Background on Israeli shooting victims

Ali Abunimah on the differing reactions to Palestinian deaths and background on the Jewish seminary that the shooting happened at this week:

... Israeli deaths are "terrorism," while Palestinian deaths are merely an unfortunate consequence of the fight against "terrorism." But the two are intricately linked, and what happened in Jerusalem is a direct consequence of what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for decades.

Let me be clear that the killing of civilians, Israeli or Palestinian, is wrong, repugnant, and cannot bring this one-hundred-year war caused by the Zionist colonization of Palestine to an end. There will be an Israeli propaganda effort -- as always -- to present Palestinian violence as being simply motivated by hatred, and divorced from the context of brutal occupation that Palestinians live under. What greater proof could you need than an attack on religious students, devoting their life to the study of the Torah?

We cannot expect much analysis in the media of why the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva might have been chosen as a target. Was it mere coincidence that the school, named for Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, and led after his death by his son Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, is the ideological cradle of the militant, Jewish supremacist settler movement Gush Emunim?

Unlike other sects in Israel which sought exemption of their students from military service, Gush Emunim encouraged its followers to join the army and become the armed wing of religious nationalist Zionism. Gush Emunim settlers, many of them, like Moshe Levinger, graduates of Mercaz HaRav, founded the most extreme and racist settlements in the Occupied West Bank, including the notorious colonies in and near Hebron whose inhabitants have made life miserable for Palestinians in the city and forced many of them out of their homes. It is the militant settlers of Gush Emunim who still honor Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29 Palestinians in Hebron in February 1994. It is in Hebron that the Gush Emunim settlers spray "Arabs to the gas chambers" on Palestinian houses.

More on this at IOL. Abunimah also touches upon Israeli strategy from the time of the Gaza disengagement by Ariel Sharon - read the whole thing.

Here's Lenin:

Just when everything was going fine... eight Israelis are killed by a lone Palestinian gunman. Such a pity. It was all peace and calm until now. Oh, there was a bit of bombing and baby-killing, some Knesset member threatening to ethnically cleanse the Israeli Arab population, the IDF planning to obliterate civilian population centres, Gaza in its worst humanitarian crisis since 1967 - but beyond that, all was going remarkably well.

Comments

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Osama, I'm a bit confused by this article.

Is this a justification for the killings? By placing it here, you seem to be saying that it is a valid justification, but perhaps I am wrong? It also seems to be saying that collective punishment is acceptable as long as it is an act of revenge. Have I misinterpreted this?

Every argument used in the article could be used by the other side to justify an attack on any Hamas run educational centre.

All I can see is that as a result of the last week, there are now 140 more dead Muslims and 10 more dead Jews, and we are no closer to a solution; in fact we just have another 150 excuses for revenge.

I would guess the Israelis will respond with a major assault on the senior strata of Hamas, who will then respond with another attack on some Israeli target and at the end of next week, we will have even more dead Jews and Muslims.

Thanks
Graham

[Osama]

Not sure why you should be confused Graham, the article couldn't have stated it clearer: "Let me be clear that the killing of civilians, Israeli or Palestinian, is wrong, repugnant..."

The point you make about the other side using it as an argument for more killings is true - we've heard nothing else except talk of Israeli "reprisals" and "revenge" on the BBC and elsewhere. Palestinian acts are never seen as thus.

That's not to say that either is of merit, but simply that as long as Palestinian acts are seen as borne out of anti-semitism rather than bloody occupation, we're not going to move towards any kind of peace. Both sides have to have international understanding of their plight.

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

I think you have missed my point Osama.

In this article there are 31 words criticising the killings, followed 564 either excusing it or blaming the Israelis. This is exactly the same as we see from the Israeli side, a few words saying the death of innocents is unfortunate, followed by a vastly greater number of column inches justifying, excusing and blaming the Palestinians.

Both do it, both are guilty of rationalising the indefensible and the result is always the same, dead Jews and dead Muslims. The problem is not just the actions but the capacity of both sides to rationalise their actions as acceptable and the others as unacceptable.

This article does exactly that.

The 31 word perfunctory condemnation is just a 'get away with it' clause, continues the polarisation, moves us no closer to a solution and this time next week, more people will probably be dead.

