１．Malaysiakini.com（http://www.malaysiakini.com）
（1）Malaysia is like Israel, 31 December 2009
by Helen Ang
Air strikes on Gaza over the weekend have aggravated the Israeli Arab’s growing disaffection with the state, suggest some Israeli writers.
Popular author Benny Morris, who is professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University, wrote an opinion-editorial in the New York Times on Monday titled Why Israel feels threatened on the challenges Israel is currently facing, including fraught relations with its minorities.
Allow me to compare Morris’ description with our own situation here. There is no exact parallel as we’re not in a war zone but Malaysia is somewhat like Israel in some ways.
The national policies of both countries contain elements of apartheid which serve to segregate communities. Israel is constitutionally a Jewish state in nature and its founding document reflects a race-preoccupied social contract too. The Declaration of Independence mentions only the history, culture and collective memory of the Jewish people; too bad for the Arabs who form one-fifth of Israel’s population.
Its ‘law of return’ allows Jewish immigration from any part of the world and Israel has received among others, African Jews and Indian Jews plus an influx of Soviet Jews when the old USSR disintegrated.
On the other hand, an Arab who is an Israeli citizen cannot just as easily bring home his Palestinian bride from West Bank. Compare with Malaysia’s permanent residency requirements for foreign spouses of the different races.
In Israel, its religious law halacha mandates conversion to Judaism in mixed marriages. In Malaysia, anyone marrying a Malay must convert to Islam. On matters relating to birth, death and marriage, an Israeli cannot turn to a civil court, meaning he has no secular recourse in these areas. Neither does the Malay who is governed by syariah.
Restaurants, factories and public buildings are obliged to adhere to the kosher practices of Jews, and public space are Judaisised under state policy. In Malaysia, we adhere to halal practices and additionally in schools, and public space are Islamised.
Israel’s law recognises and protects Jewish holy sites alone. Cemeteries, seminaries and religious institutions are built for Jews but not for Arabs. Palestinian legal aid organisation Adalah, in a report titled ‘Institutionalised Discrimination’, said during the 1990s typically 98 percent of the Religious Affairs Ministry budget was allocated for Jewish houses of worship and religious services.
Need I elaborate on Malaysia’s practices in this respect?
Why Israel/Malays feel threatened
With apology and thanks to Prof Morris for my borrowing his writing, let’s explore the ideas below.
Morris on Israel’s siege mentality: ‘First, the Arab and wider Islamic worlds…have never truly accepted the legitimacy of Israel’s creation and continue to oppose its existence.’
Some Malays regret my Chinese forefathers coming, and do not accept the full legitimacy of my presence – hence my second-class citizenship – while willing to grant a first generation Muslim from Indonesia or the Philippines bumiputera privileges.
Morris writes: ‘Second, public opinion in the West (and in democracies, governments can’t be far behind) is gradually reducing its support for Israel as the West looks askance at the Jewish state’s treatment of its Palestinian neighbors and wards. The Holocaust is increasingly becoming a faint and ineffectual memory and the Arab states are increasingly powerful and assertive.’
Public opinion in the West is gradually looking askance at Malaysia’s treatment of its minorities. The countries of origin of these minorities are increasingly powerful and assertive; Indian Malaysians revolted with Hindraf and Chinese Malaysians are grumbling louder.
Morris writes: ‘But the attack will not solve the basic problem posed by a Gaza Strip populated by 1.5 million impoverished, desperate Palestinians who are ruled by a fanatic regime and are tightly hemmed in by fences and by border crossings controlled by Israel and Egypt.’
The verbal attacks by Umno ministers and their agents on Hindraf supporters, as well as the authorities punishing the movement and its leaders – and even Jerit cyclists – will not solve the basic problem posed by a Tamil underclass of impoverished, desperate Indians who are ruled by a fascist-like regime and tightly hemmed in by state-erected social barriers, a lack of upward mobility and exclusion from affirmative action programmes.
Sense of wall closing in
Malaysia’s existence is not threatened but the recent spate of demonstrations and fiery rhetoric on Malay special rights indicate how some insecure folks see their minority neighbours as existential threats.
