The disingenuous Gaza numbers game

...Zero – The number of civilians in this and future conflicts that will be protected as a result of the immoral and tendentious statements issued by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, OHCHR, Oxfam, Gisha and other NGOs.

Anne Herzberg..
Op-Ed Contributor/JPost..
14 July '14..

Five days into Operation Protective Edge, the out-going UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, issued a statement that the number of casualties in Gaza raises “serious doubt about whether the Israeli strikes have been in accordance with international humanitarian law and international human rights law.”

In a similar vein, UNWRA Spokesperson Chris Gunness has a running commentary of casualties on his Twitter feed, including the plea to “Imagine being a 5 year old in #Gaza This is the 3rd terrifying bombardment in your short life. Where else have 5 year olds suffered thus?” These numbers and emotional appeals, however, are seriously misplaced.

If many civilians are being killed in Gaza, it is because Hamas is storing and launching deadly missiles from within populated areas and exploiting the population there as a human shield. Conversely, if even one civilian were to be illegitimately targeted, that single killing would be illegal.

Thus, the UN officials’ emotive statements are entirely disconnected from the legal and moral implications of Israel’s actions.

Similarly, many highly politicized non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have issued overwrought statements on Gaza casualties, making unverifiable claims that the vast majority are civilians and blaming Israel again. These comments stand in stark contrast to the sterile, pro-forma and brief mentions of Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, to the extent they are mentioned at all.

Amnesty International, for example, stated, “Since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in the early morning of 8 July, more than 100 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip, most of them civilians who were not directly participating in hostilities.”

Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, tweeted, “My daughter’s head here, my son’s arm there: Life for a #Gaza family under #Israel attack. Six children killed,” linking to a tendentious article out of the UAE.

Oxfam’s statement highlighted “civilians in Gaza, who are already impoverished by the ongoing Israeli blockade and account for the vast majority of those injured and killed in the violence.”

As in the past, media outlets have uncritically adopted these memes, focusing extensive coverage on the Gaza casualties, as if the real-time consequences of war were simply points in a video game.

Seeing increasing casualties, undoubtedly with women and children hurt alongside the Hamas fighters, pulls at heartstrings and makes for good headlines.

It is also an effective way for NGOs to maximize anguish and drive up influence and thus, donations.

Oxfam, BDS, and the exploitation of human rights

...The declared goals of Oxfam are admirable, but its politicization is troubling and revolting. It is a shame that one of the biggest and most influential aid organizations in the world acts hypocritically when it comes to Israel. Johansson was wise enough to understand this when she stopped acting as a face for the exploitation of humanitarian issues for political purposes.

Shira Michael..
Israel Hayom..
04 February '14..

Anti-Israel organizations and supporters of the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign have been driven to embark on a crusade to persuade actress Scarlett Johansson to resign from her role as the spokesmodel for Israeli company SodaStream and to apologize for her choice. This is because one of the company's factories is located in Mishor Adumim, beyond the Green Line.

The international aid organization Oxfam, where Johansson served as an ambassador for several years, joined the chorus of criticism and issued a statement that the organization respects the independent decisions of all its ambassadors, but opposes "all commerce with Israeli settlements" because they are "illegal" and "deny the rights" of the Palestinians.

Johansson has refused to apologize and responded by saying, "While I never intended on being the face of any social or political movement ... SodaStream is a company that is not only committed to the environment but to building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine."

In response to Oxfam, she said: "I stand behind the SodaStream product and am proud of the work that I have accomplished at Oxfam as an ambassador for over eight years. ... I am happy that light is being shed on this issue in hopes that a greater number of voices will contribute to the conversation of a peaceful two-state solution in the near future."

Johansson also announced she was ending her affiliation with Oxfam due to a "fundamental difference of opinion in regards to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement."

This is not the first (or the last) time that anti-Israel elements have pressured public figures and celebrities to boycott Israel. Such efforts were aimed at singers Alanis Morissette and Alicia Keys prior to their performances in Israel, but were unsuccessful. However, Elvis Costello and the Pixies canceled shows here following pressure from pro-BDS elements.

B’Tselem And Bad Arguments

Eamonn McDonagh
Z-Word Blog
05 February '10

I received an e-mail circular from B’Tselem today about Israel’s policies towards Gaza. The first substantial argument offered is this:

“The siege of Gaza is causing enormous suffering among innocents, and it’s hard to see how that deprivation can be justified,” said Uri Zaki, B’Tselem’s USA Director. “International law, as well as basic human and Israeli values, demands that Israel do its utmost to address its legitimate security concerns without inflicting unnecessary harm to the civilians of Gaza. The current policy doesn’t come close to meeting that standard.” Gazans’ rights to minimal standards of food security, shelter, health, education and to travel are protected under international law. These needs should not be held hostage to security and political issues.

I could quibble about the adjective “enormous” but I won’t. The argument is basically sound. To respond to it, the government of Israel would have to accept its premises, that is, it would have to say that the harm it’s causing to Gazans is not unnecessary and/or that it’s exaggerated and that in any case it’s the only viable option for protecting its security. I’m not saying that any of this is true or false, just that the way B’Tselem sets out its arguments obliges the government of Israel to put its case in terms of human rights.

Now let’s turn to the next set of arguments:

Israel’s closure policy is designed to weaken Hamas’ hostile leadership, to persuade Hamas to cease firing rockets at civilian targets in Israel, and to release Corporal Gilad Shalit. However, the closure has instead harmed Israel’s security by strengthening Hamas and adding to tensions that threaten renewed violence.

(Read full post)
.