Posts Tagged ‘Gaza’

Proportionality and Collective Punishment

Saturday, August 29th, 2009
A Gazan tunnel in Rafah

A Palestinian tunnel digger in Rafah.

The AP is reporting that an Israeli airstrike killed 3 Palestinians and wounded 7 others inside a smuggling tunnel between Gaza and Egypt, according to a Palestinian Health Ministry official.

The Israeli military said the strike was in retaliation for a mortar attack from Gaza on Monday that lightly wounded an Israeli soldier.

The tunnels are the only way for Palestinians to bring in fuel and other goods (e.g., live animals for fresh meat) because of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. It is rumored that Hamas maintains its own, secret tunnels for importing arms, including the mortars and rockets used to attack Israel. The AP doesn’t specify what exactly these smugglers were doing; however, to my knowledge the Palestinian Health Ministry is not run by Hamas,  therefore the official’s involvement points to civilian smugglers. This is clearly a point requiring more reporting, so take that nugget with a lump of salt.

If the Palestinians were indeed civilians, this is truly beyond the pale. Even if they were militants, the proportionality is both disturbing and telling. The math reads like this:

Wounding an Israeli = Wounding seven Palestinians

If the math stopped there, it would be hard to justify. But to kill 3 additional Palestinians? Taken together, this one incident does a lot to reinforce and instill the perception that Israel does not consider Palestinians to be fellow humans. It also gives Palestinians little cause to extend the same consideration to Israelis. With air strikes like these, Israel does not help itself to reach a negotiable peace.

One of the more uncomfortable aspects of Quentin Tarantino’s latest bloodbath of a movie (Inglourious Basterds) is the unquestioning use of collective punishment. I am most definitely not going to argue that the Nazis were good, wholesome folks; but I think it’s safe to say that not every soldier was a Goebbels, or even an Eichmann, for that matter.

The use of collective punishment, for the people of Gaza, is tangentially related. Except in this example, rather than being soldiers of a nation perpetuating mass genocide, the people of Gaza are civilians–punished by the blockade for the sins of a few.

Word of the day: Camelicious

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
Did you know that camel milk does not curdle easily? Now you do.

Did you know that camel milk does not curdle easily? If you didn't, now you do.

The Atlantic food blog Abroad is an absolute delight.

Take for instance, a post today by Graeme Wood about a chocolatier who moved to Dubai in order to make (and spread the word about) Camel milk chocolate:

Selling chocolate in 130-degree Dubai heat is slightly absurd, like opening a gelato stand in the Sahara. The Emirate is not known for its food, or for its friendliness to expensive things that can melt. … Camel milk chocolate, he says, produces a vaguely salty taste, distinct from the usual cow’s milk. High-end outlets in Dubai, most notably the ultralux Burj al Arab hotel, snapped up his stock, and now international chocolatiers are catching on as well.

Mmmmm… well, if it doesn’t sound all that tasy, consider what else is on offer at the Burj al-’Arab. Personally, I’d rather eat Camel chocolate than caviar with gold sprinkled on it. Or anything else with gold sprinkled on it. I’m pretty sure that’s what you do with money only after you’ve exhausted all other possibilities of uses for it, like diving into money and swimming through it.

The chocolatier-turned-camel-derivatives-evangelist has some interesting ideas for his chocolate, the best of which seems to be a camel milk chocolate bar flecked with dates. Man, that sounds good.

The post also makes me feel much less guilty about skipping camel meat during my time abroad (and incidentally makes for an excellent lede):

At one point in Wilfred Thesiger’s journeys in Arabian Sands, a rival tribe cuts him off from his source of food and water. Thesiger’s Bedouin guides reassure him: if we get desperate, we will shove stick a throat down a camel’s throat, and eat what comes up.

Is there any large animal less appetizing than the dromedary camel? It screams hoarsely and loudly, for no obvious reason. It stinks. And its meat (prized in some cultures, though nowhere known for haute cuisine) is as dry as the places it inhabits. A few years ago, I used to frequent the Birqash market outside Cairo, Egypt, where hundreds of camels caper around on spindly legs, like big hairy flamingos, and are thwacked intermittently with rods by their Nubian herders. Something is fundamentally wrong with an animal that smiles at you when you beat it with a stick.

Poor camels. I bet they’d rather be milked than thwacked.

The food Abroad blog also had a great series on Gazan cuisine a little while back. A commenter named jeff (who a friend–perhaps unduly–speculates is Jeffrey Goldberg, Atlantic bogger) took issue with its content:

Though it is interesting to hear about food in Gaza, the many political references and digs at Israel are extremely inappropriate.