[Fed-up non Muslim]

Osama,

The difference between the IAF and Hamas is summed up thus:

The IAF drops leaflets notifying Palestinans in advance of bombing raids, whereas Hamas deliberately seeks out public places, such as buses and marketplaces, to cause maximum civilian casualties.

[joe90]

I would guess the Israelis will respond with a major assault on the senior strata of Hamas...
- Or the Israeli Government could always go back home to Israel where it belongs, give up its illegal racist military occupation and ethnic cleansing of occupied Palestine and open peaceful negotiations instead.

In fact, do just as the Palestinians have been calling on Israel for decades to do - in other words, for Israel to abide by international law and order.

Hamas wants peace, Israel doesn't -
Hamas Leader: We'll Accept Israel Within 1967 Borders - An interview with Khaled Meshaal
by Rainer Rupp
antiwar.com
20 Dec 2006

Syria wants peace, Israel doesn't
(choose any article from this random db list list)
The Israeli government rebuffs Syrian proposals for negotiations without preconditions
PIWP

The Arab League wants peace and normal relations, Israel doesn't -
Carrots-and-Sticks in the Middle East - The Five Percent Solution
By John V. Whitbeck
CounterPunch
01 Aug 2007
...First launched at an Arab League summit in Beirut in March 2002 and reaffirmed with great publicity at the latest summit in Riyadh in March 2007, it offers full peace and normal diplomatic and economic relations between Israel and all Arab states in return for a total end to the occupation of all Arab lands occupied by Israel in 1967...
... Israel has been free to ignore it with impunity -- and has done so.

Everybody wants peace except Israel - poor Israel will just have to do the decent thing and ignore the fact it is a racist war criminal state and get on with collectively punishing the Palestinian sub-humans, until they learn whose the boss.

[Yusuf Smith]

As-Salaamu 'alaikum,

The problem is that the yeshiva massacre wasn't equivalent to any military act or any act of terrorism; it was a straightforward shoot-up of unarmed people, calculated to enrage public morality in both Israel and the West as the victims were mostly legally minors, and materially the only Israeli action comparable with it was the Goldstein massacre. The victims were religious students and most likely would never have joined the army, so the weak "all Israelis are soldiers" justification does not apply here. Plus, the culprit was allegedly an East Jerusalem Palestinian and he managed to get hold of Jewish disguises to get himself into the yeshiva, so it wasn't the spontaneous enraged response of an oppressed Palestinian but a planned massacre. There is just no excuse for it, and it is depressing that Muslims try to make one.

[Abu Sinan]

The school was a rallying point for extremism. It was a home of the radical settler movement.

That is no justification for the attack, it is a point of fact.

That school, and it's role within the radical religious settler movement, is part of the problem not part of the solution.

[Osama]

Graham, analysis is neccessary to stop the bloodshed. Leaving it at 31 words is not going to achieve anything, even if it makes one feel more pious. It is necessary to state why all this is happening in order to work through it.

Fed-up non Muslim, frankly that is utterly fallacious, but are you saying the IRA were ok because they called in advance?

Yusuf, I don't think anyone's providing an excuse. We've had to deal with this whole excusing terrorism vs explaining why its happening paradigm for a long time, I'm sure you're conversant with how it goes.

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Osama, I read the article again, just to be certain I had not misinterpreted and I have to disagree with you on this; this article was not analysis, it was rationalisation.

Confusing the two is part of the problem, and one of which both sides are guilty.

Best Regards
Graham

[Fed-up non Muslim]

Actually, it's true. I can find that from plenty of reputable, neutral news sources if you want me to prove it.

Al-Quaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Brotherhood etc. make the IRA look like boy scouts. Are you seriously comparing a democratic, free and just state to a terrorist group?

Also, you can negotiate with the IRA, because they have a specific, concrete and realistic objective - a united Ireland - whereas the Islamic terrorist movement appears to have no clear goal, other than blowing up as many Jewish/American/homosexual/Kaffir pig dogs as possible.

[joe90]

Just to clear up the status of the institution where this terrorist massacre took place,
here is an article by that great Jewish-Israeli journalist Gideon Levy writing in Haaretz -
Heads to the right
09 Mar 2008

'Fed-up non Muslim'
in case you missed it, as the likes of the BBC have yet to even acknowledge the existence of this recent UN report, here is the difference between Palestinian terrorism and Israel war crimes -
Human Rights Situation in Palestine and Other Arab Territories
UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard
A/HRC/7/17
21 Jan 2008

(4) I.B "Common sense, however, dictates that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by Al Qaeda, and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation. While such acts cannot be justified, they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation."

