Mitchell Bard is Wrong On Israel

"We have no solution, you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads." - Moshe Dayan, former Israeli Minister of Defense speaking about Palestinians in the occupied territories.

A friend sent me Mitchell Bard's recent blog post on the Israeli invasion of Gaza to ask me what I thought about his stance. The post titled: 'Hamas Is Responsible for the Civilian Casualties in Gaza', was particularly provocative given the images on network TV of Israel brutalizing the Gaza strip. Hoping to be enlightened by a thoughtful article explaining his rationale, I found myself disappointed by a one sided diatribe devoid of any historical context or balanced perspective.

Bard's piece made a series of assertions which I will deal with one by one.

1. Hamas started the conflict after firing rockets into Israel

Hamas did not start this conflict. Here's an extensive time line of events, making clear that Israel broke the ceasefire, not Hamas. Israel, contrary to popular opinion, also never left the Gaza strip and still controls taxation, the sea, air and land borders. If China had the same control over the United States, would Bard understand if Americans wanted to defend itself? After all, the U.S went to war with Great Britain over taxation, something Bard no doubt supports in retrospect.

2. Hamas wanted Israel to attack Gaza to boost its popularity and damage its reputation internationally.

Bard offers no evidence for the assertion that Hamas wanted its own people killed, other than it is his opinion. According to serious analysts Hamas miscalculated Israel's response rather than provoked it. They do of course, bear responsibility, but evidence is required before accusations like this are thrown around.

3. Hamas is at fault for civilian casualties as it uses "mosques, schools, private residences and even hospitals as locations to manufacture, store and launch weapons at Israel and hide its leaders."

Israel cannot bomb schools and hospitals just because it believes Hamas may be hiding there. It is a direct violation of international law, and therefore constitutes a war crime.

4. "Hamas's stated intention is the destruction of Israel"

There are certain elements of Hamas that want to see the destruction of Israel, just like there are extreme Zionists who believe Palestine belongs to Jews. You can't brand an entire organization in a certain light just because it is convenient to you. Here is Khalid Mish'al, head of the Hamas political bureau in an article in the Guardian:

Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.

We shall never recognise the right of any power to rob us of our land and deny us our national rights. We shall never recognise the legitimacy of a Zionist state created on our soil in order to atone for somebody else's sins or solve somebody else's problem. But if you are willing to accept the principle of a long-term truce, we are prepared to negotiate the terms. Hamas is extending a hand of peace to those who are truly interested in a peace based on justice.

Also, a question for Bard: Can you find another example in international law where one country was forced to accept the right of another country to exist? Was Mexico forced to recognize the United States right to exist after it took its land? Where Native Americans forced to accept the right of the United States to exist after it killed most of their people and took their country? Of course not, they simply dealt with the reality and moved on, just as some in Hamas are willing to do (ie a long term truce) rather than admit humiliating terms of defeat. There were many members of the ANC in South Africa who wanted whites to leave South Africa, and this was used by the Apartheid Government to dismiss it as a terrorist organization, just as apologists for Israeli state crimes are doing with Hamas. The only way towards peace is an acknowledgment that Hamas is a legitimate political entity and MUST be negotiated with, just as the Apartheid Government negotiated with the ANC.

5. Israel is "the only Democratic country in the immediate region" and had been systematically attacked by Arab countries since its inception.

Stating that Israel is "the only democratic country in the immediate region" in one sentence then in another saying, "the Palestinian people, given a free choice in elections, voted Hamas into power," requires no rebuttal. Israel is the only democracy in the region because Bard wants it to be. Yes, Arab countries have attacked Israel since its inception, but Arabs view the creation of Israel as an attack on them. It just depends on your point of view.

6. Israel "Seized the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 not out of imperialistic aggression, but as a means of defending itself from its neighbors."

Regardless of whether Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza out of imperial aggression or self-defense, acquisition of land through war is explicitly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, and a direct violation of international law.

7. If a "right of return" were granted, Israel would immediately cease to be as a Jewish, secular democratic state".

I don't think Bard really understands what he is saying here, as the sentence contradicts itself on many levels. Being a 'Jewish, secular state' is a contradiction in terms. Judaism is a religion, so a Jewish state is therefore a religious one. Also, Israel's refusal to give the 800,000 dispossessed Palestinians the right of return is a huge thorn in its side when claiming to be a democracy. Under international law, dispossessed people are entitled to return to their land, so if Israel was a functioning democratic nation that followed international law, the majority of it's citizens would be Arab, and they would have the right to vote. Bard might not like the outcome, but then that is what we call democracy.

