Maybe something positive can come out of this ugliness - by Yahya Mahamid

...He gets up and gives me an innocent smile and waves. I smile back . Another bomb follows immediately after, above us this time and we are told to retract behind cover. I don't see him again but I hope the situation will improve for him and me one day.

Yahya Mahamid..
08 April '19..
w/permission from author

Sitting with my back to the metal barrier, I take a second to adjust my helmet when all of a sudden I hear a loud bang against the barrier. It's started- the Friday riots on the Gaza border. I adjust my Kevlar vest, take a breath and stand up to take a look at the other side, all while trying to keep as much of my body under cover.

I'm shocked to see mothers going hand and hand with their kids. Yes, kids, not older than 10-13 coming to the weekly protest as if it were a normal Friday activity.

Our orders are clear. Respect human life and the purity of our arms, it's nothing new after all; it's the IDF code of ethics and that's how we always operate.

I take my sharpshooter sight and start scanning the crowds looking for anything suspicious (bombs & guns). While looking through my sight, I start smelling the familiar smell of burned tires. I know that tear gas will follow so I put on my gas mask and look at the madness that is assembling in front of my eyes.

The adults, mothers & fathers I assume, sitting on the green grass plane enjoying some cold drinks and snacks, while their kids are running towards the security fence, throwing rocks and anything they can get their hands on at us.

I take cover after another rock hits the barrier again. I could've sworn that these rocks travel almost as fast as my bullet. I adjust my protective glasses and take another peak-we can't have the security barrier get damaged.

I stand up again to take a look at the crowd that's growing like a hate tumor on steroids and suddenly I hear an explosion. I look through my sight again, while looking through the black & grey crowd.

I see him. He's sitting with a large blue hoodie, looking straight at me. I take a look at him through my sight to get a closer look and he is just sitting there, looking straight at me like he's staring into my soul. He's not older than 10 years old

Israel and the intensifying dilemma of Hamas controlled Gaza - by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

...Over the past year, in deciding on policy and actions regarding Gaza, Israel has had to grapple with the basic question of whether a war to defeat the Hamas regime in Gaza is in its own interest. Events of recent days have added another aspect to the deliberations. When he was defense minister, Avigdor Lieberman repeatedly explained that Israel should bide its time until the people of Gaza rose up against Hamas, which is responsible for their hardships. Now, as we see the first glimpses of mass popular protests, Israel's dilemma is thrown into sharp relief – should it continue the money transfers to the Hamas government, thus helping it secure its rule there, or do the opposite – block the transfer of funds, hoping that the popular distress will cause the situation to shift in Israel's favor?

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen..
Israel Hayom..
17 March '19..
Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/israels-increasingly-tough-dilemma

It is too soon to assess the potential of the demonstrations in the Gaza Strip over the past few days to take a sharp turn. Even without knowing how things might develop, it is clear to everyone that as of now the extent of the demonstrations and the civilians' daring indicate the cumulative distress of the population in Gaza.

Eight years after the initial shock of the Arab Spring, the Hamas government in Gaza understands the potential threat that could turn into an actual one as the rage among the public increases.

As of now, even if the fury of the Gazans isn't leading toward a direct threat to Hamas' rule in Gaza, it certainly demands that the Hamas leadership recognize that it must find a solution, even a symbolic one, for the mass distress.

From that perspective, recent events can shed new light on the various considerations that come to bear on the Israeli government's measured military responses to provocations from Gaza.

Over the past year, in deciding on policy and actions regarding Gaza, Israel has had to grapple with the basic question of whether a war to defeat the Hamas regime in Gaza is in its own interest.

Question. Is There a Political Solution for Gaza? - by Prof. Hillel Frisch

A good place to begin answering these questions would be the Syrian civil war, the greatest episode of violence in the Middle East in at least three decades.

Prof. Hillel Frisch..
JPost/Opinion..
27 October '18..
Link: https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Is-there-a-political-solution-for-Gaza-570452

Tzipi Livni, the MK for the Zionist Union camp, claims not only that there is a political solution to Gaza, but that it could have been pulled off as early as in 2009. She claims forcefully that there was widespread agreement then – between the Obama administration, the Palestinian Authority under Abbas and the Egyptians – to have the PA turn the financial screws on the fledgling Hamas government. That would have supposedly culminated in Hamas’s capitulation to disarm while Abbas’s security forces took over the Strip they lost two years earlier.

So great was the consensus between these actors, Livni claims, that this strategy would have resulted in a Security Council resolution. The only impediment to implementing this strategy, in her view, was and remains Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his (extreme) right-wing government.

The obvious questions that spring to mind in listening to Livni are: Since when does consensus between outside powers (not backed by military force) in the Middle East ever matter on the ground? And since when was any Security Council resolution worth more than the paper it was written on?

A good place to begin answering these questions would be the Syrian civil war, the greatest episode of violence in the Middle East in at least three decades. Countless Security Council resolutions were passed and at least five rounds of intensive negotiations between the opposition and outside forces took place. To what avail? None.

