Daily Kos

Onwards and onwards

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 07:42:15 PM PDT

It's that time of year again: B'Tselem, the Israeli information centre for human rights in the Occupied Territories, has released its annual report summarising the developments of the past 12 months. As usual, it makes for grim reading.

Here, without further ado, are the stats:

•  In 2007, there was an increase of 13 percent in the number of Palestinians held in administrative detention without trial, which averaged 830 people. [so much for those 'prisoner releases'...]

•  66 staffed checkpoints and 459 physical roadblocks on average controlled movement inside the West Bank . There was little improvement in Palestinians' freedom of movement, despite the promised easing of restrictions.

•  Israeli settlement population grew by 4.5% (compared with 1.5% population growth inside Israel ), a more moderate increase than the previous year.

•  Israel continues the freeze policy on family unification, denying tens of thousands of Palestinians the right to a family life. However, in what was termed a one-time gesture, Israel approved family unification for some 3,500 Palestinian families.

•  The number of houses demolished in East Jerusalem rose by 38 percent, to 69 homes. [houses also continued to be demolished in the West Bank, as well as inside Israel itself]

•  Palestinians continue to face severe discrimination in the allocation of water in the West Bank , causing serious hardship in the summer.

•  The number of Palestinians killed in intra-Palestinian clashes was the highest throughout the Intifada.

The growth of the Israeli settlement population looks set to continue into 2008, with Prime Minister Olmert boasting earlier this week that President Bush has already agreed to Israel's annexation of the major settlement blocs in the West Bank, "an amazing achievement for Israel" and a disaster for the Palestinians. Just yesterday Ha'aretz reported that the Israeli government has published tenders for 440 new apartments and a hotel in occupied East Jerusalem, and Ehud Olmert has been clear in his refusal to halt the expansion of the settlements, as demanded by the Roadmap. "I don't think when people are talking about settlements they are talking about Ma'aleh Adumim", he explained (hence, I suppose, this).

The number of house demolitions decreased markedly from 2006. According to B'Tselem, the IDF demolished 50 Palestinian houses in 2007, leaving 209 people homeless, compared to 612 houses the year before. However, this tally appears to exclude the 272 farmers made homeless after Israeli forces destroyed the village of Khirbet Qassa, west of the separation wall. The reduction is primarily the result of Israel's military disengagement from Gaza in 2007. In 2006, 318 houses were destroyed in Gaza for alleged "military purposes", most of them during operations 'Summer Rains' and 'Autumn Clouds', while last year saw no military demolition of houses in Gaza at all. It can also be explained as part of the U.S./Israeli attempt to undermine support for Hamas by engaging with the PA and toning down the violence in the West Bank, while increasing the suffering of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

Now, casualties. In 2007, up to December 29, Israeli forces killed a total of 373 Palestinians, 290 of them in Gaza. This represents a significant reduction from the previous year, a consequence once again of the absence of a full-scale military campaign of the magnitude of 'Operation Summer Rains'. Rather, the policy last year was to simply starve the population of Gaza en masse. As B'Tselem notes, although the conflict killed fewer people in 2007 than the year before,

"there has been deterioration in many other measures of the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories. The primary one is the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, which has declined to an all time low, following Israel's siege on the area."

On December 31 Fawzy Al-Aqqad, aged 69, became the 56th Palestinian to die in 2007 as a result of the closure of Gaza, which shows no sign of ending despite numerous appeals by Hamas for a ceasefire.

Of the 373 Palestinians killed by Israel, 131 (about 35%) did not participate in the hostilities and 53 were minors.

During the same period of time, Palestinians killed a total of 13 Israelis, seven of whom were civilians. This represents the lowest number of annual civilian casualties since the beginning of the Second Intifada.

In other words, the ratio of Israelis to Palestinians killed in 2007 was almost 1:29. The ratio of Israeli to Palestinian civilians (or, technically, protected persons) killed was 1:19. To illustrate this graphically:

Photobucket

Photobucket

Hang on - there's shurely shome mishtake here? As we all know, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a war of two sides, a give-and-take, a tit-for-tat, a back-and-forth, a self-perpetuating cycle of revenge, etc. etc. These graphs almost make it look like there is no 'war' at all, but rather an aggressive and brutal occupation and some pretty feeble resistance to it. Perhaps if we put it in a pie chart...?