(5) I.B - "Israel must address the occupation and the violation of human rights and international humanitarian law it engenders, and not invoke the justification of terrorism as a distraction, as a pretext for failure to confront the root cause of Palestinian violence - the occupation."
(my emphasis)

[Rob]

Osama: didn''t you know it's a tenet of Zionism that if you give warnings in advance your terrorist bombing doesn't count? See the comment thread here where I get exactly that argument from the ludicrous Judith Weiss, who also seems unaware of the existence of Baruch Goldstein and has to be educated in the wonderful child-killing ways of her heroic IDF. Of course, until I posted evidence I was guilty of wicked antisemitic smears, but no sign of an apology when I did, of course. The woman is a shameless cheerleader for terror attacks (if they're by Jews) as well as a witless one. (She eventually banned me for objecting to her gloating approval of a neofascist nutjob who wanted Israel to launch a false-flag nuclear attack on Iran.) Fortunately she doesn't blog much now, being (I guess) laid low by PTSD after her hero Giuliani was knocked out for the Republican race despite her campigning for him.

[joe90]

Graham Mackenzie Spence
can you please tell me which facts, in these two articles used in Osama's post, are wrong as regards to the background of these particular killings and why these people in particular were targeted?

If there are any discrepencies between claims and the reality of the situation then I think you should tell us all what they are, after all, as you say -
..rationalising the indefensible...continues the polarisation, moves us no closer to a solution and this time next week, more people will probably be dead.

So, as part of the objective process of not taking sides, which facts used in this post are wrong or which haven't been included by omission which you think ought to be?

Any detective looks for motive as to why people have been targeted by criminals. The fact that much has been said about the victims themselves in this blog article is because it is clearly labeled with the intention of doing just that.

One could easily object if Osama spent most of a whole blog article talking about the culprit, claiming he was ignoring the victims.

Accusing someone of bias, but providing no evidence for the charge except some bizarre word-count, seems to me like bias.

I'm also not sure what you are accusing Osama of, as you first charge him with justifying murder, even though you give no quotes to support your claim - then you say he is guilty of rationalising murder - then you say he is guilty of confusing analysis with rationalisation.

Analysis and rationalisation go together, so this isn't something to be guilty about, but something that is necessary for reasoned thought and debate.

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Oh dear Joe, your capacity for blather continues to amaze me.

The atriticle was published in The Electronic Intifada, and was in no way balanced or objective; the fact that it was published in the Opinion / Editorial section underlines that. SAs The EI says of itself:

"The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective."

There is a whole media industry on both sides of this conflict whose sole purpose is to promote their own cause by maximising their portrayal as victim and portraying the other as evil. It is all part of the manufacturing of consent, and I believe this is part of the problem. It is a process which is not aimed at cooperatively finding a solution, but rather justifying a position.

This involves finding any angle possible to maximise the strength of their own message, and to me, this is how this article read. In order to do this, both sides have to work backwards; that is that they start with an opinion or belief and then look for the facts to support that belief, or justify those actions. Analysis works the other way around.

You seem to have some difficulty understanding the difference between the two, so to save you the trouble of looking it up, I have pasted in the definitions found in Webster's.

an·a·lyze
synonyms analyze, dissect, break down mean to divide a complex whole into its parts or elements. analyze suggests separating or distinguishing the component parts of something (as a substance, a process, a situation) so as to discover its true nature or inner relationships . dissect suggests a searching analysis by laying bare parts or pieces for individual scrutiny . break down implies a reducing to simpler parts or divisions .

ra·tio·nal·ize
: to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a: to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of b: to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for
intransitive verb
: to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct

I think this article is about selling a cause. Nothing else. The pattern on both sides is the same. Find a list of facts that fit your argument, ignore the ones that don't, i.e. rationalisation.

The only questions that needs to be asked here are; did the acts last week that resulted in 140 dead Muslims and 10 dead Jews make matters better or worse; and did the article defuse the situation or justify one of the acts?

