It's very rare that I agree with Sayeeda Warsi. A lot of her stances are against what I believe in, my politics being quite apart from that of every Conservative I've ever encountered. It's no secret that there's been many times I've sat yelling at the TV over her views, either shared on rolling news, in publications or on Question Time. One thing I can absolutely respect, however, is her resignation over the Government policy on Gaza, which she announced on Twitter on the 5th August.
Nowhere is safe. People are being told to evacuate certain areas as there will be air strikes, and then finding that the areas they've fled to are also being bombed [a word you will not find the media using, of course] with impunity.
It's been reported by doctors working in Gaza that Israel have been using Dense Inert Metal Explosive missiles. These detonate before hitting the ground, showering the area with shrapnel, maiming anyone nearby so horrendously that it's proving difficult to treat the casualties. Such weapons are banned under the Geneva Convention. This is not the first time they've used illegal weapons, having previously used White Phosphorous.
While searching through the devastation, people have found evidence of what can only be described as massacres. In one case the bodies of almost an entire family were found dead in one room, bullet holes dotted the blood spattered wall in a line which suggests automatic gunfire. Human Rights Watch reports that IDF soldiers shot and killed fleeing civilians.
Lastly, I'd like to end this on some food for thought for anyone who is taking a centrist, 'they're both to blame' position on this and past conflicts in the region. pax-arabica giving a short summary on one of the problems with such a statement:
What is very interesting is her use of words. By bringing in her moral position and principles, she's all but stated that the government policy is anything but, and that implication may very well place more pressure to review policy and in particular how we frame the conflict in the media. The sheer number of people coming forward to offer their support will only strengthen that. Someone of her stature in Government protesting policy in such a way, particularly in the midst of a conflict, is going to grab a huge amount of attention in the media, and that's before you throw in the context surrounding her departure. I'm hopeful that it will bring up further discussion which actually looks at the crimes clearly and without obvious allegiance.
I agree with Warsi when she says our position on Gaza and Israel is indefensible. How can we possibly defend our position in this when we are firmly placed on the side of the aggressor, who is killing civilians with impunity? We are supplying the munitions being used against a vulnerable population in an occupied territory Our policies are egregious and desperately need to be re-examined, and I believe that to be the same across much of the West. Some areas are completely apart from our position, with Latin America cutting ties with Israel; pulling diplomats out of the region and issuing strong statements against their actions. Meanwhile the US is being careful in speaking about it, giving blanket statements about the stability of the region and working towards peace.
In the press the tide is beginning to turn. It's not that they really have much of a choice on the matter, though. Social media is giving us more access to both sides of the conflict and to portray Israel as an innocent victim in this shows an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance. Israel have created a humanitarian crisis in an area they are occupying. A crisis which is worsening day by day, in an area they are supposed to be responsible for given their occupancy, and places the future of Gaza at serious risk.
As Noura Erakat states in her essay 'Five Israeli Talking Points on Gaza -- Debunked':
As the occupying power of the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Territories more broadly, Israel has an obligation and a duty to protect the civilians under its occupation. It governs by military and law enforcement authority to maintain order, protect itself and protect the civilian population under its occupation. It cannot simultaneously occupy the territory, thus usurping the self-governing powers that would otherwise belong to Palestinians, and declare war upon them. These contradictory policies (occupying a land and then declaring war on it) make the Palestinian population doubly vulnerable.The precarious and unstable conditions in the Gaza Strip from which Palestinians suffer are Israel’s responsibility. Israel argues that it can invoke the right to self-defense under international law as defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice, however, rejected this faulty legal interpretation in its 2004 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ explained that an armed attack that would trigger Article 51 must be attributable to a sovereign state, but the armed attacks by Palestinians emerge from within Israel’s jurisdictional control. Israel does have the right to defend itself against rocket attacks, but it must do so in accordance with occupation law and not other laws of war. Occupation law ensures greater protection for the civilian population. The other laws of war balance military advantage and civilian suffering. The statement that “no country would tolerate rocket fire from a neighboring country” is therefore both a diversion and baseless.Israel denies Palestinians the right to govern and protect themselves, while simultaneously invoking the right to self-defense. This is a conundrum and a violation of international law, one that Israel deliberately created to evade accountability.
A UN report recently stated that Gaza will be unlivable by 2020, and it's looking as though that may have been a cautious estimate. Their power plant has been flattened, hospitals, refugee camps and schools have been targeted, already limited supplies of clean water is becoming even more scarce.
On July 27th this video was uploaded to youtube. It shows an entire neighbourhood being wiped off the map within the space of an hour.
Nowhere is safe. People are being told to evacuate certain areas as there will be air strikes, and then finding that the areas they've fled to are also being bombed [a word you will not find the media using, of course] with impunity.
