Posts
Everything You Wanted to Know about Gaza But Were Too Confused to Ask
By JewcyTodd / January 7, 2009
If you visited Jewcy in the past couple of weeks, the sheer abundance of the word "Gaza" in our headlines probably gave you the impression we’d been bought out by Ted Turner. Or, if you hide under a rock during the holiday season like yours truly, you were completely bewildered. I thought rounding up Jewcy’s coverage of the recent disarray in the Middle East, along with some background info, would prove helpful for those who were left in the dust of the Israeli tanks breezing into Gaza.
Back in June, Egypt brokered an informal and rather nugatory six-month truce between Israel and Gaza. Throughout the summer, Hamas continued firing rockets into southern Israel, and the country’s border with Gaza was repeatedly violated. While Americans celebrated the election of their first African-American president, Israeli Defense Forces entered Gaza to destroy a tunnel used to traffic weapons, casting further doubt on the truce’s efficacy. Cross-border raids and attacks expectedly increased, leading up to the decision to take the already comatose truce off life-support in late December.
A new, twenty-four hour truce was called, again at the behest of Egyptian mitigators, to put a damper on the rapidly intensifying exchange of fire. Yet, as soon as it expired, six rockets were fired into the Negev and clashes insued along the Israel-Gaza border fence. This, along with a downpour of dozens of mortar shells launched by Gaza fighters on Christmas Eve, prompted a heavy Israeli offensive.
On December 27, Israel began a series of intense air strikes throughout the Gaza strip, killing upward of 200 and wounding countless others. Strikes continued unabated the next day, as the international community began voicing its concern. Edmund Standing posted on what he sees as blatantly biased press coverage of the attacks. Meanwhile, Shira Danan gave a voice to those discomforted by Israel’s course of action.
As attacks roared on, Jewcy correspondents Paul Widen and Haim Watzman both reported from Jerusalem. Widen updated us on the politics inside Israel while giving unique insight on how Israelis are responding to the offensive. Watzman is hosting his daughter’s fellow students who have been evacuated from Sapir College, which is located near Sderot, a southern Israeli city within missle range of Gaza.
Jewcy editor Michael Weiss posted an essay on why Hamas is a political failure. Meanwhile, Tel-Aviv declared the area around Gaza a "closed military zone," the Gazan death toll rose to over 350, and Jewcy received a letter from Beersheva.
By New Year’s Eve, a solution had yet to be reached by the UN. The Gazan death toll reached 400, while the Israeli death toll remained in the single digits. Gershom Gorenberg reported on the innocent children caught in the crossfire of a childish conflict, the effects of which, he says, Israel has not fully understood.Â
Shira Danan gave us some first-hand accounts from Gaza on New Year’s Day. Israel denied an EU truce requesting forty-eight hours for the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Deaths in the embattled region brushed 420, while the Israeli body count broke ten.
On January 2, foreigners were ushered out of Gaza while Israeli officials begin planning a ground invasion. Andrew Bostom posted an essay displaying Hamas’ abhorrence of the Jews.
On January 3, tanks rolled into Gaza to begin a ground offensive. Neal Ungerleider reported from the "bubble" of Tel-Aviv. Howard Schweber contemplated the value of pragmatism in the tango between Israel and Hamas.
By January 5, the EU decided it was about time to send an envoy to broker a solution. French President Nicolas Sarkozy began a tour of the region in search of a long lost truce. Michael Weiss wrote a post pointing out that Hamas is not just a threat to the Jews, but to Islam and Palestinians as well.
The most recent news is all the more disparaging. By now, Gazans have buried over 500 of their compatriots. Haim Watzman posted on the moral choices involved in the war on the very day Israeli attacks hit refugees outside a UN school. Hamas continues to launch rockets into Israel. The US has only recently begun voicing its concern for a ceasefire. Â
I hope this post has helped catch you up on the exploding conflict in the Middle East. Let’s hope there isn’t much more to follow.
POST A COMMENT
Ismail,
While I see the difference, the choice of which phrase is a more accurate rendition of the truth remains a matter of opinion. Hence, I diligently applied the passive and impersonal voices throughout the article (in this case, the impersonal) in order to relay the facts without attributing blame or merit to either side.
under this truce? What were they supposed to do? Or not do?
Its not clear from the post
The trouble with cats is that they’ve got no tact. - P. G. Wodehouse
Todd-
We disagree about whether blame is to be shared equally.
To repeat my point in different terms, you are technically accurate in saying that, during the summer, Hamas broke the truce. But surely the salient point is not that a rocket was fired; it is that hundreds were not. Your formulation obscures the remarkable change in Hamas’ activities owing directly to its pledge. By any reasonable account, a change from hundreds of rockets to one or two rockets would be decisive evidence that a truce was working.
