Top Three Gaza Myths Debunked
By Jaisal NoorFrom the January 16, 2009 issue | Posted in International | Email this article
Despite the so-called “liberal” media’s endless barrage of pro-Israeli propaganda, a significant portion of the U.S. public is opposed to the current attack on Gaza. As the casualties mount and peace is pushed further out of reach, The Indypendent’s Jaisal Noor exposes three big myths of the conflict.
MYTH # 1
The root of the conflict is that Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel.
It is true that Hamas commits unjustifiable terrorist acts and is on the United States’ terror list. The “terrorist” label is often used against enemies of U.S.-supported countries. When it was deemed in their interest, Israel and the United States bolstered both Hamas and its predecessor the Muslim Brotherhood. Terrorist tactics were also used by the groups Irgun and the Stern Gang to aid in the creation of a Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel stands accused of indiscriminately targeting civilians by the United Nations and human rights groups.
The “terror” list currently includes the Lebanese Hezbullah which was born from the resistance to the 1982 Israeli invasion, and until last year included Nobel Peace Prize winner Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress.
Another former member of the U.S. terror list is the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The original PLO charter concurs with the Hamas charter, proclaiming that “armed struggle” be used to reclaim Palestine. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once accused former PLO leader Yasser Arafat of being a “terrorist,” and refused to negotiate with him. Today the PLO’s biggest party, Fatah, is the preferred peace partner.
Recently, Hamas has firmly maintained that it is now willing to participate in negotiations based on internationally recognized borders and rights. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports that as early as 2006, Hamas leader Ismaeil Haniyeh offered “a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and … a truce for many years.” Haniyeh called on President Bush to launch a dialogue with the Hamas government. “We are not warmongers, we are peacemakers and we call on the American government to have direct negotiations with the elected government.” Hamas re-emphasized this position recently, adding, “our conflict is not with the Jews, our problem is with the occupation.” The United States and Israel ignored the offer.
Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank — which were occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War — are recognized by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 as the land for a future Palestinian state. This has become the international consensus for peace, with only Israel, the United States and a handful of other nations voting against the annual General Assembly resolution calling for a settlement based on “242.”
MYTH # 2
Hamas is to blame for ending the cease-fire and Israel’s actions are in self-defense.
The three conditions for the June 2008 ceasefire were that (1) Israel would drastically reduce its military blockade of Gaza, (2) Israel would halt all military incursions into Gaza and, (3) Hamas would halt all rocket attacks into Israel.
From the outset of the cease-fire, Israel did little to ease its military blockade. As a result, Gazans continued to suffer from a lack of food, fuel, financial aid, electricity, clean water, medical supplies and more. The United Nations warned that Gaza would face “catastrophe” if the blockade were not lifted. The Israeli government maintained that the blockade was necessary to stop rocket attacks. However, as the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper reports, Hamas had ceased launching rockets into Israel during the cease-fire and even arrested members of militant groups who did fire a handful of rockets.
Despite the intense blockade against Gazan civilians, the cease-fire held until Nov. 4. On that date, Haaretz reports, it was the Israeli military that made an incursion into Gaza and killed six Palestinians. The Israeli government sought to justify these actions, saying that these Palestinians were suspected of plotting to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Predictably, militants responded to the attack by launching rockets into Israel. Thus began the unraveling of the cease-fire.
Following the end of the cease-fire, Israel moved closer to an invasion, claiming this was the only remaining option to eliminate rocket attacks from Gaza. According to Haaretz, Hamas offered to extend the ceasefire if Israel lifted its blockade. There is evidence that Israel was planning to strike Gaza before and during the cease-fire.
The White House said that Israel will cease its attack when Hamas has agreed to a truce. Hamas has said it would abide by a cease-fire if border crossings were reopened and the economic siege of Gaza ended. Israel has refused this offer.
Meanwhile, Israel unleashed its U.S.-supplied arsenal — which includes unconventional weapons — while attacking its own designated safe-areas. This forced the Red Cross and United Nations to briefly suspend relief work in Gaza, spurring the Vatican to compare the conditions there to a “concentration camp.” The United States abstained from a Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire.
MYTH #3
Israel and the United States are doing everything in their power to achieve peace.
For decades the United States has provided Israel with billions of dollars annually in military aid and backed Israel’s seizure of occupied lands. The number of settlers in the West Bank and Jerusalem has increased from 200,000 in 1990 to more than 460,000 today. Claiming it received secret U.S. approval , Israel announced it would build thousands of new homes in 2008. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that this directly “contravenes both international law and Israel’s obligations” in the peace process.
