A new report by the human rights group B'Teslem suggests that the Israeli Army committed grave human rights abuses during their recent military offensive:
The extent of the harm to the Gaza civilian population from the recent operation is unprecedented. Whole families were wiped out. Children were killed before their parents' eyes. Some people watched as their loved ones bled to death. The extensive harm to the civilian population is not, in and of itself, proof of violations of the laws of war. However, it requires Israel to conduct an independent and credible investigation, rather than relying solely on operational debriefings. Such an investigation is mandated by law. It is also in Israel’s best interest, says B’Tselem, as the Israeli public has a right to know what was done in its name in the Gaza Strip.
The report, according to B'Tselem, raises serious questions about what international laws were violated:
Based on the initial information, the investigation must examine the following questions, among others:
Did the army target civilian objects, even if they did not contribute to Hamas military actions?
Did the army act in accordance with the principle of proportionality, prohibiting excessive harm to civilians in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage?
Did the army make prohibited use of weapons, including White Phosphorous?
Did soldiers fire at civilians without justification?
Did soldiers use Palestinian civilians as human shields?
Did soldiers attack ambulances and medical teams while they were carrying out their duties?
Did the army delay the evacuation and treatment of wounded in areas in which hostilities were not taking place?
There is really nothing for the Israeli government to lose here. If they conducted this offensive in accords with the laws of war, then what do they have to hide? Every country has a right to defend themselves from attacks by other countries or from militant groups. We do not question Israel's right to defend itself. The problem comes when Israel, like the Bush administration in Iraq, used excessive force against civilians on an ongoing basis. As Rabin once said, it is not enough that Palestinian groups become partners for peace. He made it clear that Israel has to do its part as well.
Daniel Barenboim circulates petition calling for political solution:
For the last forty years, history has proven that the Israeli–Palestinian conflict cannot be settled by force. Every effort, every possible means and resource of imagination and reflection should now be brought into play to find a new way forward. A new initiative which allays fear and suffering, acknowledges the injustice done, and leads to the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. An initiative which demands of all sides a common responsibility: to ensure equal rights and dignity to both peoples, and to ensure the right of each person to transcend the past and aspire to a future.
Daniel Barenboim
Adonis, Etel Adnan, Alaa el Aswany, Dia Azzawi, Agnès B., Ted Bafaloukos, Russell Banks, Tahar Ben Jelloun, John Berger, Berlin Philharmonic, Bernardo Bertolucci, François Bayle, Idil Biret, Christian Boltanski, Pierre Boulez, Jacques Bouveresse, Alfred Brendel, Peter Brook, Adam Brooks, Carole Bouquet, Daniel Buren, Ellen Burstyn, Huguette Caland, Jean-Claude Casadesus, Carmen Castillo, Patrice Chéreau, William Christie, Paulo Coelho, J.M. Coetzee, Roger Corman, Jean Daniel, Régis Debray, Robert Delpire, Jonathan Demme, Plácido Domingo, Umberto Eco, Elliott Erwitt, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Rupert Everett, Michel Faber, Carlo and Inge Feltrinelli, Ralph Fiennes, Filarmonica della Scala, Jodie Foster, Eytan Fox, Fab 5 Freddy, Bella Freud, Martine Franck, Mary Frank, Eduardo Galeano, Jean-Luc Godard, Richard Gere, Gamal Ghitany, Amos Gitai, Edouard Glissant, Jean-Paul Goude, Nadine Gordimer, Günter Grass, Jürgen Habermas, Michael Haneke, Donald Harrison, Milton Hatoum, Sheila Hicks, Bill Irwin, Steven Isserlis, Philippe Jaccottet, Elfriede