Photobucket

Nope, that's one blue pie. In any event, it's clear that when it comes to violence against both civilians and combatants, Israel holds a near monopoly. This shouldn't be surprising, given that Israel possesses the fourth ranking army on the planet and is occupying an essentially defenceless Palestinian population, and yet it's worth pointing out given the fact that most media reporting of the conflict is of the "both sides..." variety mentioned above. In fact, as the data above shows, there is no symmetry here, and to create one by indulging in lazy clichés like "[the conflict] is usually a tale of two stories" is to severely distort the factual reality.

One common technique used by mainstream journalists to manufacture an artifical symmetry is to exaggerate the role of the Qassam rockets in preventing movement towards peace. The Qassams are constantly brought up in an effort to 'balance' stories of Israeli crimes in Gaza or in an attempt to apportion blame for the lack of political progress equally upon "both sides" (or, often, purely on the Palestinians). Turning to the facts, we find that Qassam missiles killed precisely two Israelis throughout the whole of 2007. From mid-June to the end of October 2007 Palestinian militant groups in Gaza fired (.pdf) 400 Qassams and 510 mortars towards Israel, injuring 75 Israelis, six of whom were civilians, and killing none. During the same period, Israeli forces killed 142 Palestinians, including 12 children, and injured 293 (including 17 children). These figures suggest two conclusions. Firstly, the impression conveyed by the media that the missile attacks from Gaza are primarily targeted at civilians appears to be false, given that civilians make up only a tiny proportion of those injured by the attacks. Secondly, while strikes on civilians are illegitimate and while the effect of the rocket attacks is not just limited to those who are directly injured or killed by them, the idea that the Qassams are the reason for the lack of progress towards a political settlement is clearly preposterous. The Qassams are a desperate attempt to put up some form of resistance, largely symbolic, to the occupation, but they are not a serious threat to the security of the state of Israel. Israel's attempts to use the Qassam rocket attacks as an excuse to reject negotiations with Hamas can therefore be safely dismissed as just another red herring to avert a threatened Palestinian 'peace offensive'.

Returning to the B'Tselem report, we find that the number of permanent Israeli checkpoints in the West Bank remained roughly the same last year, while the number of roadblocks increased from an average of 445 in 2006 to 459 in 2007. This should be interpreted in the context of the 40% increase in military checkpoints and roadblocks that occurred in 2006. As B'Tselem notes, the restrictions on movement of Palestinians in the West Bank has "severely harm[ed] central social institutions and systems serving the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories, including the health system, the economy, family networks and municipal services." According to a survey published in Yedioth Ahronoth, a quarter of Israeli soldiers serving at checkpoints in the West Bank either perpetrated or witnessed abuse of Palestinians, a practice that, according to B'Tselem, "has long become routine".

Finally, B'Tselem points to "two themes" that "emerge clearly" from an analysis of last year's human rights developments:

"The first is the use of security justifications for virtually every Israeli action in the Occupied Territories...far too often, Israel fails to appropriately balance its security needs with equally important values, including protecting the rights of Palestinians under its control. In addition, Israeli authorities often exploit security threats in order to advance prohibited political interests, such as perpetuating settlements and effectively annexing them to Israel ."

Most readers will be familiar with this tactic, a favourite among aggressive states in particular. The most obvious example of Israel's cynical use of "security" concerns to advance political objectives is the annexation wall, which Israeli ministers now openly admit is intended to function as a de facto permanent border. The fact that this was obviously the case from the start - a quick glance at its winding route around the major settlements tells you all you need to know - didn't stop the Israeli government lying for years, insisting against all reason that the route of the wall was motivated by security needs alone.

"The second theme arising from the report is the lack of accountability of Israeli security forces, in all matters relating to human rights. This can be seen clearly in the reluctance of the state to thoroughly investigate violations and to prosecute those responsible for them. The lack of accountability can also be seen in the denial of most Palestinians' right to compensation when they are injured through no fault of their own by Israeli forces."

Indeed, in December 2007 B'Tselem reported that over the past seven years, only 36 indictments were filed against soldiers for abusing Palestinians. A more recent example of IDF impunity was the absurd internal "investigation" which pronounced the army innocent of any violations of international law in its decision to flood southern Lebanon with up to a million unexploded cluster bombs, which continue to claim lives to this day.

Last year was, then, pretty disastrous for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Not only did they have to cope with the appalling internal violence between Fatah and Hamas (for which the U.S. and Israel bear no small responsibility), but Israel continued to kill innocent Palestinians with impunity and virtually the entire international community (including, shamefully, the Palestinian Authority itself) cooperated in the vicious collective punishment of Gaza. Unfortunately, the fraudulent Annapolis process aside, the evidence suggests that 2008 will bring little improvement. In the absence of sustained popular pressure inside Israel and the U.S. in favour of a genuine two-state settlement, next year's B'Tselem report will likely be as depressing a read as this one.

