Israel Losing the Media War
As happened when Israel attacked Lebanon several years ago in an attempt to severely weaken, even destroy the terrorist organization Hizbullah, international media and public opinion are increasingly sympathetic to the suffering of Israel’s enemies.
Al Jazeera, the BBC, CNN and other major international and national networks are focusing on the suffering of Gazans, and they neglect to cover the suffering of Israelis due to Hamas’ rocket attacks. Israel is increasingly portrayed as a country that bombs children, women and the elderly, civilians in other words, rather than terrorists.
This is a major problem: we already see public opinion shifting in favor of the Palestinians rather than Israel’s offensive. The more news outlets show photos and videos of killed Palestinian civilians, the more support for Israel will drop and Israel may very well end up isolated, despite America’s current support, which is due to end January 20th when Barack Obama takes office.
Al Jazeera, for instance, calls the attack “War on Gaza.” Note that they do not call it a “war on Hamas,” or “on extremists,” but on Gaza as a whole. This is the picture most mainstream news outlets are painting for the public.
Anti-Israel and pro-Palestine protests have already taken place in Arab and Western countries, which are likely to increase in the coming days. The longer Israel’s attack continues, the more international media show evidence of Palestinian suffering and the more Israel acts as if no humanitarian crisis is taking place in Gaza, the more people will turn against the Jewish nation-state, which could very well result in yet another PR victory for a terrorist organization.
Israel has to ensure that, whatever happens, it wins the PR war. This means that it has to make clear, time and again, that it cares greatly about Palestinian civilians. It has to give evidence to mainstream and new media of Israeli support for innocent Palestinian civilians. It has to make sure that there are enough doctors in Gaza who can then help wounded Palestinians.
At the same time, Israel will have to show, with photos, videos and personal testimonies, that the attacks were absolutely necessary. It could even take reporters with it during the invasion: let them film the fighting themselves, so they too will see that the Palestinians have more weapons than they like to admit, and that the attack was provoked by Hamas’ refusal to do business with Israel and its constant, daily aggression toward its neighbor.
Israel has to, finally, do something about the information war. It has to make sure that foreigners see that they too are suffering and that they are taking care to prevent civilian casualties and suffering. If it is seen as the aggressor, as it currently is, it will have great trouble finding diplomatic solutions in the year ahead.
Are you kidding me? How you can ignore the fact that GAZA is a prison or ghetto is beyond me! This isn’t war. This assault is a pogrom. This assault is also an attempt by the Israelis to change the “facts on the ground”…so discussion of the proposed peace plans end. Israel is destroying any semblance of government that the Palestinians have.
Israel is losing the public relations battle because Israel’s actions are indefensible. Israel controls the US media and if you have watched you will notice that the Israel point of view is the only point of view presented. Regardless, the rational for this Israeli assault does not pass the smell test.
Stu the Palestinians have turned Gaza into the wonderful success that it is today entirely by their own actions in continuing to attack Israel no matter what. The sealing of the border was due to their repeated suicide bombings, I suppose that bit is conveniently left out of your ahistorical analysis. Why do the Israelis owe them a living? If the Gazans continue to choose a leadership that pursues war they should not be surprised if war is what they get.
Well, let the media do what it does.
Israel views this as more an existential threat, to let rocket attacks go unanswered.
The media has had it in for Israel since 1967, so no surprise.
The Palestinians appear the underdog, although they are part of a hundreds of millions of Arab population against 10 million Isrealis.
Also, Hezbollah has not fired rockets or kidnapped soldiers since the drubbing they got, for all the media’s declaration of Israel’s defeat.
Well, if so, it is a prison that has elected a government openly dedicated to genocide, has acquired and used weapons for that purpose, and who’s inmates have repeatedly violated all previous cease-fire agreements.
You pro-Hamas advocates can twist things as much as you want and try to ignore the inconvenient facts as much as you want, but others will continue to point out the fundamental facts that Hamas is an openly genocidal group that seeks to murder Israelis. Can you really expect the Israelis to just do nothing?
If the Palestinians had elected a government that was open to peace with Israel in ANY form, you might have a legitimate point. But they didn’t. They elected a government that openly declares its desire and intention to commit genocide. There can be no compromise with that.
What is the evidence for this? Obama hasn’t said anything about it, as you have noted in another entry. I don’t think we can know one way or another until he does.
Jason, I know you’re right on the goals of Hamas. I do not dispute that. The Palestinians should never have elected them, and it was stupid to do so.
But, are you saying that democratically elected governments the West and Israel doesn’t agree with should be forcibly put out of power?
Who makes the decision about which governments are bad, and who takes them out of power? The U.S.? Israel? The U.N.?
The West, and particularly the U.S., has been down this road before, during the Cold War. Usually, the deposing didn’t turn out well for the people in the country.
We have to be careful where we (or Israel) strikes and how we do it. That’s all I’m saying.
Jason,
Hamas’s rise was aided by the Israelis. Can you please tell me why the Israelis provided aid and cover for an organization bent on “genocide”? You conveniently left that out. Recall the PLO was the reason why Israel wouldn’t negotiate. Recall before the elections that official brought Hamas to power, the Israelis had isolated the PLO and Abbas. Also recall the assault against the PLO…
Now we hear that Israel will only negotiate with the PLO which is now PA…are you still following me? Sounds too strange to be true…but is. So what does Israel want? I still cannot understand the reason for this assault. Is it the upcoming Israeli elections? Is it because of the embarrassment of the Lebanon War?
People have been referring to this assault as a war. A war? Hamas has nothing…no army…no navy…no airforce…no weapons except homemade bottle rockets. Israel controls the air ground and sea. Israel has had a blockade for the past 6 months…no food, medicine, nor trade…yet this is a war? This is a pogrom of a ghetto…nothing more.
What makes me feel sick to my stomach the most…is that after this “war???”… the Israelis will come begging for money to cover the cost of their bravado. Why should we pay for Israel’s temper tantrums? I think I know your answer…we have a “special” relationship…I say bullocks!
People tend to forget that Israel is not the only country bordering Gaza. Egypt does too, and they have closed their border as well. At least Israel has a legitimate reason (Hamas is at war with them). But Hamas is not firing rockets into Egypt. Last week there were even reports of Egyptian border guards shooting at Palestinians trying to get out. So why does the world come down so hard on Israel, while giving Egypt a free pass? Because there is a blatant double-standard, that’s why. Which leads to this point:
Beyond the blatant anti-semitism of your post, just where are Jews supposed to live? Why don’t you look at a map. Look at how large nations like Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc are. These are all Arab lands.
Then look at how incredibly tiny Israel is by comparison. That’s all the land they are asking for. It’s not that much.
