I know you've seen a ton of pictures of Palestinians standing next to rubble in Gaza. This picture's not about that. It's about the civil society that still exists in Gaza, despite cruel persecution.
The location is the beautiful garden of the Marna House, where internationals love to stay in Gaza City; and the woman at the left is Taghreed El-Khodary, the correspondent for the New York Times in Gaza, whose noble work is a model for all journalists caught up in such huge events. I'll be getting to El-Khodary in a day or two.
The guy at the right is her softspoken friend, Fares Akram. Akram writes for the Independent, and works for Human Rights Watch– Gaza is such a small society, and the liberal sphere is so small, that Akram has dual roles.
After breakfast, he took us on a tour of the industrial zone in eastern Gaza, where the Israelis destroyed factory after factory before they left in January. Here he is showing us through the Al Hadad tile factory, which the Israelis yanked down at the end of the war for no reason at all.
If you want to sense the devastation that Israel wreaked in the industrial zone of east Gaza, here's a video of Akram's tour, the beginning of it anyway. The quality sucks– I seem to have shot out of my armpit– but it will give you a real feel for the destruction, and for Akram's precise manner.
We spent all day with Akram before we understood how much the war had touched him personally. At 6 o'clock we were standing on the roof of a house in Beit Lahia that the Israelis dropped white phosphorus on when Akram pointed at the farmland north of us, near the Israeli border, and told us that it was where his father was killed on January 3, 2009.
Then a few days after his father died, Fares Akram and his wife Alaa had a daughter. He wrote at the time:
My mother joined us in the hospital. She managed to hold back the tears
but I knew she was sad, thinking of my dad who would have been so happy
to see his new granddaughter. And yet, I know that as one family member
leaves us, another is born. It reminds you that life is a circle, a
continuous thing.
Akram told us that his father was a judge who did not want any part of the Hamas administration of Gaza. He left his job a couple of years back. He was at his farm because he needed to care for livestock and it was too dangerous to go back to town, when an F-16 struck the farm, killing him and a 17-year-old student.
Human Rights Watch has called for an investigation of the killings. I notice that John Mearsheimer referred to the Gaza onslaught as a "massacre" in his speech at the Detroit mosque on Saturday night. And Norman Finkelstein has called for the application of international law. These are important concepts and principles. They will only be applied, I believe, when Americans begin to look on Palestinians as fellow human beings.
An excellent and moving report, characteristic of Phil's Gaza coverage all along. When will the mainstream American papers and networks introduce us to people like Fares Akram?
Phillip thank you for this important work.
Do you question the range of what Norman Finkelstein includes in "international law". At the lecture I attended he described the recommendation of the ICJ as "international law". It wasn't. It was the equivalent of a grand jury determination to prosecute, NOT to convict.
Go fuck yourself, Witty.
Interested in hearing what you have to say about Taghreed, I am not a fan of her work for the NYTs but have heard she's less acquiescing to the Israeli narrative of what the Palestinian narrative should be when she speaks in Arabic…
Bear in mind that the NYT edits her work.
The ICJ, imperfect as they are (like the League of Nations, and the UN who voted for partition, for Israel, and for all the resolutions against Israel vetoed by the USA) like the Geneva Coventions etc, are all outgrowths of hard-won progress towards international law governing civilized nations in the aftermath of Nuremberg. I guess Witty, if he is consistent, views the support for early Israel, it's claim t"he World " recognized it into the society of nations on a par with any other, was in reality a grand jury; certainly it is historical fact that no nation of the Middle East voted in favor of a new Israel in their vicinity and that voted would never have come to pass without the US bribing countries they either voted for Israel's official existence or lose any economic aid from the emergent economic super power post 1945, that is, the USA. Norman in this context has a good case for his version of international law. Without it, such as it has developed and progressed, means Goering was right–nothing but victor's justice, kangaroo courts, Darwin, Might Makes Right, finessed by using proxies, such as the US and USSR in 1948, the initial stages of the Cold War. Witty is a disgrace to Jews with integrity like Phil and his helpmates on this blog. Witty is why Jesus the Jew was troubled by the Jewish establishment back in the day, according to that story. So what's new?
What do you mean with recommendation, Richard? Did Norman Finkelstein use the same term? In case you are alluding to advisory opinions, could you tell us what precisely you have in mind or what he mentioned?
True, I have "heard" elsewhere in other news outlets that she's constantly complaining about being edited and having her sentences changed out of their context. But, I wonder why doesn't she just quit? With her talent she can easily become a coresspondent for some other newspaper.
