Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
From The Terraces- by Jay Nair
Video
Did You Know?
Blog
Life as TV by Phoebe Vidler
Game
Zero Punctuation: Dragon Age: Origins
Art
Four Guys - The Beatles
Cool tools
Hot links

Super Mario Flash Game Restyled for Obama

Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
Free Culture, Open Government, Liberty
Online Buddhist meditation
Reducing harm from drug use
Reflections on Gaza from Tel Aviv

The assault on Gaza started on Saturday morning, December 27th. In the early afternoon some activists used emails and text messaging to call for a demonstration in downtown Tel Aviv. Almost 2,000 people gather that evening in front of the cinemateque and then walked to the defense ministry compound. Almost every day since there has been a demonstration somewhere, in both Arab and Jewish sectors (including demonstrations at four of the five Israeli universities), but the media report almost only about Arab demonstrations...

Even when many Jews are also involved the media describes the event as an expression of national Palestinian struggle instead of portraying it as a civic event in which Jewish and Palestinian citizens in solidarity with the people in Gaza are trying to put up an opposition to their government. Many Arab activists were arrested even before the demonstrations started, as a preemptive measure; hundreds were arrested during the demonstrations, of whom many remained in custody for several days. It is clearly a policy -- to suppress this opposition, portray it as a nationalist, anti-Israeli event, and silence it in the name of public morale in times of war -- and the media fully cooperate with the police.

At the same time the internet is full of alternative news, and emails with descriptions of the horrors in Gaza are distributed regularly. It is not clear how many are exposed to this kind of information. Critics have had better access to the print media than to the electronic media, especially to Tel Aviv's local newspapers. Haaretz too has published several critical articles, some of them very harsh. The Zionist left (Shalom Achshav, Meretz), that publicly and loudly supported the war started calling for a cease fire after a week of fighting. Opposition to the war is not considered good for electoral purposes and with the election only a month from now the good Zionists too are cautious not to appear un-patriotic. But even if you consider them as part of the opposition and add up all these oppositional voices you still get a tiny minority which is marginalized systematically.

The police effort to suppress the radical left is quite new, I think, but it is not the only new thing that gradually becomes clear. What is also new is the open way so many enjoy, let along tolerate, the killing of civilians. There is a sense of satisfaction, even joy among Jewish Israelis. A dozen Israelis killed so far, civilians and soldiers combined, the number of people killed in car accidents in an average week. Palestinians suffer tremendously. In Gaza almost 800 have been killed so far and thousands injured. In fact, the precise number is probably higher because the Palestinians based their counting on reports from hospitals. They don't count those who are still buried under the rubble.

Body count is of the essence, because there are no clear objectives to this assault. Since victory would be elusive any way, and since Hamas is going to win due to the mere fact that it won't be eradicated and it will emerge from the war as a power that will have survived the attack of the most powerful army in the region -- a power that has already enforced a new agenda and must be reckoned with by all other players -- death and destruction remain the only possible indicators of the Israeli sense of victory. The low number of Israeli casualties is also important for the continuation of public support for the "war". Everyone wants it to be as economic and as "clean" as possible. In order to achieve this goal the soldiers' hands must be really dirty. Unidentified commanders speaking to Haaretz from inside Gaza explained how they proceed: with a lot of force. You do not come close to a suspicious house without firing on it first, with a missile, with a tank, then tear off one of its walls with an armored D 9 (a huge tractor), and only then look to see who is inside, if anyone is still alive. It's urban warfare without moral gloves.

These dirty hands however, miraculously go with clean consciousness. Every once in a while a bomb or a shell hits a house and eliminates an entire family. This goes almost unnoticed here. On Wednesday (Jan 7th) they shoot from the sea at an UNRWA school where many refugees from the bombarded surroundings had found shelter. At least 40 civilians were killed. It turned out that targeting a school and killing 40 civilians in a stroke is still enough to make a headline and some stir. The army's response to the news was telling. First they released a video of Palestinians firing rockets from the building, but they later had to admit that the video was taken in 2007 and the incident filmed in it took place when the school was empty. The second attempt to defuse the accusation of a war crime came in the morning papers: Hamas leadership, so the army intelligence claimed, is hiding in the basement of Gaza's main hospital. The implied argument is clear: they use their population as human shields and can't blame us for targeting civilian institutions. And this piece of "information" that nobody can check and very few care to doubt or question as a form of moral argument was enough to make the horror at the UNRWA school disappear.

