04 May Breaking the Silence — About Israel’s Assault on Gaza
The irreplaceable Breaking the Silence has released a new report on Operation Protective Edge — and it’s a doozy. Here are some particularly disturbing snippets from the Guardian‘s article on the report, which contains dozens of testimonials by past and present IDF soldiers:
“[The commander] said: ‘We don’t take risks. We do not spare ammo. We unload, we use as much as possible.’”
“The rules of engagement [were] pretty identical,” added another sergeant who served in a mechanised infantry unit in Deir al-Balah. “Anything inside [the Gaza Strip] is a threat. The area has to be ‘sterilised,’ empty of people – and if we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming: “I give up” or something – then he’s a threat and there’s authorisation to open fire … The saying was: ‘There’s no such thing there as a person who is uninvolved.’ In that situation, anyone there is involved.”
“The rules of engagement for soldiers advancing on the ground were: open fire, open fire everywhere, first thing when you go in,” recalled another soldier who served during the ground operation in Gaza City. The assumption being that the moment we went in [to the Gaza Strip], anyone who dared poke his head out was a terrorist.”
Soldiers were also encouraged to treat individuals who came too close or watched from windows or other vantage points as “scouts” who could be killed regardless of whether there was hard evidence they were spotting for Hamas or other militant groups. “If it looks like a man, shoot. It was simple: you’re in a motherfucking combat zone,” said a sergeant who served in an infantry unit in the northern Gaza strip.
“A few hours before you went in the whole area was bombed, if there’s anyone there who doesn’t clearly look innocent, you apparently need to shoot that person.” Defining ‘innocent’ he added: “If you see the person is less than 1.40 metres tall or if you see it’s a lady … If it’s a man you shoot.”
In at least one instance described by soldiers, being female did not help two women who were killed because one had a mobile phone. A soldier described the incident: “After the commander told the tank commander to go scan that place, and three tanks went to check [the bodies] … it was two women, over the age of 30 … unarmed. They were listed as terrorists. They were fired at. So of course they must have been terrorists.”
The soldiers’ descriptions are disturbingly reminiscent of the notorious “free fire” zones in Vietnam and the US government’s well-documented (and erroneous) belief that signature strikes directed against “military-age men in an area of known terrorist activity” comply with IHL’s principle of distinction. The testimonials are, in a word, stunning — and put the lie to oft-repeated shibboleths about the IDF being “the most moral army in the world.” As ever, the stories told by the IDF and the Israeli government are contradicted by the soldiers who actually have to do the killing and dying.
You can find the report here. And if you’re interested in a predictable right-wing attempt to discredit the report — which basically just complains that Breaking the Silence doesn’t release the identity of the soldiers who gave testimony (gee, can’t imagine why not…) — see here.
In Protective Edge, Hamas could have had a cease-fire any time it wanted, just by committing to a time when they would cease fire themselves and sticking to it. They were after all the ones who chose to wage war against Israeli civilians from a densely populated civilian area. They chose this course even before the blockade. In fact they chose it when they wrote their charter. I would not say Israel is thereby absolved, but the error here is plainly in demanding that Hamas must have the right to its style of war. If IHL cannot assimilate this, then that is a problem with IHL.
Re: The soldiers’ descriptions are disturbingly reminiscent of the notorious “free fire” zones in Vietnam and the US government’s well-documented (and erroneous) belief that signature strikes directed against “military-age men in an area of known terrorist activity” comply with IHL’s principle of distinction.
I’ve commented on those issues here in the past. Ironically enough, so-called “free fire zones” were part of the positive fire control procedures adopted during the Vietnam war that would have prevented exactly the sort of situations you and these soldiers have described during the IDF attacks on Gaza. The number of major weapon systems involved and their reported rate of fire simply rule out any possibility that commanders were exercising proper fire control procedures. In some cases, like the “Hannibal Directive”, we know for a fact that there were no such precautions exercised at all.
The Vietnam era free fire zones were established to prevent casualties originating from overlapping crossfire directed at targets by the major weapon systems of friendly units operating adjacent to one another. A “free fire zone” was just an area where there was no overlapping fire from other friendly units in the region that required advance coordination prior to opening fire on elements of an enemy force located in the zone. The relevant field manuals stressed the fact that the customary precautions and prohibitions involving fire directed at or near unarmed civilians or civilian objectives still applied, without exception, even in the free fire zones. But the obvious miscommunication that resulted from the poor choice of words was only admitted belatedly, after the war, when the DoD jettisoned the terminology from its official vernacular altogether.
Interestingly enough, Maj. Colin Powell was put in charge of investigating Spc. 4 Tom Glen’s letter to Gen. Creighton Abrams complaining about members of his unit who “for mere pleasure, fire indiscriminately into Vietnamese homes and without provocation or justification shoot at the people themselves.” If Powell had conducted a proper investigation, the details of the My Lai massacre would have come to light years sooner, but he dismissed the allegations and closed the unit-level official investigation.
Gen. Powell’s autobiography actually contains a “money quote” on the criminal nature of the signature strikes that he condoned during the Vietnam era: “I recall a phrase we used in the field, MAM, for military-age male. If a helo spotted a peasant in black pajamas who looked remotely suspicious, a possible MAM, the pilot would circle and fire in front of him. If he moved, his movement was judged evidence of hostile intent, and the next burst was not in front, but at him. Brutal? Maybe so. But an able battalion commander with whom I had served at Gelnhausen, Lieutenant Colonel Walter Pritchard, was killed by enemy sniper fire while observing MAMs from a helicopter. And Pritchard was only one of many. The kill-or-be-killed nature of combat tends to dull fine perceptions of right and wrong.” — My American Journey, page 224
Hostage: My Lai years sooner? Calley “was charged on September 5, 1969 … with premeditated murder on March 16, 1968 of not less than 102 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai….”
[…] at the London Review of Books here, and a shorter commentary by Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris here. […]
Re: In Protective Edge, Hamas could have had a cease-fire any time it wanted, just by committing to a time when they would cease fire themselves and sticking to it. They were after all the ones who chose to wage war against Israeli civilians from a densely populated civilian area.
For its own part, Israel has turned down several offers from NATO and President Abbas to deploy an international peace keeping force in the Occupied territories.