Jelinek, Samih al-Kassem, Naomi Kawase, Ya¸sar Kemal, Rachid Khalidi, Edouard Al-Kharrat, Michel Khleifi, Gérard D. Khoury, Abbas Kiarostami, Stephen King, William Klein, Abdellatif Laâbi, Jacques Leibowitch, Jemia and J.M.G. Le Clézio, Stéphane Lissner, Radu Lupu, Yo-Yo Ma, Amin Maalouf, Claudio Magris, Issa Makhlouf, Florence Malraux, Henning Mankell, James McBride, John Maybury, Zubin Mehta, Waltraud Meier, Annette Messager, Duane Michaels, Anne-Marie Miéville, Marc Minkowski, Thomas Mitchell, Ariane Mnouchkine, Sarah Moon, Edgar Morin, Jacques Monory, Fernando Morais, Jeanne Moreau, Georges Moustaki, Oscar Niemeyer, Jean Nouvel, Kenzaburo Oe, Orhan Pamuk, Clare Peploe, Michel Piccoli, Maurizio Pollini, Christian de Portzamparc, Simon Rattle, Alain Resnais, Claudia Roden, Arundhati Roy, Moustapha Safouan, Walter Salles, Susan Sarandon, Fazil Say, Elif Şafak, George Semprun, Hanan Al-Shaykh, Pierre Soulages, Wole Soyinka, Ousmane Sow, Staatskapelle Berlin, Salah Stétié, Juliet Stevenson, Meryl Streep, Elia Suleiman, Peter Suschitzky, Tilda Swinton, Sam Szafran, Zeynep Tanbay, Uma Thurman, Desmond Tutu, Shirley and Charlie Watts, Abdo Wazen, Jacques Weber, Wim Wenders, Debra Winger, Daniel Wolff, Neil Young
Johann Hari: The Nightmare of Bibi:
Everybody agrees that the key to understanding Netanyahu lies with his father, Benzion. He is a distinguished scholar of medieval history who believes the world is eternally and ineradicably riddled with genocidal anti-Semitism. When he arrived in British Mandate Palestine, he declared that the majority of Jews there were naïve and idealistic. They had to immediately seize the entire Biblical land of Israel -- taking all of the West Bank and stretching right into present-day Jordan. There could be no compromise, ever, with the Arabs, who only understand force. The man he calls his mentor, Abba Ahimeir, described himself proudly as "a fascist."
Today, Benzion's son routinely compares dealing with the Palestinians to dealing with Nazis. He can only understand their anger as a resurfacing of Europe's irrational, genocidal hate. He insists they have no right to a share of the land because they "stole" it -- in the year 636 AD. He writes: "It was not the Jews who usurped the land from the Arabs, but the Arabs who usurped the land from the Jews... twelve hundred years ago."
Accordingly, Netanyahu rubbishes every peace initiative offered by Israel. His reaction to Yitzhak Rabin's decision to sign the mild and moderate Oslo accords with Yassir Arafat reveals the depth of his opposition to compromise. He warmly addressed crowds which chanted "Rabin is a Nazi" and "through blood and fire, Rabin shall expire." He called the Prime Minister "a traitor", shortly before Rabin was murdered by a Jewish fundamentalist who agreed.
UN Official says Gaza and Israeli children still traumatized by recent violence:
Radihika Coomaraswamy said grave violations of child rights had been committed during the fighting that began on December 27 when Israel Defense Forces launched airstrikes against Hamas militants who had been firing rockets and mortars into southern Israel.
She said those violations included killing and maiming, and denial of humanitarian access. Fifty-six per cent of Gazans are children under 18.
"During the recent hostilities, there were no safe space for children and the crossings out of Gaza were, and remain, virtually sealed," she said.
Turning to children in Israel, Coomaraswamy said: "There is no doubt that children live in constant fear of missile attacks in southern Israel. The need for psycho-social support has increased recently."
Coomaraswamy, who recently visited Ashkelon in southern Israel, said the indiscriminate firing of rockets by Hamas against Israel clearly violated international humanitarian law and should not be ignored simply because it was less severe than the Israeli airstrikes against Gaza.
She said children in both Gaza and Israel have expressed "anger and despair as a manifestation of their desire for accountability."