After the massive bombardment the army resumed the practice of targeted killings. This practice had started even before the ground assault begun and then has accompanied it from above. In the past the IDF was usually careful to target its victims with "smart missiles" that are supposed to have limited "environmental damage", but now they use 1 tonne bombs that smash entire buildings in a second. Last week they "eliminated" a "major" figure in Hamas. The operation was closely observed by the attorney general, who approved every detail of it. They bombed that man's house despite the fact that they knew that many children and women lived there. The guy had 4 wives and 12 children. 2 of the wives and 11 children are dead now. They say that there was a lot of ammunition in the basement and that the international law of war permits such an operation. They also say that they gave the family a warning of a few minutes in which they could have left the house, but the fanatics insisted on staying. Within a few minutes warning you can't get very far from the bombarded area anyway, and how could they eliminate that prominent figure if they really gave enough time to escape? What gives them legal justification is the ammunition. Now imagine the attorney general of the "Democratic Jewish State" asking the intelligence commander: how much ammunition? How many children? And then imagine how he calculates: "so much dynamite is enough to justify the death of one child and so many rockets -- that of one woman." It is the same attorney general that gave legal authorization to the cutting of electricity and fuel supply to Gaza about a year ago. Then too he calculated. He wanted to make sure the hospitals could still operate before he gave his authorization for the new means of catastrophization of the region.

So even in the midst of this assault, some killings from the air are still supervised by the legal authorities. Following a Supreme Court ruling on targeted killing (that approved the tool with certain reservations) it has become necessary to get the lawyers involved in the killing operation. The legal apparatus withdrew from Gaza after the "disengagement" with all other Israeli state apparatuses. Only the army has remained, surrounding the Strip to maintain the siege, turning Gaza into a human pen. Students or sick people who have appealed the army's decision to refuse their requests to get out of Gaza for studies or medical treatment have been consistently denied any assistance at the court, because the responsibility of the Israeli sovereign in their case has been terminated with the disengagement,. Still, the legal apparatus has not disappeared altogether -- it is there as a mechanism of authorization. And a very flexible one at that. The military experts set the rules; the legal experts find the right words for them, rarely forcing minor changes that do not change anything.

The involvement of the lawyers became much less significant when the ground assault started. In fact it is hardly visible at all. It is much more difficult to inject legal considerations in the midst of a rolling attack on the ground, with so many forces, conflicting information, and many decisions to be taken at the spur of the moment. Legal reason can hover in the air; at times it may even precede the jets and slow them down. On the ground, it is moral reasoning that takes its place, yet almost always a-posteriori. This kind of reasoning does not concern many today yet it is still the business of many intellectuals and a façon de parler of some journalists, who often raise the moral question as if in order to get a quick, straightforward answer and get rid of the issue. The prevalent moral argument goes more or less like this: It's not about their children but about ours. The government has a duty to protect its citizens (the duty of the Israeli sovereign to its Palestinian subjects has been denied since the Oslo accords, but in the Gaza Strip after the "disengagement plan" it has been wiped out altogether -- in fact this was one of the main purposes of that plan). And no matter how notoriously deadly our self-defense appears to be, the argument still sticks. In order to save one Jewish child, one is ready to sacrifice the lives of 100,000 of theirs. The number may vary of course; 100,000 is the figure I heard this morning with exactly this formulation from a colleague, a distinguished professor of Hebrew and Yiddish literature. He was speaking in public, very conscious of and proud in his position.

