Egypt Tries to Plug Border; Gazans Poke New Hole
As the Egyptians ponder what to do about the broken border with Gaza, the New York Times has a piece which interviews some of the Palestinians who managed to get into Egypt for a few brief days.
It's very hard not to be moved when one hears people talk with such wistfulness about freedom. A people who have been under curfew since June for crimes that they personally did not commit.Muhammad al-Hirakly, 22, said he and his friends had been in El Arish for two days, but could not get past the police to get to Cairo. “We tried to go there, to see the big city and our family there, and also the girls,” he said.
The police ordered local hotels not to take in Palestinians, but residents and mosques provided beds. “We’ve been sleeping in the Rifai Mosque. It’s nice they let us in,” Mr. Hirakly said. He was interviewed in a line to ride the bumper cars at a little amusement park. “We’re angry at the Egyptians, who try to rob us with overpriced stuff,” he said. “But it’s the most fun we’ve had in years.”
Muhammad Abu Samra, 18, came to buy cigarettes to resell and found many friends from Gaza. “Being here makes me feel like I want to see the world, breathe some fresh air,” he said. “I wish they could keep the border open; maybe one day they’ll even let us go to Cairo.” But said he and his friends planned to return to Gaza on Friday night.
Adel al-Mighraky, 54, was returning to the Rafah crossing with his grandson, and thanked Mr. Mubarak for allowing Gazans to enter. “We were like birds in a cage,” he said. Once the door is open, he said, “birds will fly away as fast as they can — this is what we did. But what kind of bird has to go back to its cage after it was freed?”
It was the first time his grandson had left Gaza, Mr. Mighraky said. “We felt free today.”
The Egyptians are in an understandable quandary. Pressured by Israel and the US to reseal the border whilst fully aware that most Egyptians, and many people around the world, strongly disagree with the punishment that is being meted out to the people of Gaza.
The Egyptian forces have fired guns and water cannons into the air in an attempt to control things, but that's as heavy as it's got. The reality is that Egypt don't want to be Gaza's jailers, and they certainly don't want to be Gaza's jailers on Israel's behalf.
So Mubarak finds himself in a dreadful position. A trapped people will do anything to break free and any attempt by Mubarak to force a solution will end in violence, and the last thing Mubarak needs is for his forces to be seen reacting violently towards a group of people who have been dreadfully mistreated.
Mubarak has therefore suggested a solution:
In an interview published Friday, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called the situation in Gaza unacceptable and called on Israel to lift the blockade and solve the problem.I have no doubt in my mind that Olmert, a man who doesn't even bother to pretend that he's not engaging in collective punishment, will dismiss such a notion out of hand. But Mubarak is right. This situation has developed because people kept in a cage have broken out, and it is not for Mubarak to insist that they re-enter that cage.
"They should get things back to normal according to previous agreements and understandings," Mubarak told the weekly Al-Osboa.
It is for Olmert to realise that punishing one and a half million people for the crimes of a few is wrong.
Click title for full article.
6 comments:
It is for Olmert to realise that punishing one and a half million people for the crimes of a few is wrong.
The Palestinians used to be able to work in Israel and transit Israel. Of course we all know what happened and what led Israel to close their borders.
Let's not kid ourselves. The Palestinians as a people fully support the terrorists. I can't say I blame them of course, but to pretend the society at large is not responsible for the acts of the terrorists they support and encourage is to be ignorant of the situation. I certainly understand their support for the terrorists, but I'm also not going to begrudge Israel protecting its citizens, closing its own borders, and leaving the Palestinians to fend for themselves until they get they decide that actively trying to kill Israeli civilians isn't doing them any good.
I recommend watching TO Die in Jerusalem if you can find it. It's a documentary about the mother of a murdered Israeli teenager trying to talk to the mother of the teenager who murdered her. You probably don't keep track of such things, but over here the incident got a lot of press when a teenage female terrorist bombed a grocery killing an innocent young Israeli girl. Anyway, it's worth seeing and seems fairly balanced, focusing on the trials of the mothers more than anything else.
One thing that you can get a clear sense of though is the place the terrorists hold in society amongst the general populace. This has always been known of course, but seeing it is striking none-the-less.
While I was in university I took did some coursework on international terrorism, and during one class we had some Palestinian journalists and Israeli academics discuss the situation, and I remember even then being taken back by the Palestinians' attitudes towards the terrorists. As long as Palestinian society supports, encourages, and justifies the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians (particularly women and children) for murder, I don't see how they're ever going to achieve any of their goals.
Jason,
The fact that the Palestinians share the same aims as the terrorists - freedom from Israeli occupation and the formation of a Palestinian state - does not mean that they support the tactics, such as suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Obviously some of them do, there is huge culture of martyrs for example, but it is still a stretch to say that all Palestinians support such atrocities.