Morris writes: ‘The fourth immediate threat to Israel’s existence is internal. It is posed by the country’s Arab minority. Over the past two decades, Israel’s 1.3 million Arab citizens have been radicalised, with many openly avowing a Palestinian identity and embracing Palestinian national aims.’
a. Radicalised: Have the Indians been radicalised by Hindraf? If you read or listen to only the mainstream, especially Malay mass media and official channels spewing government propaganda, what would you think?
Have the Chinese been radicalised by March 8? If a Malay reads or listens only to the official mouthpieces, what would he think?
b. Identity: Undeniably, Chinese Malaysians over the past two decades have become increasingly sinicised. Today between 90 and 95 percent are estimated to attend Chinese schools. The Star group editor Wong Chun Wai is in favour of bringing back the English-medium of instruction and calls the Chinese educationists ‘racist groups’.
c. National aims: Morris writes that Israel believes the loyalty of its Arabs lies with Palestinians rather than with the state.
When prime minister designate Najib Razak says his government wants to assist the advancement of Malays elsewhere who are of other nationalities, what does it reveal of his racialist orientation, not to mention his low regard of our common nationality?
And what about those who want to put immigrant-squatters on a boat ‘balik Tongsan’ (China) and ‘balik Kalinga’ (India)? What does this popular demand tell about that Umno-type mindset?
Morris writes that ‘most Jews see the Arab minority as a potential fifth column’.
If Israeli Arabs are alleged to identify with their country’s enemies Hamas and Hezbollah, some Malays accuse Chinese Malaysians of siding with Singapore and another segment expects the Chinese to cheer for China should our two national badminton teams or players meet.
Unreal reflection in the mirror
Demographics offer another interesting comparison and contrast. The birthrates for Israeli Arabs are among the highest in the world with four or five children per family, according to Morris. He writes: ‘If present trends persist, Arabs could constitute the majority of Israel’s citizens by 2040 or 2050.’
Minorities are dwindling rapidly against the Malay prolific annual birthrate and this coupled with emigration and religious conversion will see the numerical ratio of bumiputera at a most satisfactory Muslim majority sooner rather later.
In Malaysian blogosphere now, there is the usual schism. The Malay-Muslim voices have been unequivocally pro-Palestinian. The non-Malay, non-Muslim voices have tended to be more accommodating of Israel’s self-justification.
Predictably, there was a protest against Israel at the American embassy yesterday and anger over the deaths in Gaza – ‘several hundred Hamas fighters were killed’ says Morris but he omits to mention the civilian casualties.
During the recent terrorist attack (right) on Mumbai, similarly, several hundred Indian security forces, civilians and foreigners in total were killed and injured.
Did the Malaysians, who are now bristling at Israel, earlier show an outpouring of rage for the dead in Mumbai? Did the ones chanting slogans at the American embassy extend condolences to the family of the Indian Malaysian victim?
Yesterday, it was reported that 400 people were slaughtered in Christmas massacres in the northeastern Democratic Republic of Congo – burned alive in their homes, villagers decapitated or killed with machetes, axes and clubs. Where is the Malaysian outcry?
Malaysia is akin to Israel in insisting the international community should view the country just as the wonderful, fair-minded democracy it miraculously manages to see itself in the smoked mirror.
（2）Why Malaysia is not like Israel, 8 January 2009
by Kamal Solhaimi Fadzil
I refer to the Malaysiakini article Malaysia is like Israel.
I read the article and my heart sank. Helen Ang of course is correct on a number of things, like why Malays have not protested against the recent killing in an African state, or the recent Mumbai killings or even of a thirteen-year-old girl who was reportedly stoned to death for adultery (her father claimed they went to the authorities to report rape) in Somalia late last year.
Yes, Malays appear to symphatise with Palestine and see the Israel as an aggressor. There is a complex history to the story of sympathy and affirmity, but one that is familiar and available. Anyone can simply Google it nowadays and get both sides of the story. But the point in the case of Palestine/Israel is one of massive displacement and continued imposition by the authority on the displaced till the present day.
Why and how, these are the points of contention. And why do the Malays feel particularly aggrieved for the Palestinians? Perhaps as the writer suggests, this is because of the Islamic connection. But that is simplistic and narrow. There are probably much more complicated emotions and key events in recent history that bring about sympathy.