And incidentally, that land belongs to Jews as much as anyone else in the region. They didn’t start living there after WWII, they had been there for thousands of years.
I see that the editors delete any comment that isn’t pro israel. Replying to John Rohan…..The Jew’s don’t need any nation. They can live with & amongst all the other people like they have for thousands of years. It may be a fact that they can’t get along with other religions, however living on land that doesn’t belong to you, is not the moral thing to do. Enslaving others & taking lands that never belonged to you, is incredibly selfish. The US government’s blind support of Israel is incredibly biased! Hopefully Obama will have a more balanced policy.
Hmmm, I haven’t been checking this site out due to some unbearably prejudiced blogging and commentary I have witnessed in the past. I don’t intend to get into any arguments with the crowd here, except to *nicely* ask Jason NOT to label those who actually *care* about the grave humanitarian concerns on the ground of Gaza as pro-Hamas.
No matter how biased the U.S. and Western media has been, they cannot block the horrific images that have been shown in the non-Western media. If you think that the likes of CNN and BBC are actually displaying the Palestinian suffering, you are wrong. They only give about 10% of what has actually been shown in the rest of the media. Some of us who have access to non-Western media have seen a lot worse. And voicing a humanitarian concern for the many children who have been wounded or who have died does NOT a Hamas supporter make.
This is very similar to George W. Bush’s labeling of those who have been against the Iraq war as pro-terrorist. And Israel is losing sympathy precisely because of the unpopularity of the “are you with us or against us” doctrine as well as the “everything goes” foreign policy of the American-Israeli axis. (Obama supporters for “change” are in for a major disappointment, but that’s besides the point.)
The justification of “self defense” does not explain the absolutely disproportionate use of power Israel has used. The so called “rockets” of Hamas are nowhere near what Israel uses in quantity or quality. In fact, they are not “rockets” in the sense of the word that we know. If you had access to foreign media, you would have ballistics experts breaking this stuff down for you.
The people of Gaza have no other place to turn except for Hamas. They don’t have water, electricity, and basic needs. Their hospitals use bed sheets and *curtains* for treating the wounded and wrapping the dead. If you watched non-English channels you’d see the conditions in hospitals.
This was deleted by MvdG: after reviewing the comment for a second time, this line was clearly in breach with our comment policy. It should have been deleted at first sight already.I definitely and clearly expect NOT to be labeled as a Hamas supporter if I happen to care about the situation on the ground and dare to critique Israel about it. The fact that it may be Hamas’s fault does not condone the incredibly disproportionately Israeli punishment and the horrific humanitarian crisis on the ground. That’s MY opinion. You are free to condone such killings, but you are NOT free to call those who don’t as pro-Hamas.
In case you accuse me of lying about what you have argued, let me copy the sentence where you call somebody who showed concern for Palestinians as “pro-Hamas”:
“You pro-Hamas advocates can twist things as much as you want and try to ignore the inconvenient facts as much as you want, but others will continue to point out the fundamental facts that Hamas is an openly genocidal group that seeks to murder Israelis. Can you really expect the Israelis to just do nothing?”
No, we don’t expect Israel to do “nothing”. Israel is not expected to do “nothing”. Yet they are acting like the terminator machine who kills everyone in the scene because they may establish a threat. In general, I am always be more than happy to defend Israel on a lot of grounds, and I have done so in the past. However, collective punishment that is entirely disproportional with the threat observed on the ground is what those who actually consider Palestinians as human beings are worried about.
I really hope you don’t delete this commentary, as it will be a horrible testimony of the media that once again tries to suppress *any* criticism of Israel or to label humanitarian concerns as “pro-terrorist”.
SElin: of course your comment will not be deleted. You are not pro-Hamas, that’s clear. I know many people who share your views (not that I agree with you completely but you do make some good points: bombing a mosque during the evening prayer, for instance, is unacceptable).
“Hamas’s rise was aided by the Israelis. Can you please tell me why the Israelis provided aid and cover for an organization bent on “genocide”? You conveniently left that out. Recall the PLO was the reason why Israel wouldn’t negotiate. Recall before the elections that official brought Hamas to power, the Israelis had isolated the PLO and Abbas. Also recall the assault against the PLO…”
That is true, by the way: Hamas was indeed supported by Israel initially. Jerusalem thought a divided a Palestinian people would help Israel and hurt the Palestinians themselves. This has been established by many credible academicians, not just anti-Israel propagandists (such as Stu himself).
Selin: Jason called a particular commenter “pro-Hamas” because that person clearly expressed such a view. Nowhere is your assertion supported that Jason consider anyone who *cares* about the humanitarian crisis a Hamas supporter.
Please elaborate then on what exactly you do expect Israel to do.
Christine, I know this conversation, I’ve had it with many people, especially Turks (Selin is Turk).
They say that Israel should fight Hamas, but that it should use proportionate force, rather than what they are doing now. They will also say that airstrikes are not an effective way to fight against an enemy like Hamas because airstrikes almost always also kill innocent civilians. On top of that, Israel should bomb public places used by Hamas at a time when virtually no civilians are expected to be there, which means not a mosque during evening prayer or a mall during opening hours.
Of course, to me Selin et al. turn it around a bit: to me, Hamas is mostly responsible, while Israel should act responsible and humane nonetheless regardless of what Hamas does. Again, the mosque bombing during evening prayer is inexcusable no matter what – but it is perfectly logical for Israel to bomb the mosque and even during nighttime some innocent people may sadly lose their lives.
Also: I encourage people to ignore the mainstream media for a little while until the war is over and it is more easy to find objective information about the war. Let us not forget that Hamas is a master at propaganda.
Yes, I figured that would be Selin’s position too, Michael- and I’ve heard American liberals like Ezra Klein espouse similar views. Funny though, that Israel’ ‘disproportionate’ force actually results in a higher ratio of military targets to civilian casualties than does Hamas’ tactics.
I don’t think it’s ever possible to get an unbiased view of a military conflict (this one even less so than others) but all one can do is try to expose oneself to the propaganda from each side and judge which information seems less tainted. With Reuters having been caught in the act of doctoring photos, and other Western ‘journalists’ staging events and coaching Palestinians for the camera, I find it hard to take the claims of the pro-Palestinian side seriously (which is not to say that I don’t think their suffering is enormous- but I’m talking about entertaining the idea that the civilians have been targeted specificially or that Israel hasn’t responsibly tried to limit the collateral effects on the civilian population.) From my vantage point, it appears that there is the usual tragedy of war- and perhaps the worst aspect of it for the Palestinians is that they are cut off from aid (which is not primarily Israel’s fault- they have isolated the Palestinians out of self defense, and as others have mentioned, Egypt has also blockaded any movement into or out of Gaza, and other neighboring Arab states have refused to help.)