Check out the series (in two parts, here and here, with an accompanying slideshow here) and decide for yourself. For me, it’s a fascinating and heartbreaking illustration of how the Gaza blockage/siege affects daily life. The IDF now limits fisherman to three nautical miles offshore, limiting the amount of fish that can be caught and sold. Beef is very rare, leading to lamb substitutions in many traditional dishes. Why? Because live animals are not allowed into Gaza legally. Smuggling could circumvent this, but calves either won’t fit into the tunnels running from Egypt into Gaza, or they get claustrophobic and panic. Sheep, on the other hand, just need a thwack, and then they’ll dutifully find their way through the tunnel on their own.

Finally, about the upscale camel chocolate, check out the punny name the chocolatier has on hand in case someone figures out how to make camel cheese.

(HT to RAG)

The saddest zoo

Friday, July 24th, 2009

Sharon Weinberger writes in Slate about a trip to the zoo in Gaza:

Something didn’t quite look right about the zebra, but it was hard to say exactly what. Of the several ramshackle zoos in Gaza, Marah, located not far from the Bureij refugee camp, is by far the cheeriest: The animals are lively, the enclosures clean, and children gather around the cage of a resting lion.

Then again, the competition is hardly stiff: The zoo in Rafah features dead animals left to rot in their cages; another animal park, situated in a densely populated neighborhood in Bureij, recently shut down amid financial difficulties (and after neighbors complained of the smell). A third, also in Bureij, is so short of funds that a fox is kept in a grocery cart with a board over the top.

It’s pretty amazing that Gaza had so many zoos to begin with. To state the obvious, it has to be tough to maintain when you can’t get medicine, feed or living animals without smuggling.

Yet Marah, with its broken-down bumper cars and a pit filled with sadly deflated balls, had its own not-quite-right feel—particularly the zebra. Standing near the back of its cage, facing away from the spectators, the animal kept its head tucked down.

It’s really a painted donkey,” admitted Mahmud Berghat, the director of Marah, when asked about the creature. Making a fake zebra isn’t easy—henna didn’t work and wood paint was deemed inhumane, so they finally settled on human hair dye. “We cut its hair short and then painted the stripes,” Berghat explained behind the closed door of his office.

It did the trick—if not for zoologists, then at least for legions of Gaza schoolchildren who have never seen a real zebra. When I asked him whether anyone had ever caught the ruse, the director admitted that two sharp university students had IDed the counterfeit creature. “But don’t tell anyone,” he said. “The children love him.”

Just as Helen Lovejoy always screams “Won’t somebody please, think of the children!?” …  it might seem a bit silly to worry about animals at a time of crisis. Animals are people too. Well, not really, but they can help us reflect on what’s happening at times of crisis, when people become lost in a maze of statistics.

Zoos in war zones produce an unending cascade of heart-string-tugging stories. Kabul, Afghanistan, had Marjan, the one-eyed lion, who famously survived the Soviet invasion and Taliban rule only to die in his sleep in 2002. The Baghdad zoo, once the largest in the region, was looted during the 2003 invasion.

Likewise, in Gaza, stories of hardship abound. During Israel’s Operation Cast Lead, which started in December 2008 and continued through January 2009, Marah’s zookeepers couldn’t reach the animals. Some were hit by shrapnel; several, including a prized peacock, escaped; and many more died of starvation. The zoo stories are at times apocryphal. The Marah zoo says its lioness was killed by shrapnel; the same story was told about a lioness at the nearby Middle Zoo. (An odd coincidence, or perhaps life is hard for female lions?)

Great article, check out the rest here.

ex post ghaza

Monday, March 30th, 2009

The advocate general of the Israeli military has closed its investigation into abuses during the recent war in Gaza.

The military police found that “the crucial components of their descriptions were based on hearsay and not supported by specific personal knowledge,” the army said in a statement.

Specifically, a soldier’s claim that orders had been given to fire at an elderly Palestinian woman who entered a no-go zone was found to be based on a rumor, according to the military. Another case in which a soldier had supposedly been ordered to open fire at a woman and two children was also found not to have been witnessed by the soldier who gave the account.

This does not end the investigation into the war, of course.

A group of nine Israeli human rights organizations issued a statement saying that the army’s speedy closing of its internal investigation underlined the need for an independent investigation into possible Israeli war crimes in Gaza.

The Israeli army says 1,166 people were killed during the 22-day war in Gaza, which ended on Jan. 18. Of those, it said that about a quarter were noncombatants. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza says that the number of dead is 1,417, of whom nearly two-thirds were civilians.