And I happen to share your sense of revulsion at the attacks on Israeli civlians, which I regard as immoral and totally counterproductive.
However, just as it is wrong for the terrorists to target Israeli civilians indiscriminately - I am sure they would argue that the Israeli populace "supports" the occupation - so it is wrong for the Israeli government to impose collective punishment on the whole for the crimes of the few on the grounds that they might or might not support those actions.
Collective punishment is a war crime. This justification for war crimes doesn't stop them being what they are.
Collective punishment is a war crime.
Then I'm sure it will be taken up by the significant and mighty UN, just as I'm sure they will act on the volumes of war crimes committed against the Israelis by the Palestinians.
Jason,
You do realise that you are employing a similar logic to the one that bin Laden used to justify 9-11? He said that, as you are a democracy and vote for the governments that carry out US policy, then you were all fair game. It's a disgusting logic, but it's the very same one that you are now justifying the Israelis using.
Then I'm sure it will be taken up by the significant and mighty UN
The fact that international law is rarely used against countries with powerful friends doesn't mean we can't all see a war crime when it's committed. But, as I've long concluded, there really is no Israeli action that you won't, in the end, attempt to justify. Even if you have to use the same logic as bin Laden.
just as I'm sure they will act on the volumes of war crimes committed against the Israelis by the Palestinians.
The Palestinians who commit those foul acts are terrorists. It should be taken as a given that we expect more from a sovereign government than we expect from a terrorist group.
You do realise that you are employing a similar logic to the one that bin Laden used to justify 9-11? He said that, as you are a democracy and vote for the governments that carry out US policy, then you were all fair game. It's a disgusting logic, but it's the very same one that you are now justifying the Israelis using.
While I'm not sure I'm justifying anything, as you don't distinguish between deliberately targeting civilians for murder and incidental harm or inconvenience caused to civilians as the result of security measures, I can understand how you would see no difference from Bin Laden's logic.
Bin Laden, like Palestinian terrorists, deliberately target civilians for murder, and use the excuse that those they target are infidels, oppressors, or whatever they can use to try to justify the unjustifiable. I, as is quite obvious to the sane observer, do not justify deliberately targeting civilians with murder under any circumstances. I know, it's such a small distinction.
What I am saying however is that to claim that populations are never responsible for the atrocities that occur underneath their noses is willful ignorance. The Germans living in the shadow of the concentration camps knew what was happening and share culpability. The Bosnian Serb population (and to a lesser extent the Yugoslav Serb population) shares some level of culpability for the atrocities committed in Bosnia. The Palestinian population share culpability for terrorism inflicted against the Israelis just as the Israeli population shares some culpability for the policies of there government. And yes, the American population as a whole shares culpability for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (they were wildly popular in the beginning, regardless of the stance people are taking now).
Now the important part is that "culpability" does not mean "therefore opened up to being murdered". The populations are morally culpable for supporting the governments or terrorists, or for turning their heads and looking the other way in the face of atrocities. People are responsible for their actions and inactions, bottom line.
The terrorists are widely supported by the Palestinians (and many Europeans as well), bottom line. The ground swell of support the terrorists receive allows them to continue their murderous acts. I'm not even sure how you could debate this. Unless of course you see deliberately murdering children at birthday parties in pizza parlors and closing a border in some kind of twisted way to be equivalent acts. Attempts at drawing this sort of moral equivalence are simply obscene.
It should be taken as a given that we expect more from a sovereign government than we expect from a terrorist group.
There's that misplaced attempt at moral equivalence again. If the Palestinians want to take their place as a state amongst civilized countries, then it is incumbent upon them to do their best to reject the terrorists and dismantle their support system. Instead, they take every opportunity to demonstrate that they feel the terrorists are on the right track. Fine enough, then it's left to the Israelis to do what is necessary to defend their populace. Of course, you don't believe that the Israelis have a right to security and to protect their populace.
While I'm not sure I'm justifying anything, as you don't distinguish between deliberately targeting civilians for murder and incidental harm or inconvenience caused to civilians as the result of security measures
These are not "security measures" as you quaintly call them. It is a seige. And more than five children died in hospital because of the power cuts. You may argue that this was not deliberately done, but it was one of the most obvious risks of such a policy and, as such, the Israelis are culpable for those deaths.
The ground swell of support the terrorists receive allows them to continue their murderous acts.
What?!? Are you seriously arguing that terrorists are somehow affected by public opinion?
There's that misplaced attempt at moral equivalence again.
The person applying moral equivalence here is yourself. You appear to be arguing that, as terrorists operate outside of international law, then it is valid for states to do the same.
Post a Comment