XPost: nz.politics, alt.politics.international
Opinion piece <
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360714620/conflict-gaza-more-complicated-phill-goff-makes-out-writes-damien-grant>
responding to Phil Goff <
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360707133/phil-goff-israel-doesnt-care-how-many-innocent-people-its-killing>
on the ongoing killing in Gaza.
Some of what Grant says is reasonable:
When considering the conflict in Gaza, it is important to recall
the context of the decision to invade and the desire of the
government in Jerusalem to remove Hamas from power.
Yes.
Reasonable people may question both that objective and the
prospect of success, but it is not correct to claim, as Olmet and
Goff do, that it is without justification.
Israel’s initial invasion of Gaza may have been justified, but the degeneration into wanton carnage, blockage of vital supplies, and
ongoing suffering of civilians has gone beyond any reasonable
definition of a proportionate response. It is not even achieving
anything resembling any originally-stated military objective. Now it
is just naked bloodlust. It is not weakening Hamas, it is only hurting
and killing innocent civilians.
A sensible interpretation of Hamas’ intention, given both its
rocket attacks and the invasion in 2023, is the destruction of the
Jewish homeland.
Hamas’ willingness to negotiate with Netanyahu’s Government would seem
to be at odds with such a conclusion. Remember, actions speak louder
than words.
Goff quotes the death toll, 54,000 killed, but neglects to mention
that this is from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Ministry of Health.
Now. This doesn’t mean that the figure is wrong, we have little
other data to work with, but Hamas has done enough to allow us to
question their credibility.
Have they, indeed? Because the UN and other independent organizations
have continued to find those figures, if anything, likely to be on the
low side. Hamas has said that it does not count those who are merely
reported as missing.
Hamas and its domestic allies committed horrendous crimes against
civilians on October 7 and failed to keep many of their hostages
alive, with credible evidence that some were killed in captivity.
Note the passive voice: killed by whom? More likely by Israeli attacks.
After all, what value is a dead hostage? Also, look up the “Hannibal directive”: Israel has a stated policy of killing its own people rather
than let them be captured to be used as hostages by the other side.
On October 7, the IDF was firing indiscriminately at *every* vehicle
heading for the Gaza border, regardless of whether it might be
containing hostages or not.
The genocide claim is inflammatory. The assertion is often
justified by reference to the Convention on Genocide’s expansive
definition that includes “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group.”
However, in common usage the term is understood to mean [blah blah
blah ...]
That Convention on Genocide is not an “expansive” definition, it is an official legal one, that Israel and other UN members are a signatory
to. They have explicitly agreed to uphold it! Yet it turns out they
(and their supporters) go into severe denial when called to account
for their own agreement.
But this is part of a wider story; why is the conflict in Gaza so
compelling? [... examples of other brutal regimes omitted ...] Yet
it is the State of Israel that remains the focus of consistent
attention, held to impossible standards, misinformation and
subject to a permanent campaign of vilification.
Ah, the old “what about the other brutal regimes” trope. It is Israel itself that claims to be different from those others: “the only
democracy in the Middle East”, it says; “the most moral army in the world”, it trumpets. But when examples are pointed out of how it
doesn’t live up to its own claimed ideals -- when it fact such
examples turn out to be uncomfortably frequent, and far from
accidental -- then the old chip on the shoulder comes out. “Why pick
on us?” they cry.
The existence of the state of Israel remains, for some, an
intolerable reality.
What is intolerable is a movement that seeks to harass or kill people
and steal their land. Remember the Zionist slogan: “a land without a
people, for a people without a land”. As far as the movement is
concerned, Palestinians are not considered to be people deserving of
being treated with ordinary human dignity. *That* is what is
intolerable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)