I think what you alluded to earlier, Michael, is something that Israel really ought to answer for- the fact that they did try to undermine Palestinian elections in support of a divided, weakened Palestine. If Israel is serious about a two state driven peace negotiation, then she has to support a strengthening of the more moderate elements of Palestinian leadership at all times.
I think what you alluded to earlier, Michael, is something that Israel really ought to answer for- the fact that they did try to undermine Palestinian elections in support of a divided, weakened Palestine. If Israel is serious about a two state driven peace negotiation, then she has to support a strengthening of the more moderate elements of Palestinian leadership at all times.
Some would say Israel has not been serious about that for 30 years. I think that view is mostly correct; but it is changing, I believe, especially under Kadima Israel’s leaders seem more wiling to accept a two-state solution as long as Palestinians accept Israel and stop carrying out terrorist attacks against Israeli targets.
Liberals / Selin: I think that’s the problem with their point of view. All too often whenever one civilian is killed it is “unacceptable” to these individuals, who then blame Israel fully rather than Hamas. This is the problem with this point of view: it is, once again, the starting point: which side is primarily responsible for the suffering, Hamas or Israel? I, and you too I take it, answer that question with “Hamas.”
Civilian casualties are terrible, but they will happen and the ones truly responsible for it are Hamas leaders not Israel – as long as Israel does indeed to everything in its power to prevent civilian casualties (which they have not always done in this war in my opinion).
Egypt is distancing itself increasingly more from Hamas actually; it is a good develo9pment. Have written several posts about that, will do more because it is a fascinating new development.
Yes, I think that a failure to support (and worse, sometimes an active thwarting of)a strong, moderate Palestine that is capable of existing as an independent peaceful neighbor is the worst ‘crime’ of Israel- more so than any military action it has taken. Perhaps even the most dovish of Israel’s critics would see the military actions in the light of self defense if Israel had been more blameless in it’s nonmilitary relations with the Palestinians; if Israel had been actually bending over backward to find the peaceful elements within Palestine, and working toward economic stability, then the constant mortar attacks from Gaza would be seen as completely inexcusable (which they should be anyway, of course.)
I must have missed your posts about Egypt but look forward to reading more. My opinion in general is that the situation won’t be solved until there are massive shifts in the Arab world- and I had hoped that the current situation with Iran would lead to more cooperation between Israel and some of the neighboring Muslim/Arab countries (or at least, a distancing of those countries from the terrorists who wish to destroy Israel.) I don’t think we’ve arrived at that shift just yet, and of course it can’t be expected that attitudes could change that quickly- but hopefully this will be a case where the ‘enemy of my enemy becomes my friend’ to some extent.
The problem with Egypt specifically though seems that although they are trying to isolate Hamas, they aren’t exactly open to helping their Palestinian brethren by providing aid or refugee status either. They seem to want to stay out of the situation altogether which is understandable (and better than active cooperation with terrorism) but not helpful enough either.
One more comment I wanted to make about the liberal view of ‘proportionate response.’ What the hell sense does that make anyway? Obviously if a neighboring country is making peaceful coexistence impossible by constantly showering your citizens with rockets and mortary, the goal of a response would be to take out the people who are masterminding that constant provocation. Tit for tat across the border would be the one response that would absolutely GUARANTEE a perpetuation of the hostility.
Christine, what really disappoints me about your commentary is that this person has NOT given a pro-Hamas perspective, at least not from the two posts I read above. And, everything this person says about Hamas is true. They are NOT an army in the sense that we know it, they don’t have the kinds of weapons that other terrorist organizations have either. Remember, Israel has a blockade on Gaza and these people can’t get out and they cannot get weaponry that Hezbollah gets, for instance.
By the way, I absolutely detest Hamas for a lot of other reasons besides their terrorist activities as well. But it saddens me that anything that criticizes Israel and tells the truth about Hamas (how they were abetted by Israelis for instance) gets classified as being pro-Hamas.
There are ways to fight terrorism, and it does NOT necessarily involve collective punishment and bombing of civilian areas. America does it all the time via various methods. So does Turkey. For instance, among other things, Turkey bombs the PKK camps and generally no civilians are found in those mountainous terrains of Northern Iraq. Also the Kurdish terrorist groups “got rid of” any civilians who used to be there. I’m just trying to give you a background on how terrorism is a daily fact of life in the Middle East and that you don’t just bomb everybody in order to get rid of the terrorists that may be hiding within a civilian population.
It is not an “all or nothing” approach. If you still don’t get the picture, consider NYPD or LAPD firing on innocent civilians in a bad neighborhood because they look like “drug dealers” who may take out a gun, etc. Imagine now being in the Middle East and being subjected to brutality that is so much worse than that. Imagine being born in Gaza and having Israeli rockets (that are 10 times more powerful than Hamas “rockets”) destroying your home. Imagine NOT being able to get out of Gaza because everywhere around you is blocked. Imagine not having electricity, water, or basic supplies. Now tell me, in all honesty, that you would NOT run to Hamas for help, for they are the only ones that are organized in your neighborhood who can offer help and leadership. That is of course if you are capable of putting yourself in the shoes of somebody who is completely foreign to your way of life and culture.
Coming back to counter-terrorism procedures: bombing targets does not work very well because it cannot possibly have the kind of accuracy as a ground invasion will. Israel knows exactly how to do it pretty well, they know the ground on Gaza better than anybody. A ground incursion makes war a lot more targeted and may actually get the terrorists better than aerial strikes. However, it raises the risk to soldiers considerably.
I for one would be thrilled if Israel were actually able to get rid of Hamas as a result of this ground invasion. And I would even be more thrilled if Israel was willing to guide the Gaza leadership like Americans have done in Iraq, for instance, but Isrealis just don’t see why they should offer anything that remotely resembles “help” or assistance to Palestinians. Which is really sad and perpetuates more fighting in this part of the world. Yes, I can hear the “we don’t owe anything to them” chorus quite clearly, no need to reiterate that point of view.
That having been said, I am equally disgusted with all the other Arab and Muslim state leadership who don’t raise humanitarian concerns for Palestinian suffering there. But that does NOT in any way condone Israel. For it also seems to me that Israel is almost delighted that Hamas acts in defiance of Israel, for that justifies the collective punishment that Israel has chosen as a way to enact her counter-terrorism measures.
I sincerely believe that what I said above is felt pretty much around the world, and by different kinds of people. No amount of media brainwashing is going to change that fact nor will it make Isreal look like an innocent defender.