And, this is by no means a sentiment solely belonging to the Malay or even Muslim. There are Jewish groups who oppose the nature of the conflict, both among the civilian and army population. There are private citizens across America, Australia and Europe who also oppose the conflict. Many of them are not Arabs or Muslims. They are Caucasians.
I am in Canberra, and recently a group of Christians spoke against the violence in Palestine at a talk organised by the Australians for Justice and Peace in Palestine (AJPP). These were church leaders and except for one Palestine lady whom I believe is Muslim, the other speakers were Caucasians and Christians representing the different churches.
The AJPP were handing out leaflets and brochures. In their leaflet I learnt that between 2000-2006, the total number of Palestinians killed was 4,046 (of which 798 are children). During the same period, the number of Israelis killed was 755 (including 124 children).
Today, we are told in the news, that the 12-day old violence has seen more than 400 Palestinian and four Israelis killed. Of course, the death of Israel civilians is no less aggrieved. If anyone can stand up in Malaysia and say that the death of an Israel child is collateral damage or inconsequential, that is a pity.
A child is a child regardless of race, religion or class. I will mourn the death of a child that dies in conflict; I will mourn the death of civilians in this conflict. But what we have to understand is that the issue isn't over death; it is over what makes the disproportionate figures - and that is power.
The Palestinians at best, have a government in running. With PLO, they were a people without land. Now they have some land, but they don't have the means to control the outcome. The entire society is regulated by another country.
But that is not the point here. Different people will have different opinions on this matter and being neither a Palestinian or Israeli, and since I am not living in the Mid East, what I say is really not based on my experiences and it would be unfair to judge from a far.
This letter is only in response to the above article that compares Malaysia to Israel. I have three comments:
Firstly, if you want to argue on similarity, stick to the plot; either the Malaysian government is like Israel or they are the Arabs that refuse to recognise the Israel state - they can't be both when you see fit.
Second, learn your history. If anybody can claim internal colonisation, cultural ethno-cide and the persistent state of institutionalised dependency, it is the Orang Asli of Peninsula Malaysia. Read up about them, there are fantastic articles in several websites on the Internet.
And you could always look up Iskandar Carey's book written in the 1970s that talks about the impact of resettlements on the Orang Asli communities - many died during the periods when the government tried to resettle them.
Many were in fact displaced from their land and until today, most of their claims for ancestral land have not been gazetted. They have a disproportionately high number of TB and malaria cases (considering they are only 0.5% of Malaysian population), more than half drop out from secondary schooling and more than half are considered as living below the poverty line.
Let’s not forget that there is also a much higher number for infant mortality among the Orang Asli community as compared to other Malaysians. A good book to start with is titled The Orang Asli and the Contest for Resources by Colin Nicholas (2000). Another good book to read is Modernity and Malaysia: Settling the Menraq forest nomads by Alberto Gomes (2007). This book deals with the effects of resettlement on a Negrito community.
Third, why are you essentialising race? Isn't it enough that we have rotten politicians who unabashedly turn every small thing into a race issue? Following your example on Malay and protest patterns, do you see Chinese going out in droves to protests against the French government ban of headscarves in their schools?
Why not? Isn't there a strong and continued resistance against integrating the vernacular schools here? Aren't both issues about the rights to practice one's culture? My point is that it is easy to colour our actions as racial. But that is simplistic and misleading.
Why does it appear that we have similarities with the Israel state? Because we speak the same ‘race language’ as the Israel government. But we don't practice the legal doctrine whereby blood gives you right to the land as practised by Israel. A Malay in any part of the world is not automatically a Malaysian. Yes, the government is making actions that appear they are heading in that direction. Well, let us ensure that doesn't happen.
No one is saying Malaysia cannot go down the path of apartheid or other racist designs. But at this stage, be realistic and ask yourself, can you go to a hospital if you are sick? Do you have access to pharmaceutical products when you need them?
Be honest to yourself, have we come to the stage where we cannot drink from the same water fountain, go to the same clinic, or schools? We are not separated from each other by means of segregating physical space.