Cross-posted at The Heathlander

Tags: Israel, Palestine, occupation, human rights (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 42 comments

  •  tipses (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mcfly, Rusty Pipes, sofia, Carib and Ting

    thanks ;)

    can't stick around for comments, should there be any, cos its really late over here. for the same reason, apologies for any typos or grammartrocities in the diary - will fix in the morning, i pwomise.

    •  i guess, (8+ / 0-)

      because it was "really late," the diarist "forgot" to include this excerpt (complete with big colorful graphs) from the report:

      In intra-Palestinian fighting, at least 344 persons were killed, almost all in the Gaza Strip in the first six months of the year. At least 73 of the dead, among them 22 minors, were not taking part in the fighting.

      Or perhaps the diarist "forgot" to include this, because it renders his statement here:

      In any event, it's clear that when it comes to violence against both civilians and combatants, Israel holds a near monopoly.

      a lie.

      •  In this diarist's asymmetrical world (4+ / 0-)

        when Israel employs force, Israel is responsible, and
        when Palestinians employ force, even against each other, Israel is also responsible.

        Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism

        by word is bond on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 11:06:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In the factual world (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Rusty Pipes

          Israel and the U.S. do bear a lot of responsibility for the internal Palestinian violence that occurred. For one thing, they were supporting one of the sides (and it happened to be the side that was provoking the violence). For another, they deliberately undermined the National Unity government, despite the fact that it was supported by a majority of Palestinians. For a third, they predicted from the start the the sanctions policy would be likely to result in intra-Palestinian violence, and they pursued the policy anyway. Read the ICG report into the matter, it's quite instructive.

          •  No, in the factual world (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            arielle, Shane Hensinger

            everyone is responsible for their own actions. If they were provoked - and every side in this conflict has been provoked - they are responsible for how they responded to that provocation.

            But thanks for the preceding comment, which only repeats what was said in the diary and confirms my observation about lack of symmetry.

            Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism

            by word is bond on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:55:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Everyone is responsible for their own actions (0+ / 0-)

              precisely. That's exactly the standard I hold people to, and precisely the standard you reject. I never said that those Palestinians who chose to go around shooting each other weren't responsible for their actions. Of they were. Israel and the U.S. also bear responsibility for the conflict, since they pursued policies that knowingly and deliberately increased the chances of intra-Palestinian violence taking place. You seem to think that there's a finite amount of responsibility, so if Israel bears some then that means the Palestinians involved don't. It's nonsense - there's more than enough responsibility to go around.

              "every side in this conflict has been provoked"

              Thanks for illustrating my point about lazy cliches. Who needs to think when you can just spout banal rubbish like that?

              •  I find it puzzling that people (0+ / 0-)

                who purport to be sympathetic to the Palestinians have such low expectations of them. I am reminded of Flip Wilson's catchphrase, "The devil made me do it."

                Nobody forced Palestinians to attack other Palestinians. It is always possible to choose not to commit violence.

                Of course, the same goes for the Israelis, which is why I noted that everyone has been provoked and everyone is responsible for their response to provocation. Too bad you took what I believe was an opportunity to find a point of agreement, and used it to launch a few more ad hominems.

                Your disdain is noted. With that kind of attitude, your reception here is likely to be limited to awards of "virtual tips" from users whose rating ability has been yanked.

                Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism

                by word is bond on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:14:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't "forget" to include it (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Rusty Pipes

        I'm talking about the Israel/Palestine conflict, not internal Palestinian violence. Hence the graphs' reference to the "conflict", and the appearance of the word "conflict" throughout the diary.

        I'd be more careful before bandying around the accusation of 'lying'. I'd be a strange liar given that I included a link right at the top to the report itself, which is hardly a lot to read so would have, umm, "exposed" my fabrications instantly.

        •  your own report, (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          brittain33, word is bond, bobisbob

          in stating:

          In intra-Palestinian fighting, at least 344 persons were killed, almost all in the Gaza Strip in the first six months of the year. At least 73 of the dead, among them 22 minors, were not taking part in the fighting.

          gives the lie to your assertion that:

          In any event, it's clear that when it comes to violence against both civilians and combatants, Israel holds a near monopoly.

          Your claim that you were referencing only "the Israel/Palestine conflict, not internal Palestinian violence," is disingenuous. Suddenly Palestinian suffering means so little to you?