Selin, I just think that you are mischaracterizing what several of us are saying here about being ‘pro-Hamas’. For instance, this statement is completely inaccurate:
But it saddens me that anything that criticizes Israel and tells the truth about Hamas (how they were abetted by Israelis for instance) gets classified as being pro-Hamas
Please reread where Michael AGREED with that commenter’s statement about Israel having supported the election of Hamas, and then Michael and I exchanged several comments in condemnation of that.
And I think your comparisons of Turkey vs. PKK and Israel vs. Hamas or Hezbollah are apples to oranges. You state that Turkey bombs the terrorist training camps where there are no civilians- GREAT! So, if Hamas and Hezbollah had such installations instead of hiding among the civilian population and using them as human shields, then Israel could do the same thing. The comparison just doesn’t apply.
I happen to agree with all of your sympathies for the average Palestinian, by the way. But I wonder why you only criticize Israel for being unwilling to help create a sustainable, peaceful coexistence for the Palestinians and ignore any responsibility of the Arab neighbors to assist?
Sorry, Selin, I take back my last statement because I had failed to read the end of your previous comment before I responded.
Selin: the better comparison would be to think back of 1915 when Armenian terrorists were hiding among normal Armenians and carrying out attacks against Ottoman troops, aided and abetted by, especially, the Russians (but also Western countries) like Hamas is aided and abetted by, especially, Iran (but also others).
Christine: Hamas was not assisted during the elections by Israel. Israel supported Hamas beforehand, when it was smaller and less powerful – it thought to create a counterbalance to Fatah with the two sides having a go at each other and fighting for power with each other meaning they could not focus their attention on Israel and weaken their own people’s position. The election victory of Hamas, however, was a major shock to Israel, the U.S. and even Fatah. It is a typical case of Frankenstein’s monster gone wild.
Actually, Egypt was leading the pack on peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel seemed willing, or at least willing to consider to play ball. But then Hamas stepped in and ruined everything (which is one of the reasons Egypt is fed up with Hamas and is doing little against Israel unlike it did in the past).
Attitudes are changing, at least among the leadership. It is somewhat confusing to see Turkey suddenly on the side with Arab public opinion, though. Erdogan is once again showing his colors I believe. The country’s past secular leaders refrained from commenting too much on the situation believing it did not truly influence Turkey and they did not identify themselves politically as “Muslims.” The AKP does, however. This is also something to keep an eye on.
Yes, thanks for the correction/clarification of my comment on Israel’s past support for Hamas. I didn’t actually mean to say that Hamas was supported in the elections, but was trying to say that the support eventually led to the group gaining support and legitimacy to win the elections- but I can see that my statement was unclear.
C Stanley is correct, so is Michael Van Der Galien.
Hamas doesn’t even have the territory to create camps anywhere, they have to be among civilian population, and they purposefully hide weapons in mosques.
If you have anyone to blame for bombings and suffering of Palestinians IT IS HAMAS.
Look at all the Palestinian spokesmen and women on TV coming on air, and when asked the question “Israel had to respond to tons of rockets being used by Hamas, right?” they respond with “Yes, but Palestinians suffer, Israel is occupier, Israel kills people too” all sorts of absurd responses, they cannot explain it. They know they are wrong.
Filistinliler niye surekli korumak istiyorsunuz? Israyil evet iskal etti Filistini, ne olmus? Filistinliler Turkleri keserken 1900lerin basinda, sizin protestolariniz nerdeydi?
Selin, your lying about what I did or didn’t say is offensive. Misrepresenting what I did say in order to call me a bigot is grossly offensive and dishonest. I am shocked and disappointed that Michael has offered you blanket immunity from the routine application of the comments policy as a reward for your offensive comment.
FYI, I consider Palestinians to be human beings worthy of full human rights. I also consider them to be moral agents responsible for their actions. They elect and support leaders who deliberately attack civilians with an unending rain of rocket attacks. No amount of your attempt to make me the issue by lying about what I did or didn’t say changes that.
I also do not believe that everyone who is concerned about the problems of the Palestinian people is pro-Hamas. I do believe that people who ignore Hamas’ gross violations of human rights and the laws of war while criticizing every Israeli attempt at self-defense are functionally pro-Hamas, since the net effect of their advocacy is to help Hamas in its public relations campaign that seeks to muddy the facts in ways that hide its sins while exaggerating Israel’s.
I note with great interest you complete inability to answer Christine’s simple request for you to suggest some practical alternatives for Israel to stop Hamas’ constant rain of rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. Or is it that you just don’t care about that problem much?
Jason, I do not take any sides in this conflict. I am just concerned about civilian casualties. That should be clear from my earlier posts.
It should also be clear from my earlier posts that not taking sides does not necessarily result in not being able to see whose fault this is. Hamas once again is failing his people and showing to world that what he cares is not who he loses. He is hiding among civilians, using human shield through a very successful propaganda to get sempathy from all around the world. Hamas may not be the root of this long conflict but he is sure a reason of what is going on today (although not the single reason).
Today, there is a pic of 3 Palestinian children lying dead side by side as a result of Israel attacks on papers all around in Turkey. That is how we see the war, that is how we see what’s going on. It is not very similar to what is being aired on CNN or BBC where it is only shown as as a fight against terrorism. To me, both sides are biased, one focusing too much on pragmatism and the other focusing too much on humanism. However when you see dead children lying around, you sometimes start to cease thinking clearly (not that I am trying to justify any way of thinking). You just happen to think what you would do if you lost your children that way. You may call me too much of a humanitarian but we are used to thinking this way when we started to live with terrorism in the East, when we saw mothers losing their children to PKK terrorism, when we saw all the mourning and tears after not only lost civilians but also lost soldiers.
Not even in one sentence of Selin, I got any understanding to the contrary of what I wrote above. Selin not in one sentence is ignoring Hamas’ pure evil actions. However condemning Hamas should not necessarily result in justifying each and every action of Israel. And it is quite the same for Hamas. Nothing Israel does, right or wrong can justify Hamas’ evil actions as I also indicated in one of my earlier posts.
Hamas is very good at using this humanitarian side of people against them. You asked a question to Selin about alternative ways of fighting with terrorism when the terror was indeed among civilians. I can not answer that question myself not because I do not have much knowledge about war tactiques but it is too difficult of a question to answer for me although it does not prevent me from acknowledging what the right answer would be. I know the right answer would be what Israel is doing already today as it did in Lebanon in 2006. Still even this justification can not make me answer that question.
