since the time of Oslo, Israel settlements have continued to expand in the West Bank. Despite peace talks between Abbas and Israel, Palestinians have seen more and more of their land confiscated, most notoriously by the Apartheid wall. No wonder Fatah is so completely discredited. No wonder other more extremist groups have grown to take Fatah’s place.

Gaza has no control over its borders and hence cannot be considered as sovereign entity. Sharon himself has said that the withdrawal of settlers and troops from Gaza was the first step to integrating the West Bank--or the important parts of it--into Israel proper.

As for kidnappings, Israeli human rights groups have documented thousands of political prisoners in Israel, most of whom are civilians. Mr. Shalit on the other hand is a soldier. Being killed, wounded or kidnapped is the risk a person takes when they put on a military uniform.

 
At 1:58 AM, Anonymous Truth Alone said...

Everyone seems to think that the only way to bring things into Gaza is through the Israeli crossings, but Gaza has a border with Egypt.

The Egyptians can open the border and do whatever they like, but they don't.

Sadly, the Palestinians have caused terror in every country they have been in, that is why Egypt doesn't want them. From 1948-1967, Gaza was part of Egypt. Israel had tried many times to get Egypt to take back Gaza, but they won't.

Maybe the religion of peace should take care of their own and stop trying to get the Jews, who the Palis want to kill, to be their savoir.

Let the Egyptian border be open and stop the hatred of Israel, who owes the palis nothing.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home