gaza aftermath, day 15

Israel threatens 'disproportionate' response to Palestinian rocketfire
(Guardian)

Palestinians vs. Tibetans-- a double standard
(Gideon Levy, Haaretz)

Gaza desperately short of food after Israel destroys farmland
(Guardian)

When did we stop caring about civilian deaths in wartime?
(Robert Fisk, Independent)

Coping in Gaza
(Photostory, EI)

Belgium to stop exporting 'arms that bolster the IDF' to Israel
(Haaretz)

Carter says Hamas must be included
(al Jazeera english)

Beyond the bounds of religion
(Shelina Zahra Janmohamed, Guardian)

A call from the ruins of Beit Lahiya
(video, Guardian)

Gaza: Families in the rubble of Jabal al Rayas
(video, Guardian)

'Phosphorus shells' hit UN school
(video, Guardian)

Breathing while Palestinian

I recently attended a lecture on the legalities of the war on Gaza. The moderator actually began by commenting on how, from a legal view, the title "Understanding the War on Gaza" was contentious. That one mischievous little preposition, "on", opened up a Pandora's box of legal questions-- was the war ON Gaza? not IN Gaza? What legal implications are there that it was not an INTERnational war (in that it was not between two legally recognized nations)? Does this have implications for International Humanitarian Law (not really, was the consensus) What responsibilities does Israel hold as the Occupier? Is Gaza occupied? Who was the aggressor and who was the defender? Could the two year economic blockade Israel imposes on Gaza be considered an act of war? What are the criteria of self defense? And then on legal accountabilities...what options are there for holding Israel accountable for breaches of law-- should it be found to have broken it-- since it is not a member of the International Court of Justice? How is Hamas legally regarded? Is it regarded as a collective entity recognized by international law?

I must admit, I am not well versed in law. And while I took notes, the speakers posed a series of questions and expounded upon them, but did not take positions per se (except during the question/answer). With Israel/Palestine, there are many grey areas, and legally-- apparently-- it is a singular situation, and thus there is not a standard of international/war/humanitarian/occupation laws that always apply to it. There was discussion of Palestnians' focus on the Fourth Geneva Convention, and Israel's refusal to recognize it. Interestingly, one panelist relayed an annecdote from a SOAS colleague who every year has his students engage in a role playing activity. And he said that everytime he does this, whatever real-life politics those playing Palestinians hold, the "Palestinians" always rely on international law to make their arguments-- that invariably they find that legally, they are being wronged and have a case. Students who, in real life, may support Israel's expansionist policies and illegal activities-- when forced to see Israel through Palestinians' eyes--argue that its actions contradict international laws.

Much of the talk revolved around the legalities of "targetting" civilians, and the grey areas around that (a civilian may be targetted if he/she is directly participating in hostilities against the enemy, but only during the action of direct hostilities, i.e. if James had in the past directly participated in said hostilities, he cannot be targetted today for past actions, unless right at the moment of targetting he is directly participating in hostilities. That is my understanding) In response, a dear friend of mine stood up during questions and asked, "How can we begin to talk about 'targetting' when Israel is dropping one and two ton bombs into residential areas-- because ALL of Gaza is residential. How do they think they are NOT targetting civilians? With all the escape routes open to the people of Gaza (sarcasm), how can Israel not be held accountable for targetting civilians?" He received a thunderous round of applause from the audience, and an immediate shut down by one of the panelists that his argument held "0 in terms of legality".

I left the panel wondering if laws are created and upheld to issue justice to those whose rights have been violated, or to protect through "technicalities" and issues of "grey" those who execute violations. Rashid Khalidi presented the collective,mass criminalization of Palestinians as "breathing while Palestinian" (a pun off of the American saying "driving while black" that illustrates the non-Black's immediats assumption that if a Black person is driving in a White neighborhood he/she must be engaging in some criminal activity). That just breathing qualifies you as engaging in hostile activities, if you are Palestinian.