[joe90]

Some more background on the race-hate fundamentalist institution that receives next to no coverage in the western corporate mass-media -
Mercaz HaRav - a training centre for illegal occupation, murder and "Arabs to the Gas Chambers"
Mick Napier
Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign
10 Mar 2008

Associated with this violent Israeli race-hate fundamentalist institution is the JNF-KKL which, as well as being a racist institution devoted to ethnic cleansing, is also a British registered charity and counts the British Prime Minister among its patrons.

Here is Goldie Hawn in Glasgow (today) doing here bit to raise funds in order to cleanse the Middle East of its native inhabitants -
Protests at Jewish charity event
BBC Scotland
10 Mar 2008

150 protest as Hawn arrives at JNF dinner
The Herald
10 Mar 2008

[Osama]

RE your last paragraph there Graham, you're right, both made it worse. I think it's not fair to give what you regard as the only questions though. Putting aside the above article which we can quibble over, your approach of condemnation with no context doesn't take the situation forward either. It's an easy position, but not one that provides any answers. There have been many periods of relative calm to exploit, but root causes are then ignored, and the situation creates extreme people. Then everyone wrings their hands wondering why people can't just live in peace. I'd be interested in what you regard as the key issues for both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Fed-up non Muslim - I don't normally respond to people whose views don't warrant them revealing their identity, but when presented with such open goals, it's hard not to. Israel say they bomb to target terrorists. They can't do that if they call in advance to say they're coming. There were no leaflets sent to the children killed in Gaza two weeks ago.

You say the IRA want a united Ireland. You'll find the Hamas position the same for their homeland.

[joe90]

Just to say George,
to rationalise, analyse and justify are not the same activities and never can be - even your absurd waste of blog space that your copy-paste job takes up says so.

Anyway
back to you accusing Osama of supporting terrorist mass-murder.

I asked you for evidence to support these claims but you have provided none except to repeat your original outrageous allegations.

Somebody who can't support their claims with proper evidence are themselves the ones who are bias and prejudice.

You say because Electronic Intifada has a certain perspective on events, and that this was an Opnion/Editorial piece by them, then this by itself is evidence of prejudice.

But you know the source of the quoted material and the author, because Osama has provided it - this is normal practice in proper debate so that people can check on sources, facts etc and make up their own minds.

However, George you claim that merely by Osama using this article and placing it on his own blog then he is bias. This sounds like attempts at censorship to me.

You have not demostrated the bias of the article merely asserted that it is. It seems that just by the article originating from a Palestinian source, it makes it guilty of complicity in terrorist crimes.

Further George, you say both sides are as guilty as each other - could you give me proof of this and what your sources are for this claim?

You seem to be saying that you alone should decide what people should and shouldn't read and that you yourself are unbias and have a clear open objective view of events. Really George! Well, lets have it - tells us all what it's all about. I'm all ears.

Back to the background on Israeli shooting victims - which facts are wrong and where are there omissions if any George?

After all, if we don't know why these crimes are being carried out then how can we ever stop them?

To investigate why these terrorist atrocities occur, is not to justify them, but to discover their causes, put right whatever is wrong so that they don't occur again. Anybody who doesn't want to do that might as well be pulling the triggers themselves.

I have already quoted the recent UN Report on the matter as to why terrorism takes place - it is because of the Israeli occupation of which, this so-called 'religious seminary', is a vital component.

[Fed-up non Muslim]

So you support the complete removal of Israel, then?

[Graham Mackenzie Spence]

Hi Osama

I think the model of The Marshal Plan and the subsequent EU provides us with an interesting and possibly viable route out of this mess. The basis of the Marshall Plan was to ensure peace through mutual dependency. The EU took this further, and is a process, not an institution.

I think the role of the EU in solving the problems in Northern Ireland has been underestimated. In the same period that Israel/Palestine has descended into mess, Europe has moved inexorably towards unification in which the whole idea of land, country, geographical boundaries and currency has changed. I suspect someone in Northern Ireland realized that within the context of a EU, a single currency, no borders to speak of, free trade and movement, the entire basis of the problem was dissipating. I suspect in another fifty years these boundaries will be so blurred they will not exist. In the process no-one has lost their national, religious or cultural identity. The question is how do we apply this to Palestine / Israel.