The moral argument comes with ready-made moral dilemmas: You see a terrorist running, carrying a child -- would you shoot him? Some would say yes, some would say no, some would say: I wouldn't know unless I was there. Being there is the first question of course, and it is hardly asked. Passing through the dilemma is a good exercise for moral hygiene and cleansing of one's conscience. One immediately forgets about the political logic of the moral situation, about the forces that impose such dilemmas in the first place, and about the many decisions one has to take before coming to the moment of that seemingly inevitable moral decision. It's a win-win situation. If you decide that shooting is justified you have based your murderous act on moral grounds -- you are not a "cog in the machine" who follows order automatically; if you decide that shooting is not justified in this particular case your hands are clean and your conscience shines and you would be shooting with relief and determination in less embarrassing cases, for example when you don't see the child because he was hiding behind a wall.

Alongside the moral argument there is the ideological one. It is all too familiar. We are different from them; they kill indiscriminately while we don't; they want to eliminate us together with the entire Western civilization while we are only defending ourselves. Since our very existence is at stake (and they are not ready for any compromise that would let us live here in peace) we are locked in a war unto death. It's either us or them, all of us or all of them. We don't want to kill so many of them, of course, but we have no choice. Actually, it's not us -- it's their own ideology that kills them. It's a tragedy, the more liberal Zionist would say, but they have only themselves to blame for what is happening to them. Since they are totally uncompromising, the only way to deter them is to make it so painful for them that they would think twice before shooting at us again. Only we don't know exactly how many bodies would deter them. 750 dead -- the number is rising as I am writing -- several thousand injured, and immense destruction of houses and infrastructure have not deterred them so far. Hence it is necessary to call on more reserve soldiers and widen the scope of this assault. It's a war, "the most justified of our justified wars" said our president, the dear peace-maker Shimon Peres, and we have no choice.

Justification aside, this is not a war. The assault resembles an expedition of a colonial power that goes out of the colonists' enclave to teach a lesson to rebellious barbaric tribes. The kind of raids known from 19th century colonial wars; the kind of raids South Africa conducted often in the seventies and eighties against neighboring countries. Only now the natives not the colonists are in the enclave. The Jewish colonists have turned the entire Palestinian territory into a series of enclaves, more or less separated from each other, and from "Israel proper" (which includes not only the territory west of the 67 border , "the green line," but also most of the Jewish settlements east of the green line). Different enclaves are treated differently. They are more or less "external" to the Israeli mainland, more or less forsaken by the Israeli sovereign and its governmental apparatuses. Gaza is an enclave of a special kind and status. It is an enclave that has turned into a frontier, a no man's land and an experimental field for man's hunting and for a gradual, more or less controlled destruction.

It is not this assault that has turned Gaza into a human pen. The closure started during the 1991 Gulf war, released somewhat during the Oslo years, tightened forcefully when the second Intifada started in October 2000, and then, after the disengagement in August 2005, turned into a full fledge military siege. Without employing much power, simply by closing the Strip, preventing the movement of people and commodities, restricting the flow of gas and electricity, letting the already collapsing sewage system collapse, Israel has turned the Strip into a zone of emergency. Seasonal outbursts of direct military violence that recur at least once a year since 2002 ("Operation Defensive Shield") multiply victims but do not change the basic structure of Israeli domination. In the zone of emergency the entire population has lost -- in the eyes of the Israeli sovereign -- its political status, and has become a mixture of terrorists, suspects, and clients of humanitarian aid. As such Gaza is a laboratory of catastrophization. The present assault is not a war of one army against another, neither a war of a regular army against a guerilla organization, and not even or not simply a war of a regular army against an armed militia. Notwithstanding intentions and justifications, the scope of destruction and the number of civilian casualties are first and foremost a temporary change in the mode of catastrophization: airplane bombs are added to the closure, artillery shells go hand in hand with the cutoff of electricity and the destruction of the sewage system. Catastrophization and not the infliction of a large scale disaster, because the humanitarian corridor is always open. Israel will not let a true humanitarian catastrophe happen in Gaza. There are no final solutions in this conflict, and there won't be one here as well. Israel governs Gaza by an ongoing measured and calculated catastrophization that becomes more brutal, deadly and shameless with each wave of violence. More is yet to come.