8. "Israel has showed remarkable restraint and proportionality, evidenced by the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Palestinian casualties have not been civilians. The world should be lauding Israel for its efforts to minimize civilian casualties."

Israel has just bombed two U.N schools in the Gaza strip, and have thus far killed over 700 people, 220 of them children. The 'remarkable restraint and proportionality' Israel had shown is over 100-1 in terms of the Palestinian to Israeli death toll, on top of many millions of dollars in structural damage. Bard may laud Israel for this, but the majority of the world does not.

9. "Since the Palestinian people elected Hamas to power, they have themselves to blame for the damage done to them by their leaders."

Just because Palestinians voted for Hamas does not give Israel the right to kill them. Collective punishment is explicitly illegal under international law. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states:

No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

George Bush illegally invaded Iraq, committing the supreme war crime of preemptive aggression. I don't believe Americans should be punished for his actions, even though they voted for him. Bard omits to mention international law or any historical context because if he did, his case would fall apart.

A grievous crime was committed against Palestinians when their land was forcefully taken from them in 1948. They had committed no crimes against Jews, and were not consulted when their land was given away. European nations had systematically slaughtered Jews for centuries, then laid the burden on the Palestinians, a fact that the West would rather forget. The Palestinians will never get their land back, just as Native Americans won't get theirs. But at least we can acknowledge what has happened to them, and work seriously for a lasting solution. The Palestinians are an oppressed people, and to blame them for their own predicament is simply inexcusable.

The Hebrew poet Aharon Shabtai once wrote:

And when it's all over, My dear, dear reader,

On which benches will we have to sit,

Those of us who shouted 'Death to the Arabs!'

And those who claimed they 'didn't know'?

Subscribe to my feed, or subscribe by email.

Ben Cohen is the Editor of The Daily Banter.com

Email at [e-mail]

Comments

[neutral1]

The strategy of firing rockets into Israel is not working out very well for Palestinian civilians is it?

[ObjectiveRealist]

Israel's perpetual 'victim' status has never been valid. They accepted the forced expulsion of the rightful inhabitants of their current territory, with the assistance of western nations. We all owe Gaza and the West Bank better.
quote:
Also, Israel's refusal to give the 800,000 dispossessed Palestinians the right of return is a huge thorn in its side when claiming to be a democracy. Under international law, dispossessed people are entitled to return to their land, so if Israel was a functioning democratic nation that followed international law, the majority of it's citizens would be Arab, and they would have the right to vote.
/quote

[Akin]

RE: Point #7 -

"I don't think Bard really understands what he is saying here, as the sentence contradicts itself on many levels. Being a 'Jewish, secular state' is a contradiction in terms. Judaism is a religion, so a Jewish state is therefore a religious one."

It's your understanding that sucks. The term "Jew" is derived from the name of one of the 12 tribes or sons of Israel, JUDAH. It's a name. Honest. After the split of United Israel at the death of Solomon, one half of Israel retained the name, whilst the other half were thereinafter referred to a Judah, or Jews (The 10 tribes of Israel were subsequently scattered by military conquest; but the Kingdom of Judah - the Jews - have maintained their sense of cultural and religious identity since.

The Israeli animus is firstly ethnic; there are many Jews in the modern state of Israel who are secular or are of other faiths.

There is no international statute that criminalises a state for simply recognising its own historic ethnic majority status. To attempt to reduce the argument to one of religion is a fallacy of assertion.

[Akin]

RE: Point 6 -

"Regardless of whether Israel seized the West Bank and Gaza out of imperial aggression or self-defense, acquisition of land through war is explicitly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, and a direct violation of international law."

I read the articles of the Convention cited, and again it does not make such a sweeping claim. On the contrary, Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention implies that occupied territory could be subsequently annexed (otherwise, why would it prescribe protections for individuals subjected to annexation?).

What is clearly proscribed, among other things, is ethnic cleansing of a territory, denial of medical care or religious liberty, and so on.

So I ask, What International Law precisely?