Secondly, your attempt to equate the shortcomings of both sides distorts the fact that Hamas’ change in behavior was dramatic, while Israel’s….well, not so much. Provocations remained at a high level; quarantines, harrassing fishing vessels, sonic booms…I’m sure you know the particulars. To declare simply that both sides behaved badly does violence to the very real differences between Palestinian and Israeli behavior. This is to say nothing of Israel’s barbaric choice to vacuum-seal an entire population into a few square miles for years. Â Â
"…that it had no long term effects, seeing as the situation escalated immediately following the truce’s expiration."
Again, I would say, "the situation escalated immediately following the Israeli decision to bomb Gazan territory, despite Hamas’ prior offer to extend the truce."Â
See the difference?Â
"Wouldn’t the phrase, "Hamas dramatically reduced its fire into Israel,
almost to the vanishing point, during the period of the truce" be a far
more accurate rendition of reality? "
True, but what if one of those dozen or so rockets had hit a kindergarten with kids inside. Would it then be fair to say Hamas had violated the cease fire?……  Â
Ismail, I don’t mean to interfere in this discussion, since I’m one of the "confused" ones, but shouldn’t there be no rockets at all fired during a "TRUCE".
Ismail,
My reference to the truce as being nugatory is with respect to both sides. Despite a noted reduction, any rocket fired is a breach of the truce, and rockets were in fact fired between the dates of June 19 and December 19, as you admit. However, Israeli forces also repeatedly breached the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip, also disobeying the truce set in place. Please understand that my intent was not to say that the truce did not reduce fire, nor was it to say that Gazans were alone at fault for breaching the truce. I instead say that both sides did not respect the truce to the degree to which one would have expected, and that it had no long term effects, seeing as the situation escalated immediately following the truce’s expiration.
"…an informal and rather nugatory six-month truce between Israel and Gaza. Throughout the summer, Hamas continued firing rockets into southern Israel…"
Each month, from Jan 08 through June 08, Hamas fired no fewer than 87 and as many as 257 rockets into Israel. Number of rockets fired in July, after the "nugatory" truce went into effect? One. August? Eight. Sept? One. Oct? One. Not until Israel decided to bomb Gazan territory in order to, on its account, deter Gazans from abducting its soldiers did robust rocket fire resume. (Tip of the tarboush to Israel’s Intelligence and Terrorism Info, which provided the figures, as reported at HuffPost.)
Please explain how a truce which produced the hoped-for result of drastically reduced fire can be considered "nugatory"? Please explain how the phrase "Hamas continued to fire rockets into southern Israel" is an adequate representation of a period in which rocket fire decreased to a fraction of one percent of what it had been? Wouldn’t the phrase, "Hamas dramatically reduced its fire into Israel, almost to the vanishing point, during the period of the truce" be a far more accurate rendition of reality? Â
Hi Ma’ayan! Thanks for your comment. I understand your opinion, and in fact tried to be as unbiased as possible in my round-up. Jewcy has done some very good coverage, and I have to say, this post made me realize just how well we have given a voice to both sides, those that agree and those that disagree with Israel’s actions.
While above I left my opinions aside, and though I understand your concern regarding protesters and general opposition to Israel’s action, I cannot help but feel a bit uncomfortable with how things have transpired. I feel it is the sort of overreaction typical of the way in which Olmert has conducted his foreign policy, e.g. Lebanon in 2006. The truth is, so long as there is war, there will be protesters; and never will all the soldiers in battle or all the demostrators in the streets be fully aware of the history of the conflict in which they are involved.
Personally, I feel the attacks on Gaza were too heavy-handed, but not entirely unwarranted. While action needed to be taken, Israel has been much too harsh, and I’m almost certain may have violated international law in their conduct with regard to humanitarian aid. Since the attacks, Israelis themselves have shown less approval of Olmert, his government, and his party. It pains me to say that as a supporter of Israel, I am somewhat embarassed for the way it has acted. I feel these actions do not help our cause to maintain a Jewish state, nor do they help to promote the establishment of a peace agreement and a Palestinian state. Â
Israel is in quiet a messy state lately. It hurts so much knowing all this violence is going on, and yet somehow the stories they show here on the news are not the least bit comforting. This past week there have been many rallies all over the US in protest of Hamas and in protest of the IDF. I was appalled when I found out some friends of mine went to protest the Israeli bombings in Times Square, mainly because they were protesting a fight they really know nothing about. They claim the reason was that they are peace-loving-whatever type people, but what makes someone choose the side against the Israeli’s based on that? Where I do hate the constant build up of violence in the Middle East, I truly do not believe the Israeli’s are to blame for the recent fighting. Israeli’s are not the ones hiding suicide bombers in civilian areas with the hopes of killing many people. I think the IDF is extremely smart in their strategies and only attack when it is necessary. This is a war and just because one sees stories on the news about the recent attacks brought on by the IDF should not be enough for one to choose Hamas’s side. Hamas is the enemy here and those with little knowledge of Israel’s past should reconize this.Â
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!