During the operation, Israel and its allies in the Security Council demanded that the UN delay taking even symbolic action, until after the IDF had been granted sufficient time to locate and destroy tunnels. But that shouldn’t have amounted to a state of necessity, since the IDF could have done the very same thing in peace and comfort on its own side of the border. FYI, contrary to popular misconception, the Gaza tunnels have primarily been used for smuggling and to circumvent restrictions on freedom of movement, not for making attacks on the territory of Israel or Egypt.
According to Hamas reports, the rocket fire was a consequence of the IDF going on a government-sanctioned weeks-long rampage throughout the West Bank after a new Hamas-Fatah backed coalition government had been sworn into office there by President Abbas. The IDF imposed the usual regime of intimidation and mass arrests. Members of the IDF murdered of a pair of Palestinian teenagers during demonstrations near Ofer prison in May 2014. That in-turn resulted in series of tit-for-tat retaliatory kidnappings and murders of Jewish and Palestinian teenagers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. That led to the usual round of closures, curfews, searches, and more mass arrests prior to the relevant Israeli Security Cabinet decision to conduct the Gaza counter-terrorism operation.
Re: Hostage: My Lai years sooner? Calley “was charged on September 5, 1969 … with premeditated murder on March 16, 1968 of not less than 102 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai….”
Fair enough. But it was still disgraceful that it took a year and half to take action on reliable reports that surfaced almost immediately. Brig. General Young had ordered the commander, Col. Henderson, to conduct an investigation in March for some mysterious reason. When it was finally published in late April 1968 it falsely claimed that only 20 civilians had been killed by accident. Anyone who has seen the published photos of the mass casualties literally lining the fields and ditches knows that conclusion was contradicted by the very readily available evidence.
Does anyone know of a UN S.C. Res. that has addressed Palestinian rocker and mortar attacks in 2014? a G.A. Res.?
Thanks.
hostage: Why can’t those clauses in the charters be permanently deleted? No voice votes, no shows of hands, just be done with the words. But but but …
Re: hostage: Why can’t those clauses in the charters be permanently deleted? No voice votes, no shows of hands, just be done with the words. But but but …
The terms of the Cairo reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas had required the new interim coalition government, headed-up by Abbas, to pursue a peaceful two state solution through the United Nations and the international Courts. It also called for Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join the PLO.
For that matter, Hamas-affiliated party lists of candidates were elected to the PA in internationally supervised elections. The PA was a legal entity created jointly by Israel and the PLO. Even back then the official spokesmen and the Politburo reportedly said they would accept a two state solution, e.g.:
“The Hamas movement is ready to recognize agreements signed with Israel, and in fact recognize Israel, but only within the ’67 borders, senior Hamas member Khaled Suleiman said Wednesday.
According to Suleiman, the movement will be ready to accept a Palestinian state inside the ’67 borders and will not operate to thwart diplomatic negotiations held by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Published:05.11.06, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249568,00.html
I have to wonder if you are unaware of the fact that the last governing coalition of the State of Israel contained several parties that publicly rejected a two state solution and called for annexation of most, if not all, of the Palestinian territory?
Furthermore, the formal coalition agreements between the parties required the adoption of a now infamous government-sponsored draft Basic Law that would have further entrenched the legal principle that the enlaged State of Israel would be a nation-state of the Jewish people (and only the Jewish people). That law was intended to serve as a not too subtle tool of racial incitement and a constitutional basis for denying equal protection under the law to members of the non-Jewish indigenous population. When two coalition parties declined to support Netanyahu’s version of the bill, he dissolved the Knesset and called for elections. I think its naive to assume that the Prime Minister will simply drop the issue now that he has won a landslide victory after shreying Gevalt! about the minuscule threat posed by the Arab unity party efforts to turnout the vote during the subsequent Knesset elections.
The Ynet news story to which you link contains no real commitment from Hamas. Does it mean anything if they allow the PA to negotiate, when they do not oblige themselves to carry out the results of negotiations? “All the government can do is reach a calm, and we, Hamas, are committed to a calm up to this moment.”
The gazans voted for hamas by an overwhelming majority. Hamas started the war. If you go over to a cop and punch him arent you going to get smacked down and arrested?
Re: The gazans voted for hamas by an overwhelming majority. Hamas started the war. If you go over to a cop and punch him arent you going to get smacked down and arrested?
Israel is not a cop. It is a co-belligerent that has refused to implement UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its armed forces from the occupied Arab territories. It has refused to permit the deployment of a NATO or other international peacekeeping force in the Palestinian territories as well. Nothing has really changed since 2003 when the ICJ advised that Israel had contributed to the creation of an illegal situation and that it can’t rely on a right of self-defense or on a state of necessity in order to preclude the wrongfulness of its actions.
The Court found the Israeli administrative regime’s restriction on freedom of movement were illegal even before the blockade was adopted. FYI, even before the blockade was adopted, the Court declared that, with the exception of Israeli citizens, the associated administrative regime that Israel had instituted in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had violated the basic human rights of the inhabitants and was illegal (See paras 122, 134, 137, and 142). http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1671.pdf
Goldstone cited those ICJ findings of fact and Israel’s legislative measures which confirmed that:
Despite prohibitions under international humanitarian law (IHL), Israel has applied its domestic laws throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967. . . . .[T]he application of Israeli domestic laws has resulted in institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the benefit of Jewish settlers, both Israeli citizens and others. Exclusive benefits reserved for Jews derive from the two-tiered civil status under Israel’s domestic legal regime based on a “Jewish nationality,” which entitles “persons of Jewish race or descendency” to superior rights and privileges, particularly in land use, housing, development, immigration and access to natural resources, as affirmed in key legislation. Administrative procedures qualify indigenous inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory as “alien persons” and, thus, prohibited from building on, or renting, large portions of land designated by the Government of Israel as “State land” (para 206). . . . . From the facts available to it, the Mission believes that in the movement and access policy there has been a violation of the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin (para 1548).
The Goldstone Mission also noted that a Court could reasonably conclude that the measures employed amounted to the crime of persecution (para. 1936).
Re: The Ynet news story to which you link contains no real commitment from Hamas.
Point me at a story that contains a real iron clad commitment from the Israeli side to implement Security Council resolutions 1860 (2009), 1850 (2008), 1550 (2004), 338 (1973), or 242 (1967).