The disparity in casualty count for opposing sides is nothing new.

The allegations found to be hearsay by the military speak to the central contest: is the Israeli military excessively moral in war, or do they simply murder innocents for fun/religion?

World opinion is decidedly on the side of “not killing innocent civilians.” The casualty count disparity speaks to this: the Palestinian numbers are usually criticized for including many guerrilla-age fighters. Whether their stats are questionable or not, they seem to know what to do to win the battle of public opinion, at least outside Israel.

Ghaza: El-Harb El-Majnouna

Sunday, January 25th, 2009

The AP reports:

Special legal teams will defend Israeli soldiers against potential war crimes charges stemming from civilian deaths in the Gaza Strip, the prime minister said Sunday, promising the country would ”fully back” those who fought in the three-week offensive.

The move reflected growing concerns by Israel that officers could be subject to international prosecution, despite the army’s claims that Hamas militants caused the civilian casualties by staging attacks from residential areas.

Israelis, killed: 13
Palestinians, killed: 1,285.

Israeli civilians, killed: 3
Palestinian civilians, killed: 600-700

Regardless of provocation, there is something fundamentally wrong about Israeli calculations here. That’s not a typo; that’s 100 Palestinians killed (many of them militants, uniformed or not) for every Israeli.

But that’s also nearly 250 Palestinian civilians killed for every Israeli civilian.

The Israelis have called the war “baal habayit hishtageya,” or the boss has lost in. A very business-like metaphor; meaning, Israel wants to be seen as a madman who cannot be controlled.

In Arabic, the prime minister of Hamas has referred to the conflict as الحرب المجنونة “el-harb el-majnouna,” the crazy war.

International criticism has also focused on the shelling of UN buildings and schools serving as shelters, and the use of white phosporous as a weapon–an intense inciderary used for lighting, that burns like napalm.

Clearly, Hamas invited this, perhaps consciously, first by provoking Israel with (ineffectual though terrifying) rocket attacks on civilians, then by firing and retreating into civilian-populated areas.

But it is in no one’s interest to fire upon civilians, except Hamas’s, who retains a “firm group on power” according to yesterday’s WaPo. Hamas has merely gained support, from both Palestinians and other Arabs in the region–and destroyed the legitimacy of their moderate rival Fatah, who looks like an Israeli puppet government right about now.

The crazy war: fighting against your country’s own best interests and national security.

Gaza and Obama

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

The nytimes runs down Obama’s options for dealing with Gaza. If he does nothing…

Mr. Obama’s aides … pointed to statements Mr. Obama made during the campaign, in which he said he supported Israel’s right to defend itself from rocket attacks.

That stance has thus far been interpreted in the Arab world as a tacit assent to the Bush administration’s Middle East policy — the very policy that Mr. Obama criticized during the campaign as too divisive, and which he vowed to change.

So far, pretty bad.

“For Mr. Obama, there are risks in being viewed in the Arab world as Bush 2.”

Wow, I guess even the nytimes is losing copyeditors left and right. Who let this through? The sentiment is logical but factually inaccurate (more like Bush 3!)… plus this doesn’t really reflect how he’s viewed in the Arab world. It doesn’t matter who the president is, a perceived bias predates the soon deposed invader of Iraq.

Hmm… so if Obama could (have) represented a clean break, perhaps this was Israel’s intent?

Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, argues that by attacking Hamas in Gaza just days before the new administration takes over, Israeli leaders may have calculated that it is best to establish to the world, early and emphatically, that when the chips are down, Mr. Obama — and any American president — will stand by Israel over all others.

“There are some who argue that this forces Obama to side with us,” said Mr. Levy, director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative, a joint project of the New America Foundation and the Century Foundation. “In a way, that’s very brazen, this calculus that he might as well get himself washed in this from the start.”

Yikes.

Joe the Plumber/War Correspondent to the World: No Need for War Correspondents

Monday, January 12th, 2009

To be honest with you, I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war [sic]. … You make a big deal about it, it’s asinine. I liked back in World War I and World War II, when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for them. Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to down soldiers — our American soldiers, our Israeli soldiers. I think media should be abolished from reporting. You know, war’s hell, and if you’re gonna sit there and say ‘Well look at this atrocity’ — well you don’t know the full story behind it half the time. So I think the media should have no business in it.

Joe Wurzelbacher (link to video on nytimes lede blog) is amazed at the “Israel people” — or “our Israeli soldiers,” as he put it — and their resilience in the face of overwhelming condemnation from the world, for protecting their own.

And me? I’m speechless.