Submission to the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict by Richard Kemp

...Many people believe that your findings are a foregone conclusion, as the findings of the 2008-09 Commission regrettably proved to be. They believe that you will roundly and without foundation condemn Israel for war crimes while at best making only token criticism of Hamas and other Gaza extremist groups. If you genuinely want to contribute to peace and to improve human rights for the people of Gaza and of Israel then you must have the courage to reject the UN Human Rights Council’s persistent and discriminatory anti-Israel programme and produce a balanced and fair report into these tragic events.

Colonel Richard Kemp CBE..
Richard-Kemp.com..
20 February '15..

GENEVA, 20 FEBRUARY 2015
I was a Colonel in the British Infantry. Much of my 29 years’ military service was spent countering terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, Great Britain, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Macedonia. I was Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan in 2003. I fought in the 1990-91 Gulf War and commanded British troops in Bosnia with the UN Protection Force and in Cyprus with the UN Force.

From 2002 – 2005 I was seconded to the UK Cabinet Office working on intelligence relating to international and domestic terrorism. Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad were among the extremist groups that I monitored and assessed in this role, and I had access to all secret intelligence available to the UK on these and other Palestinian extremist groups.

I was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire by the Queen in 1994 for counter terrorist intelligence services and Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 2006 also for counter terrorist intelligence services.

I was in Israel for much of the summer 2014 Gaza conflict, specifically from 14 July – 8 August and from 27 August – 5 September. During these periods I met, was briefed by and questioned Israeli political leaders, senior officials and Israel Defence Force (IDF) soldiers from general officer down to private soldier. I spent a considerable amount of this time close to the Gaza border where I also met, was briefed by, questioned and observed many IDF officers and soldiers immediately before and after they had been in combat.

I was in Israel also for much of the Gaza conflict in 2012. I visited IDF units and held meetings with many IDF officers, government officials and political leaders before and since then. I have been acquainted with the IDF and the Israeli intelligence services for many years, both during and after my military service.

This submission to the UN Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict is based on observations on the ground during the conflict, 29 years’ military experience of conflicts of this type, intelligence work relating to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, knowledge of the IDF and Israeli intelligence services, study of the Israel-Palestine conflict and observations on the ground during the 2012 Gaza conflict. I should add that I have no formal, paid or unpaid, connection with the IDF or with any other organ of the Israeli government.

In my opinion the actions taken by the IDF were necessary to defend the people of Israel from the ongoing, intensive and lethal attacks by Hamas and other groups in Gaza. It is the inalienable duty of every government to use its armed forces to protect its citizens and its terrain from external attack.

In this case there was a sustained assault on the Israeli population from rockets and mortar bombs; attacks on Israeli military posts using tunnels; apparent plans to launch further attacks on Israeli military posts and on civilian settlements also using tunnels; and attempted attacks from the sea.

As the Gaza Strip is effectively a separate state, outside of Israeli control, these actions amounted to an attack by a foreign country against Israeli territory. In these circumstances I know of no other realistic and effective means of suppressing an aggressor’s missile fire than the methods used by the IDF, namely precision air and artillery strikes against the command and control structures, the fighters and the munitions of Hamas and the other groups in Gaza. Nor have I heard any other military expert from any country propose a viable alternative means of defence against such aggression.

The only other options, which I do not consider realistic in these circumstances, would have been:

A strategy of carpet-bombing to force Hamas and the other groups to desist from their attacks.

A large-scale ground invasion to find and destroy the offensive capabilities of Hamas and the other groups.

Either of these means would have resulted in far greater civilian casualties, and a ground invasion would also have incurred significant numbers of Israeli military casualties. The destruction of Hamas would also have left Gaza under full Israeli control, which would have needed an investment in military resources that Israel could ill afford given the wide range of threats and potential threats that the country faces, including from Iran, from Hizballah in Lebanon and Syria, from the Islamic State in Syria and from Islamist extremists in Sinai.

In reality, the offensive missile capabilities of Hamas and the other groups could never have been totally destroyed using air operations alone. Recognising this, the IDF commanders and their political leadership calculated that to have eradicated the threat completely would have required a ground offensive that would have caused large numbers of casualties among Gaza civilians – far more than were sustained during the operation in the summer. They also took account of predicted Israeli military casualties which would have been substantial.

The consequence was an acceptance that while it would be possible to halt Hamas’s aggression on a temporary basis, there would in the future be a resurgence of such activity, forcing yet another defensive operation along the lines of 2008-09, 2012 and 2014, and causing further Israeli and Palestinian casualties. Though unsatisfactory in the longer term, this was a proportional and pragmatic response – indeed in my opinion the minimum possible response – to the rocket fire from Gaza.