Israel has also erected a “security barrier” through the West Bank, annexing large swaths of land. In 2004, the International Court of Justice declared construction of the wall “contrary to international law.”
Meanwhile, even outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has recently stated that to achieve peace and recognition by the Arab world, Israel “should withdraw from almost all of the territories, including in East Jerusalem and in the Golan Heights.”
Amid reports that President-elect Obama may reverse U.S. policy and negotiate with Hamas, scholar Norman Finkelstein observes, “Hamas in recent months has supported a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, joining the international consensus. It’s abiding by the terms of the truce, showing it can be trusted to abide by its agreements, which means it was becoming a credible negotiating partner.” He adds, “Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated in early December 2008 that although Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce ‘harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement.’ Translation: a protracted cease-fire that enhanced Hamas’ credibility would have undermined Israel’s strategic goal of retaining control of the West Bank.” Finkelstein concludes: “Israel was facing a new Palestinian peace offensive and therefore it has to knock out Hamas.”
Click here to view a 2008 map of Israeli Settlements and separation barrier in the West Bank produced by the The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, B’TSELEM.
Adam Sheets contributed to this article.
THE WORLD STANDS WITH PALESTINE: Pro-Palestinian women in New York City stand next to the Palestinian flag at one of the many demonstrations that have taken place since the Israeli assault on Gaza began in late December. From New York to London to Cairo, hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets. “We are demanding that the Palestinians be protected, but as Americans, we are also demanding that our tax money not be spent on killing innocent civilians,” a protestor told The Indypendent at a Jan. 3 rally in New York City. PHOTO: MARK A. BAILEY
12 Responses to “Top Three Gaza Myths Debunked”
January 16th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
i heard there is a fllm about Norman Finkelstein
www.americanradicalthefilm.com
why is he a radical?? just because he stands for a two state solution and feels bad about the occupation
January 17th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Nice glossing over of hamas’ terrorist activities. If you’re looking for an equal moral standards for both the small powers and large powers glossing over the small powers crimes brings you no closer to a international justice system where all governments are accountable for their actions.To Mary’s comments: I’m an Israeli and i am not a fascist. I want peace, equality, and justice just as much as anyone else does but i guess it’s easy just to few all israelis and jews as scum rather than empathize and find a common ground between jews and arabs
January 17th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
TO PETER F:
I have no interest in softening what Hamas is or stands for. The Palestinian society is in fact a deeply secular one, with Christians and Jews compromising a small but prominent minority.
The reason Hamas is a factor in the current conflict is the refusal of Israel and the United States to engage in a peace process with the secular forces, the direct result of the corruption of and brutality of Fatah, and the fact that Israel and the United States have carried a slew of bumbling efforts to discredit and undermine Hamas. This only given them it legitimacy in the eyes of the Palestinians.
The occupation only escalated during the years of the “peace process”, with conditions deteriorating on an everyday basis.
The reality is that the Hamas-led government was the only democratically-elected government in the Middle East, with the majority of its vote - get this- coming from women. If Hamas was dealt with fairly, and allowed to rule without being undermined, boycotted, and without the bumbling US/Israeli/Egyptian attempts to overthrow it,if there was a real peace process, Hamas would have gotten voted out of power as quickly as it got voted in.
If there is one lesson one can take from allowing Islamists to participate in elections (take Jordan for ex.) is that they are UNABLE to govern. They have no economic plans, and their social policies are out of place in the as I mentioned deeply secular Palestinian society. But with Fatah being reduced to collaborators, right now Hamas is the voice of the resistance. The more Palestinians that are killed everyday, the more people will turn to Hamas. More later. Thanks for your comment
January 18th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Jaisel-
Fair enough. I very much agree with your sentiment that islamists are unfit to rule. I disagree that more Palestinians will turn to Hamas after this war (which as i write this i just read that a ceasefire has been declared). If the gaza strip has a secular electoral base as you said, how could the palestinians vote in the future for a jihadist government who provoked Israel into an attack? (i ask not to be condescending but because i actually don’t know) The way i understand it the only way hamas won in 2005 is because fatah split it’s vote.
January 19th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
There is a Bolivian saying, “Hasta las ultimas consecuencias”- or until the final consequences. This translates to “Once you have already paid a certain price you don’t back down; you don’t back down for anything”. Palestinians, especially Gazans have paid a terrible price for daring to exercise their right of self-determination. I am not sure what the future will hold for what is left for Gaza- the catastrophe that we as Americans are largely responsible for.
If our goal is to achieve lasting peace in the region, it is my belief that our efforts would be spent understanding and taking action to end the Israeli occupation. I recommend you read a series of interviews I did with South African anti-apartheid activists and a human rights activist. They describe in detail the conditions Palestinians are facing under Israeli occupation. This context is completely ignored in the Western media, and is essential in understanding the situation there. They also discuss in length what they feel is the way best remedy the conflict. You can find it here: http://www.indypendent.org/2008/12/13/apartheid-palestine/
Again, I appreciate your comments.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
I commend any attempts that are to straighten out the glossing over done by the western media, as better descriptions and explanations of the roots of middle eastern conflicts need to be put forward to the general public. We should not be dumbed down to. However, if you believe that the media is completely pro-Israeli you haven’t been paying close enough attention. How many times must the public have the same images of injured Palestinian children be rammed down our throats, how times must the same footage of Hamas rockets being fired into Israeli territory? The clips of Israeli military officials denying there was a humanitarian crisis in the region ran at the same time as pictures of great crowds of people are waiting for bread and water supplies. These images have been made to create the opinion of Israel’s actions being disproportionate and indiscriminate violence on a minority.
I’m not denying that this may in fact be the case, i just wanted to address your very narrow view of the way in which the media has been reporting on this conflict throughout the west.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
I don’t deny that the media did display images of the horrific suffering of the people of Gaza.
I want to emphasize: The point of this piece is to challenge the underlying assumptions which inform the media’s coverage.
This blames the victims, the Palestinians, for their suffering at Israel’s hands, it blames Hamas for forcing Israel into this conflict in self-defense, and it portay’s the United States and Israel as the one’s striving towards peace..
I argue that this is completely wrong, and often backwards.
Thanks for your comments
January 21st, 2009 at 9:23 am
“[…] reports that President-elect Obama may reverse U.S. policy and negotiate with Hamas […]”
The Guardian report you link to is quite curious as it seems to directly contradict comments made by Secretary of State-designate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, some days after. At a confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on 13 January, she stated that she and then-President Elect Obama were both “deeply sympathetic to Israel’s desire to defend itself”.
This was ten days after Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza. In the same speech, she also categorically excluded any possibility of direct diplomatic dialog with Hamas.
It seems that Obama’s policy of change will not apply to the Middle East.
http://www.ilpodesta.org/2009/01/five-lessons-we-learned-from-gaza.html
January 21st, 2009 at 10:40 am
Since I only had 1,100 words for my article, I was unable to elaborate on a lot of the points. But thanks the opportunity to clarify this. Let me quote directly from the Guardian article which I link to:
“There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. A tested course would be to start contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.
the key phrases- ” no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches,”
Since Hamas is on the US terror-list, direct negotiations would probably constitute a felony. So, as the Guardian points out, Hamas would be treated much like the PLO.
“A tested course would be to start contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later”
Obama can only make the change we force him to. If you would like to check out a discussion of what we can do, go to : http://www.indypendent.org/2008/12/13/apartheid-palestine/
Thanks for your comments,
-Jaisal
January 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
I think it’s insane for Obama and Israel not to negotiate with Hamas. How are you going to make peace if you won’t talk to your enemies?
There is a well-known basic framework for what needs to be done in a peace deal–and the only alternatives to peace are endless war or ethnic cleansing.
That said, much of the discussion of the situation in general, in the left, in the corporate media, and on this thread, reminds me of little kids squabbling. “MAAAH-MEEE, ISRAEL HIT ME!” “MAAAH-MEEE, HAMAS HIT ME FIRST!”
People need to work for a just and lasting peace–a genuine Palestinian state, safety for Israeli civilians, an agreement on the status of Jerusalem, and a way to settle “right of return.” If you’re thinking in terms of “pro-Israeli” or “pro-Palestinian,” you’re thinking in the wrong terms.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am
In the final analysis, the people of Gaza, Plalestine, Israel and other areas around it are ruled by governments who gain more by conflict than by peace. They will keep being killed and poor till they learn that a war economy in vogue is foisted on them by various hues of gangsters in the cloak of politicians. It has been going on for centuries and will go on for many more until China, US and Russia and others set up monsterous industrial factories to employ everyone there.
It is economy stupid.
































January 16th, 2009 at 10:08 am
At last one truthful account - This is Fascism all over again but now the Jews are the bigots and the muslims and all Arabs and indeed Persians too are the victims - who is always calling for the US to attack Arab countries and Iran - Israel and its supporters mainly Jews! Of course they will maintain their stand until … what will be the outcome … they won’t be proud that’s for sure. The whole world has seen what they have done for the last 60 years.