We don't have a society where part of the population cannot be seen in other parts without a pass or permit to travel. The only place you need to get a permit to enter are the Orang Asli villages (under the Orang Asli Act, the state requires that the non-Asli write-in for permission before entering any Orang Asli village), and probably security premises and forest reserves.
But if you say recent activities are working towards justifying the logic of segregation (even apartheid started with a benevolent yet misplaced idea), perhaps. But that is where we expect the role of the media to kick in. To keep vigil against these threats and not to act as apologists or alarmists. If you have the facts let it be known. Otherwise, come up with a strong argument and not a cut and paste.
On another point, we need to dig a little deeper beneath the veneer of the plural society and realise that we have never tolerated each other - we have blended into a state with many expressions, and we have lived comfortably with this so called incompatibility.
Everyone talks about Chinese or Indian or Malay or Portuguese or Sinhalese etc, but these are only the outer layers. Peel away these layers and underneath resting comfortably at home is our heart - as Malaysians.
If you don't believe me, write down words that you use in a conversation. List down the food that you eat. Think of places most memorable to you. List down your complains. List down your loved ones. List down what it is about Malaysia you like and hate most. Go to Lake Gardens and walk to the National Memorial. Than ask the person next to you in your office or on the street to do the same.
Chances are, before you are through, both of you would laugh and say this is so stupid; but you would have realised the natural bond that exists and we often overlook this invisible bond because we grew up with it. It is so familiar to us that we no longer see it. It is irrelevant because it is a part of us. Are we like the Israelis, In my opinion, not by a long shot.
(3) 'Stop the killings in Gaza', how?, 9 January 2009
by Helen Ang
A sampling of the reaction to Israel’s offensive in Gaza: Rantings by Dr Mahathir Mohamed – Boycott American products! Umno Youth – Demonstrations is not our culture but we can make an exception for Khairy Jamaluddin since he’s leading foreigners (i.e. Palestinians) to take to the streets.
Malaysia’s mainstream media, as only to be expected, are unequivocally pro-Palestinian. Alternative media is largely pro-Palestinian too. On this issue, there is a great measure of consensus.
Someone who straddles traditional and New Media is Star group-editor Wong Chun Wai who also blogs. Wong’s views expressed in his blog ‘New Malaysia’ takes the ketupat for thought-provoking output.
Wong writes that he watched the interview by CNN with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, and asserted that "No amount of her explanation is going to convince the world" that Israel’s action can be justified. Since "schools, hospitals and homes have been bombed", Wong challenged, "So what is she talking about?"
The title of Wong’s Jan 5 blog posting is Stop the killings in Gaza!
Well, forgive my curiosity as to who it is that Wong is calling upon to bring an end to the killings in Gaza.
We do not host any Israeli ambassador in Kuala Lumpur, so there is no His Excellency to be reading or heeding such a call made in our corner of the world. We do not have an Israel embassy and therefore no Israeli envoys to pass on Wong’s message to that country’s war triumvirate of Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Livni.
Who will listen to us?
Or is it the Americans whom Wong is appealing to, to stop the killings in Gaza? But the Bush administration has not wagged even its little finger at Tel Aviv, and the incoming Obama crew has been conspicuously reticent.
An appeal to the United Nations, then? From the UN’s track record, which country is willing to commit immediate peacekeeping forces to such a mission to stop the killings in Gaza pronto, you think?
Or maybe Wong’s petition is directed at our own government. So Malaysia is supposed to send troops there to stop the killings in Gaza, is it?
Our troops are to confront a country we do not recognise as existing and this country is controlling the border checkpoints into Gaza, not to mention holding the ground? Or do we airdrop Malaysian troops into Gaza just like we once airdropped the Proton car onto the South Pole?
What does Wong wish to convey when he throws up into the air – or into cyberspace, if we care to be precise – a headline such as ‘Stop the killings in Gaza!’? I’d thought a journalist is indeed required to be precise, especially if you’re group-editor of the country’s most profitable paper. Write what you mean, mean what you write.
So, then what?
On Jan 7, in the spirit of mutual outrage, Wong plugs his equally high-circulation competitor. He wrings his hands and laments: "The front page of today's Utusan Malaysia says it all... Cruel! Cruel! Cruel!"