It's been reported by doctors working in Gaza that Israel have been using Dense Inert Metal Explosive missiles. These detonate before hitting the ground, showering the area with shrapnel, maiming anyone nearby so horrendously that it's proving difficult to treat the casualties. Such weapons are banned under the Geneva Convention. This is not the first time they've used illegal weapons, having previously used White Phosphorous.
While searching through the devastation, people have found evidence of what can only be described as massacres. In one case the bodies of almost an entire family were found dead in one room, bullet holes dotted the blood spattered wall in a line which suggests automatic gunfire. Human Rights Watch reports that IDF soldiers shot and killed fleeing civilians.
Israel so often throws the blame at Hamas for 'using women and children as human shields', as if placing themselves on some moral high ground with the implication that they would never do such a thing. What they don't state - but is obvious - is that human shields are no deterrent to Israel's onslaughts. They have absolutely no problem with collateral loss of life and will fire away regardless. Again, a UN school, hospitals, a refugee camp! And given how obvious their disregard for human life is, I highly doubt Hamas are going believe it will keep them safe. And let's not forget that many, many IDF soldiers have used Palestinianwomen andchildren as human shields and decoys themselves.
It's not uncommon for Israel to attempt to shift the blame from themselves to Hamas. The Israel Project released a 'Global Language Dictionary' in 2009 which shows how exactly the rhetoric is shaped, how people should attempt to lead the conversation and shed their blame, pointed instead to Gaza and Hamas.
Gaza is not a sovereign state attacking it's neighbour with any military might behind it. It is an occupied territory, a prison for 1.8m people who have done nothing but exist. It's a people walled in and trying to survive as basic amenities disappear and everything around them falls apart in the face of Israel's enormous military capabilities. Their homes destroyed, their families deceased. Gaza was stripped of it's elected government, Hamas. While I do not agree with them politically, that was their chosen party, voted in. Almost immediately they were branded 'terrorists', Israel refuses to accept them as being officials in any capacity, and took any legitimacy they may have had in the eyes of the world.
Gaza doesn't stand a chance. It has no defences, no army, no airforce, nowhere for it's people to escape to. The mostly crude missiles Hamas and militants have mostly stand little to no chance against the Iron Dome defence system. But if you're in a position where you and your family are living in a horribly oppressed region, would you not want to fight back? Would you not feel angry and trapped?
I recall watching BBC news as they won. It took no time at all for the entire tone of the broadcasts to change. It went from talk of elections to militia, violence, and the threat to Israel. This is a recurring theme. In 2006 I was watching as a report aired on a 'government building' being destroyed in a strategic attack. Within a few minutes it changed from a 'government building' and instead it was declared a hideout of 'Hamas militants', the base of a terror cell.
The same was the case for the 2009 offensive. I sat watching the news with my husband as the conflict broke. The newsreaders spoke of 'officials', of people dying, and on the invasion in general. It was sympathetic with Palestine. I turned to him and told him to wait a few minutes, that they would change it to terrorists and militants. Lo and behold, that was exactly what happened. Not knowing much of the tensions between the two nations, he was amazed at just how drastically the tone of reporting changed.
Gaza doesn't stand a chance. It has no defences, no army, no airforce, nowhere for it's people to escape to. The mostly crude missiles Hamas and militants have mostly stand little to no chance against the Iron Dome defence system. But if you're in a position where you and your family are living in a horribly oppressed region, would you not want to fight back? Would you not feel angry and trapped?
I recall watching BBC news as they won. It took no time at all for the entire tone of the broadcasts to change. It went from talk of elections to militia, violence, and the threat to Israel. This is a recurring theme. In 2006 I was watching as a report aired on a 'government building' being destroyed in a strategic attack. Within a few minutes it changed from a 'government building' and instead it was declared a hideout of 'Hamas militants', the base of a terror cell.
The same was the case for the 2009 offensive. I sat watching the news with my husband as the conflict broke. The newsreaders spoke of 'officials', of people dying, and on the invasion in general. It was sympathetic with Palestine. I turned to him and told him to wait a few minutes, that they would change it to terrorists and militants. Lo and behold, that was exactly what happened. Not knowing much of the tensions between the two nations, he was amazed at just how drastically the tone of reporting changed.
Lastly, I'd like to end this on some food for thought for anyone who is taking a centrist, 'they're both to blame' position on this and past conflicts in the region. pax-arabica giving a short summary on one of the problems with such a statement:
People who go “both countries are at fault”
What they think they sound like:“I’m so rational. The truth is somewhere in the middle, they’re both wrong. I’m so nuanced and enlightened with my views.”
What they actually sound like:“History and context are things that do not exist to me. In whatever dimension I exist in, I believe that there is an equivalence between an advanced occupying army that is notorious for war crimes, and an occupied brutalized population.”
To all those affected by this conflict, both in Gaza and around the world, you are in my thoughts. ♥
