Gaza plunged into darkness as Israeli fuel blockade takes effect
Collective punishment is a crime. And yet, how else can one describe Israel's decision to cut off fuel supplies to Gaza's only power plant plunging parts of Gaza into darkness?
Nor are the Israelis even hiding the reasons for what they are doing:Israeli officials said the policy was directly linked to the rocket attacks. "If they stop the rockets today, everything would go back to normal," said Arye Mekel, a foreign ministry spokesman.
The vast majority of the people of Gaza have nothing to do with rocket attacks on Israel and to punish them for an act that they have not committed is illegal. And yet, as usual, the west and the US will remain silent whilst the people of Gaza's existence is made even more unbearable, if that were even possible.
Human rights groups have issued protests, but they will be routinely ignored as they always are whilst blackouts in Gaza continue for up to twelve hours a day.
Ha'aretz are reporting that even Israeli officials are saying that the effects of the power cuts are worse than they expected with Hamas claiming that five patients have died because of power cuts in hospitals.From Damascus, Khaled Mashaal, the exiled leader of Hamas, appealed to Arab leaders and his rival, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to forget their differences and help the Gazans: "All Arab leaders, exercise real pressure to stop this Zionist crime ... Take up your role and responsibility. We are not asking you to wage a military war against Israel ... but just stand with us in pride and honour."
Mashaal said he had been in contact with some Arab countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, to see if they would pressure Israel. He had asked Egypt to provide fuel for the Gaza plant.
Israel continue to lay the blame for what is happening at the door of the people who fire the rockets into Israel, and whilst one can see the logic of this argument, it was to counter just such logic that collective punishment was deemed a crime.
I'm sure the IRA might possibly have set off a few less bombs, and certainly enjoyed less popularity at home, had the British government employed similar tactics in Northern Ireland; but the effect of the policy and whether or not it is effective is hardly the point here.
It is wrong for governments to collectively punish people for crimes that they did not commit and Israel, like the British government with internment and some of their other disastrous policies in Northern Ireland, do themselves no favours when they resort to such tactics.
Indeed, it could be argued that such policies, far from harming the terrorist's cause, actually radicalises the civilian population.
However, as I say, whether it does or does not is hardly the point; the point is that Israel's behaviour is illegal. And it should be condemned.
Click title for full article.
6 comments:
Your continued fixation with Israel reminded me of this article. Some snippets:
But anti-Semitism has also become respectable in mainstream British society. “Anti-Jewish themes and remarks are gaining acceptability in some quarters in public and private discourse in Britain and there is a danger that this trend will become more and more mainstream,” reported a Parliamentary inquiry last year.
At the heart of this ugly development is a new variety of anti-Semitism, aimed primarily not at the Jewish religion, and not at a purported Jewish race, but at the Jewish state. Zionism is now a dirty word in Britain, and opposition to Israel has become a fig leaf for a resurgence of the oldest hatred.
And now, in Britain and elsewhere, anti-Semitism has mutated again, its target shifting from culture to creed to race to nation. What anti-Semitism once did to Jews as people, it now does to Jews as a people. First it wanted the Jewish religion, and then the Jews themselves, to disappear; now it wants the Jewish state to disappear. For the presentation of Israel in British public discourse does not consist of mere criticism. It has become a torrent of libels, distortions, and obsessional vilification, representing Israel not as a country under exterminatory attack by the Arabs for the 60 years of its existence but as a regional bully persecuting innocent Palestinians who want only a homeland.
Like the media and the churches, Britain’s political and academic Left is making common cause with Islamist radicalism. The Islamists oppose the Left’s most deeply held causes, such as gay rights and equality for women. Yet leftists and Islamists now march together under such slogans as “We are all Hezbollah now” during rallies protesting the Lebanon war, and even “Death to the Jews” outside a debate over whether Manchester University’s Jewish Society should be banned.
One of the most conspicuous features of British anti-Semitism is that the British deny its existence.
Many Britons deny the resurgence of anti-Semitism because they think of it as prejudice toward Jews as people and believe that it died with Hitler. The argument that attitudes toward Israel may be anti-Semitic strikes them as absurd. But consider the characteristics of anti-Semitism. It applies to the Jews expectations applied to no other people; it libels, vilifies, demonizes, and dehumanizes them; it scapegoats them not merely for crimes that they have not committed, but for crimes of which they are the victims; it holds them responsible for all the ills of the world. These characteristics remain precisely the same in today’s hatred of the Jewish state. Israel is held to standards expected of no other nation; it is libeled and vilified; it is blamed both for crimes that it has not committed and for those of which it is the victim; and it is held responsible for all the world’s misfortunes—most recently, Islamic terrorism.
