Choices

 

It dawned on me, when I read that in the Hamas-Netanyahu deal to exchange hostages for prisoners, many of the "prisoners" were women and children, often arrested and held without charges, in indefinite military detention, that this was more of a "hostages for hostages" deal.  That if Hamas is to be condemned for taking innocent civilians hostage, then so too must Israel.  And we have to ask ourselves, what is the context in which Hamas specifically, and Palestinians generally, make their choices?  And what powers have the most agency in setting the parameters of those choices?

I remember when arguing with these US-American liberals on a blog I will no longer bother with, how they were all making excuses for Israel and Israelis, for actions that they would condemn others if they were made in defense of Palestine, Hamas and Palestinians.  And, the fact of the matter is that it is the side with the greatest power that has the responsibility to set the parameters within which choices will be made.

I didn't and don't celebrate what happened on October 7th.  But it was akin to a slave revolt.  It remains true that it was Israel that betrayed the Oslo Accords.  It was Israel that said to Fatah: "We will continue to take Palestinian land and you will be responsible for containing the anger of your fellow Palestinians that will inevitably result."  And it was therefore Israel that led to the rise of Hamas.  And it was Israel and the USA who tried to topple the elected Hamas government in Gaza with a Fatah military coup which failed and which (to say the least) gave Hamas no faith in allowing Fatah to operate in Gaza.  Or to allow any other opposition movement to operate in Gaza.  Because any organized political opposition movement could conceivably be used by Israel and the USA to impose their will on Gaza.

If someone belongs to an institution tasked with deciding whether actions are violations of international law, simply as a basis of fact, declares that taking hostages or firing rockets that could hit civilians are such violations, that is one thing.  The law is the law and it is important to be honest about it.  However, if someone takes these announcements of fact and uses them to condemn oppressed people, or, worse, to HYPOCRITICALLY condemn an oppressed people while ignoring or making excuses for the oppressors, then that disgusts me.

How are Palestinians supposed to resist Israeli apartheid?  Israel targets Palestinian activsts whether violent or non-violent.

Israeli police have committed a catalogue of violations against Palestinians in Israel and occupied East Jerusalem, carrying out a discriminatory repressive campaign including sweeping mass arrests, using unlawful force against peaceful protesters, and subjecting detainees to torture and other ill-treatment, during and after the armed hostilities in Israel and Gaza, Amnesty International said today.

Israeli police have also failed to protect Palestinian citizens of Israel from premeditated attacks by groups of armed Jewish supremacists, even when plans were publicized in advance and police knew or should have known of them. 

“The evidence gathered by Amnesty International paints a damning picture of discrimination and ruthless excessive force by Israeli police against Palestinians in Israel and in occupied East Jerusalem,” said Saleh Higazi, Deputy Director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International. 

“Police have an obligation to protect all people under Israel’s control, whether they are Jewish or Palestinian. Instead, the vast majority arrested in the police crackdown following the outbreak of intercommunal violence were Palestinian. The few Jewish citizens of Israel arrested were dealt with more leniently. Jewish supremacists also continue to organize demonstrations while Palestinians face repression.”

Israel also targets citizens from foreign countries who try to help Palestinians harvest their olives.  I can't find a link but my source for this claim is Tanya Reinhart's The Road to Nowhere: Israel - Palestine Since 2003.

Effectively, Israel has reduced itself to the immoral position of the Nazis in Germany, a racist government ideology used to imprison and ethnically cleanse millions of people.

Having continued with the settlements, under the guise of temporary settlements and in contradiction to the “Roadmap” Israel is applying the Gaza lessons to the Westbank.  Reinhart follows the development of the wall, its effects on the land and people, reducing the Westbank to a series of concentration camps as well, with the same policy of starving the Palestinians into submission, hoping they might eventually pull up and leave.  The factors that delineate the course of the wall show that it has little to do with terror prevention – which would be achieved by straighter lines and stronger defensive placements – and everything to do with agricultural land and the water aquifer underlying the Palestinian territory –  as well as basic control of all Palestinian movement. 

The Palestinian people have remained surprisingly resilient through all this.  They have stubbornly elected a government in elections that were considered very democratic by all concerned.  Yet very quickly after that, the idea of ‘no partner for peace’ quickly resurfaced as Israel, fully supported by the U.S., Canada, and most of Europe, indicated they would not support a government that would not recognize Israeli right to existence.  Even though offers of a truce were presented, and considered a serious possibility by Israel, the context again became that of a terrorist state trying to destroy Israel.  Conditions were stated for Palestine to demonstrate its positive intentions – recognition of Israel, disarmament of the militias, and cessation of attacks – while no conditions were applied to Israel. 

Supported by a small cadre of Israeli and western peace activists, the Palestinians continue to non-violently protest against the construction of the wall, declared illegal by the International Court, with minor victories being achieved within the Israeli court system.  Still, these orchestrated non-violent protests are considered the most dangerous, and have resulted in “increasingly harsh means of repression” including the use of snipers firing live ammunition into the demonstrators.  Victims of terror at one time, now using terror to suppress any opposition to their own goals. 

But while I couldn't find a link to IDF snipers specifically firing at foreign pro-Palestinian activists (shooting them in the elbow, which permanently cripples a person and also demonstrates how accurately these snipers can shoot) but there are plenty of links of Palestinians being shot and killed by racist Israeli "settlers."

If someone demands that you "unequivocally condemn" Hamas, you are entirely within your rights to demand that they "unequivocally condemn" the IDF and the Israeli government first.  And, if they won't, to demand from them the reason why they won't.  If they have the courage and the honesty to answer you, they will give you the reason why you don't have to "unequivocally" condemn Hamas.  

If the Palestinians could send their soldiers into Israeli Jewish neighbourhoods and arrest anyone speaking out against them, without having to launch a full-scale attack, they probably would.  If the Palestinians could use artillery or sophisticated rockets to specifically target the IDF, they probably would.

If the Palestinians could negotiate with an Israeli partner that does so in good faith and which keeps it promises, they probably would.

I'm going to end this post here.  There are more things that I want to say about the USA-established context in which other parties are forced to make unpleasant choices.  But I have other things to do today.