Adi Ophir teaches philosophy and critical theory at Tel Aviv University and is a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute for Advanced Jewish Studies in Jerusalem.

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next
So the very unknown Belgian PM Herman van Rompuy, has been elected as EU President- taking up a position that could be instrumental in the future of the region and global international relations in general.

Only a day later, on the opposite and non-EU side of Europe, Russian and Ukrainian officials met, with Putin announcing that he would be easing gas supply terms to a neighbour that is crucial for Russia's European pipelines. 

Is it too cynical to think this isn't it a coincidence? 

Is it unreasonable to think that as Putin spins a tighter trade web with Former Soviet Republics that this could be his attempt to stand tall and unthreatened by a stronger EU?

Find out about our Widget

Feedback

7 jul

The HomepageDAILY community likes to co-create both content and process. What are you thinking right now about what we do and how we do it? Tell us about the news, videos and stories and anything else you see on HPD. What you like, what you don't like, what you'd like to see in future. Recommend a website, video or article; send us pix, new stories - share it with us and by so doing you are giving us permission to share it with the world.

Leave Feedback here

 *********************************

 Re: Commoditisation of aboriginal art

dear jack do you know anything about the history of Aboriginal 'art'??? Your speculation seems based on complete ignorance of the fact that Aboriginal art was invented for white buyers - the Aborigines themselves having survived 40,000 years without needing to give their lore and laws, myths and legends and rules for survival in a hostile climate any permanent form. It was only our attempts to assimilate them into our 'society' that drove the link to canvas - though the money we paid for their art was a nice bonus, and shouldn't be ignored as a continuing motive for painting. cheers - jeremy

 *********************************

 Re: Farmers and ETS

Thank you for your commentary about farmers in a world of changing climate. Here in the Pacific NW we are not as aware of it as some other places. Our Transition Town group hosted author William Catton last night, who wrote a prophetic book called "Overshoot" back in 1980. During the discussion, a local fish biologist pointed out that of all industries, farmers are the only ones constantly limited by nature. The rest of the world ( with a few exceptions like fishermen or foresters) really do not seem to make their living in a world of limited by forces beyond their control--- or so they imagine. There is a fundamental sanity in these other ways of life that our culture is unwilling to hear. It runs away from the voice of limitation. I think farmers have a lot to teach the world. We always thought there was something wholesome about farming and I think this is exactly it; a lack of hubris. How many slaps in the face will it take before people come to their senses? - Anna Willis

 *********************************

 Re: Turning Chinese

Obama is just a puppet of the Corporate elites.He has not recinded the Patriot Act,Bushes' presidential orders nor habius corpus.Presently ,we have corporate facism. - Ross

 *********************************

 Re: Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

it seems that your whole point and discussion is aimed at christianity. what you state is pretty thought provoking and maybe true but one thing that i have to say is that maybe the whole religion thing has just been corrupted by people and that maybe god does exist.... nomatter all the scientific bull that you and other people can come up with, there are still things that you and scientist just cant explain. ie youe exsistance and the fact that you as a human have suchbrain capacity to do what you do today, and why there is such an order in nature "ofcoures humans always fuck up the order" everything on earth is one complex puzzle that works and you and everyone found it working. not only earth but even beyond to space and shit. now you can say that all this came from a bang and what ever but even if you believe that, what created the platform for that bang and why this place and stuff. just too many things dont add up to just say there is no god. and i think most of these motherfuckers miss the point of this religious shit anyway. because god is not a religion but a spiritual bond. dont be fooled by sensationalism and think that god does not exist cos he does. at least for me. the only problem with this now is that humans have sensationalised everything to make thier shit the best and in part have missed the whole point of god. every human bieng needs something to hold on to. even you and weather it is the image of god that people have painted or not is irrelevent. there is something that you believe in.. you might not go to church and get on your knees but its just part of human nature to associate yourself with something. it could be a superstition or eating chocolate coated roaches whatever you like fact is some things are just bigger than our rational. hope to get a responce from you - esco

*********************************

Re: Safran sure to offend, but who cares?