Not all Britons who oppose Israel are anti-Semites, of course. Many are decent people who hate prejudice. Indeed, that is why they hate Israel—because they have been taught that it is like apartheid-era South Africa. Profoundly ignorant of the history of the Jewish people and of the Middle East, they have been indoctrinated with one of the Big Lies of human history. And it is because of their very high-mindedness that the better educated and more socially progressive they are, the more likely they are to spew Jew-hatred.
Further, people across the political spectrum became increasingly unable to make moral distinctions based on behavior. This erasing of the line between right and wrong produced a tendency to equate, and then invert, the roles of terrorists and of their victims, and to regard self-defense as aggression and the original violence as understandable and even justified. That attitude is, of course, inherently antagonistic to Israel, which was founded on the determination never to allow another genocide of Jews, to defend itself when attacked, and to destroy those who would destroy it. But for the Left, powerlessness is virtue; better for Jews to die than to kill, because only as dead victims can they be moral.
I take as given that you reject the author's thesis out of hand. To do otherwise would likely require some self-evaluation given the history of your posting's and statements (including this posting) which might be viewed by some to be exactly the sort of thing the author is talking about.
Ah, Jason. Gone for so long but returning to make the same hackneyed points. You don't enter debate, you simply cut and paste hoping someone else can make your argument for you.
And your main point? That any criticism of Israel's policies must equate with anti-Semitism.
Of course, what you and the author seek is to make any criticism of Israel out of bounds.
Israel is engaging in acts of collective punishment. This is clearly illegal. If you wish to defend Israel's illegality then feel free to do so. However, you seek to make any discussion of this behaviour somehow unacceptable.
That is intellectual cowardice.
You don't enter debate, you simply cut and paste hoping someone else can make your argument for you.
I find that humorous coming from someone who pretty much only posts the plagiarized work of others in whole and YouTube videos.
And your main point? That any criticism of Israel's policies must equate with anti-Semitism.
The author didn't say anything about "any" criticism. She was more nuanced than that. She did however refer to "a torrent of libels, distortions, and obsessional vilification, representing Israel not as a country under exterminatory attack by the Arabs for the 60 years of its existence but as a regional bully persecuting innocent Palestinians who want only a homeland," as opposed to mere criticism. She also highlighted the "erasing of the line between right and wrong produced a tendency to equate, and then invert, the roles of terrorists and of their victims, and to regard self-defense as aggression and the original violence as understandable and even justified" that many of your persuasion tend to engage in."
Aside from the moral confusion aspect that she mentions, I would think that "obsessional vilification" would certainly be a hallmark of what this author refers to as anti-Semitism.
Of course, what you and the author seek is to make any criticism of Israel out of bounds.
I don't get that. I would say that she feels that obsessional, unbalanced, and unreasoned criticism would all indicate anti-Semitism.
However, you seek to make any discussion of this behaviour somehow unacceptable.
I don't seek to make any discussion somehow unacceptable. I merely point out an article that I stumbled across recently that I found somehow orthogonal to the discussion.
That is intellectual cowardice.
No, refusing to have one's ideas challenged is intellectual cowardice.
I find that humorous coming from someone who pretty much only posts the plagiarized work of others in whole and YouTube videos.
Perhaps you misunderstand the word plagiarism. Plagiarism is attempting to pass off the work of others as your own. Any time I quote other people - or post entire articles by them - this is done in red and italicized to make very clear that the work is by someone else. There is also always a link to take you to the original article.
Unless you have failed to recognise that the red and italicized sections are the work of others then you really should withdraw that charge.
The author didn't say anything about "any" criticism. She was more nuanced than that.
Melanie Philips is rarely nuanced. She has already labeled the Archbishop of Canterbury an anti-Semite for speaking out about the plight of Christians in Bethlehem and has called James Baker and Jimmy Carter "the kept creatures of the Arab world". And nor did I find the article you linked to "nuanced". It was simply a rehashing of that old chestnut that criticism of Israeli policies, especially as they pertain to the illegal occupation, is simply anti-Semitism in a new form.
This is done for the sole purpose of making any criticism of Israeli policies as somehow "suspect" and as an alternative to challenging whatever specific criticism is currently being made.
You have done that here. You have failed to address my original point concerning collective punishment and have instead hinted that I must be an anti-Semite, which saves you from even having to debate the original point.
She also highlighted the "erasing of the line between right and wrong produced a tendency to equate, and then invert, the roles of terrorists and of their victims, and to regard self-defense as aggression and the original violence as understandable and even justified"
I think that perfectly reflects the way Israel's supporters behave. They fail to see the occupation as an act of violence and rather choose to see the inevitable reaction to that occupation as the starting point of the violence rather than the occupation itself.
I don't seek to make any discussion somehow unacceptable.