War is indeed itself the use of disproportionate force so I do not get surprised or shocked when Israel does that. There are not always but usually winners and losers of wars and this is because of disproportionate use of force. Otherwise all wars would end with a tie or worse, would never end. If Hamas sees the right in himself to be able to declare a ‘Holy War’ on Israel (as he puts it) then he should also be brave enough to stop when the time comes and surrender. Israel claiming a land once belonged to Palestinians never gives the right to Hamas to continue what he is doing today. Therefore he is a so called leader, therefore he is a so called Muslim.
I sometimes have difficulty in understanding the comment policy of this site. Can you please clarify yourself about why you were shocked when Michael saw no reason to delete Selin’s post?
In all fairness, over the last 2 months I also posted comments on this site with the fear of them being deleted and I am not even sure whether this one is going to be deteled or not. I do not think with my comment above I violate any items of the comment policy below nor I believe did Selin. So I would be really grateful if you could clarify yourself on this matter.
Crimson Politics, as answer to your question asked in Turkish, noone is trying to protect Palestinians. But some people are trying to protect civilians, that is true. This is not about a nation, religion or race, this is about casualties and I hope I made myself clear in my above comment. You may critize me of being too much of a humanitarian but you may not label me or any other person looking at the issue this way as a matter of fact, pro-Palestinian (what does it mean anyway?)
Elif, my opinion is that it’s wrong to not take sides when remaining neutral helps to enable the atrocities themselves.
It’s one thing to focus on the suffering, the humanitarian side, if one is strictly working to provide aid. Certainly those who are involved in that endeavor, working through NGOs or international aid groups, need to narrowly focus on providing relief and that sometimes involves the use of information and images which pull at our heartstrings. When one is actively involved for that purpose, I think it’s permissible (and probably necessary) for the individuals to divorce the effects of war from the causes of it.
But beyond that, the rest of us must continue to have zero tolerance for perpetuating the propaganda that Hamas continually engages in- the propagandizing which has repeatedly led to Israel backing down from completing the military goals which are necessary for her own security. We should also insist that the UN and others in the international community stop the perpetual victimization of Palestine which is itself a propaganda tool (read here, for instance, how the refugee camps have been purposefully kept in place in order to continue as the face of the Palestinian plight.)
In short, addressing the problem of refugees and casualties of war involves two parts- the direct aid, but also the political question of root cause. Allowing Hamas to parade it’s wounded children before the cameras without calling attention to Hamas’ culpability is enabling their violent provocations to continue.
Elif,
Civilian casualties are a tragedy, of course. Contrary to Selin’s claim, I do care about the Palestinians as human beings and I do no rejoice in their suffering or death. (And I think it does not require much clarification to note that a comment that basically accuses me of being a bigot who doesn’t even recognize Palestinians as human constitutes a personal attack and a misrepresentation in violation of our comments policy below.)
But the question is who is really to blame for those Palestinian deaths? It is Hamas that chooses to put its weapons in mosques and schools and apartment buildings. It is Hamas that chooses to bombard Israeli civilian towns with a rain of missiles. It is Hamas that taunts Israel when Israel does not respond for months on end.
In short, it is Hamas that creates the situation where Israel has no alternative to the use of force in civilian areas in order to defend itself.
For all the overheated rhetoric from Israel’s critics here, I have not yet seen even ONE of them deal with the fundamental fact that Hamas has embraced a range of policies that make it impossible for Israel to defend itself without causing civilian casualties.
None of this excuses Israel for its lesser crimes against the Palestinians, including the improper seizure of lands around the wall, the periodic denial of water and power, or the stifling of opportunities for legitimate economic growth. But Israel’s critics undertake a fundamentally dishonest project when they cite Israel’s offenses as an excuse for Hamas’ program of genocide against Jews and use of its own people as human shields and propaganda corpses.
I’ve edited the first comment of Selin; that sentence had to be taken out indeed. That was unacceptable – it should have been deleted at first sight. The comment as a whole, however, can remain.
Jason; that is my view as well. It is Hamas who is primarily responsible for civilian casualties since it uses innocent people as human shields. However, Israel has the responsibility to prevent collateral damage as much as possible, which means that one does not bomb certain mosques or malls, etc. when they are packed with civilians.
So if a Hamas leader makes it a point to always surround himself with civilians, that renders him immune to attack?
That is, in fact, their policy, by the way. It is done specifically to ensure that they present Israel with an impossible choice between causing civilian casualties (which the biased international media will blame exclusively on Israel) and allowing Hamas to continue operating with impunity (which Hamas will then use to taunt Israel with and increase recruitment by bragging about how they have neutered Israel).
I think Israel is being given no practical alternative to killing Palestinian civilians in self-defense. Even attempts to sound moderate by saying that Israel should not attack them under certain conditions merely serve to specify the conditions which Hamas will seek to create in order to shield itself.
You can bomb a mosque during the evening prayer or you can do it at night. That’s a choice. You can bomb him when surrounded by 5 people or when surrounded by 500. That too is a choice. That’s my point.
And when is the legitimacy of that choice to be measured — with the information available at the time the choice is made or after the bodies are actually counted?
Hamas is modelling its tactics after Hezbollah, who intentionally put civilians (or at least civilian paraphernalia) in places where it might NOT have been expected in order to try to produce an anti-Israel backlash.
What if Hamas loads up the mosque at 2am with 300 civilians and then blames Israel for their deaths?
Michael: Not to dispute your view of bombing during prayer time (I agree) but do you have a link to reliable news reports about that incident you refer to? I haven’t been able to find much detail, and at least one report seems to indicate that the bombing actually took place during the time period between evening and night prayers- but that the worshippers were there because they feared night attacks so they were extending the evening prayer time to include the night prayers. I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, but if so, I don’t know that the Israelis should be held responsible for not having known that the civilian worshippers were still there beyond the time of the usual evening prayers.
My news comes from Al Jazeera, CNN, RTL, NOS, Volkskrant, Handelsblad, Time, some ME outlets and Turkish ones, etc. They all agree it was around evening prayer. Even then, by the way, attacking a mosque during the day is unacceptable even if rockets are hidden in it; mosques have people in them during the entire day – only at night it is when they are normally empty.
Jason: common sense is in play. Bombing public places etc. during daylight is not what one does when trying to prevent more civilian casualties than absolutely necessary. If that means that one cannot kill a key figure, because killing him will also cause the deaths of 50 innocent people, well, then the humane and correct dcision is not to kill that man.
Here’s the article which claims that the bombing took place following the evening prayer time, not during:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/world/15201-six-children-among-12-killed-in-mosque-blast
Now, perhaps a better time would have been the middle of the night/early morning hours- but certainly this sounds less callous than a decision to bomb DURING the normal evening prayer time, which is how some in the Arab media are portraying it.