The reconciliation agreement that Hamas and Fatah signed in 2014 committed them to recognize Israel; back the UN statehood bid, based upon the two state solution and the 67 frontiers; and required their explicit written consent to accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in any event. The consequences of those decisions has even been discussed at length here at Opinio Juris and elsewhere.
Frankly, I don’t see the point in arguing the virtues of Israel’s counterclaims here, if it can’t even muster a defense of its actions against the public allegations and admissions of its own soldiers.
The phrase “calm up to this moment” does not tell me about what Hamas will do in the future. Here is my copy of the H-F reconciliation agreement:
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Text-of-Fatah-Hamas-agreement-376350
What I see here, under “Political Moves”, are a series of demands. I don’t see anything about the conditions under which Israel would be recognized. As for the “Jewish state” issue, let me point out that Palestine’s constitution defines it as a Muslim state.
Re: The phrase “calm up to this moment” does not tell me about what Hamas will do in the future.
UN SC 1515 and the Quartet Road Map was hastily introduced during the ICJ Wall case deliberations and was cited in the opinion. Israel quickly adopted 14 reservations and an indifferent attitude towards its own obligations. The Plan cited the “Mitchell Report” and required Israel to freeze construction in the settlements, including construction for so-called natural growth. The legal conclusions contained in the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee Report (aka the “Mitchell Report”) said that Israel would have to withdraw its armed forces according to the terms of UN SC resolutions 242 and 338 before the Palestinians or Syrians could logically be expected to drop their corresponding belligerent claims. I predict that Hamas will not renounce violence until Israel does so too, and certainly not until Israel withdraws its armed forces from all of the Palestinian territory captured during the 1967 war.
Gaza is still playing host to a large number of refugees because Israel is not in compliance with the multilateral mechanism agreed upon by the parties in article XII of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements of 13 September 1993 in respect to the return of persons displaced by the 1967 war. Israeli leaders routinely claim that repatriating even one of those refugees would cross an imaginary red line. I predict Hamas will continue to insist upon their right of return.
RE: As for the “Jewish state” issue, let me point out that Palestine’s constitution defines it as a Muslim state.
Yes, but it explicitly stipulates: “Article 4(1) Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect for the sanctity of all other divine religions shall be maintained. …Article 9 Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, color, religion, political views or disability.”
UN GA resolution 181(II) contained a minority protection plan that required both states to adopt fundamental laws providing constitutional guarantees of non-discrimination and equality under the law. But Israel has always evaded that legal obligation and has postponed the adoption of any constitution wherein its embarrassing two-tiered system of municipal law and discrimination against non-Jews would have to be spelled out. See “MKs debate protection of ‘equality’ in future constitution: Religious MKs reject inclusion of ensurance of equality, saying it would contradict Judaism.” http://www.haaretz.com/news/mks-debate-protection-of-equality-in-future-constitution-1.234565 and Lapid: Israel’s definition as Jewish and democratic is an unsolvable contradiction http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Lapid-Israels-definition-as-Jewish-and-democratic-is-an-unsolvable-contradiction-330067
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov refused to accept US demands that Palestine recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. So it has never been a Quartet demand.
FYI, like resolution 181, the Quartet Roadmap also required the Palestinians to adopt a new democratic constitutional form of government under an “empowered Prime Minister”. Oddly enough, it did not contain a similar demand that Israel should finally adopt a democratic constitution too. In exchange for those added measures and improved security cooperation, the Quartet pledged that they would begin promoting recognition of the Palestinian State starting in December of 2003 (Phase II).
Re: What I see here, under “Political Moves”, are a series of demands. I don’t see anything about the conditions under which Israel would be recognized.
President Abbas was named as the head of state. He and the PLO already recognized Israel under the terms of the 1993 exchange of letters between Israel and the PLO. I already mentioned that the April 2014 agreement calls for Islamic Jihad and Hamas to join the PLO.
In 2011, after the UNESCO vote, the Quartet asked Abbas to hold off on joining other UN agencies, signing UN conventions, or joining the ICJ and ICC. In exchange, they demanded that Netanyahu provide a map of Israel’s proposed borders within 90 days. He has talked around the subject since then, but there’s still no map. The Palestinian side has explained that, if Israel won’t accept the 67 lines, then, it should just show us a map of this “Israel” they keep talking about, and then we’ll be able to tell you whether we recognize it or not.
Oddly, i seem to have missed Kevin’s post on the Merriam & Schmitt work on Israeli targeting policy. As Kevin is an objective and serious scholar analyzing the reality of IHL and not a partisan hack looking to highlight anti-Israel reports (no matter their credibility) and bury studies that show Israel in a better light, I’m sure he must have written one. Can someone link it please?
Ooh, snap!
Moshe Yaalon, new Israeli Defense Minister, at the Shurat HaDin love-fest last weekend: “we are going to hurt Lebanese civilians to include kids of the family. We went through a very long deep discussion… we did it then, we did it in [the] Gaza Strip, we are going to do it in any round of hostilities in the future.”
A nice counterpoint to the Merriam and Schmitt work — two scholars for whom I have great respect, but whose conclusions obviously reflect the limits and biases of the IDF members they were given access to.
Yaalon also refused to take nuking Iran off the table. But, of course, the real problem is the genocidal Iran regime, which for the past three decades has been just days away from developing nuclear weapons…
You sure Ya’alon’s comments were “a nice counterpoint to the Merriam and Schmitt work,” Kevin? I’ll reserve judgment until I’ve seen the video of his speech, but I’d be shocked if he said, or even insinuated, that the IDF would *target* “Lebanese civilians to include kids of the family,” or that it targeted civilians in Gaza. Much more likely, he was simply pointing out that, because of where enemy forces position themselves, attacks on legitimate military objectives are bound to result in tragic civilian casualties. That doesn’t answer the question, of course, whether such strikes satisfy the requirement of proportionality. But that’s a far, far different question from whether it is permissible, or conceivable, that Ya’alon would authorize deliberate attacks upon civilian targets.
The Israeli Supreme Court has officially approved collective punishment. A Deputy Speaker of the Knesset from Netanyahu’s party has openly called for ethnically cleansing Palestinians. Yet you find it inconceivable that Ya’alon would encourage excessive collateral damage as a way of breaking Palestinian will?