Wow, bombs knock things over! Who could have known that Hamas' war against the Jews would have resulted in a response? Aren't Jews just supposed to die? I hate it when the rules change!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there any possibility of including a picture of Fares' Mom and Dad and his new baby? I think the more you can humanize these stories with pictures, the more you will speed up the process of understanding.
The ICJ has no jurisdiction to determine international law. They are empowered to make recommendations to the general assembly. I don't know if there is a consented court system that could adjudicate the claims that Norman Finkelstein claimed were international law. Its not that their recommendations wouldn't bear out. Its just that it is an exageration of their authority, which is paraded all throughout the left as authoritative, when it isn't. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, each are advocacy organizations, stating opinions. Similarly, the statements that x is Palestinian land (without equal due process before a court of law) as an affirmation of international law, is at most an opinion currently. To state that land is Palestinian land, rather than to state that land is A Palestinian's land, is a uniquely anti-democratic nationalist approach, that frankly is more racist, expropriative than land processes within Israel certainly, and likely within the West Bank. That is NOT to say that title is perfected. There is MUCH land that is validly contested title, and requires some consented due process to become consented. There is a REAL danger that among those that advocate for Palestinian nationalism, including property as a basis of exclusion, there is as much fascist urge as democratic. Its not the first time. Mussolini spoke often in terms of national rights as "justice", as did Hitler, as did Jabotinsky.
Great idea, how about some cute puppies too? Maybe some evil-looking bearded judges grubbing money? Stealing one of the puppies?
Typical response of the anti-semitic know-nothings who abound here.
Weiss is a disgrace to humanity. Interesting to note how citizen sucks up to him.
Coming from a douchebag like yourself, that is high praise.
If bad WWII analogies didn't exist, the second rate would go mute.
She may be The Gray Lady but She talks for The White Man.
When Israel chose Avigdor Lieberman as FM, the Zionists surrendered any rights to criticize anyone for anything. I always wondered what David Duke would act like had he been born a Jew…..in Moldova. Now I know.
Witty, it's weird how you criticize Hamas terrorism without all this legalistic nitpicking, but when the subject is Israeli atrocities or Israeli oppression you turn into Mr. Defense Lawyer.
Ok, not sure if I understand. No, I am actually pretty sure, I don't. Let's take the courts advisory opinion concerning the wall: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&... your argument would be that the decision with 14 to 1 votes declaring it illegal, and I am assuming the votes come from lawyers and experts in international law, is ultimately meaningless, since Israel doesn't surrender to the opinion of the court. And only if Israel consented the advisory opinion would be binding. This is obviously a fact. ********************************************************************************************************** And basically concerning Palestinian land, no such thing exists. Only individual rights to individual land by Palestinians in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria and the West Bank area are legitimate. And only if the Israeli court recognizes the ownership it is individually privately owned land. Doesn't that mean in the end the Palestinians don't even have rights to a public park or road? Any claims that the whole occupied area is Palestinian is ultimately fascist? And only the illegally dispossessed private land is available for its former owners? You can't mean that, that would be Benjamin "Yahoo's" vision it feels. You wrote that inside the Israeli green line privately owned land was about 20% of the total land. Do you know or are you assuming what the percentage in WB and Gaza is? The same percentage? The rest is ultimately up for grab? First comes first? Similarly, the statements that x is Palestinian land (without equal due process before a court of law) as an affirmation of international law, is at most an opinion currently. To state that land is Palestinian land, rather than to state that land is A Palestinian's land, is a uniquely anti-democratic nationalist approach, that frankly is more racist, expropriative than land processes within Israel certainly, and likely within the West Bank. Meaning? Since there is no Palestinian state neither has been there isn't any Palestinian land. Is that the logic? And since there isn't, the must take what they get, e.g. they cannot get what is expropriated and now behind the wall? But without it being a state the not privately owned land is ultimately terra nullius? There is a REAL danger that among those that advocate for Palestinian nationalism, including property as a basis of exclusion, there is as much fascist urge as democratic. I don't understand your connection of fascism and property. Why is the expulsion of Palestinians and the prevention of their return noble and untainted by any of the evil things the Palestinian desire for land seems to connote for you. But maybe I don't understand. What makes a noble versus a fascist nationalism? What does it mean as far as land is concerned. The Israeli expropriation of Palestinians and their prevention to return was noble, since Israel is based on private ownership while that was only partly so before?
All Hail King Weiss Boooo to Jacob.
Dalybean, I know that you are well intentioned and I get it and I am always looking to humanize, humanize, humanize… but then it gets to the point where I think… really… you need to see the picture of the freaking baby and wife to have human feelings towards someone? Come on!!!!!