That’s slightly less bad, if accurate, but not good either. It is unacceptable to bomb a mosque during the day, whether prayers are taking place there at that moment or not; let us not forget that people are often also praying outside the five prayers or to make up for it because they missed the scheduled prayer for one reason or another; that mosques are used during the day constantly by believers to pray and meditate, etc. You attack public places during the night, never ever during the day.
The article, by the way, says this: “The shells could not have fallen at a worse time. Yesterday’s afternoon prayers in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya were unusually busy because worshippers had abandoned their evening prayers in the belief that if the Israelis planned to strike, they would do so at night.”
“But as the townspeople left the mosque at dusk, the explosions began”
In other words: they were just done praying and then bombed. “The shell had hit the entrance of the mosque, not the mosque itself, hitting people who were stood outside the mosque after their evening prayer, standing talking to one another, shaking hands. They did not deserve it,” said one resident. “People are now combining their evening and night prayers because of fear of Israeli strikes. It was as they were leaving the mosque after prayer that they were hit.”
So it was shortly after the prayer, at a time when mosques are usually packed already.
Unacceptable.
Another example: 30 Gazans were killed today when Israel attacked a United Nations school. Even if the Israelis are correct, that some Hamas terrorists hid in the school and started shooting at Israeli soldiers (which is not confirmed by the UN nor anyone else) you do not just destroy an entire school packed with people who are hiding from the fighting. That is utterly and I do mean utterly unacceptable. You can support Israel without condoning actions that are clearly in breach with the notion that one should limit civilian casualties at all times.
You seem to be moving the goalposts, Michael. Yesterday you said you understood the need to bomb mosques that were used as weapon stockpiles or strongholds, as long as the bombing didn’t take place during prayer time. Now you’re saying that no strikes can occur during daylight hours at all??
I realize that ideally yes, all strikes should take place during the time period when civilians are least likely to be present at all, or most likely to be there in the smallest numbers possible. But all other things are not always equal, and I disagree that the need to take out particular leaders might not be justification for an attack at a time when there might be reasonable assumption of a smaller population of worshippers present while there was still a window of opportunity to get at a strategic target.
I actually think the school bombing seems more careless and inexplicable- and yet I think you’re still overstating it to say that ‘the entire school packed with people’ was destroyed. If that’s the case, then there would have been far more than 30 deaths.
Honestly, I’m not trying to downplay it- it is incredibly tragic. As a parent, it’s unthinkable to me that my kids would be in such a situation. But I feel you’re characterizing it as though the IDF carpetbombed and deliberately blew up scores of children.
We all know that Gaza is very densely populated, and some of this is inevitable if one allows for the possibility of Israel pursuing it’s military goals in order to acheive any lasting security. They should ABSOLUTELY do so in the manner that takes the most care to avoid collateral damage and civilian casualties, but other reports show that they’ve bent over so far backward to do so that I’m not inclined to believe that they callously bombed places that were known to contain kids and other innocent civilians, without having considered all other avenues. For instance, I was just reading that they’ve taken a new and unprecedented approach of telephoning some residents to warn them of imminent bombing in some cases. How much further can anyone go, without completely giving up the need to acheive certain targets?
Ok, Michael, I repeat my question then — if Hamas fighters make a point to always hide themselves inside a school or other civilian area, does that mean that Israel is prohibited from attacking them? You expect Israelis to just sit there and take the fire?
I do not think that constitutes a practical alternative. What it constitutes is an absolute free pass for Hamas, as they have the entire Gaza strip population available to them as human shields.
“if Hamas fighters make a point to always hide themselves inside a school or other civilian area, does that mean that Israel is prohibited from attacking them? You expect Israelis to just sit there and take the fire?”
The choice is not a correct one: Hamas leaders and fighters are not always surrounded by many civilians. I am willing to condone some civilian casualties, as many others are (I presume). But this means that you attack when they are surrounded by five rather than fifty civilians – which can be done; we have seen Israel do this as well.
“I do not think that constitutes a practical alternative. What it constitutes is an absolute free pass for Hamas, as they have the entire Gaza strip population available to them as human shields.”
But the reality of the situation is that this is not the choice. Rather, what happens as with the UN school is that the IDF sees Hamas fighters and, without concern for civilians in the building as well, starts bombing away.
They could also, by the way, use, what’s that called, firearms rather than tanks to fight the few terrorists in the building. You could lay siege, explaining to the people in the school that they should expel the fighters; if not, violent action would be taken, etc. But that’s not what happened; they just bombed.
Do you or don’t you make a concerned effort to limit civilian casualties? That is the question. Israel passes that test sometimes but flunks it on other occasions.
Recently, for instance, a top Hamas figure was killed together with two of his wives and four of his children. Israel bombed his home. Since it is difficult to attack such a man when surrounded by fewer people, this bombing can certainly be defended.
But waiting for that man to go to the mosque and then blowing up the entire mosque with him in it is not defendable.
“Honestly, I’m not trying to downplay it- it is incredibly tragic. As a parent, it’s unthinkable to me that my kids would be in such a situation. But I feel you’re characterizing it as though the IDF carpetbombed and deliberately blew up scores of children.”
Uh, this is what I think happened here: They did not intend to kill those children but they did not think about their safety either. That too is wrong – less wrong than just carpetbombing a place hoping to kill many children, but wrong nonetheless.
Again, the choice given by Jason is a false one. The question is not that one should not attack Hamas terrorists at all if one cannot do so without killing innocent civilians. The issue is, however, that one should do so at a moment when those Hamas warriors are surrounded by fewer civilians than in certain other situations. Schools packed with people and mosques packed with people who go out to pray are not correct moments for military action.
I don’t see how you can take the very limited number of facts currently available and presume that the Isreali soldiers neglected to consider other options which would have reduced the danger to children and other innocents in and around that school.
Sure they are. Hamas leaders make it a point to situation their residences in densely populated areas where any strike on them will have a large number of collateral casualties. When they move, they take care to move through densely populated areas where they are difficult to identify and difficult to target without massive casualties. And whenever Hamas fighters come under attack, the immediately move into the nearest civilian building to shield themselves. Hamas rockets are fired from civilian areas, often from the grounds of schools, to shield them against counterattack. And weapons are routinely stored in mosques and schools and the lower floors of apartment buildings. Hamas exacerbates the targeting problem by encouraging refugees to take shelter in the same buildings they use for weapons storage and fighting positions. The consistency of the pattern is very clear to anyone observing now OR observing Hezbollah in the summer 2007.
It is you that I think is putting rose-colored glasses on. Do you think Hamas is unaware of the political effects of civilian deaths? Even if the evidence weren’t right in front of you already, do you think they would resist using human shields when they know for a fact that Israel will get all the blame for the resulting deaths?