It is an interesting question to pursue "And, is there a ratio that exists where the amount of people offended compared to those that weren't makes something objectively racist?" I suppose the most right answer to whether something is racist or not can only come about democratically. By asking people if they find it racist. Even then (in this currently impossible world where people who want to vote on everything) who gets to vote? Hopefully I do. How do I cast my vote? At the moment I abstain. - Joshua Genner

 *********************************

Re: The Pointless Question of "What is Art?"

You're article serves as a blatant example of people's lack of knowledge/interest in the contemporary art scene. Some of the most profound and revealing conversations stem from dicussions of art, politics and religion so why label them taboo subject matter? why not let the idiots add in their artistic two cents, because who knows what could happen? a change of opinion... an education... a flash of interest? Perhaps you and your friends to venture down to the COFA 09 annual exhibit and see some 200 fresh sydney artists emerge onto the art scene, unless it's too boring/inane. - Kara

*********************************

Re: The Pointless Question of "What is Art?"

I dare say the question is not pointless but rather is made pointless by overcomplications of academia and peripherals of market and status, in which Sean appears to have gotten bogged down notwithstanding the word limit. One of the things we do know about art for a fact is that we humans appear to have always had it around from the caves (who can forget the fetching bison from Alta Mira!) So the issue is cutting through the baggage of history as old as humanity to get back to the fundamentals. It took me about 35 years of research but does not take 100 words. It is this: "Art is something that is designed to communicate thoughts and feelings and to influence our thoughts and feeling through one or more of our senses."(25 words) Since we have space, a rider: "The particular art form is qualified by the particular senses involved in production and reception of that communication. If Sound then Music, If body then Dance. If we use eyes to perceive colour and shape we call it Visual art." How you work the item in question is the matter of objectivity after all some of us eat fruit raw and others make jam. If you choose to make art an investment go for it, if you choose to make it a status symbol you won't be the first. However, in my book, art is really the best at being art and in the immortal words of one Oscar Wilde, for any other purpose "All art is quite useless" - Valerie (Co-incidental author of "Why Art? The Pocket Art Expert)
*********************************

Re: John Safran ready for when skit hits the fan

The only aspect of "multiculturalism" we (or any western society)have accepted, revolves around food: sweet and sour chicken or donner kebab..nothing else is relevent, interesting or in anyway beneficial to us. The Cronulla riots were seen as well overdue by most people abroad, we should be proud of standing up to and rejecting ethnic gangs from our pure shores - "Peter Piper"

*********************************

Re: Brassed off about creationism- by Andy Coghlan

This is why we need change in Texas and why I'm running for State Board of Education. - Rebecca Bell-Metereau (www.voterebecca.com)

*********************************

Re: The Rape Tunnel

It astonishes and intrigues me this 'shock art' Being a over zealous muscled ex con looking for love, where could one find Richard Whitehursts hole?

*********************************

Re: ETS Voted Down: Rudd Proves Himself An Evil Genius

Nice to see such an insightful article, despite the snide comments.. Did you read the Quarterly Essay by Guy Pearse in writing the first 5 paragraphs- not that that's a bad thing really. Nice of you to widen your vision beyond the road ahead and take in some history- but I would add one thing- that as it stands (in the senate, especially with Steve Fielding) we won't have a real, meaningful ETS passed. The bummer is that even with a double dissolution election and the resultant simultaneous sitting of both houses of parliament (which as you point out, the greens/minor parties and labor would benefit from) would still not change the ETS from it's current configuration- not unless the Greens tripled their vote. Silly that it all came down to labor preferences to a little known party led by a little know bloke named Steve Fielding and Family First- not that that should be the reason we're in this predicament... - Shaun Lambert