While Israel can act to reduce the prospects for such future action, including by trying to prevent munitions or materiel with the potential for offensive military use entering Gaza, it cannot fully achieve this. In the interests of a lasting peace I would strongly urge the Commission to recommend effective international cooperation against the continued re-militarization of the Gaza Strip.

It is grossly irresponsible of international actors to rely on accusations against Israel of a so-called illegal blockade and occupation of Gaza, and demand that Israeli control of Gaza’s borders be lifted, when it is clear that Israeli action is necessary to prevent the re-armament that will lead to further attacks by Hamas and other groups. It should be noted that Egypt takes similar preventive action against Gaza extremists for the same reason as Israel.

Lying in Gaza

Ben Cohen
Z-Word Blog
09 March '10

A group of friends in London alerted me to this grubby little piece by a British Labour Party Member of Parliament, Bob Marshall-Andrews, concerning his recent visit to Gaza. Upon reading it, I was struck by various thoughts, not least the degree to which Marshall-Andrews words will be welcomed by the Hamas cheerleaders who compose the Palestinian solidarity movement, in marked contrast to the fierce condemnation with which this blog, and others like it, will greet his compendium of antisemitism-laced falsehoods. Why bother to refute such lies, one might ask, when those of us who defend Israel are at irreconcilable odds with those who demonize her, when any charge of antisemitism we make is bound to be dismissed as another tired attempt to muzzle debate? The most satisfactory answer I can come up with is that some things - and Marshall-Andrews article is one of them - are so odious that they cannot pass without rebuke.

To work, then. Here’s how Marshall-Andrews sets the scene:

“Bags of cement are slit open by grinning ringletted guards. Having destroyed they maintain the destruction.”

The “ringlets” he refers to are known, in Hebrew, as pe’ot, the sidelocks worn by ultraorthodox Jews. Now, I’ve spent a great deal of time in Israel and I can tell you that most Israeli soldiers don’t wear pe’ot. So what visual image is Marshall-Andrews trying to conjure up here? One of a people that rejoices in radical evil, their grinning faces framed by those unmistakeably Jewish ringlets.

(Read full article)
.

Fact-Checking Finkelstein’s New Book

Judeosphere
04 March '10

Unemployed professor and Holocaust humorist Norman Finkelstein is publishing a new book this month, This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion.

An excerpt has been published in Counterpunch—which is very generous of Finkelstein, since it gives us an early opportunity to scrutinize his “scholarship.”

Finkelstein claims:

Public outrage at the Gaza invasion did not come out of the blue but rather marked the nadir of a curve plotting a steady decline in support for Israel.
One poll registering the fallout from the Gaza attack in the United States found that American voters calling themselves supporters of Israel plummeted from 69 percent before the attack to 49 percent in June 2009, while voters believing that the U.S. should support Israel dropped from 69 per cent to 44 per cent. Consumed by hate, emboldened by self-righteousness, and confident that it could control or intimidate public opinion, Israel carried on in Gaza as if it could get away with mass murder in broad daylight.

The poll Finkelstein is referring to was conducted by the Israel Project. However, he neglected to mention a few relevant facts:

(Read full post)
.

Fighting the Goldstone Process at the UN

P. David Hornik
Pajamasmedia.com
02 February '10

A UN General Assembly vote in November gave Israel (and the Palestinians) three months to investigate “serious violations of international law committed during the conflict in Gaza that broke out in late December 2008.” Israel has now submitted to the UN a 46-page update on its investigations of possible wrongdoings in the war.

The update refutes some of the specific charges of the Goldstone Report, which accuses Israel in particular of war crimes in Gaza, and was the impetus behind the General Assembly vote in the first place. But the document is mainly concerned with establishing that Israel is a responsible democracy whose military is capable of credibly investigating itself, and does so in ways similar to the American, British, Canadian, and Australian militaries.

There is much irony in this, considering the nature of the General Assembly’s vote. Registering 114 in favor, 18 against, and 44 abstentions, in addition to giving Israel and the Palestinians their three-month assignment, it endorsed the Goldstone Report and “requested Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to send [it] to the Security Council.”

It’s not only that Israel had already been investigating the war (as the 46-page update details) since two days after it ended, while the Palestinian side had not (and still has not) even begun to do so. It’s also that the 114 ayes were not a parade of accomplished democracies that one would count on to uphold international law or investigate violations of it themselves. Of the 114, the only two full-fledged Western democracies are Portugal and Switzerland. The 114 also include the likes of Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Zimbabwe.

As for the 18 nays — who opposed requiring Israel (and the Palestinians) to submit a report to the General Assembly, or endorsing the Goldstone Report — most are democracies such as Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United States. Among the 44 abstainers are democracies like Belgium, Denmark, France, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK.

In other words, the reason Israel had to submit a document to the UN maintaining that it is a democracy that does not intentionally kill civilians, takes alleged infractions seriously, and investigates them authentically is because dictatorships that make up the bulk of the General Assembly demanded that it do so.

Page 1 of 2 Next
.