Guardian Editorial -- Dangerous Right Turn:
Even by the standards set by previous attempts to form governments in Israel, the political calculations involved in today's election will be unusually complex and labyrinthine. The two contenders for the premiership are both tarnished figures - Bibi Netanyahu, the rightwing leader of Likud and now head of the opposition who has already had one go at the job, and Tzipi Livni, the leader of a centrist Kadima party after a close contest last year, who is thought to lack experience. By law, the president, Shimon Peres, invites one member of the new Knesset to form a government. By tradition, that person is the leader of the largest party who can also muster the largest block of votes in parliament. But in a dead heat, the two may not be synonymous. It is the smaller parties who become king or queen makers.
After today that role might well be played by a former nightclub bouncer from Moldova who, only weeks ago, was no more than the head of a minority party of Russian immigrants. Back then, Ms Livni had just shot herself in the foot by refusing to do a deal with the ultra-religious party, Shas. She maintained her image as Ms Clean but lost the obvious opportunity she had as the head of the ruling party to form a new government. In Israel, you do not do that. Nothing could stop Mr Netanyahu from claiming the mantle of the right. But then came the war in Gaza, and with it the scenes of Arab members of the Knesset standing up to condemn the actions of Israel's army in the conflict. In the far right's eyes, this was tantamount to treason. Avigdor Lieberman, the Russian-speaking young immigrant turned politician, grabbed his chance. Making his campaign slogan "No citizenship without loyalty", he challenged the entire community of Israeli Arabs - that is 20% of the population of Israel - to swear loyalty to the Jewish state or lose their citizenship. The idea, which sent tremors through the already disaffected Arab villages of northern Gallilee, was an instant hit with young Israelis. Mr Lieberman's party, Israel Our Home, went from a party representing a narrow, sectional interest to a movement with a broad, populist appeal. Mr Lieberman gained the equivalent of six seats in the opinion polls, draining support from Likud. He could get more seats than Labour, which has only been in opposition for two periods in the entire history of the state, 1977-84 and 1996-99.
In other words, should Lieberman win or be invited into a coalition government, the claims of pro-Palestinian people that Israel is an apartheid state would suddenly have a lot more weight. One of the main arguments of Israel defenders has been that Arab citizens have equal rights in the eyes of the law; that would disappear if he were to have his way.
Haaretz endorses Livni:
Netanyahu failed as prime minister. He deliberately slowed down the peace process and sowed conflict and strife between groups and communities in Israeli society. He is sticking to the ideology that has been guiding him for more than two decades - vehement objection to dividing the land and establishing a Palestinian state. In this election campaign, Netanyahu has announced that he would not evacuate settlements and not pull out of the Golan, and supported Avigdor Lieberman's demand for a declaration of loyalty as a condition for citizenship.
But in the most important issue at stake, the one in which the candidates present clear differences in approach and way - the future of the relations with the Palestinians - Livni has made the right decision for dividing the land and the two-state solution.
She has adhered to this approach for several years now and led the move to resume the final status arrangement talks with Ehud Olmert in the outgoing government. She supported the pullout from Gaza unconditionally and now speaks of evacuating West Bank settlements as a necessary condition for an agreement. Last week she overcame her hesitations and, unlike Labor leader Ehud Barak, declared that the elections were "about peace" and called on the public not to miss the opportunity.
This is why, despite the doubts concerning her experience and her aggressive stance regarding the fighting in Gaza, Livni is better than Netanyahu as Israel's next prime minister.
VIDEO -- Gazans living in the rubble:
Mohammed al Attar, his wife and five children's home in Beit Lahiya was completely destroyed along with all their possessions in the recent conflict. Clancy Chassay spends 24 hours in the rubble with them in the tent they now call home.
Yossi Alpher of Peace Now -- Grim Prognosis for Peace:
Even if the present Kadima-Labor coalition were able to pull a rabbit out of a hat on election eve and announce a prisoner exchange and long-term ceasefire with Hamas, thereby boosting the two parties' electoral chances, the best outcome one could hope for is a Kadima-led centrist coalition that includes the Likud. This means an inbuilt right wing veto over the kind of territorial and other concessions needed to advance peace processes with the Palestinians and Syria.