I have requested access to the video of Ya’alon’s speech. We’ll see then what he actually said.
Kevin got his Ya’alon “quotes” from the Electronic Intifada report on the conference. (Note that both the “we’ll kill kids” and “threatened to nuke” claims come directly from the propaganda blog’s article here http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israeli-defense-minister-promises-kill-more-civilians-and-threatens-nuke-iran)
Here’s how EI describes it:
“Speaking at a conference in Jerusalem, Yaalon threatened that “we are going to hurt Lebanese civilians to include kids of the family. We went through a very long deep discussion … we did it then, we did it in [the] Gaza Strip, we are going to do it in any round of hostilities in the future.””
And here’s how the Jerusalem Post quotes Ya’alon http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Yaalon-After-Gaza-war-decisions-I-can-still-look-at-myself-in-the-mirror-402189:
“Ya’alon recounted targeting decisions in which he was involved when it first became apparent that Hezbollah was purposely placing weapons in civilian homes in Lebanon.
The defense establishment had a “dilemma of what to do with it,” he said. “If we don’t intercept the rocket-launchers in advance, civilians will be hurt, if not killed. If we hit the launchers, it will hurt or kill Lebanese civilians.”
He said a “long, deep discussion” regarding the “moral and legal considerations” took place before the final decision to strike the rocket launcher.
“Later we were blamed for collateral damage and killing civilians,” he said. But he maintained that the IDF had done what it had to do then, “did it again in the Gaza Strip, [and] will do it in any round of hostilities in the future.””
In other words, the IDF had serious discussions regarding the legal and moral implications of targeting specific military targets embedded in civilian homes, the known likelihood of injuring or killing Lebanese civilians – which the IDF felt created a “moral dilemma” – and determined that on balance, the military advantage and necessity of targeting those legitimate military targets outweighed the loss of civilian life that could reasonably be anticipated from striking them.
By any rational standard, that type of analysis is precisely what the laws of war call for and precisely what we want military institutions to engage in. Far from “threatening to kill civilians” in some random and immoral way, the IDF assigned significant moral value to the lives of innocent civilians that would be impacted by striking those known military targets and thus required “deep discussions” to determine what to do with that “dilemma”.
Only a propaganda site like EI could take that serious discussion of proportionality issues and turn it into a basis to assault Israel for “threatening to kill civilians, including children.”
And Kevin, your taking that claim at face value – and then parroting it to a wider audience here, while cloaking it in your authority – is an absolute disgrace, for which you ought to apologize.
“.. an absolute disgrace, for which you ought to apologize.z’
C’mon Kevin. Man up so we can all move on.
The JPost has already been caught completely distorting one speaker’s words in order to make him seem like he was defending Israel’s targeting practices — which he wasn’t. So there is no more basis to trust JPost’s selective quotation of Ya’alon than there is to distrust EI’s. When Shurat HaDin releases the unedited video of his speech, which it appears from their website they will eventually do, we will know who is correct.
R@Kevin
“When Shurat HaDin releases the unedited video of his speech, which it appears from their website they will eventually do, we will know who is correct.”
You posted EI’s translation, and now you can’t vouch for it’s accuracy?
Great!
I guess I just lack your psychic ability to know whether or not the writing of others is accurate. Makes me wonder why someone as profoundly gifted as yourself would waste time trolling people who acknowledge that they can’t separate true and false simply through the sheer power of their mind.
Thanks for the post Kevin . You know Kevin , I can live with the idea that you express your opinion , while :
You don’t know Hebrew, you can’t read by yourself decisions of the Israeli supreme court, you are not so acquainted at all with what is going on in that: as hell complicated region ,it’s all right , you may be ” counter commented ” , and acquainted in accordance , yet :
Claiming that the Israeli supreme court, one of the most experienced, perfected, sophisticated, skillful , just , tribunals in the world (if not the utmost, let alone , in light of amazing challenges it is facing) has:
Authorized collective punishments , I must admit , it is too much , even for a guy like me .
All the amazing means , the IDF is implying while fighting actually , in order to spare as much as possible , lives of innocent civilians , and according to you :
The IDF , is exceeding the supreme court in it’s actions and protocols ?? I wonder how far false propaganda can go ??
Kevin , when the supreme court has authorized the sealing or destroying houses of horrific terrorists , it has authorized to do it to their own houses , not of other’s !! their family members , had to suffer , collateral damage , like we all do suffer :
A person is sent to prison , his family , his kids, his wife are deprived from livelihood , father model , protector and so forth ….. they are also punished according to you ?? No they are not !! they are not accused and indicted , but absorbing collateral damage .
In civil life , they are not involved at all , there is no need even to deter them directly , from future criminality ( but to deter the general population ) while here , let alone that :
Typically , they assist those terrorists , whether morally , whether physically sometimes .
You know Kevin , that in civil life , and in war let alone , collateral damage , is far greater than this one , and considered legal !!
P.S : The law , which permits destruction or sealing of such houses , is a british law , military british law , valid in west bank , and the Israeli state both , From the period of British occupation and military regime.
Thanks
Kevin , let me just enlighten you , concerning the Israeli supreme court , and the probability , that yaalon , the defence minister , said actually what is claimed :
Dan haluz , the ex joint chief of staff ( the Israeli of course ) was candidate for that post at the time ( 2005-2004 ) . In that time, a petition to the Israeli supreme court, has been filed, for prevention of his appointment, due to his following saying at the time, I quote him (approximately, my translation) while interviewed , describing his feelings and perception, while dropping heavy bomb in an elimination of one of the greatest terrorists of the Hamas at the time , he replied so: well , no more than:
” a light strike in the wing ” ( of the jet , as if : no more than that , don’t repent too much …..no regrets …. )
For that statement ( and others ) a huge row in public opinion ,did burst all over . you can reach the petition in that link here :
http://elyon1.court.gov.il/files/04/570/057/O11/04057570.o11.pdf
It’s in Hebrew of course , so my suggestion to you is as follows :
Choose an anti Zionist , anti Israeli guy ( you can’t miss I guess ) one who masters Hebrew , and ask him , generally speaking , what is all about , you would understand :
How heavy can be the price for such hasty statements, all in the Israeli state, and , how the supreme court treats such thinks (approved finally, I mean his appointment, but wasn’t a picnic !).