So do we try to revamp international law or work within its confines, as Israel continues to enjoy impunity from its actions, based on "technicalities" and "grey" areas? For Palestinians, it sadly seems they will be singing "I fought the law, and the law won" for quite a while without some way to hold Israel accountable for its actions. Do morality and law really not mix? in all the talk of the Law of War...where is the Law of Justice?

take a minute for 60 Minutes

On sunday, CBS's news program 60 Minutes aired an in depth, honest look at the West Bank, Israel, and the Two-State Solution, "Time running out for a two-state solution?". It showed the realities of the settler movement and the Occupation's crushing effects on Palestinian lives.

In response, CBS has been attacked for being "anti-Israel" and "anti-Jewish"...it's important that we counter this negative feedback, to let CBS know that there are people who still support even-handed, objective journalism, and appreciate the courage they have to show truthfully the reality of Palestinian life in the West Bank.

Below are two links I've recieved through which you can submit notes of support for the program. Please take a minute to do that. You can edit the standard messages to write your own.

An example message:
Thank you so much for reporting and producing a balanced, objective piece on the reality of life in the West Bank for Palestinians. This is not a story that is regularly shown in the United States, and it speaks very highly of your show and your commitment to objective journalism that you featured such a story.

Again, thank you for continuing to uphold your dedication to balanced journalism.

Through Gaza Justice Action
Through J Street

gaza aftermath, day 13

Every family has a story, here are some of them
(Eva Bartlett, EI)

Recep Erdogan storms out of Davos after clash with Israeli president over Gaza
(Guardian, includes video)

Spain investigates claims of Israeli crimes against humanity in Gaza
(Guardian)

Israel must investigate Gaza war crimes: US
(al Arabiya)

Gaza residents launch legal fight to make BBC broadcast aid appeal
(Guardian)

Gaza survivor describes day 48 members of family were killed in attack
(video, Guardian)

Secret Israeli database reveals full extent of Israeli settlement
(Haaretz)

gaza aftermath, day 11

Obama's Gaza opportunity
(Tom Karon, Mother Jones)

The shortcut to peace
(Hasan Abu Nimah, EI)

Obama on Israel-Palestine
(Noam Chomsky)

Listen up, George
(Nicholas Noe, Guardian)

Gaza ceasefire of critical importance, says US Envoy
(Guardian)

Respect is not enough
(Wajahat Ali, Guardian)

Gaza Calling

Gaza Calling
edited by Adam Shapiro
music by Checkpoint 303

Impartiality and the US Itinerary

Obama sent Mitchell to the Middle East today to speak with all "the major parties involved". But not Hamas. Apparently they're either not "major" enough for the new President, or "involved" enough for Obama. Or perhaps he only wants US representatives to engage in dialogues with leaders who were democratically elected by their own people...oh wait, Mitchell's already met with Mubarak, there goes that explanation...

And as Obama made his first appearance on an Arab news station, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the world that the US "backed the Israel's [sic] bombardment of Gaza." She voiced her concern that "The [Palestinian] rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas [in Israel] cannot go unanswered."

So Hillary Clinton is alarmed by Palestinian rockets which are approaching "populated areas" in Israel, but supports the "bombardment" of Israeli rockets into Gaza-- the most densely populated area on earth. How very humanitarian.

I wonder who was the last US representative to visit the Gaza Strip. I really do. They all seem to be well aquainted with Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ramallah (once in a while), Cairo...I literally do not recall ever hearing of a US representative visiting Gaza. Even after ALL of this destruction-- the unceasing images of dead and maimed children, the thousands of concrete buildings reduced to rubble, the bombing of graveyards and mosques, the exploded sewage system (yes, that's right-- on top of everything there is a public health crisis of broken sewage systems), the hundreds of thousands of Gazans without electricity, water, or medical attention-- Gaza is still not on the itinerary for US representatives pursuing a "true and lasting peace" in the Middle East.

But then again, it wasn't on the BBC either. Apparently recognition of Gaza's humanitarian catastrophe somehow compromises your "impartiality"...but we can recognize the threats of Hamas rockets into Sderot, and support the people of Sderot's security as "paramount" and remain even handed? What was the final exchange of deaths? 1,400:13? 108:1?

God keep us all from such racist impartiality in the face of barbarity, and give us the strength to continue to give Gazans the honor, dignity, and respect they deserve as we would give any other human on this earth. They are not an exception.