More likely, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud will lead the next governing coalition. Labor and Kadima will have to decide whether to join an ostensibly centrist coalition under Netanyahu, who himself presents views that are actually more moderate than most of his party, or to abandon Netanyahu to the right wing and religious parties, thereby placing Israel on a potential diplomatic collision course with the Obama administration as well as neighboring Egypt and Jordan that might well generate new elections within two years.
One intriguing alternative being bandied about by Kadima is for it to lead a coalition with Labor and Yisrael Beitenu. This scenario assumes both an unlikely Kadima victory over the Likud and the possibility that Yisrael Beitenu leader Avigdor Lieberman would agree to shelve his pseudo-fascist ideology in return for the secular legislation he demands on personal status issues for his Russian immigrant constituency. But as we saw when Lieberman briefly served in the outgoing Olmert government, he would ultimately remain loyal to his right wing voters, thereby guaranteeing an unstable coalition.
Why we need aid to Gaza:
The editorial in Friday's typically conservative New York Jewish Week called for American and international aid to address the suffering of Gazans.
The editorial noted that "with Israel facing ever-growing threats and a largely indifferent or hostile world, the only relevant question may be this: does the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza undermine Israel's ability to achieve the peace it so ardently desires? We believe it does."
"Regardless of its root causes, the kind of human misery that defines life in Gaza today breeds only more hatred and, ultimately, more terrorism," the Jewish Week continued. "Israel is not responsible for the disastrous situation there, but that does not change the fact that aid is in the long-term interests of a Jewish state that seeks both peace and security in a region seemingly bent on denying it both... We understand those who say the Palestinian people must be made to appreciate the consequences of their poor choices, but history argues that suffering on a mass scale is a poor spur to learning. This isn't about punishing Palestinians, but about saving innocent lives while helping Israel achieve its long-term goals in a very hostile environment." (New York Jewish Week, 2/6/09)
The question here is, what to do about Hamas. With this crisis showing no signs of alleviating, Israel may be forced to do the unthinkable -- deal directly with Hamas in order that people in Gaza get fed.
Israeli air strikes failed to destroy smuggling tunnels:
Barely a few paces from the Egyptian border stands a large white tent, fashioned from plastic sheeting and pockmarked with jagged shrapnel holes. Inside, as in the hundreds of identical tents dotted to the left and right, is a scene of energy and illicit industriousness: a dozen Palestinian smugglers sweating to overcome the punitive economic blockade on Gaza. A stone's throw away on the opposite side of the border is an Egyptian police post, with relaxed uniformed officers standing on the roof. They gaze down without a hint of concern.
One unanswered question of Israel's three-week war in Gaza is why the air strikes, artillery shells, tank fire, bulldozing and detonations that caused such devastation and loss of life across the territory did so little damage to the hundreds of smuggling tunnels under Gaza's southern border with Egypt. Those tunnels, which bring in food, clothes, machinery as well as weapons and ammunition, were supposed to be one of Israel's key targets. On the final day of the conflict alone, the Israeli military said it had hit 100 tunnels. Gazans in the border town of Rafah spoke of night after night of enormous air strikes that shook cracks into the walls of their houses and shattered their windows.
But while the sandy border is marked with many large craters, the damage caused to the tunnels was, in many cases, repaired within days. Already some are operating again and new tunnels are being dug under the close eye of Hamas officials, who walk from one tent to the next clutching their walkie-talkies.
The smugglers believe their tunnels were simply too deep to be badly damaged, even by the heavy 500lb or one-tonne bombs dropped by Israeli F-16s. In most cases, the serious damage was only to the entrances to the tunnels, which were soon uncovered again by the Palestinians using bulldozers and then rebuilt. It may be that the focus of the Israeli attacks was on the weapons tunnels, which are closely guarded by Hamas and other armed groups and not open to public view.
So, what is next? An endless round of Israeli air strikes and military offensives that will achieve similar futility?
Healthlander writes:
"The problem is that both sides are hijacked by the forces of religious fanaticism and extremism."
But as you yourself say, the rejectionism of 'extremist' parties in Israel is in fact shared by the 'centrists' and 'center-leftists'. It's the mainstream consensus, in other words.