If we accept that the Israelis are not going to pack up and leave, or be happy to live under Muslim rule and that the Palestinian Muslims can not accept Israel’s right to exist (for religious reasons there is no need to explain here) but could accept a long term ceasefire, at least we have a starting point.

If the EU was as influential in the NI settlement as I believe it was, it did so by bypassing the problems and making them irrelevant. Much of this conflict is over land; the question is how to make that less relevant.

The 21st century differs from all others in that we are no longer an agrarian culture; if we can build the economic wealth of the Palestinians based on industry and alleviate the poverty then one of the main issues will be dealt with. CS Gulbenkian, the original Mr. 5% worked on the basis that he would rather have a small slice of a big pie than a whole small one. At the moment they are all fighting over a small pie. What we need to do is make them a new one that is big enough.

The EU could play a major role here, as could the US by specific trade arrangements that would benefit Palestinian businesses and encourage economic development. Personally I would like to see a particularly generous arrangement made for businesses that are jointly owned by Muslims and Jews.

The situation in Iraq could also be used as part of the solution. If the Haifa pipeline were to be re-opened, but with the Haifa refinery being placed under joint Palestinian/ Israeli ownership and control and if a substantial chunk of the revenue (if not all the additional revenue created by the reopening) headed for Palestinian infrastructure projects, both sides could gain.

It would also allow Iraq to generate revenue that could be used for internal restructuring. A second facility built under entirely Palestinian control within Gaza would have additional benefits. If this secondary spur to the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline became the Kirkuk–Gaza pipeline the economic boom would be palpable in an area of great need.

I believe that Hamas and their parent organization are unfeasibly honest, and that for the first time in 50 years, some of the Palestinians have a non-corrupt government who are capable of directing funds in a responsible and socially exacting manner. This current mess, and by that I include Iraq, is also an opportunity. If the benefits of reopening the Haifa pipeline accrue directly to the Palestinians and Iraqis it would be a good starting point. If an economic system can be developed in tandem that builds mutual dependency, things could start to move in the right direction.

These are just a couple of suggestions; I do not claim to offer a solution to one of the biggest international issues we face. All I am trying to do here is say that there are other possibilities if we are prepared to look for them.

Best Regards
Graham

[Adam_uk]

The Jew's living in Palestine and the killings of many innocent Palestinians which is genocide organised by Zionist and American terrorist in suits.

Once thing to remember, no matter who much propaganda israel shows through its puppet media, for every innocent child, teenager or adult is killed by these terrorist, more and more people are turning against the Jew's, hence expanding their freedom fight to shoots like what happened recently when 8 were shoot dead.

What are the jew's and zionist thinking, that the more they kill the more love will develop into the hearts and minds of Palestinians?

Let's be clear on one thing, at the moment the US is the big brother to jews and zionist living in Palestine, if the US starts to decline as the world super power (which has already started to happen, with the rebuilding of Russia and growing power of China) then the jews and zionists will be left in the middle of nations who they subjected to terrorist activities. Only god knows what will become of these jews and zionists.

[aineliva]

Interesting Debate.

Graham Mackenzie Spence: "Finding a list of facts that fit the argument". That is indeed the problem.

In general, it's the way that posts are spun to a certain viewpoint that worry me. If this was a national newspaper, it would worry me more.

Osama, I recommend Asne Sierstad's - With Their Backs to the World - Portraits from Serbia.

What comes across so often in this book is the age-old situation where different groups see themselves as the "victims". They are so busy racking up their daily victim-hood, that they forget the wrongs they have done.

Nothing will be solved, in Israel in particular, until both sides learn to trust and live with each other. After the events of last week, I don't see that being any time soon. Each "side" it seems is too busy chasing media coverage where they can prove that the other is the aggressor. Unfortunately they are beginning to look like children, each one shouting, "they started it", no one willing to take responsibilty for their own actions.

[David T]

You say the IRA want a united Ireland. You'll find the Hamas position the same for their homeland

Yeah, you'll hear the Greater Israel lot saying that about the West Bank and Gaza.

That's kinda the reason that they're both utter scum, and why we utterly condemn both political movements.

Eh?

(He said, not expecting Osama or Joe90 to say "yes, absolutely", but anticipating being pleasantly surprised if they do)