Yes, you do. You quite casually throw around the charge of anti-Semitism - which is one of the foulest things that anyone could be accused of - as an alternative to engaging in substantive debate.
This post concerned the act of collective punishment and yet at no point in any of your comments have you ever addressed that subject.
You have instead quoted Melanie Philips at me and implied that by even writing about this I am showing "obsessional, unbalanced, and unreasoned criticism". In other words, behaviour indicative of anti-Semitism.
So, whilst claiming that you are not attempting to make any discussions somehow unacceptable, you simultaneously imply that should I choose to discuss it I am displaying anti-Semitic tendencies.
Both you and Philips are engaging in this disgraceful tactic because it is easier to name call than to defend actions which are clearly illegal.
What both you and Philips fail to acknowledge is that, even if the Archbisop of Canterbury is a raging anti-Semite, which he is not, it does not necessarily follow that his point is automatically wrong.
However, Philips - like yourself - throws around the term as a way of implying that the person is slightly unhinged and not worth debating. As I say, it is name calling as a way of avoiding debating substantive issues and, as such, is an act of intellectual cowardice.
No, refusing to have one's ideas challenged is intellectual cowardice.
Which is exactly what you are doing. You are name calling rather than engaging in debate.
Unless you have failed to recognise that the red and italicized sections are the work of others then you really should withdraw that charge.
Plagiarization has multiple meanings. I was referring to:
copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)
Reprinting in whole the works of others without permission and outside the bounds of fair use, whether or not credit is given, is considered plagiarism. You do at times only print highlighted parts for discussion, but you have also in the past reprinted entire articles without permission. Of course, you also use images without permission or crediting the owner of the image.
You have instead quoted Melanie Philips at me and implied that by even writing about this I am showing "obsessional, unbalanced, and unreasoned criticism". In other words, behaviour indicative of anti-Semitism.
I have not meant to imply that this single posting taken by itself is showing "obsessional, unbalanced, and unreasoned criticism".
What both you and Philips fail to acknowledge is that, even if the Archbisop of Canterbury is a raging anti-Semite, which he is not, it does not necessarily follow that his point is automatically wrong.
Certainly it does not imply that the point is wrong simply because we are motivated to raise an issue because of our biases.
throws around the term as a way of implying that the person is slightly unhinged and not worth debating.
On the contrary, I believe these people definitely need to be challenged.
You don't believe that obsessional criticism of something shows an anti-whatever bias. Fair enough. But you should at least recognize that many people do believe so.
You do at times only print highlighted parts for discussion, but you have also in the past reprinted entire articles without permission.
I have printed entire articles, but anyone familiar with this blog will know that this is the exception rather than the rule. Your claim was that I "pretty much only post the plagiarized work of others in whole". That claim is false. I take it that was a cheap jibe rather than an actual accusation, as if you are saying that you actually mean that then your credibility would be less than zero as anyone who reads here will know that I tend to highlight sections of articles in order to get my tuppence worth in. The only people I would regularly quote in full are Cockburn and Fisk.
I have not meant to imply that this single posting taken by itself is showing "obsessional, unbalanced, and unreasoned criticism".
No, what you meant to imply was that the fact I criticise Israeli policies so much must mean that I am somehow anti-Semitic.
I think the Israeli-Palestine issue is one of the most important in the world and causes much of the anger that fuels terrorism in the Arab world. I also think, as does Tony Blair, that finding a solution to that problem would do more than anything else to tackle terrorism. I also believe, as Mearsheimer and Walt pointed out in their report "The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy", that the US's uncritical support for Israel was one of the reasons for 9-11.
When something is that important I seriously don't understand why you would find it questionable that I would often want to discuss it.
And that's before we get to the simple matter of the plight of the Palestinian people suffering under the longest - and I would say one of the most brutal - occupations in modern history.
Old lefties like me spent the eighties outside the South African embassy in London protesting against Apartheid. The modern equivalent of that cause is the plight of the Palestinians.
That you would seek to make my abiding interest in this anything other than a revulsion to what I regard as a deep injustice is offensive.
Melanie Philips and other supporters of Israel have long given up attempting to win arguments as, when it comes to international law and UN resolutions, Israel is so very often on the wrong side. So they have taken to smearing opponents.
And, when they can find no proof of anti-Semitism - just as you can't here as I am far from anti-Semitic - then they seek to detect "whiffs" of it through other means; "obsession", "why Israel, why not China/Tibet?" etc, etc.
As I say, they use that dreadful accusation as a means of shutting people up, when they should save it for real anti-Semites as opposed to people like Jimmy Carter and the Archbishop of Canterbury. God knows there are enough real anti-Semites out there without weakening such a serious charge by scatter-gunning all who simply feel that Israel's occupation is morally wrong.
Post a Comment