"Following Rabin's principles, it is totally fair to insist that Hamas and other such groups do their part and disarm in return for participating in the political process."
Sorry - how is it "fair" to demand that the already virtually defenceless Palestinians unilaterally disarm in the face of the third or fourth ranking military power on the planet? How is it "fair" to demand that the supply of crude rockets to Palestinians be stopped even as we continue to arms Israel with the most sophisticated weapons in the world?
"I recognize that Israel has a right to defend itself like any other country. Thus, my problem with Israel is not, for instance, its incursion into Gaza to deal with Hamas' rocket fire. My problem with Israel is the fact that it used excessive force to do so, as documented by most major human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International."
Like any other state, Israel does have a right to defend itself - but not using force. States only have the right to defend themselves using force if non-violent alternatives have been exhausted or don't exist. In this case, Israel could have stopped the Qassams in the short term by keeping to the ceasefires it agreed with Hamas and accepting Hamas's repeated offers to extend them, and in the long-term by reversing its rejectionism and agreeing to withdraw from the occupied territories.
Since Israel refused to pursue those means of ending the Qassams, it had no right to use force against even a single Palestinian.
That's the principled opposition to Israel's invasion of Gaza. You, on the other hand, are left in the unfortunate position of trying to decide how many Palestinians Israel is permitted to kill before it becomes "disproportionate" and unjustified.
My answer:
I don't mean that Hamas should have to act unilaterally. There has to be a peace process facilitated by the US in which one side makes a move towards peace and the other side reciprocates. That's how George Mitchell brought about the peace in Northern Ireland and that is how he will do it in the Middle East. In other words, disarmament has to be accompanied by Israeli moves. And as he points out, Israel is one of the strongest nations in the world, so if anyone is in a position to act unilaterally, it is them.
Regarding self-defense, Hamas stopped firing rockets during the six-month period preceding the offensive, but the problem is that there were other factions that kept right on firing rockets at Israel. And Hamas did nothing to reign them in. So, for there to be a workable cease-fire, Hamas not only has to stop firing rockets themselves, they have to reign in other militant groups and stop them from firing rockets as well. That's what happened between Israel and the PLO -- in order for them to establish a relationship, the PLO had to reign in their militant groups. In other words, they had to show that they were a legitimate governing authority.
And finally, there needs to be an independent investigation of the conduct of the war by both Israel and Hamas. Regarding his question about civilian deaths, there has to be answers on whether attacks that killed civilians had a legitimate military purpose -- i.e. destroying a smuggling tunnel. In war, you can't avoid all civilian deaths; however, any offensive military actions have to serve a legitimate military purpose. And given the high number of civilian deaths as documented by HRW, Amnesty, and B'Tselem, there are a lot of unanswered questions about that.
But I don't see the Palestinians as defenseless so much as the fact that this is asymmetrical warfare. The Guardian reported that Israel's air strikes were totally ineffective in taking out the key smuggling tunnels that are the key to Hamas' defense. Israel is fighting a high-tech war armed with the latest weaponry from the US. But that sort of thing has its limits -- Hamas' low-tech response means that frequently, Israel winds up playing a game of whack a mole, killing many civilians in the process, while the Hamas fighters live to fight another day. For instance, the Hamas fighters can assemble a rocket launcher, fire it at their Israeli targets, and disassemble it and drive off, all within a span of two minutes. By the time the Israeli forces pinpoint where the shots were fired from, the fighters are already gone and Israel winds up hitting civilian targets with no military value.
Israel's current policy of perpetual warfare is, in the long run, unsustainable. Given the nature of the guerrilla warfare that Hamas and other such groups are fighting, they are willing to fight for as long as it takes to get rid of the Israeli occupiers. Therefore, Israel will have to start talking to Hamas at some point whether they like it or not. By way of comparison, this is the same problem that we ran into in Vietnam -- we ran into an enemy who was willing to hide in the jungle and snipe at our troops for as long as it took. Eventually, we had to do the unthinkable -- open up talks with the North Vietnamese and withdraw from that country.
One Million Peace Signs