I think you are being naive about the real nature of this war. Hamas is using the rules of civilian immunity as a weapon of war CONSCIOUSLY. Hamas is trying to MAXIMIZE Palestinian deaths in order to get the political advantages that result from an anti-Israel backlash.
And you’re unwittingly helping them sell it when you pretend that its not happening and claim that Israel just ignores many opportunities when a Hamas leader is standing all alone by himself in an empty mosque. Do you think any semi-intelligent Hamas leader would EVER get himself in such a position when he has seen time and time again how useful it is to ALWAYS have a nice crowd of little kids around him as human shields?
You know, I hate to sound cold, it’s always a tragedy when children for example are killed. But at some point, shouldn’t the so-called “civilians” be held to account themselves? I mean, for godsakes, how plausible is it to believe that Palestinian civilians are not able to recognize who is or who isn’t a Hamas militant? When you see these cowardly &ssh%l!s running and hiding in the mosques or schools, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that your life expectancy decreases dramatically the more you stay in close proximity to these cancerous douchebags.
You know, the easiest thing to do is to blame Israel, especially for the morally ignorant. Those of us who know better, rightfully blame Hamas. But that’s easy too in a way. But the (politically incorrect) truth of the matter is that Hamas is a creature of the Palestinians. It’s their monster, it’s their baby. Hamas’s support comes from the Palestinians themselves. And sad to say, but the consequences that befall them as a result of Hamas’ monstrosities lays squarely within their sado-masochistic self-mutilating hands.
Hamas rockets are fired from civilian areas, often from the grounds of schools, to shield them against counterattack
What I find inexplicable is that these schools are UN schools, currently being used under UN direction as refugee camps- yet the UN can’t enforce weapons searches to prevent the use of these facilities for munitions storage or as a safe haven from which Hamas fires mortar rounds? If one didn’t know better, one might think that the UN was actually aiding and abetting Hamas…but no, that couldn’t be. /sarcasm
Given the modus operandi and the suicide-warrior mentality of those whom we’re talking about, I don’t believe they think it will shield them from counterattack. I believe they are actively seeking to maximize civilian casualties for media purposes. Could be both–from their POV, it’s win-win.
Oh, and I beg to note that Hamas and Hezbollah are soul brothers, and Hezbollah certainly had no problem at all using UN posts as “shielding” when attacking the Israelis with rockets. That Hamas would do the same with mortars should be no surprise.
Jason, I still think that the overall comment other than that sentence was fine and Michael deleting that part of the comment was satisfactory. Even that part of the comment was only Selin’s thoughts and it did not make what she indicated any real. She thought that way and you answered her quite well. To me, that is the beauty of a debate although you may consider it as a direct attack to your personality.
C Stanley, what I meant by not taking sides in this conflict is not taking sides in this long conflict dating back to 1960s or even to WW2 over land and territories. According to me, if you take sides in this conflict, then you can not evaluate today’s events objectively. Also as I indicated before, not taking sides in this conflict does not necessarily result in ignorance as to the cause of today’s incidents which is obviously Hamas. I thought I made my point quite clear on that one in my earlier post so I do not think there is any need to repeat that. I also think that not being part of a NGO does not prevent one from empathizing with the dead civilians. This does not mean that you can not see what is going on around you. We are not robots, as much as we are aware of the hard cold facts (which I think I also pointed out in my earlier post), we are also empathizing with the innocent dead.
That said, Israel closing the Gaza border is not helping any humanitarian aid into the region. You may well argue that there are very justifiable reasons of Israel to do that but burden of proof about that and about whether it is taking every action possible in its own power to minimize collateral damage rest on Israel’s shoulders and not on Michael’s. So when Michael makes some logical reasoning about the timing of a bombing of a mosque, he may not know all the facts, indeed he may never be able to learn all the facts or all the plans of Israel about that but he just makes some logical reasoning. I do not think that he is changing the goalposts here at all.
If Israel does not care about having to prove anything to anyone and indicates that it is only defending its own borders and civilians, I totally understand that (as I also indicated before) but then it does not have the right to complain about how successful Hamas is in appealing to people’s emotions and abusing them. Burden of proof here rests with Israel if it does not want to lose the pr war. If it does not care about that at all, then it should also not be any surprise to Israel when people condemn pics of dead children lying around.
Elif- you misunderstand me to an extent- I wasn’t saying that one shouldn’t empathize with the civilian casualties if one isn’t involved directly in providing aid. Rather, I was saying that that one ALSO has to take into consideration the political ramifications of that empathy (in order to avoid giving the propaganda victory to Hamas.) My point was that I think it’s possible that those who are involved directly in relief efforts may not be able to handle both sides of that coin, and that’s understandable, but it’s up to the rest of the world to not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the propaganda. It simply isn’t productive for the victims for us to allow them to be used as pawns.
I also have to disagree with not taking sides in the historical context of the conflict. Justice demands that one know all of those historical facts and make the best judgments we can on handling the conflicts of interest, and then supporting the decisions that have been made on that basis. I think it is relevant to know the context of the conflict and consider the justness of each event on that basis (in the current instance, as well as many others since the creation of Israel, that context involves Israel’s right to exist which must be recognized by the Palestinians if there is any chance of a two state solution.)
So when Michael makes some logical reasoning about the timing of a bombing of a mosque, he may not know all the facts, indeed he may never be able to learn all the facts or all the plans of Israel about that but he just makes some logical reasoning. I do not think that he is changing the goalposts here at all.
He has every right to question these actions although I think it should be put as a question and not a conclusion (ie, “If Israeli soldiers didn’t use the minimal force possible to respond to the shelling at the UN school, then they are not upholding their responsibility” instead of his statement where he presumed to know that they didn’t do so.) And my assertion that he moved the goalposts is borne out by reading his first comments about the mosque bombing where he said it was unacceptable for Israel to bomb during the standard time when evening prayer is conducted, and then read his subsequent comment where he expanded that to say that Isreal shouldn’t bomb in a gathering place during daylight hours at all. By definition, that’s a moving of the goalposts. Now, sometimes we all reflect on a situation and our views may morph and change, and that’s fine- but I simply disagree with Michael on this point. I don’t think it’s reasonable to tie Israel’s hands to that extent, even though unfortunately that means that the Palestinians might not have as much freedom to move around and congregate as they normally would. I think that Isrealis respecting the normal prayer times is sufficient, rather than expecting that they should take into account that people may linger after the usual prayer hours. That is already far beyond any consideration that is given by the Palestinians when they actually deliberately target civilians (albeit not very successfully.)