          If you prick us, do we not bleed?
          If you tickle us, do we not laugh?
          If you poison us, do we not die?

          Your airy dismissal of 344 dead Palestinians, including at least 73 non-combatants, of which 22 were children, might lead one to suspect that you are less interested in alleviating Palestinian suffering, a laudable goal, than in spotlighting only those Palestinians whose suffering may be directly attributed to Jews, a goal not so laudable.

          •  It's only disingenuous (0+ / 0-)

            if you have reason to suspect it of being untrue. You've given no evidence that this is the case, needless to say. What you have done is insinuate that I'm anti-Semitic - oh, but of course, that never happens to people who criticise Israeli policies. That's just all in our crazy little headses.

            I think it's a bit rich for you talk about the "airy dismissal" of Palestinian deaths, given that your comments in response to this diary have totally ignored the deaths discussed above. By your "logic", this means that you are simply looking for Palestinian deaths attributable to other Palestinians.

            I'm focused on ending the occupation, which is in our power to do and for which we are responsible. I have discussed the internal Palestinian conflict at length, describing our role in engineering it. In this diary, I concentrated on the deaths resulting from the Israel/Palestine conflict, in accordance with the aim set out above. So I quoted the fact that deaths from internal Palestinian violence last year was the highest throughout the Intifada, and provided a link to the stats for those who wanted to view them in more detail, and then turned to what I wanted to concentrate on here, which was human rights developments last year in the Israel/Palestine conflict. See - nuffin' to do with hating Jews, honest.

    •  virtual tip sir, good work (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes
    •  Virtual tip (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes, sofia

      Very good diary.  It is replete with facts from a very reputable source.  That is probably the reason that most of the comments below are full of insults and call you "pro-terrorist" instead of answering the substance.  

      Thanks for the hard work.  

  •  What does this have to do with (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    arielle

    either Democratic politics or tomorrow's Iowa caucuses? Just curious...

  •  It is sort of a relief to read this diary (0+ / 0-)

     after all the warfare going on in the "candidate" diaries.

    BROKAW: You know what I think we're going to have to go back and do? Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

    by Carib and Ting on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 08:53:16 PM PDT

  •  The thing I'm most worried about (3+ / 0-)

    is that if you had your choice between Palestinian deaths going down or Israeli deaths going up, to equalize the numbers, I know which one you'd choose.

  •  I almost hate to respond substantively, (6+ / 0-)

    because it's like picking through a pile of pure shit, looking for a piece of regular garbage, but I noticed this sentence:

    the impression conveyed by the media that the missile attacks from Gaza are primarily targeted at civilians appears to be false, given that civilians make up only a tiny proportion of those injured by the attacks.

    Except that you're wrong.  All 69 of the soldiers that were injured were the victims of one "lucky" (as you would call it) rocket.

    Therefore, the actual statistics on rockets would be:

    rockets aimed at soldiers - 1
    rockets aimed at civilians - all the others
    (including a gan)

    •  shows how completely warped (2+ / 0-)

      their hateful minds are.

    •  Well, ignoring the nasty comment (0+ / 0-)

      at the start, if that's true then thanks for informing me. I was certainly surprised when I read the stats, which is why I only wrote "appears" to be false. Do you have a link? It doesn't change any of the conclusions of the diary, but it does clear up something that did seem odd. If you only you could have done it without the bile.

      "rockets aimed at soldiers - 1
      rockets aimed at civilians - all the others"

      link?

      •  Well, in the absence of a link (0+ / 0-)

        I'd think we could say "the vast, overwhelming majority of all the others" just based on our memories of reading the news daily.  Assuming that you read actual news in addition to your anti-Israel digest.

        •  wow, someone's feeling catty (0+ / 0-)

          I think it's clear from looking at my diaries that I read fairly widely about the conflict. "Actual news"? What's that then? Ha'aretz, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, Ynet, The Guardian, the UN, etc.? These are my sources, and unlike you, I try to provide links to them whenever possible to back up my statements.

          You know, the thing about the Qassams was included only as an aside. On the one hand I'm glad I put it in there because it had been puzzling me for a while, and the idea that the 69 soldiers could've been killed in a single attack for some reason just didn't occurr to me. So (assuming the explanation above is correct) that's sorted out. On the other hand, it's a shame because it has allowed people like you to totally ignore that important facts in the diary and the B'Tselem report and instead focus on the aside. Ah, well.