You can read about that story, in English, here, just skip the irrelevant paragraphs, and reach the paragraph starting with:
” the appointment is expect to survive both ……” here :
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/halutz-next-idf-chief-ya-alon-to-leave-post-in-june-1.151080
Now , try to think again about the plausibility of such statement , the subject of comments and the post above .
Thanks
@Kevin
“I guess I just lack your psychic ability.. ”
It’s not psychic abiltiy, it’s called ‘fact checking, it’s called ‘vetting a source’.
You chose not to ‘fact check’ because the target was Israel.
So now we have an expert in criminal law praising an organization whose main activity is to spread anonymous claims whose veracity cannot be verified. I am not sure whether “breaking the silence” are indeed irreplaceable, but KJH certainly is. He sets a fine example how not to behave for young jurists. If you are a professional hater of Zion that picks up his knowledge from sources like Max Blumenthal, EI, breaking the silence and their like, try to avoid commenting in public about the topic, especially not as a law expert.
`Yes, can’t imagine why soldiers calling attention to IDF crimes would choose to remain anonymous. It’s not like this happens in Israel. Or this.
The comments on this post would be amusing if they weren’t so sad.
So now KJH brings about two irrelevant examples that add nothing to the discussion except for highlighting his ignorance once again.
The first example is of 43 reserve soldiers from an intelligence unit that announced that they would disobey certain orders. This is, of course, illegal, but to the best of my knowledge no disciplinary action was ever taken, despite the fact that the soldiers were interviewed every where, including by major TV channels.
The second example is of the infamous Mordechai Vaanunu who sold Israeli nuclear secrets to the Sunday Times and was sentenced to 18 years of imprisonment for the offense. While in jail he was caught preparing various sketches of the Dimona facility where he was once employed. The court decided that he would be put under GSS surveillance.
What is the relevance of the above example? Surely, a soldier that reports a war crime to the authorities, or even to the media – while not on uniform – is not in violation of any code. Can KJH come up with a counterexample to that? I doubt.
@Jackdaw,
That you describe quoting a JPost article — one that you have no way of knowing is more correct than the EI one — as “vetting” and “fact checking” pretty much tells us all we need to know.
But, of course, it’s Israel. So by definition whatever account is most flattering to Israel has to be correct, right?
Kevin, I have traced for you :
” The Defense (Emergency) Regulations, 1945″
The original British martial law on Palestine , go to the link, look for article 119 (PART XII – MISCELANIOUS PENAL PROVISIONS , Forfeiture and demolition of property, etc.) The same form has been kept since then (concerning the mentioned article at least , I mean , concerning house demolition and so forth….. although there are some current amendments to other articles ) here is the link :
http://nolegalfrontiers.org/military-orders/mil02?lang=en
Thanks
@Kevin
Richard Silverstein, the Tikkun Olam blogger, is as anti-Zionist and anti-Israel as anyone.
He speaks Hebrew and listened to Ya’alon’s video speech. Silverstein reports that Asa took things ‘slightly out of context’.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2015/05/07/israels-new-government-the-power-of-one/#comments
EI deliberately skewed Ya’alon’s words, making the JPost report the more accurate and reliable.
If you don’t want to eat crow, try the jackdaw, they’re delicious.
Kevin,
Those are particularly mendacious examples, given that both involved crimes.
More to the point, Breaking the Silence is an Israeli NGO, with publically known Israeli directors and spokespeople who very publically tout their reports … all without retaliation from the Israeli government. Because, well, their actions aren’t illegal. So it seems pretty hard to argue that individual soldiers would face legal difficulty.
What anonymous testimonies do is prevent meaningful investigation or contradiction. There’s a reason a criminal law system that doesn’t give the accused the right to face his accuser would be unanimously rejected as unjust.
But – like EI translations – so long as anonymous accusations confirm your preexisting biases, that doesn’t bother you in the least.
smart move jackdaw , smart and rough !! lightning strike , you have a great future ahead …… Pity on those lawyers who will have to face you, you shall take them down at once….
@el roam
The Brooklyn, NY venue makes for smart and rough practice.
Truth be told, I was a mediocre trial attorney.
@Prof Heller
Hi there, i would like to post a few links relevant to the points you have been making (and contra the points some of your interlocutors have been making against you).
First of all, Breaking the Silence is definitely credible, since it has been mentioned even in the US State Department Country Reports on Human Rights of 2012:
http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2012humanrightsreport/index.htm?dynamic_load_id=204365&year=2012#wrapper
I quote from the Report
“Defence for Children International-Palestine (DCI-Palestine) and Breaking the Silence claimed Israeli security services continued to abuse, and in some cases torture, minors who frequently were arrested on suspicion of stone throwing, to coerce confessions.”
I doubt that the US State Department would quote a completely untrustworthy source as an indicator of Israeli human rights abuses.
But anyway, Amos Harel, probably the most respected military analyst journalist in Israel (respected by both Left and Right, even the hard Right) has granted that soldiers that testified to Breaking the Silence are not traitors. I quote him:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.654972
“Pavlovian reactions to its [Breaking the Silence’s] report will no doubt accuse the testifying soldiers of besmirching the IDF and State of Israel, and try to label them as traitors to the homeland. Based on conversations with some of the these soldiers, it seems these accusations are baseless.”
Ergo, the soldiers are not lying for “political reasons”, they are not traitors, they seem credible and their allegations need to be investigated — that’s what Amos Harel suggests.
Coming now to one of the points you made, i.e., that Breaking the Silence soldiers are afraid to disclose their identities in public, i would like to make the point that you are absolutely correct for the simple reason that, irrespective of any reprisals that they might face from the Israeli Defense Forces, they will certainly face the hostility of a society whose mindset is becoming increasingly militarized, they will be the “the traitors” in the eyes of the Israeli public. The Israeli establishment is cognizant of this fear of the soldiers (becoming pariahs in their own country) so it targets this very anonymity:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/16/former-israeli-soldiers-break-silence
“Since Breaking the Silence was launched in 2004, it has met with a hostile response from Israel’s political and military establishment, partly targeting the anonymity of some witnesses. There have been attempts to discredit supporters and block funding, and its leaders have been subject to interrogation. Censure increased after it published testimony by soldiers who took part in the war on Gaza in 2008-09.”