So, when I pointed out that Michael had moved the goalposts, I wasn’t criticizing his logic (it is not illogical to sometimes do that), just trying to get him to think about whether he really felt that his expansion of the conditions he was putting on Israel is really legitimate or just based on emotion (since he’s obviously moved by concern for the freedom of worship for Palestinian Muslims.) I can imagine a scenario by which I’d be upset over Catholics getting caught in crossfire during or after celebration of Mass, for instance- and I might be less able to be objective in my thinking in such an instance because it would bother me so much.)
As for the burden of proof being on Israel, I agree that any nation has to answer for its actions- but the problem is that Israel is held to an impossible standard.
That said, Israel closing the Gaza border is not helping any humanitarian aid into the region. You may well argue that there are very justifiable reasons of Israel to do that but burden of proof about that …. rest on Israel’s shoulders
I don’t think this is an issue of burden of proof. I think it’s quite obvious that there are security reasons for Israel to keep the border closed (though I believe they’ve ceased hostilities today in order to ramp up the delivery of aid) and the burden is on the UN to provide the necessary security so that aid can get through. It should also rest on the UN to ensure that aid is not misdirected and misused (as we learned recently that hospital supplies were being hijacked by the terrorists) and that the refugee areas are not used for munition storage or launch sites.
To reiterate my response to your last paragraph concerning Israel’s burden of proof- what you are requiring is impossible, like basing a system of justice on every man proving himself innocent of crimes rather than have a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Israel does allow investigations of questionable events such as the school incident, so it’s not as though the IDF expects to be assumed to be innocent of all wrongdoing. But it’s impossible to fight the propaganda battle in the manner you suggest, whereby Israel would have to always be assumed to be the aggressor and then prove that her actions are justified.
And by comparison, how many investigations does Hamas conduct into the targeting of its weapons against civilians? Zero. Well, I guess they do probably try to conduct some investigations to improve their targeting so as to kill even more civilians…
This is yet another relevant point of comparison that anti-Israel zealots refuse to engage. It is particularly relevant to those who claim equal fault on both sides.
A big part of the problem, in my view, of the consternation over Israel’s military incursions (and holding her to an impossibly high standard) is that it distracts from where I think Israel SHOULD be held to higher accountability, which is the nonmilitary political process by which the relations with the Palestinian refugees have been handled. Certainly the security problem is wrapped up in that, but as I stated in a previous discussion I think that Israel’s greatest failing has been her ambivalence (sometimes bordering on outright hostility, among certain political factions) to a strong and independent Palestine. There too, perhaps holding Israel to the highest possible standard might be an impossible burden- but I think it’s in that area where she’s fallen far shorter of a reasonable burden than she has in the military responses to Palestinian aggression.
So when the discussions get bogged down into what we believe the rules of engagement ought to be for the IDF, I think we get off track from the more important issues.
Tangential to this discussion- am I the only one seeing a lot of shifting in public opinion, with liberals becoming more critical of “Zionism” but at the same time, perhaps the beginning of unravelling of some of the support that Hamas usually has enjoyed? What I mean by that is that some of the Arab nations have been a lot less enthusiastic in support of Hamas or condemnation of Israel than they normally are in these situations (probably due to their growing concern over Iranian hegemony) and even the Palestinian people seem to be showing signs of waking up to the reality of Hamas’ ruinous hold over them. As examples of this, I’ve seen two separate accounts of family members cursing Hamas (not the Jews) for the deaths of children that have occurred, an account of two witnesses (who are remaining anonymous due to fear of reprisal) who reported seeing mortar fire coming from the UN school which provoked the IDF response yesterday, and then this morning also read of six Palestinians who were executed by Hamas for being informants to Israel. Perhaps a tectonic shift is occurring?
C Stanley, thanks for the explanations. By burden of proof on Israel’s shoulders I did not mean that Israel is part of a system of justice that in a very prejudiced fashion assumes it is guilty before its innocence is proven and I am pretty sure Michael did not mean that when he critized Israel for the bombings right after the evening prayer. Israel is not left out alone without the chance of explaining itself to people. Noone is announcing Israel as the cause of today’s bombings. To the contrary, we are repeatedly indicating that Hamas is the main cause.
What I am trying to say is if Israel is under the constant attack of accusations from different parts of the world whether or not it is providing the best effort in its own power to minimize the collateral damage, then I guess Israel owes an explanation to these goverments or people, not that it has to explain itself (as I indicated before). However if it is concerned by these accusations, it will be the wise thing to do.
As for comparison to Hamas’ investigations, Jason, noone is questioning Hamas’ pure evil actions here as far as I am concerned. Hamas is not acting humane at all and we know that he does not care for his own people or any other person for that matter. He uses human shield to protect himself as well as to conduct a very successful pr propaganda. So even if he tried to reason himself in his actions, I guess we would not take him seriously. We already know the hard cold facts, we already know that he is the main cause for all this and we already know that he could not care less for the lost civilians.
However Israel is in a different position. If Israel is indicating that it is not responsible for the bombings of today (which we know that is the case) and Hamas is, then Israel should better explain itself to world and make people see its side of the story as well. Noone is blaming Israel for attacking Gaza today but people are critizing Israel’s tactiques. Just because Hamas is inhumane and evil does not mean that Israel should act the same (not that I am saying that it is acting that way, it sure is not) and it should also be no surprise to Israel when people are expecting explanations from Israel but not from Hamas. People do not need to hear from Hamas, they know who Hamas is. They need to hear from Israel though. At least this is my humble opinion.
I disagree strongly, Elif, that the international community should have two different sets of expectations. We should not say, Israel is trying to be humane and act in accordance with international law, therefore she should be held to the highest standards, but Hamas is just being Hamas as usual. Hamas should forego any chance of legitimacy when it acts as it does, and the Palestinian people as a political entity should forego any protections of the UN (that’s not to say that the people should not recieve humanitarian aid- but they should not be able to petition to the UN for condemnation of Israel’s actions, as they often do.)
You seem to be saying that you feel Israel wants it both ways- to be able to take certain actions when necessary without having to explain them. I don’t see it that way- I feel that Israel does explain but certain elements in the media and of the left political sphere will never accept those explanations as sufficient (that’s what I meant by having to prove innocence, which is impossible.) The way I see it is the other way around- that Hamas wants to be able to act with complete irresponsibility (like a child that evades responsibility when the adults say he/she is too young to understand or act in a more mature manner) but also to insist that the international community and UN require the utmost of responsibility from Israel.
Please understand- I’m not talking about you, or Michael- I’m commenting on the general worldwide public responses that we generally see in regard to the conflict.