Some basic facts:
1) The Israeli military committed the first act of aggression resulting in a termination of the 4-5 month ceasefire on Nov. 4, 2008, by going into Gaza and killing at least six Palestinian militants. According to the official Israeli website, Hamas then retaliated with missile launches (see Norman Finkelstein's quote below).
2) The Israeli blockade of Gaza is an egregious violation of international law and the Geneva Conventions.
3) The United Nations made a statement that 1.5 million Gaza residents are facing an 'alarming' humanitarian situation.
4) Political considerations that Israel will be holding National elections in February. Israel's elections are only a few weeks away, and Likud was leading until the air raids on Gaza began. Kadima and Labour are now up in the polls.
5) Political considerations of Barack Obama taking office in late January, and his plans to press Israel into withdrawing to its pre-1967 borders and sharing Jerusalem.
6) Israel's Gaza offensive is likely to destroy the current Saudi-sponsored peace plan, which had been backed by all members of the Arab League. The plan had called for Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders and share Jerusalem in exchange for full recognition and normalized relations with the Muslim world. Arab governments will now be unable to sell the deal as they face a storm of criticism from their own people over their powerlessness to help the Palestinians of Gaza.
7) The United Nation's yearly vote on the two-state settlement consistently involves international consensus with Israel and the U.S. against about 160 other countries. This settlement stipulates Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders including the return of Jerusalem.
These are just some of the facts. See Eric Margolis' article for a more detailed analysis, or Norman Finkelstein's many scholarly works for a much more in depth and comprehensive analysis.
Look, I'm willing to accept that even the earth is round, that the earth is not the center of the Universe, or that governments do not always have our best interests at heart—if you can make a compelling case. Gather enough evidence, and I will seriously consider it, and even consider changing my views.
But the facts speak for themselves.
As powerful support for what I'm saying I only need to to offer up the examples of Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein, both renown Jewish intellectuals who support much dialog directed at condemning Israeli government policy in the Middle East over the last half century. Their Jewishness does not blind them to the facts of the crimes of the Israeli government and many other governments the world over. It is somewhat akin to an American being able to despise the Bush administration and their reckless policies. Or even an American not becoming offended when others attack his government's reckless policies. This has nothing to do with anti-Americanism, and everything to do with anti-Bushitism and anti-Imperialism.
Many attempt to discredit reports from individuals who present the facts, by citing organizations that serve to attack the integrity of these individuals. These organizations typically engage in a disinformation campaign against an individual if that individual in any way portrays Israeli government policy in an unfavorable light. One example is the honestreporting.com website. The Google search on honestreporting.com returns the following banner statement which describes what honestreporting.com is all about:
"HonestReporting: monitoring mideast media anti-Israel bias. HonestReporting: a fast-action website that monitors Mideast media bias and ensures that Israel receives fair worldwide press coverage."
Anti-Israel bias? Fair worldwide press coverage? Translation:
"HonestReporting: censoring mideast media facts that place Israeli government policy in a negative but accurate light. HonestReporting: a fast-action website that censors Mideast media facts and ensures that Israeli government policy receives unfair and biased worldwide press coverage."
Given this, how confident can one be that the site and its content is truly honest and objective? Whenever I see an individual or organization attack another individual in an attempt to demonize them and destroy credibility, I immediately become suspicious of their motives and what they stand to gain or lose. Instead of attacking individuals or demonizing them, why not judge the statements in question on their own merits and factual content? It seems the honest and truthful thing to do.
Afterall, how does attacking or disparaging someone advance truth? It does not. It is a tactic of those who are emotionally identified with a position, and lack the ability to defend their positions honestly and factually in the court of informed public opinion. It is the tactic of those who wish to influence public opinion at all cost in order to advance their own agendas, irrespective of truth, fairness, and justice.
Some additional facts.
It is not the government of Israel that is concerned with providing aid for those suffering in Gaza. The Israeli government is the willful instigator of this aggression no matter how their mighty propaganda machines wish to portray events. It is intelligent, upright, honest, and thoughtful Israeli citizens (and other citizens) who are protesting their own governments policies, and as activists, feel the need to act in the face of so much injustice. Here is an example of Israeli citizens acting to help their Palestinian neighbors.
In this debate between Norman Finkelstein, prominent professor and author of several books on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and former US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, host Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! asks Norman Finkelstein to respond to the question on why Israel attacked Gaza:
"Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one, as Mr. Indyk I think correctly points out, to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.
And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas."
Israeli government and Israeli citizens are not synonymous. In fact, I would argue precisely the opposite. Israeli citizens are increasingly realizing themselves to be the victims of their own government's policies. In higher truth, the Palestinian and Israeli peoples are on the same side of this conflict that has been raging for over a half century. They are both led to believe that they are each other's enemies, and that each threatens the existence of the other: enter the fear, carnage, barbarism, and ultimate need for strong central and increasingly totalitarian governments. This thought sends Orwellian shivers down my spine.
For a very comprehensive analysis of all the madness, watch the three part documentary aired some time ago on PBS entitled: "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004)." This single very impartial documentary gets to the root of these issues, and what it is that we really need to be concerned with: the rise of the politics of fear.
Governments the world over are corrupt institutions. They are not representative of their people nor do they serve the interests of their people as many would like to believe. They are oligarchical institutions controlled by a few very powerful individuals. The Israeli government is no exception. The greatest enemy of the people of Israel is their own government. It is largely because of Israeli government, and those in charge of policy decisions in that government, that so much suffering exists today in the Middle East. This does not imply that Arab governments are any better by comparison. They suffer from the same oligarchical organization where their people think they are represented. They are not. They too are controlled through propaganda and misinformation. These are the basic tools of oligarchs everywhere. Until we understand this, there can be no lasting peace.
I often hear arguments moving the dialog away from the real issues, and instead bringing the conversation back to ant-Semitism or a reminder of the atrocities committed under the Nazis as a way to justify any and every Israeli policy. Norman Finkelstein deals with this dishonest tendency in his recent books "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History," and "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering."
Governments cannot be trusted. Indeed, they must be kept on an exceedingly short leash. The founding fathers of the United States knew this, which is why they fashioned a constitutional republic with a very limited form of government. Today, people all over the world have come to fear their increasingly powerful governments. It is not right for people to fear their governments; it is government that ought to fear it's people. And until citizens the world over wrest control of their government from the hands of the oligarchs, the world will not know peace.
"Arabs and Israelis are basically the same. We've been beaten on by the world, and now we are beating on each other. We are a group of countries full of good people who listen to leaders who convince us to do terrible things to each other. The truth is nothing but a cycle of ugliness, and the people who started it all are dead." — Anonymous, Danish Jew who survived WWII
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President
References:
1. Eric Margolis, "Israel's 'Fait Accompli' in Gaza"
2. Democracy Now! Debate Between Author Norman Finkelstein and Former Amb. Martin Indyk.
3. Film: "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (2004)"
4. N. Finkelstein, "Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History."
5. N. Finkelstein, "The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering."
Other:
6. Collected political works of Noam Chomksy.
7. John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"
8. Jimmy Carter, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid"
9. James Petras, "The Power of Israel in the United States"
10. Ilan Pappe, "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine"
11. Norman Finkelstein, "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict"
12. Michael Neumann, "The Case Against Israel"
13. Paul Findley, "They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby"
14. Rashid Khalidi, "The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood"
15. Alexander Cockburn, "The Politics of Anti-Semitisim"
16. Ilan Pappe, "A History of Modern Palestine"