No wonder then that many soldiers wouldn’t be willing to reveal their identities.
Larry Derfner has a good piece which sheds a small light on the emotional dynamics that attend a soldier. He quotes a female officer(June 2013):
http://972mag.com/why-soldiers-dont-break-the-silence-to-the-idf/73638/
“The unit pride there is really strong and it’s hard to raise the slightest criticism. We all had it drilled into us, without end, not to think and to keep your mouth shut. Once I asked my commander if I could give some water to a few Palestinian prisoners who were sitting tied up in the sun. He gave me this look of contempt and I never dared open my mouth again. I became indifferent to people’s suffering, and even if I wanted to say something, I didn’t. By instinct, I kept quiet.”
And he concludes that the Army cult puts enormous pressure on young soldiers and officers. I would venture that basically this is the fear not to look “soft”, not to look like a weakling. So that’s an additional (and complementary) explanation for the reluctance of the soldiers to reveal their names, along with the explanation that they are unwilling to face the public ostracism that the Israeli society reserves for the “traitors” whistleblowers who dare speak to Breaking the Silence — or for those who are satisfied with the pre-1967 lines as borders.
And a final point that helps corroborate the callousness that is present in the IDF, partly as a result of the unwillingness of the IDF to investigate and punish any violators. I quote Amos Harel again, on how some soldiers shoot Palestinians just in order to get an adrenalin fix, or to escape boredom(May 2014):
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.596113
” A fact that is not widely discussed is that for quite a few soldiers who participate in dispersing demonstrations it’s a chance to take part in the “action” – firing shots, albeit it with non-lethal ammunition, in the midst of the chaos, and the adrenaline rush of a confrontation. We can reasonably assume that the soldier was seeking an exciting experience, or an escape from boredom, and that the Border Police acceded to his request to allow him to fire rubber bullets at the demonstration.”
Now, that is truly sick, and speaks volumes that the IDF is not really interested in uprooting the criminal elements that exist in its ranks –why else would such incidents not be “widely discussed”, as Harel tells us.
Just to make sure that no one is going to try to discredit this Harel article, i just cite in defence of his credibility that even the hard right-wing pro-occupation org CAMERA considers him credible in general(April 2013):
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=2&x_outlet=55&x_article=2434
“On Friday (April 5), the usually sharp Amos Harel…”
He was also a participant in some discussions that the hard right-wing (and awfully Islamophobic) Gatestone Institute was hosting, and he was introduced as “our fifth and last regular participant, Amos Harel, the distinguished military reporter and defense analyst for the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.”
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3252/the-call-something-has-changed-in-israeli
Therefore, no chance that Harel can be dismissed as “delusional Lefty” who would lie for political reasons. And his revelation transmits the same aura of IDF callousness that the testimonies of Breaking the Silence do.
Part 1
&Prof Heller
you said:
“A nice counterpoint to the Merriam and Schmitt work — two scholars for whom I have great respect, but whose conclusions obviously reflect the limits and biases of the IDF members they were given access to.”
It is surprising that the two scholars you mentioned would include in their analyses (both their papers were highlighted by hard right-wing pro-occupation blogs, such as CAMERA and the Elder of Ziyon) a talking point that comes from the Israeli hard right-wing:that Hamas wants civilian deaths of Palestinians. Now, it’s one thing to say that Hamas has something to gain even if the alleged human shields are struck, and another thing to say that this is their aim: for it is much more probable that Hamas does not want civilian deaths of Palestinians but prefers to gain the military advantage of, say, a Hamas commander’s staying alive because Israel aborted a strike to said commander, on the grounds that it would be disproportional. But the two scholars tell us that Hamas actually “hopes”” that Israel kill civilians(page 7 of one of the analyses of the aforementioned scholars,”Israeli Targeting: A Legal Appraisal”):
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2596836
I quote:
“In particular, Israel’s foes hope to draw the IDF into strikes that cause civilian casualties and destroy civilian infrastructure so as to intensify international pressure on Israel and exacerbate its isolation.”
Now, this is egregious repetition of right-wing hasbara, i.e., that Hamas wants to see Palestinian civilians die, rather than gain any military advantage that the alleged human shields would provide by forcing the IDF not to strike. And it is a ridiculous point, that goes against human nature: Hamas members prioritize their own survival and the survival of their military machine over any possibility to badmouth Israel through accusations about dead Palestinian civilians. If we ask a Hamas commander if he prefers that this or that rocket stash is preserved or that it be destroyed but with some Palestinian civilian fatalities, he will definitely prefer the military advantage gained by the preservation of the rockets, because that’s the tool of his trade, it is resistance that he is engaging into, and it is this that is his primary aim. The placing of military objectives near civilians is meant to deter Israel so as NOT to strike, not in the hope that Israel will strike. Any possibility of badmouthing of Israel that might accrue from an Israeli operation that results in civilian deaths will be exploited but is not an “aim” of Hamas, actually it is contradictory to Hamas’ primary objective which is to preserve its military machine as much intact as possible.
continuing to Part2
After successive attempts to post Part 2 of my comment i give up and hope that the moderators will be able to sort it trough(there is nothing unsavory in it, wordwise or else). It just disa ppears, it doesn’t show like it is in moderation.
Dionissis, i think you’ve managed to completely miss the point – which is that shielding is viewed by Hamas as win-win. Either it deters a strike or they get propaganda value out of it. The last favorable outcome, for hamas, is a stroke with no collateral damage.
Part 2
&Prof Heller
As for the claim made by the two scholars that hamas wants to “draw” Israel to destroy civilian infrastructure, the obvious reply is that Israel does so on its own, it doesn’t need cajoling by Hamas. Military attacks have been ordered by Israel even for Public Relations purpose, as we know, and in fact in this last war, Protective Edge, Israel admits that it destroyed civilian buildings belonging to influential Gazans so as to make them pressure Hamas to accept the ceasefire terms that Israel proposed. I quote from the Israei Institute for National Security Studies(INSS): http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=8720
“During Operation Protective Edge, it was necessary to damage Hamas’s strategic capabilities (the rockets and the offensive tunnels), its operatives, the infrastructures serving the organization, and its senior commanders (by targeted assassinations) before Hamas would accept a ceasefire and be deterred from continuing the fighting. But this cumulative achievement[of the IDF] was not enough to motivate Hamas to agree to a ceasefire, because Israel chose not to threaten the organization’s future or act to undermine its rule of the Gaza Strip. Only after causing damage to the assets of Gaza’s social elite, which provides legitimacy to Hamas’ rule, by bombing the city’s residential high rises, did Hamas’s profit-loss calculus change.”
