USC Students for Justice in Palestine

history, analysis, news, and event updates on the struggle for justice in palestine

The Gaza War: Old and New Reflections

Posted by uscsjp on January 27, 2009

The Gaza War as reality television

I have been avoiding writing this since the war began.

The fact is, while the war was going on, I felt a compulsion to lie about it. To keep a certain ongoing internal screaming, to myself.

No more. I’m going to try to out this into words. If I fail, I hereby apologize to the reader in advance, but it won’t be for lack of trying.

At war’s end, I – like every single other person in this place, on both sides – am not the same person I was when it began. The mirror that war forces in front of our eyes is a cruel one. We can mask it in various ways, decide not to look, dismiss it as a distortion, contort and refocus it into managed proof that we were right all along – no matter what we thought. But we cannot, deep down, be unchanged.

The war had gone on only a few days when Israel Channel 10 television began interspersing coverage of Palestinian rockets exploding in the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon and commercials for the Israeli version of the veteran reality show Survivor, in which one of the contestants is shown saying of the rival tribe ‘We’re gonna kick their butts!’

Later that evening, the station’s news department broadcast an unending, eerily quiet, queasily stationary live shot of Israeli shells exploding in slow, domelike cascades of smoke and fire an indeterminate distance behind and beside a residential area of Gaza.

I could have watched this as a journalist, or a foreigner, or a member of the peace camp. Or I could have watched it as what they call great television. If I’d lived far enough away, it was fully bizarre enough to have qualified as a live reality series on its own, as per the extraordinary account of Eric Calderwood, a Harvard PhD student living in Damascus, who found himself unable to tear himself away from Al-Jazeera.

But I watched it as a soldier from a past war. A medic. A medic’s imagination is stalked by two things – What you’ve seen already, and what you hope you never will. What was going through my mind was one thought alone:

Let it not be phosphorus.

They taught us to dread zarchan [from the Hebrew root to shine or glow]. They taught us, as medics, that if we treated a phosphorous wound, prepare for the worst. It doesn’t merely burn, they taught us, it burns first through the skin, then through the soft tissue, until it reaches bone. They taught us to take an instrument, or, in its absence, a stick, to dig out the phosphorus crystals from the flesh, or the burning would go on and on.

Channel 10 brought on military expert after military expert to discuss phosphorus and whether Israel was using it. No one would say yes. There were those who pointed out that the shells they might be using were legal under international law, when used to create smoke cover for troops moving in uninhabited areas, and to explode land mines. But they wouldn’t say if we were using it. There were those who said that everything the troops were doing was within the context of international conventions of warfare. But they wouldn’t say more than that.

We have to know. We have to know what we did. We have to know if the circumstances warranted it. We have to know what we did, and if what was done was done in error or by intention.

[At the risk of incurring the standard flak, from doctrinaire leftists who have decided that any peace-minded Israeli who opts for self-defense is a hypocrite, to the doctrinaire right, for whom any moral second thoughts may be seen as suspect and perhaps treasonous weakness, allow me to accompany this with the following.]

Last week, the philosopher Yirmiyahu Yovel put into words the conflict many Israelis feel, when he wrote an opinion piece entitled a Just and Criminal War for the weekend Haaretz Hebrew edition.

Yovel noted that for an entire generation, beginning in the 1980s, Israel has been fighting enemies without uniforms, interwoven with civilian populations. Restrictions were therefore put on the army’s actions. But many were lifted for the Gaza operation.

‘The Gaza War dramatically demonstrated that the conjunction of justified combat and war crimes is not an individual instance of this war or that, rather it is becoming a permanent model for the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians. As long as this is a struggle between two populations, occupier and occupied, and as long as there is no peace between Israel and an independent Palestinian state existing beside it, the Israeli soul will be divided between justice and crime, holding onto each other with no way out, like two Siamese twins.’

‘The way to overcome this is to create conditions for peace with the Palestinians. Toward this end, Israel should mobilize all of its resources, and its supporters abroad, in order to strengthen Palestinian society and the capability of its leaders to rehabilitate its people, and to carry out effective governance.

‘Building the Palestinian economy and government is a vital advance payment on peace, and therefore an Israeli interest of the first order’…”

–Bradley Burston, Ha’aretz, 26 January, 2009

See also the following interview from Democracy Now!:

Noam Chomsky: Obama’s Stance on Gaza Crisis “Approximately the Bush Position”

“…NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s approximately the Bush position. He began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning. It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here. So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave. Same with the Nazis defending themselves against the terror of the partisans. They have no right to do it by force. In the case of Israel, it’s exactly the same. They have a right to defend themselves, and they can easily do it. One, in a narrow sense, they could have done it by accepting the ceasefire that Hamas proposed right before the invasion—I won’t go through the details—a ceasefire that had been in place and that Israel violated and broke…”

–Democracy Now!, 23 January, 2009

And from William Blum’s Jan 3rd Anti-Empire Report:

“Israel and Palestine, again, forever

Nothing changes. Including what I have to say on the matter. To prove my point, I’m repeating part of what I wrote in this report in July 2006 …

There are times when I think this tired old world has gone on a few years too long. What’s happening in the Middle East is so depressing. Most discussions of the everlasting Israel-Palestine conflict are variations on the child’s eternal defense for misbehavior – “He started it!” Within two minutes of discussing/arguing the latest manifestation of the conflict the participants are back to 1967, then 1948, then biblical times. Instead of getting entangled in who started the current mess, I’d prefer to express what I see as two essential underlying facts of life which remain from one conflict to the next:

  1. Israel’s existence is not at stake and hasn’t been so for decades, if it ever was, regardless of the many de rigueur militant statements by Middle East leaders over the years. If Israel would learn to deal with its neighbors in a non-expansionist, non-military, humane, and respectful manner, engage in full prisoner exchanges, and sincerely strive for a viable two-state (if not one-state) solution, even those who are opposed to the idea of a state based on a particular religion could accept the state of Israel, and the question of its right to exist would scarcely arise in people’s minds. But as it is, Israel still uses the issue as a justification for its behavior, as Jews all over the world use the Holocaust and conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.
  2. In a conflict between a thousand-pound gorilla and a mouse, it’s the gorilla who has to make concessions in order for the two sides to progress to the next level. What can the Palestinians offer in the way of concession? Israel would reply to that question: “No violent attacks of any kind.” But that would leave the status quo ante bellum – a life of unmitigated misery for the occupied, captive Palestinian people, confined to the world’s largest open air concentration camp…”

–William Blum, The Ant-Empire Report, 3 January, 2009

Finally, a Dec 31st piece from Ha’aretz

Disinformation, secrecy and lies: How the Gaza offensive came about

Long-term preparation, careful gathering of information, secret discussions, operational deception and the misleading of the public – all these stood behind the Israel Defense Forces ‘Cast Lead’ operation against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip, which began Saturday morning.

The disinformation effort, according to defense officials, took Hamas by surprise and served to significantly increase the number of its casualties in the strike.

Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas…”

–Barak Ravid, Ha’aretz, 31 December, 2009


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: