Dreamer Easy

Amnesty accuses Israel over Gaza. Hamas, too. The Amnesty report is available online: Operation "Cast Lead": 22 days of death and destruction

Israel draws up strategy for PR offensive: "It is not enough for Israel to say that it wants peace. You must also say that you are not a thief. We did not steal another people's land. That is the core of this conflict."

Speaking for myself, I actually don't really care about any of that. All I care about is people blowing up each others' kids, right now. As AI points out, though, both sides use politics and history as their excuse for randomly killing civilians. Either there's something wrong with me or I'm taking a particular philosophical approach that I don't know the name of.

In any case, Israel could pull off a PR coup right now simply by allowing Gazans access to water, sanitation, and medical care.

Right then - now that I am suitably cushioned by alcohol, let's see where we're up to in the Middle East. (You guys have given me lots of links and thinks - I'll come back to them.)

At a Flash Point in Gaza, A Family's Deadly Ordeal - a report from today's Washington Post considers the legality of Israel's actions during Operation Cast Lead.

A thought-provoking opinion piece from an Israeli peace activist: Israel Must Stop Fanning the Flames That Will Consume Us. Makes a very interesting connection with the 2006 war with Lebanon. And also points out: "Israel, which is many times stronger than they [Palestinians] are, has tremendous power to control the level of violence in the conflict as a whole. As such, it can also have a profound influence on calming the conflict and extricating both sides from its cycle of destruction."

Hamas tried to hijack ambulances during Gaza war. This is worth reading just for the awesome bottle of the Red Crescent ambulance driver, caught between Hamas thugs and Israeli snipers. Also gives a general picture of the mess, including Hamas' retaliation against alleged collaborators, its slipping popularity, and the forthcoming Israeli election. The BBC has more on Hamas' loss of support. (Or is this just wishful thinking?)

Hamas claims it's still smuggling in weapons. Certainly the tunnels were open for business as soon as the killing stopped.

Meanwhile, politics complicates efforts to rebuild.

A former European Commissioner suggests some ways forward - include Hamas and also nearby countries in talks; complete the withdrawal of settlements from the West Bank.

Obama's administration intend to "actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace".

I'd like to close on a bleakly humorous note with a Guardian columnist's suggestion that the BBC's refusal to screen a charity appeal for Gaza from the Disasters Emergency Committee, is timidity resulting from the Jonathan Ross - Russell Brand fuckup.

Obama urges Israel open Gaza crossings to aid

Under the border with Egypt, Gaza's smugglers return to work.

(tbh I'm not clear on why Israel blockaded Gaza in the first place, nor why it has maintained the blockade. As a military tactic, it's an obvious flop.)

UN fears 'systematic war crimes' during Gaza offensive

Shooting and shelling go on in Gaza, ceasefire or not. "We are a strong people. We are still alive, but nothing has changed. We are still shooting at them and they are still shooting at us. The borders are still closed, and we cannot leave. I think we will go on like this for ever." :(

ETA: Forgot to link to the piece in question, which is an op-ed (a blog, an opinion column), rather than the paper's editorial. Here it is: Defining war crimes.

Here's an example of what drives me slightly crazy about the Middle East conflict. It's a 19 January editorial from the Jerusalem Post, which says in part:

"The coupling of 'war crime' and Israel is not new, and indeed much of the international media and foreign leadership favors using the term to describe Israel's current offensive operations in the Gaza Strip. Based on the above definition of war crime, one must then ask why the international community and the international press refrain from calling Hamas's actions against Israel--war crimes."

When I was a fire-breathing feminist on Usenet, we called this shifting the spotlight. If someone brings up the subject of wife beating, start talking about child abuse. Similarly, the editorial makes no attempt to address the question of whether Israel is committing war crimes. Instead, it turns to what is apparently the stock response from too many of of Israel's supporters: never mind what we're doing, look what they're doing. For heaven's sake, you wouldn't accept this excuse from a child.

Closely related to this tactic is the oft-heard cry of "Feminists / Amnesty International / you / etc condemn X, but don't condemn Y!" This is merely another way of shifting the spotlight - this time to your mum in the front seat, rather than to your kid brother in the back. Not only is it irrelevant, but long experience has shown me that it's almost never true: the person making the claim neither knows nor cares what NOW or HRW or whomever have had to say on the subject. Since it hasn't been spooned into their mouths by whatever section of the media they follow, it didn't happen.

The existence of Google only makes this disingenous laziness even less excusable: search for hamas "war crimes", and just the first page of results includes "Hamas' war crimes" (LA Times, 10 Jan) and Gaza: Armed Palestinian Groups Commit Grave Crimes (Human Rights Watch, June 2007, commenting on "serious violations of international humanitarian law, in some cases amounting to war crimes").

IMHO it's perfectly reasonable to point out that both sides are guilty of behaviour which may amount to war crimes. It's not reasonable to refuse to take responsibility for your own side's behaviour by ignoring it, by saying the other guy does it too so that makes it OK, or by whinging that everyone is hypocritical and unfair and mean. (The latter is only the more annoying when it comes from the enormously more powerful side in any conflict.)

In short: don't make me turn this car around.

ETA: Hamas announces ceasefire; Israel begins withdrawing troops

The UN says that Israel kept out aid for Gaza, with food and supplies only trickling in during the last six months before Operation Cast Lead, and suggests this contributed to Hamas' decision to break the truce.

Although I don't fully grasp the situation, I'm disturbed by reports that Arab Israeli parties have been banned from February's election, apparently because of their opposition to the war.

Amnesty International has a Q&A on the conflict, posted on the 12th, with answers provided by apparently the most patient woman on the planet. AI's position, put very simply, is the same as my own: both sides in the conflict must obey the law.

NYT: Israeli Cabinet Appears Ready to Declare a Gaza Cease-Fire

Israeli shells strike UN compound, setting on fire the UN HQ and a hospital with that white phosphorous they're not using. However - significantly IMHO - the Israeli Defence Minister apologised.

Also worth a look on the same page - there's a video about the unhelpful folks in Lebanon who are also launching rockets at Israel, with even less success than Hamas, perhaps because their missiles are rusty old crap. (I couldn't help thinking, when I saw the frame shown - 'And they have to pick them up and throw them!') Wankers.

A Guardian article about the ceasefire talks gives some insight into Hamas.

Light relief: U.N. Acquires Nuclear Weapon, reports The Onion.

Edumacation: one of the recipients of the Map of Many Spurious Arabs sent me a link to a great little online map game.

And from some of those moderate Muslims people keep complaining we never hear from: We unreservedly condemn attacks on the Jewish community

Continuing to work on getting my head around the issues. A couple of questions prompted by today's papers; your thoughts solicited.

1. Incoming US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: "On Israel, you cannot negotiate with Hamas until it renounces violence, recognises Israel and agrees to abide by past agreements. That is just for me an absolute."

Hamas should renounce violence and recognise Israel, but they're not going to, are they? At least not right away. Does Clinton's stand impede the peace process rather than advance it?

2. Calls from inside and outside Israel for an impartial investigation into possible war crimes seem unlikely to proceed, as is apparently the usual case: that effectively gives the IDF carte blanche, which frankly is pretty terrifying, and I think goes a long way to explaining the current flareup.

But my question is: should Hamas operatives who have targetted civilians be prosecuted for war crimes, or as ordinary criminals? Or is their legal status unclear? (IIRC 9/11 raised similar questions about whether the perpetrators were war criminals, or just common criminals.)

While I may clash a little with Jewish friends and family about the Middle East, I've just been absolutely stunned to read the online remarks of an editor to whose slushpile I had submitted a story, cheering on the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Gaza and calling for their extermination. Whatever disagreements we may have about Israel's policies, media reporting of the situation, etc, I know none of you would ever stoop to advocating the collective punishment of all Palestinians, regardless of their actual innocence or guilt, including children. I've withdrawn the story; I'll give it a rewrite and look for a new home for it. This won't inconvenience the editor in question, who has plenty of stories to choose from; but I don't wish to work with him.

ETA: In fairness to the editor in question, I misread his posting: he calls for the forcible eviction of all Palestinians in Gaza, not their extermination. (In fairness to me, his spluttering responses confirm I made the right decision in choosing not to work with him.)

ETA ETA: Yikes! Sorry about that, folks - I've banned him now.

Targetting terrorists who are shelling innocent people is one thing. Targetting UN schools you know to be packed with civilian families is another. I'm going to fax the Israeli Embassy in Australia with a plea for this to stop. (You may wish to email, fax, or phone Israel's embassy in the UK, the US, Canada, or your own country.)

(Hamas' vicious response deserves nothing but contempt, but they don't have an embassy.)