He is a Maj. General referring to the IDF’s actions during the last phase of Protective Edge. I quote two Israeli University Profs again from INSS(page 4 of the pdf, “Can Declaration of War Be Part of a Strategy to Offset the Asymmetry of the Israeli-Hamas Conflict in the Gaza Strip? Kobi Michael and Ilana Kwartin”):
http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/6_Michael_Kwartin760393647.pdf
” In fact, it was only during the operation’s last week, after Israel bombed prominent symbols of Hamas’s rule, especially the high-rise apartment buildings in downtown Gaza City, that Hamas changed its conduct. To borrow from Defense Minister Ya’alon, the turnaround in this operation – Hamas’ agreeing to a ceasefire on Israel’s terms – occurred only after Israel “removed the gloves” in the last week and dared do what it hadn’t done before.”
But who is the Major General who just admitted to targeting civilian buildings for no other reason than to secure a ceasefire? I quote from his profile in the INSS: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4300&researcherid=6142
“With the approval of Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh has been seconded from the IDF to the INSS research staff as a distinguished visiting senior fellow.”
Oops, he speaks for the IDF. Now, that is disconcerting because, if we believe Prof Yoram Dinstein, the Israeli international Law expert, we have a violation of international Law. I quote from Dinsteins “The conduct of hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict(LOIAC), second edition page 93:
“LOIAC does not condone an attack against objects that are not military objectives only because the attack serves as a catalyst to an early cessation of hostilities (see infra 311). A potential political outcome is not an admissible consideration in asse3ssing the character of the object as a military objective. And ‘forcing change in the negotiating attitudes’ of the enemy cannot be deemed a proper military advantage”.
Well, that’s what Israel did, no? Anyway, i am an ignorant when it comes to International Law so i just quote Prof. Dinstein in the hope that someone will enlighten me if Israel indeed committed a crime by bombing buildings with the sole purpose of securing a ceasefire, as Israel (unwittingly?) admits.
However things stand on this, it is certain that the two scholars that Prof Heller mentioned (John J. Merriam and Michael Scmmitt) have got it all wrong when they say that Hamas hopes that Israel destroy civilian infrastructure. In fact, as Israel tells us, it was this destruction of civilian buildings that prompted the acceptance of a ceasefire by Hamas on Israel’s terms, as the links from the INSS prove. If Hamas wanted destruction of civilian infrastructure so as to badmouth Israel(as the two scholars John J. Merriam and Michael Scmmitt tell us), it would have welcomed the destruction and hope for even more, not try to avoid it by agreeing to a cease-fire.
Hi Akiva
you said:
“Dionissis, i think you’ve managed to completely miss the point – which is that shielding is viewed by Hamas as win-win.”
Akiva, i don’t think i missed this win-win point, i am perfectly aware that Hamas stands to gain something in terms of public relations if civilians die. Actually, i even said so.Here is what i said:
“The placing of military objectives near civilians is meant to deter Israel so as NOT to strike, not in the hope that Israel will strike. Any possibility of badmouthing of Israel that might accrue from an Israeli operation that results in civilian deaths will be exploited but is not an “aim” of Hamas”
I made explicit that the relative value for Hamas of avoiding an Israeli strike is overwhelming compared to the value of a public relations gain if Palestinian civilians die in case the IDF strikes, so it is completely unnatural to describe Hamas as “hoping” that Palestinian civilians die, as the two scholars did.
The reason that i explained that this alleged hope of Hamas is a talking point coming from the pro-occupation right-wing advocates is that this camp is consistently trying to present Hamas as impervious to reason, so that the pro-occupation side will have an excuse to prolong the occupation(“if we retreat from the West Bank,Hamas will take over and rockets will be fired from there too”). So, in their minds, it pays to portray Hamas as a sadistic monster that rejoices (“hopes”)in seeing Palestinian civilians die, instead of portraying the situation as it really is, namely that Hamas stands to gain if civilians die,but stands to gain far more if the alleged civilian shields deter the IDF strike. Therefore Hamas does not “hope” that civilians die, but rather that the IDF abort the hypothetical strike. The subtext of the exaggeration in this distortion of the Hamas image is that such an enemy will never want peace and that all the civilian deaths are on Hamas. It is a demonizing talking point, more rhetoric than accurate window into Hamas’ way of thinking.
You said:
” Either it deters a strike or they get propaganda value out of it. The last favorable outcome, for hamas, is a stroke with no collateral damage.
But the two scholars, through their misleading use of language (“hopes”) were not only misrepresenting as the most favorable outcome for Hamas the death of Palestinian civilians(it isn’t the most favorable) but also demonized the psychology of Hamas
Dionissis,
Great point about the desire of Israel apologists — in these comments and elsewhere — to portray Hamas as irrational and impossible to deal with. It’s the same tactic we’ve seen regarding Iran and nuclear weapons. Indeed, it’s more than a little ironic, and deeply perverse, that Israel apologists constantly emphasise the nuclear threat Iran supposedly poses to Israel — despite the fact that Iran does not have nukes and has been six months away from acquiring them for the past 20 years — while ignoring the fact that powerful officials in Israel, which does have nuclear weapons, consistently refuse to take nuking Iran off the table.
The Hamas Charter declares that Freemasons, the Rotary and Lions Clubs are ‘cells of subversion and saboteurs’.
Rational or irrational?
BTW. Bensouda said her office was trying to get a copy of the Breaking the Silence report “to see how it can assist us in the preliminary examination phase.” She said the report must be studied before her office can take a position on it.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4656758,00.htmlI
I wonder if Breaking the Silence will roll over when they’re served with a subpeona from the ICC demanding the identities of their sources.
The ICC has no power to subpoena anything from an NGO. Nor do the rules of evidence prohibit the judges from relying on hearsay by anonymous witnesses. But thanks for playing.