[Akin]

RE: Point 5 -

"Yes, Arab countries have attacked Israel since its inception, but Arabs view the creation of Israel as an attack on them. It just depends on your point of view."

That is a breathtaking statement to make.

Firstly, do you not see a difference between declaring a state (or for that matter, having a state apportioned to you by the League of Nations & the UN) and commencing a military attack? If you don't, you are in no position to castigate anyone, let alone Mr. Bard.

Secondly, you assume there is no alternative open to arabs or palestinians in the face of an Israeli state entity, other than a state of war. Well, that is precisely the problem here! Palestinian groups cannot exercise their right of belligerence, then turn around and loudly bemoan the consequences! Did the ANC wage its campaign by targeting civilians with no direct military connection? Nelson Mandela would never have been spared alive had he done so. What of the excellent example of Dr. Martin Luther King - he won precious advances for African-Americans without firing a single shot!

The choice of belligerent engagement on a territorial dispute is a high risk strategy. It is my firm contention that Hamas is poorly serving its palestinian electorate by pursuing that strategy (I believe we agree on that point, at least!).

[Akin]

RE: Point #3 -

I dispute such a construction of international law.

You need to cite evidence to back such a sweeping claim, as wars have been conducted in urban areas for quite a long time.

That does not make the inevitable victims of so-called "collateral damage" any less a catastrophe, but nevertheless there is no such total outlawing of attacks targeted at combatants and/or military materiel as you assert - unless you can prove otherwise.

[Michale32086]

Very well addressed points..

Logic wins the day again...

Kudos...

Michale.....

[doriath22]

The tunnels are a side issue, compared to the blockaded border crossings, To provide food, fuel and other necessities for a population of 1.5 million is far beyond the capacity of the much ballyhooed tunnels, even if they were used for nothing BUT food. And before our "intelligence expert" points out, incorrectly, for the umpteenth time, that " Egypt is blockading Gaza, too" ,I should point out that Israel has made it abundantly clear to the Egyptians that the IDF will intervene and close the Rafah for them if they do not comply with the blockade.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}
To provide food, fuel and other necessities for a population of 1.5 million is far beyond the capacity of the much ballyhooed tunnels, even if they were used for nothing BUT food.
{{{{{

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Regardless of that, consider what you are saying.

"HAMAS can't import enough food to feed it's own starving people so HAMAS might as well import weapons to kill Israelis.."

And THIS makes you think that HAMAS is more morally correct than Israel???

}}}}}
And before our "intelligence expert" points out, incorrectly, for the umpteenth time, that " Egypt is blockading Gaza, too" ,I should point out that Israel has made it abundantly clear to the Egyptians that the IDF will intervene and close the Rafah for them if they do not comply with the blockade.
{{{{{

So, you are saying that Israel also controls Egypt in this matter??

Assumes facts not in evidence...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@za101

}}}}}
RE#1: Israel attacked Gaza during the ceasefire numerous times. It is propoganda when JacksonJames says that they were digging tunnels into Israel. That is a lie.
{{{{{

Can you prove it's a lie??

I have read several different reports of the incident and they are all clear as to the circumstances.

Perhaps you have a different report you want to share??

Michale..........

[Michale32086]

@seadickrun

}}}}}
We only have Israel's word for this. How do we know that the tunnels weren't used to bring in medicine as well?
{{{{

HAMAS has also made the claim as well..

Yes, some tunnels were used for medicine and food. Apparently not enough food though, since the Palestinians are starving..

But the majority were dedicated to weapons smuggling... Now imagine how much better things would be for the Palestinians AND the Israelis if Hamas only smuggled food and medicine..

}}}}}
Israel claims that there are hundreds of tunnels so I find it hard to believe that they are ONLY being used to smuggle in weapons.
}}}}

Most are....

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@za101

}}}}
Egypt did not occupy gaza before 1967. The palestinians trusted the Egyptians to manage affairs of the Gaza Strip until the whole Palestine issue was resolved, the right of return of refugees, the status of jerusalem etc etc.
{{{{{

Actually, this is not correct..

Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Gaza_Strip_by_Egypt

}}}}
Also you state that poeple are not starving and suffering in Gaza. That is incorreect again. People are suffering. If you choose to be ignorant to the fact that food is not allowed in - so be it.
}}}

I never claimed that people weren't suffering or starving. I simply state the fact that such suffering and starvation is caused by HAMAS, not Israel....