*********************************

Re: Evil Capitalists

In response to the "100 Words" on Psychotic Capitalism: The statement, "only psychotics fail to distinguish right from wrong," has a semantic problem. What makes a person psychotic is the inability to recognize that, theoretically, actions or behavior can be right and wrong. A psychologically normal person can do this by age 5. But well- intentioned people constantly disagree about which actions are right and wrong in particular situations. This evening my husband and I re- watched "Zeitgeist--- Addendum" on youtube. We had to restrain ourselves from a festival of paranoia, anger and frustration at what appears to be an evil plot to enslave us all, to bleed us like pods in The Matrix. I cannot argue against the idea that Capitalism--- looked at as a planetary movement--- seems heartlessly destructive, yet there is no single person or even group of Illuminati to blame --- we are willing participants in this plot to rule the world, exploit the human race, rape Mother Earth. All of us are not psychotic, rather we are doing what seems right, and we are following norms set by our culture and community. I personally do my best to support those lawmakers who help us define right at wrong at the transpersonal level--- where this kind of crime being committed, with vast and ultimately very personal consequences. Indeed people can be stupider and meaner in groups than singly --- but whatever the right word is for that, it is not psychotic. Our real problem is that we seem incapable of seeing consequences beyond the local and immediate, we are selfish and shortsighted. But the writer is right: stupid, mean, selfish, shortsighted --- these terms trivialize the unfathomable crimes of Capitalists and their sheep-like dupes. - Anna Willis

*********************************

Re: Ethics Implicit?

There is one place where ethics is not "implicit everywhere" and that is television and the media generally - the only ethic is win the audience. This is the toxic environment "informing" students. - Terry McGee

*********************************

Re: Australia's Swine Flu vaccination plan

The word "pandemic" has absolutely nothing to do with a deadly disease taking over the planet. The definition of "Pandemic" is simply about the SPREAD of a disease. Any disease. It could be a relatively harmless disease like the Swine Flu, to maybe a more harmful type (like normal seasonal influenza). Nothing to do with how bad or how good it is to your health ... just how WIDESPREAD it is. That is the interpretation of "Pandemic". A word that is nothing to be scared about, but just a measure of the SPREAD of any disease (harmful or relatively harmless) around the globe. The original "Spanish Flu" in 1819 killed 50 to 100 million people worldwide. Swine Flu deaths to date? 2,800 or so. Compare this to up to 500,000 deaths worldwide from our ongoing "Seasonal Flu". People need to see things in perspective. Swine Flu is a mild flu. No need for risky & possibly dangerous vaccinations. No need to be scared. In fact NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING. Just stay cool and take whatever vitamins & health supplements that are appropriate. Good luck & stay informed. - Tim
 
*********************************

Re: Kabul-shit

A nice puncture of the ADF's mad illusions. Shooting civvies in another land used to be called murder, now we pretend its nation building. It must have struck a chord. General Jim Molan, the butcher of Fallujah, who used white phosphorous & put snipers on hospital rooftops, raves in today's SMH about staying true to the mission. What is it with these guys? Untold deaths in Iraq, bombs still exploding, millions of refugees ... and this guy thinks he's a genius. - Tina G

*********************************

Re: Why we shouldn't care about he loneliness of the University Liberal

While you have managed to approach, with a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity, the complaints of the many people who feel alienated by the overtly leftist university agenda, I also think that you have failed to address the concerns of an increasingly disenfranchised leftist populace. The article was concerning the Left Handed bigots, not the personal politics of either of the 4 people mentioned. Their concern was not with, as you pointlessly attacked, their political beliefs, but rather with their freedom to express their beliefs and how they were treated on campus because of them. I write this as a disenfranchised leftist. Apparently, freedom of speech on campus somehow took a backseat to the far left's bigotry, however well intentioned they thought it was originally. I'm not right; I'm not left. But fuck anybody that tries to censure me and revoke my right to freedom of speech, merely for believing in a political party. Anyone that thinks that's OK, well simply look up the definition of fascist. - I Swing My Vote

*********************************
12 sep
10 aug
More feedback...
© 2007-2008 homePageDAILY - All rights reserved * Terms of Use * Privacy Policy * Advertising Information * Media Kit * Contact Us