Utusan’s front page screaming ‘Kejam! Kejam! Kejam!’ is duly reproduced as a graphic on Wong’s blog. The title of Wong’s second posting on the Gaza incursion is How can we let this madness continue?
Is he seriously surprised that his readers, us chaps sitting behind computer screens in suburban homes or city offices, he-you-me in KL, Ipoh, Georgetown seem willing to allow the madness to continue in Gaza?
What does he propose that ‘we’ do so to halt the insanity? He doesn’t say.
Without himself suggesting anything, Wong is merely putting across a rhetorical question. He’s repeating with a slight variation his earlier polemics on his imperative ‘stop the killings!’ Aaah, if one does not have an answer, then ask and ask again. Perhaps inspiration will strike.
Raise standards of local journalism
Is that the purpose of Malaysians writing voluminously on Gaza, gnashing their teeth, beating their chests? Ask and ye shall receive... be granted a revelation as to how to solve the Middle East’s intractable problem and save the Palestinians.
Hopefully such a revelation is an original thought because thus far, I’ve seen too many unoriginal dirges flooding the lopsided Malaysian media landscape.
Malaysia embraces one side of conflict, while turns a blind eye to the other. Chunks and chunks of pro-Palestinian writings are ‘cut’ (copied) by some individuals who do not identify themselves, and prolifically pasted in the comments section of other people’s blogs under the tag ‘Anonymous’.
What do the named/pseudonymous writers and anonymous copy-pasters – after having led the charge of public opinion up the moral high ground – feel they achieved besides whipping up public anger against Israeli Jews, American Jews and Americans?
Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim states "Umno is like Israel".
Umno is a race supremacist entity (a Malaysiakini reader Eugene Tan observes that "As far as I know only two countries in the world define race in terms of religion, the Jewish faith for Jews and Islam for Malays") that declared Hindraf illegal, refusing to recognise the movement as a voice for the marginalised. Does Umno’s modus operandi ring a bell; remind us of anyone Malaysia loves to hate?
Methinks it is more productive to channel all that unbridled energy otherwise directed at Jews to cleaning up our own backyard. And raise the standard of local journalism.
(4) Gaza war: The myth and reality, 21 January 2009
by Rosli Omar
The war started on Dec 27 when the Israeli Air Force launched a massive attack on Gaza. Israel said it was responding to Hamas’s firing rockets into Israel. This upsurge in rocket fire, Israel charged, broke the June ceasefire or tahediyah.
Was Israel merely responding to the rocket fire and is it true that it was Hamas that broke the ceasefire? In reality, Israel is not just responding to the rocket fire. Israel wants this war. It has been planning it even before the June ceasefire as reported by Israeli newspaper Haaretz on Dec 28. There are several reasons for the war.
First is the Israel general elections due Feb 10. Polls before the war show that the present coalition government between Kadima and Labour would lose.
Kadima headed by Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, would get about 20 seats, Labour headed by Ehud Barak, the defence minister, 11 seats, and Likud under Benyamin Netanyahu, the opposition leader, 34 seats. Note that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will step down after the elections because of several scandals affecting him.
After the air attacks, polls show that Livni would get 28 seats, Barak 16 seats and Netanyahu 28 seats. Thus the present coalition government would continue in power. However, if the ground attacks get bogged down in Gaza, they could still lose to Netanyahu. This was why Barak had been reluctant to send in the ground troops.
Going to war to win elections is a tried and tested method as Uri Avnery, the Israeli veteran politician and peace activist, said, writing in Counterpunch on Jan 2. Menachem Begin in 1981 during his election campaign attacked an Iraqi nuclear reactor. Similarly Shimon Peres during his election campaign in 1996 launched the Grapes of Wrath invasion of Lebanon. (But in this case the war went badly and he lost the elections.) Avnery claims, "Barak and Tzipi are now resorting to the same old trick."
'Act of revenge'
Second reason why Israel wants the war is that Olmert and the Israel Defenve Forces (IDF) want to redeem themselves after being blamed for the failure of the Lebanon war against Hezbollah in 2006.