Right. ‘Playing’ international law, as opposed to practicing it. That’s because it’s ephemeral, fairy law, where the parties tilt at each other on pink unicorns while shooting zephyres. International law is the province of academics, moot court enthusiasts and one-worlders.
Hi prof. Heller
Alas i know firsthand this pro-occupation( usually right-wing but not exclusively) attempt to cast Hamas as the boogeyman that will spoil the alleged Israeli preference for a two-state solution: i used to be an online defender of Israel (the reason being that i was swallowing the hasbara emanating from pro-occupation blogs wholesale, never questioning their veracity). I hope that God, if She exists (contrary to my atheism) will forgive me this particular sin, especially in light of the fact that i am right now atoning:):):):)
The second most widely respected military analyst/journalist in Israel is, i think, Avi Isacharoff. Here is how he puts the matter about Israel’s exploitation of the Hamas-as-an-irredentist-spoiler-of-any-two-state-solution meme (June 2014, emphasis mine):
http://www.timesofisrael.com/the-government-is-unified-but-the-palestinians-arent/
” The group[Hamas] had cracked down on the rogue Kassam launchers. That, plus the fact that it wouldn’t accept the existence of Israel, meant Jerusalem had a perfect excuse for not making peace with the Palestinians. Now, a single government has been formed in Gaza and the West Bank which says it will accept all the conditions set by the Quartet for Mideast Peace (recognizing Israel, keeping to previous agreements and renouncing terror).”
The truth is that Hamas, like all bureaucracies/factions has as its ultimate objective the preservation of, and maybe even the increase of, its power. If Hamas is brought into the peace process, and Israel is willing to make appropriate territorial sacrifices (I shall explain which are these) that would allow Hamas to save face in the Arab/Muslim world in case Hamas accepted the hypothetical agreement,then there is a chance that Hamas, lured by the possibility of taking over the Palestinian Authority and becoming the sovereign of a newly founded Palestine, would agree to such a two state solution which would make Hamas beneficiary of the western and Arab economic aid that is currently directed to Abbas, the Palestinian President, and his faction (a rival of Hamas) Fatah.
Hamas has enough muscle to take down the Palestinian Authority if Israel lets it, and is the only faction that has enough muscle to guarantee to Israel that any hypothetical final peace agreement will be respected –Hamas has already shown that it is capable of maintaining quiet with Israel with regard to rockets by chasing smaller factions that attempt to fire rockets Israel.
But in order for Hamas to be able to recognize Israel and abandon the right of return of Palestinians(no way Israel can accept this) it has to show some honour-gain to the Arab public and to the Muslim public, a gain that cannot be anything less than full sovereignty over East Jerusalem and especially, the Temple Mount. Jerusalem, with its supposedly holy places, is at the root of this conflict(i can prove it with a billion links), given the ethno-religious honor concerns of both sides of the conflict, and in case Hamas becomes able to score the ethnoreligious-honour victory of regaining the Prophet’s city from Israel, it will probably be able to sell such a gain to the Muslim world and to the Arab world as worth an end-of-conflict agreement. Hamas would be in a position to say that it managed to save Allah’s city from the Jews, and this would hopefully make the aggrieved Arab and Muslim world(who is thirsty for any victory over Israel, after consecutive lost wars) see this gain as removing any shame that Israel has brought upon them in the past. On the other hand, no other offer that Israel can make will help Hamas save as much face as it needs in order to accept Israel’s right to exist. Any offer to the Palestinians less than East Jerusalem is bound to be seen as condescending by the whole Arab and Muslim world, and Hamas won’t be able to take such an offer: if it does the Palestinians will be seen as the same of the Arab and Muslim world.
But Israel is as intransigent as Hamas when it comes to ethno-religious honour, so there is no way it will ever consider putting the sovereignty of East Jerusalem on the negotiating place. It seems that even Rabin, the Nobel Peace Prize winner&architect of the Oslo peace process, knew beforehand that the issue of sovereignty over East Jerusalem would preclude any peace agreement in the end, and the whole peace process was a charade given that the Palestinians would never agree over East Jerusalem. I quote from the hard right-wing Israpundit:
http://www.israpundit.org/archives/63606403
“A representative of the settlers, Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun, who had Rabin’s ear, met with him to discuss the agreement. The Rabbi asked, “If this is what you are giving away now, what will you have left to offer in a final-status agreement?”
Rabin replied, “There will be no final-status agreement. It is impossible to reach an agreement on Jerusalem. We will continue to manage the interim agreement and proceed in stages. i.e., “To expand the Palestinian areas, to give them more authority.”
In the end, Israel does not intend to make the sacrifices it might take for real peace, and this shows that Israel is not placing peace and Israeli lives above anything, as it likes to claim. Israel actually values its ethno-religious honor much more than a hypothetical real and everlasting peace. If the Israeli public is presented with a thought experiment that offers Israel a choice between real and enduring and safe peace with an accompanying loss of East Jerusalem and the preservation of East Jerusalem but without peace, Israelis would go for the second option en mass(relevant polls definitely hint in this direction). So i blame Israel.
It is not double standards not to blame the Palestinians, even if they are intransigent on Jerusalem, and to concentrate on Israel: it is quite intuitive to have greater moral expectations from western nations (Israel included) in such situations, because the western nations have all the assets that are needed to help them swallow their honor in the interest of peace. Western nations are collectively, richer, more educated, more strong militarily, hence they have enough privilege that can help them assuage any (parochial, to be sure) feeling of “hurt honor”. The Palestinians on the other hand, or many other non western nations, are more excused to be falling victims of honour concers, since their honour(parochial concern as it is)is the only thing they have to stick to. So it is ok to have greater expectations from western nations than from the less privileged nations. Which means that under the circumstances we should be holding Israel accountable mostly, because it costs much less to Israel to let go of its honour than it is for the Palestinians. Israel is, under the circumstances, more capable of sacrifice. Yet Israel remains intransigent over East Jerusalem, thus not giving peace a chance.
Correction of a sentence of mine. I said
“Hamas won’t be able to take such an offer: if it does the Palestinians will be seen as the same of the Arab and Muslim world.”
I obviously meant:
“Hamas won’t be able to take such an offer: if it does the Palestinians will be seen as the sHame of the Arab and Muslim world.”