          •  I'm well aware of the facts (0+ / 0-)

            The facts are that Israel killed 130 innocent civilians in the space of an entire year of intermittent battles in an area with extremely high population densities and an enemy who deliberately hides amongst the population.  And when those innocent civilians were killed, usually inquiries were launched into the soldiers responsible to prevent it from happening in the future as much as possible.  

            Not exactly what I'd call a "slaughter".  Let's preserve the value of the language here.

            As I've said before, the day Hamas declares an end to rocketfire from Gaza and an intention to enforce it, I'll be the first one saying no more raids, no more blockade.  Until then, live by the sword, die by the sword.

            PS I only skimmed the diary because the standard rhetoric all blurs together after a while, did you do a breakdown of west bank vs gaza casualties?

            •  oh, and sorry (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              blueness

              For the unnecessary barb about "real news aside your propaganda".  

              I do think B'Tselem does good work and a little acknowledgement of the complete lack of a corresponding organization in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon etc with regard to their Palestinians would go a long ways.

            •  re. (0+ / 0-)

              "intermittent battles"

              In the course of maintaining an illegitimate occupation, yes.

              "in an area with extremely high population densities"

              The responsibility is on Israel to ensure that it takes the necessary measures to avoid harm to civilian life. Killing 131 innocent Palestinians in a purported attempt to stop activities which killed a total of two Israelis is not proportional, by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect that a lot of the, um, "collateral damage" was caused by targeted assassinations, which are illegal under international law. Of course it's a slaughter, particularly when combined with the policy of humanitarian strangulation which has killed god knows how many people.

              "usually inquiries were launched into the soldiers responsible to prevent it from happening in the future as much as possible"

              Did you read the B'Tselem report? One of the two themes it identified was the lack of accountability for Israeli security forces.

              <replying to your comment below>

              "I do think B'Tselem does good work and a little acknowledgement of the complete lack of a corresponding organization in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon etc with regard to their Palestinians would go a long ways."

              I don't understand this. Are you trying to use the existence of B'Tselem as a way to compare the state of Israel favourably to the Arab states you mention? That seems strange, given that B'Tselem is an independent NGO that is strongly critical of Israeli policies. I'm not sure whether or not there is a Jordanian/Lebanese/Syrian equivalent - I don't speak Arabic, and if one did exist I'm not sure I would know about it. Are you sure one doesn't? If so, then this is probably due to the fact that the societies you mention (Jordan and Syria, at least) enjoy far less freedom than Israeli citizens (Israeli Jews, at any rate) do, and a local NGO would probably find it much more difficult to be critical of the governments there than B'Tselem does of the Israeli government.

              So is your point simply that Syria is a less free society than Israel? Well, duh. And? This isn't a football match. We're not comparing "who's better than who". So what's your point?

      •  This diary IS bile. (0+ / 0-)

        You deliberately left out a great deal of information, including the number of Palestinians who died at the hands of their  brethren.

        How did I live without him?

        by Pumpkinlove on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 04:51:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, because while you'd love to (0+ / 0-)

          focus on Palestinians killing each other, I'm more concerned with ending the occupation which is the cause of all this conflict to begin with, and which we have a responsibility to bring to an end.

          •  Disengenous (0+ / 0-)

            Gaza is occupied by Hamas and yet you ignore the deaths of Palestinians at the hands of Palestinians.    Any Gaza killed by Israel is killed in war, not occupation.  

            Your purpose is clearly to denigrate Israel

            How did I live without him?

            by Pumpkinlove on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:59:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Not bile, in my opinion (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          brittain33

          Or not definitively so. No one is under any obligation to be analytical, impartial, fair-minded or even influential to those not already in agreement. Or to represent "the other side".

          I've been reading here for a while now, and I honestly don't think heathlander is a terrorist-loving, anti-semitic, bile-filled windbag. He's just...on the "other" side. He has an agenda. One that doesn't parallel the Democratic party that this site functions to promote, and one that alienates most potential voters, but...you know...it's sort of an extended right. If he hasn't been banned, there's a reason.

          Objectivity is for winners. When your team can't seem to do anything right, the best thing to do is attack the opponent. A couple times a week. Over and over again. Continually. Obsessively. Hit 'em over the head. Wear 'em down. It's an intuitive strategy, though it would seem do more harm than good on a party site as visible as this.

          Anyway, point is, I'd reserve "bile" for a couple of the other diarists. Some of their shit is all fire and brimstone, good and evil, Israel is the turd of the world.

  •  Thanks for the diary, heathlander! n/t (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    blueness

    Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

    by Rusty Pipes on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM PDT

Permalink | 42 comments