Furthermore, Avi Shlaim, an Israeli professor of international relations at Oxford University, said that Hamas drove out the IDF from Gaza in 2005 (Guardian, Jan 7). This is revenge for the IDF against Hamas. Thus both Olmert and the IDF were itching for war.
Third, the failed Lebanon war marred Israel's image as an invincible foe. It needs to reestablish that image. As reported by Salon.com on Jan 16, Olmert told the visiting delegation from AIPAC (American-Israel Public affairs Committee, the most important Israel lobby in the US), "Israel's aim (in attacking Gaza) was to provide a strong blow to the people of Gaza so that they would lose their appetite for shooting at Israel."
Israel's wars with its enemies, whether with Lebanon, Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza, have always had the aim of invoking fear of massive retaliation. This can be seen in the massive air bombardment of Lebanon in 2006, and previously in 1982 and so on, or its invasion of Jenin in the West Bank.
Lastly, Israel wants the war because it does not want peace. This is at odds to Israel's repeated pronouncements that it wants peace but it has no ‘partners for peace’ on the Palestinian side. The fact is, when there is peace then negotiations are to follow for a final peace: the establishment of a Palestinian state. And the fact is, Israel does not want a Palestinian state.
To the world, Israel claims that it accepts the two-state solution and it is the PLO then and now Hamas that are opposed to it. Both the PLO and Hamas have now accepted the two-state solution. But as remarked by Sara Roy of Harvard University, an expert on Gaza's economy, "Israel has consistently rejected a viable two-state solution because it insists on maintaining control of the West Bank." (Informed Comments: Global Affairs, Jan 4)
Looking at the platforms of the three main Israeli parties makes this clear. According to Prof Norman Finkelstein in his book, 'Beyond Chutzpah', the Labour Party is only willing to accept "a Palestinian state with limited sovereignty." And with colonies (settlements) under its sovereignty. Likud is even clearer: "No Palestinian state will be established west of the Jordan River." i.e., West Bank and Gaza cannot be Palestine.
Kadima's position as published by the Jewish website Ynews states that, "Kadima further pledges to keep large settlement blocs and maintain the unity of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel." Maintaining the unity of Jerusalem within Israel goes against the international consensus that East Jerusalem belongs to Palestine which hopes to make it its capital.
Uri Avnery, the Israeli peace activist, makes Kadima's position even clearer. Kadima's then leader and current prime minister Olmert indicated in 2006 what his plan was for the West Bank to be implemented via the separation/annexation wall surrounding the West Bank: "It annexes 58 percent of the West Bank. What it leaves to the Palestinians (altogether, 11 percent of pre-1948 Palestine) is chopped up into isolated enclaves, cut off from the world."
This wall has been constructed in many places as shown in the United Nations 2007 map. In many places it cuts deep into the West Bank annexing it to Israel. This includes many Israeli settlements/colonies built in the West Bank. The wall has been ruled by the World Court as illegal.
Who broke the ceasefire?
So peace would lead to negotiations for a (viable) Palestinian state and thus it needs to be avoided by Israel. To avoid peace it creates situations where there is no peace, such as through assassination or liquidation and war. Some examples given by Norman Finkelstein of the Israeli approach is illustrative.
Meretz Party leader in 2002 declared, "Just when there is a period of calm, we liquidate." And from Shulamit Aloni, a former Israeli education minister: "Sharon and his army minister, apparently fearing that they would have to return to the negotiating table, decided they have to do something and liquidated Raed Karmi (a local militia leader)."
Also, in 2005, after a lull in the hostilities, Ahmed Rantisi of Hamas was liquidated after talking too much about peace. I remember this case well because I remember the relatively long period of peace and Rantisi was pushing for peace and negotiations. I was thinking that Israel wouldn't like this and he could be liquidated. And sure enough, he was bombed along with civilian bystanders.
In the present war, Israel does not want to continue with the June ceasefire. It wants war for the reasons discussed above. It blames Hamas for breaking the ceasefire by firing rockets into Israel. But others dispute this. "It was not Hamas but IDF that broke the ceasefire. It did so by a raid on Gaza on Nov 4 that killed six Hamas men," according to Avi Shlaim, the Oxford professor.