These are the facts.

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

@jotunloki

}}}}
It's easier to smuggle weapons than food.
{{{{

Oh well, then.. If it's EASIER to smuggle weapons than food, then I guess that makes it OK that HAMAS is starving their own people, right??

:^/

}}}}}
A hundred pounds of weapons and ammo goes much further than the same weight of food or medicine.
{{{{{{

Your absolutely right. A hundred pounds of weapons and ammo goes a LOT further in killing Israelis than the same weight in food or medicine..

So, I guess you agree with me that HAMAS is more interested in killing Israelis than it is in helping it's own people...

Michale.....

[za101]

You miss the whole point

Israel has a right to challenge Hamas.

What Israel can't do is blockade the Gaza Strip and starve its poeple.

There is no justfication.

People have a right to have food, medicine and basic needs.

Whether Hamas is smuggling rockets or not is irrelevant to whether Gaza is allowed food and medcine in.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}
What Israel can't do is blockade the Gaza Strip and starve its poeple.

There is no justfication.
{{{{{{

Actually, there is.. Both the Geneva Conventions and the International Criminal Courts allow for blockading of belligerents...

}}}}}
People have a right to have food, medicine and basic needs.
{{{{{

But they don't have the right to use the free access to commit terrorism... If they do, then they lose the free access...

}}}}}}
Whether Hamas is smuggling rockets or not is irrelevant to whether Gaza is allowed food and medcine in.
{{{{{

It's COMPLETELY relevant...

HAMAS could import food and medicine as easily as it could import weapons and missiles. The fact that HAMAS chooses the latter is indicative of the importance they place on feeding and taking care of Palestinians...

It makes it clear that HAMAS' priority is killing Israelis...

Michale...

[Dukedraven]

You make excellent points, Ben, and they carry more weight because you speak not as an Arab, but as a Jewish person. When someone steps outside his normal boundaries and sees things objectively, it takes bravery and honesty. I applaud you for your analysis. Peace always

[Michale32086]

@za101

}}}}
Who blocked Gaza for 18 months?

The answer is Israel.
{{{{

Actually, the correct answer is EGYPT and Israel...

}}}}
Who is occupying Gaza since 1967?

The answer is Israel
{{{{

Actually, the correct answer is Israel occupied Gaza from 1967 until 2006. Egypt occupied Gaza prior to that. What is your point??

}}}}}
Is Hamas blockading Gaza of food and medicine? No
{{{{{

Technically, since HAMAS has the capability to import food and medicine but chooses to import weapons instead, a logical argument can be made for the fact that HAMAS is preventing food and medicine from coming in to Gaza...

}}}}
Is Hamas living occupying Israeli Land? No
{{{{

No, HAMAS just fires missiles into Israeli land at innocent civilians.. Frankly, that is much worse...

}}}}
and by the way food is being smuggled in through those tunnels.
{{{{{

Then how can the Palestinians be starving???

}}}}
I saw BBC show a cow being sent through those tunnels.
{{{{

Oh, well... If you saw it on BBC, it MUST be true... :^/

}}}}}
Israel is guilty of starving the Gazan people.
{{{{{

Israel is under NO OBLIGATION to feed the Gazan people.

HAMAS is..

But, as is obvious, HAMAS is more interested in killing Israelis than HAMAS is interested in feeding their people..

These are the facts...

Class dismissed...

Michale......

[za101]

Egypt did not occupy gaza before 1967. The palestinians trusted the Egyptians to manage affairs of the Gaza Strip until the whole Palestine issue was resolved, the right of return of refugees, the status of jerusalem etc etc.

Also you state that poeple are not starving and suffering in Gaza. That is incorreect again. People are suffering. If you choose to be ignorant to the fact that food is not allowed in - so be it.

[Akin]

What???

Egypt occupied Gaza. Period.

Just like Jordan occupied the West Bank. Period.

Talk about choosing to be ignorant, indeed!

[Jezreel]

Thank you Mr. Cohen for posting this important refutation to Mitchell Bard's uber-partisan propaganda. it is refreshing to read a well researched, factual and detailed response.

[Mesaywar]

Thank you, Mr. Cohen, thank you. Thank you for clearly stating what should be obvious to people with a funtioning memory and conscience.