|
.jpg)
Recent Similar ArticlesMiddle East:Occupied Palestine: |
Inky Notes (January 5, 2009): The Inky Struggles, Unsuccessfully, With the Gaza Assault
by
Edward S. Herman | 01.08.2009
More than a week after Israel began its escalated bombing of Gaza the Inky has yet to put up an editorial on the subject. I’m sure they are struggling painfully to figure out what to say, with the U.S. political establishment solidly supporting Israel, and the Israeli supporters - without - limit ready to pounce on any criticism, on the one hand, and the savagery and high civilian death toll of the attack, large global repulsion and protest at the assault, and Inky claims of editorial adherence to human rights and international law principles, on the other hand. ALSO BY HERMAN: Featured Video Interview: Edward Herman on Latin America & the US | | Bailouts & Sellouts | | The United States as Torture Central Inky Notes (January 5, 2009): The Inky Struggles, Unsuccessfully, With the Gaza Assault Edward S. Herman More than a week after Israel began its escalated bombing of Gaza the Inky has yet to put up an editorial on the subject. I’m sure they are struggling painfully to figure out what to say, with the U.S. political establishment solidly supporting Israel, and the Israeli supporters-without-limit ready to pounce on any criticism, on the one hand, and the savagery and high civilian death toll of the attack, large global repulsion and protest at the assault, and Inky claims of editorial adherence to human rights and international law principles, on the other hand. When the editors finally do come through, I think it is safe to predict several things: “As a matter of fact, the cease-fire did not collapse, because there was no real cease-fire to start with. The main requirement for any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip must be the opening of the border crossings. There can be no life in Gaza without a steady flow of supplies. But the crossings were not opened, except for a few hours now and again. The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war, as much as any dropping of bombs or launching of rockets. It paralyzes life in the Gaza Strip: eliminating most sources of employment, pushing hundreds of thousands to the brink of starvation, stopping most hospitals from functioning, disrupting the supply of electricity and water. “Those who decided to close the crossings – under whatever pretext – knew that there is no real cease-fire under these conditions. “That is the main thing. Then there came the small provocations which were designed to get Hamas to react. After several months, in which hardly any Qassam rockets were launched, an army unit was sent into the Strip “in order to destroy a tunnel that came close to the border fence”. From a purely military point of view, it would have made more sense to lay an ambush on our side of the fence. But the aim was to find a pretext for the termination of the cease-fire, in a way that made it plausible to put the blame on the Palestinians. And indeed, after several such small actions, in which Hamas fighters were killed, Hamas retaliated with a massive launch of rockets, and – lo and behold – the cease-fire was at an end. Everybody blamed Hamas.” http://www.countercurrents.org/avnery050109.htm Second, the editors will not mention that the United States and Israeli both supported Hamas years ago in an effort to weaken the secular Fatah (see Stephen Zunes, “America's Hidden Role in Hamas's Rise to Power,” AlterNet,January 3, 2009: Third, they will not mention that Hamas won an internationally accredited free election in 2006, with Israel and the United States simply refusing to allow the winner to rule, and essentially declaring war on the election victor. Fourth, they will claim that Hamas is a terrorist group that refuses to recognize Israel’s existence. You may be sure that they will not suggest that Israel’s actions in bombing, “targeted assassinations,” and policies of collective punishment and land seizures based on the threat and actuality of violence constitute state terrorism. On recognizing Israel, the editors will not mention that Hamas suggested to Jimmie Carter that they were prepared to do business with Israel on a reciprocal basis, and they will not mention that Hamas is hardly in a position to threaten Israel’s existence—whereas Israel is able to make an effort to end Hamas’s existence (as they are doing now by violent means). (See further below in comments on Carlin Romano’s book review on Hamas.) Fifth, the editors will not mention that Israel’s occupation, dispossession, and starvation policies constitute ethnic cleansing and worse, and that these are in chronic violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, numerous Security Council resolutions, international humanitarian law, and an International Court opinion on the apartheid wall They will not mention that they can take place only because the United States funds and protects them diplomatically and by threat of force. Finally, they will not mention the widely held view, excluded from the U.S. mainstream media, that the Israeli attack is closely related to internal political calculations and maneuvering. Mentioning this would throw a dim light on a policy that is killing and destroying on a large scale. (See Gilad Atzmon, “How Israeli leaders kill for their people's votes,”’ www.redress.cc/zionism/gatzmon20081230). Although the Inky has not yet editorialized on the Gaza attack they have had a number of news articles and a book review by Carlin Romano on this topic that are worth mentioning. An early article by McClatchy reporter Dion Nissenbaum is headed “Scores die in Israeli attacks” (Dec. 28, 2008). But then in the subhead it is stated that 230 were already killed in Gaza, which might have led an unbiased newspaper to put “several hundred” in the headline rather than merely “scores.” Nissenbaum here and in several later pieces bylines “Jerusalem,” or “Israel-Gaza border,” not Gaza itself. In this and other articles Nissenbaum shows extreme bias in repeatedly referring to “extremists” that Israel is coping with, never of course finding any extremists in Israel. Nissenbaum also refers to Iran’s support of Hamas and Hamas being “committed to destroy Israel.” The reporter never mentions Israel and the United States being committed to destroy Hamas or keep Hamas from effective rule, and of course never mentions the early US.-Israeli support of Hamas. We are dealing here with severe bias. The same is true of Carlin Romano’s book review, “A Road Map to Gaza” (January 4, 2009). Interestingly, Romano picks for review a book published by the rightwing Hoover Institution Press, Robert Zelnick’s Israel’s Unilateralism, which is a straightforward apologetic for Israel’s policies in Gaza. For Zelnick, and Romano, Gaza became a refugee camp “for many Arabs who fled Israel.” No suggestion by Romano that these Arabs were driven out in a long-term ethnic cleansing process. He refers repeatedly to Hamas’s terrorism and “commitment to the destruction of Israel,” and speaks of Hamas’s “seizing of power” in Gaza—he never mentions that it won a free election and its seizing of power was from a Fatah collaborating with Israel and the United States in trying to oust it from any part of political power. The idea that Israel engages in serious state terrorism is outside Romano’s apologetic orbit of thought. Romano ends on the note of Hamas’s 1988 charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. He never raises the question of Hamas’s capacity to destroy Israel, or whether this Charter rhetoric isn’t a convenient cover for Israel’s serious attempt to destroy Hamas, and its link to earlier attacks on the PLO and any Palestinian collective action that might impede creation of an ever greater Israel. A friend of mine, who knows a lot more about the Middle East than Romano (or Zelnick), after calling Romano’s review “utter garbage,” says No serious commentator pays any attention to the meaningless charter.” |
|
© 1999–2008 Philadelphia Independent Media Center |
|
Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by PhillyIMC.
|
Comments
Post new comment