And Uri Avnery agrees: "And indeed, after several such small actions, in which Hamas fighters were killed, Hamas retaliated with a massive launch of rockets, and – lo and behold – the ceasefire was at an end. Everybody blamed Hamas."
And if the purpose of Israel going to war is to stop Hamas from firing its rocket as it claims, "Jerusalem could have stopped the rocket attacks long ago by lifting its siege of Gaza" according to Ephraim Halevy, a former head of Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service. (The Independent, Dec 29)
And why did Hamas go to war? First of all it was responding to Israeli attacks on Nov 4 and 17 by firing rockets. And then having to respond to Israel’s bombardment on Dec 27. But if Hamas was to initiate a war it would have some strong reasons.
First, the June ceasefire was supposed to lead to Israel lifting economic and food blockade of Gaza. It did not happen. As Avnery said: "The main requirement for any cease-fire in the Gaza Strip must be the opening of the border crossings…The blockade on land, on sea and in the air against a million and a half human beings is an act of war."
Before the blockade, 500 to 600 truckloads were delivered daily to Gaza. During the ceasefire only 90. The Gazaans were, and are, starving. As Dov Weisglas, Arial Sharon's adviser said, we are putting Gazaans on a diet.
Gaza was not only not allowed to obtain imports but it was not allowed to export either. Thus the economy was totally ruined. Officially, nearly half of Gazaans are unemployed but unofficially more like 70 percent. Eighty percent of them still subsist on less than US$2 a day, that is, below the poverty line.
Third reason for Hamas to go to war is that Israel is still occupying Palestine (the West Bank) and controlling and blockading Gaza even though it has evacuated from Gaza. The evacuation was not to give freedom to Gaza as claimed by Israel but because the IDF lost to Hamas as Avi Shlaim said. And the evacuation allows Israel to concentrate, and to have more control, over the West Bank, which is more valuable than Gaza. In fact after evacuating 8,000 settlers from Gaza, 12,000 were settled in the West Bank the next year.
Large water acquifier
Why is Israel not allowing a Palestinian state? First of all, the West Bank has a large water aquifer that Israel wants, and in fact is now already using, i.e. stealing. In a land that is water deficient this large aquifer is highly prized.
Second, Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, believe that the biblical Israel (Eretz or Greater Israel) extends the whole of Palestine, as well as Jordan, Golan Heights, Sinai and southern Lebanon. The Orthodox Jews are very influentialin Israel and they will not allow a Palestinian state. They make up the bulk of the settlers on Palestinian land.
As Prof Finkelstein charged, Weizmann, the first president of Israel, and his prime minister Ben-Gurion "saw [the 1948] partition as a stepping stone to further expansion and the eventual takeover of the whole Palestine..."
To prevent a viable Palestinian state, Israel puts in measures to make it hard to achieve an independent Palestine. Putting Jews-only colonies/settlements in West Bank (and previously Gaza) is to facilitate seizure of Palestine - by putting "facts on the ground." Colonies are connected by "Jews-only-roads" on Palestinian soil (which is apartheid).
To prevent Palestinians from getting into the colonies and to restrict travel between various Palestinian enclaves, checkpoints were established - increasing from about 500 in 2007 to 700 in 2008 causing much misery to Palestinians. At least 13 mothers have given birth at the checkpoints because they had to wait so long to be allowed through.
With some 268,000 settlers (2006 figures), it will be very difficult for Israel to allow a Palestinian state to be formed. If pulling out 8,000 settlers from Gaza in 2005 caused so much opposition and trouble, what more pulling out from the West Bank. The present Israeli policy of putting more settlers is to make sure it will be hard for future administrations to allow a viable Palestinian state. As Avi Shlaim said: "Jewish settlements in occupied territories are immoral, illegal and an insurmountable obstacle to peace." And, "Israel had a choice and it chose (Palestinian) land over peace."
Avi Shlaim ends his piece in The Guardian by saying: "This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria."
By these three criteria, the US too is a rogue state, not least for always supporting Israel’s wars.
・ROSLI OMAR is an associate professor at the Department of Electrical Engineering, Universiti Malaya. This article is based on his presentation at the Gaza War Forum held at the Bar Council Auditorium on Jan 9.
２．Kairos (http://www.krisispraxis.com)
Israel-Hamas War: Moral Rules and Judgment, 13 January 2009
by Dr. Ng Kam Weng
Judging from the public furor in response to present conflict in Gaza it is evident that people are concerned that innocent people should not suffer violence in times of international conflict. The Malaysian government has sided with Hamas and forcefully condemned Israel Link: Malaysiakini 12 Jan 2009. The public furor is a natural reaction to the gut wrenching images broadcasted in the media. Indeed, it is right to say that moral outrage is a proper reaction to the images of innocent victims killed by bombs and missiles.
However, TV images are inherently impressionistic and devoid of context. The continuous stream of images of war literally overwhelms both TV and U-tube viewers and forces them to become fixated with the ghastly wounds of the casualties of the immediate shooting that results in an amnesia of the circumstances that decisively led to the present shooting.
The challenge is to take a step backwards in order to arrive at an objective assessment of the war. That is to say, moral outrage must be properly informed by accurate (though essential contestable) historical background knowledge and the facts on the ground so that such outrage is translated into a constructive response that works towards a lasting resolution to the conflict. We need to go beyond pre-mature finger pointing and attempt the task of clarification of the moral issues surrounding the present military conflict.
To this end, I propose the following theses for debate:
A. Culpability of the Party That Shot First.
1) First, we must name the beast in front of us. The Gaza conflict is a situation of WAR. Merely to describe the military conflict as victimization will only obscure the tragic reality before us.
War arises because the combatants are intransigent in their demands and are convinced that they can secure their demands through military means. In particular, Hamas thinks it can undermine the state of Israel by shooting rockets into Israel. Conversely, Israeli hardliners think Israel can prevail over Hamas by retaliating with bombs.
It is nobody’s fault that the world failed to stop Israel and Hamas from this round of fighting. The war will not stop only when one side acknowledges that it will lose more than it can gain if it carries on fighting and that it is therefore prudent to sue for peace.
The Middle East War is certainly the new “Hundred-Years-War” with many cycles of military violence. We cannot solve a “Hundred-Years-War”, but we can at least work out the moral terms that undergird our call for an end of this present cycle of military violence.
The crucial question to ask is – “Who started the latest cycle of violence?” It is logically absurd to punish either the bigger boy or the smaller boy just because a fight has taken place. The proper approach is to determine who started the fight so that he is taken to task accordingly. Likewise the party that started this round of war in Gaza by shooting first is required to be the first to stop shooting.
B. Rules of Proportionality in War
1) The Just War theory states that a war is just if it is prosecuted by a legitimate authority (usually an internationally recognized state with a government that is duly elected in a peaceful, free and fair elections) to achieve just causes through just means.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1997) says: The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- There must be serious prospects of success;
- The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good (paragraph 2309).
2) Proportionality is not measured by the number of casualties (be rest assured that in this context of asymmetric urban warfare, Israel and Hamas have different criteria for deciding whether the casualty is a combatant or a civilian). It is measured by the goals of the military action: Is the shooting intended to neutralize a military threat or is it to spread terror with indiscriminate attacks? In this regard, proportionality is not defined by the relative strength of the warring party. It is neither true that having might is right or that being weak entitles one to claim victimhood.
3) Proportionality is defined by the immediate military objectives. Both Israel and Hamas have announced publicly the goals of their military action. The questions to be directed to both parties are: (a) Are the military goals reasonable? By reasonable I mean goals that bring towards a stable political situation that allows for further international negotiations and adjudication of their grievances that have perpetuated the conflict and violence between the warring parties. (b) Is the military action then proportional to these military goals?
Israel and Hamas may be judged (or morally blamed) if their military action exceeds the sense of reasonable force that is required to achieve their military goals.
It is morally misleading to assign parity of blame to the warring parties. Most likely, one party bears the major blame for this war: either Israel or Hamas. To conclude, our moral judgment in assigning the blame depends on (1) identifying any party that is culpable for starting this round of war and (2) condemning any party that commits the offense of resorting to disproportionate force (even on the assumption that there could well be reasonable military goals).
（End）