Here he is showing us through the Al Hadad tile factory, which the Israelis yanked down at the end of the war for no reason at all. Oh, they yanked it down for a reason alright, just not one civilized people like you see at first glance. The Israeli government kills a lot of birds with one stone when they destroy economic infrastructure like factories. The whacking of that particular factory hinders repair and replacement of the many other buildings damaged and destroyed. Unemployment rises, and not just from the people employed there. The jobs of construction workers, architects, etc, and the retail jobs their salaries maintain also vanish. This helps to lower the tax base making public works like schools and roads more difficult to rebuild or maintain. Minimizing locally supported (as opposed to internationally funded) public sector services hinders the development of a stable self-sustaining (where local people are stakeholders) embryonic foundation for a potential state. Unemployment also contributes to degradation of self confidence and self esteem. The effects are complex and non-linear and I'm sure much could be added after careful thought. I would be shocked if the destruction wasn't entirely premeditated. Witness the similar destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and the West Bank. This is standard IDF operating procedure, and is designed to corrode economic, political, and social organization. This attack is but one small part of an attempt to prevent the emergence of the level of civil society that would encourage the international community to see through Israel propaganda that Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves.
Colin Murray refers to the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon and a interesting documentary has been made of that. Australian academic and journalist Peter Manning directed the film"Lebanon Burning" which illustrates this perfectly. The producer , Mohsen Safiedin, and his family lost a plant that produced medical supplies.He is a businessman from South Australia .This plant was a rival to Israeli companies in the production of medical tubes in the Middle East. Colin is right to talk about killing a lot of birds with one stone. Other examples are given of this bastardry towards a French/Lebanese Dairy plant in the Bekaa Valley. spokesman for the Lebanese Chamber of Manufacturing confirms these cases in the film.
I would simply like to understand what he means.
What immediately comes to mind in this context is the constant refrain of the inability of the Palestinians to build up an efficient economy and infrastructure. That's why I would like to hear more about this. More specific. As I would like to see a study of it by military experts. Is this part of Netanyahu's offer to stop the "economical war"? What exactly are the arguments of the Israelis in this context? Are there statements at all? I remember the Dairy plant and other "accidents" (?) in Lebanon. But could a business man in Israel really pull strings up in the military that his main rival is bombed out of existence? I have to admit that part of both wars interest me most, obviously because of the "uncivilized barbarians" tale. I had this feeling before, it feels as if it is meant to set them back a couple decades.
I found the video quite interesting too. Thanks to Phil to bringing back videos for us.
I say this because time is of the essence for the American public to develop significant sympathy for the Palestinians. And a picture is worth a thousand words. For decades, we have been shown images of the Palestinians as the "other," as terrorists, etc. If more pictures illustrating the story of Fares Akram help to counter the deeply ingrained images, I say go for it. I also believe in showing images of the ugly faces of the settlers as often as possible. Baruch Marzel is just as scary looking as Osama Bin Laden, if you ask me. He should be made the face of the settlers. There is a reason the Israelis won't let anyone in to Gaza to take pictures. They don't want any sympathy for the Palestinians.
The court is a court like the Grand Jury is a court. Its not. A grand jury states there is a basis to accuse, NOT to convict. The UN is a bicameral organization, comprised of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The ICJ refers cases to the general assembly, which even if ratified is not law until it passes the security council. Its just an exageration of the term, "international law". Its international suspicion, but without due process. Leander, I'm saying that assertion does not make justice. Neither Israeli assertion, nor Palestinian assertion. It takes a court system of some sort addressing each INDIVIDUAL case. That is the significance of title. Its an individual's right to property, not a collective (unless a collective entity registers it as a collective entity, ie a corporation can own land or a municipality.) The difference between a democratic nationalism and a fascist one is the definition of individual rights with equal due process under the law afforded to all individuals in a color-blind manner. Its why I call the solidarity movement reactionary, in that in response to Israeli abuses, it proposes to abuse and restrict democratic participation in what is new. Palestine will exist as a state, and when it does, it will have to choose whether it desires to continue to be a nationally exclusive state that denies civil and property rights to minorites, or a democratic state that affords those rights to minorities. "The Israeli expropriation of Palestinians and their prevention to return was noble, since Israel is based on private ownership while that was only partly so before?" Thats your fantasy of my thesis. My thesis is clear, consistent, progressive. It is: 1. Sovereignty – The jurisdiction of governance, the jurisdiction of specific application and administration of law at the green line with the exception of Israeli retention of the Jewish part of the old city of Jerusalem. Every other inch (unless genuinely consented modifications agreed) on the east side of the green line would be Palestine. 2. Title – Every individual getting their day in court to assert claims to land, buildings, other improvements on both sides of the border, with equal due process in a color blind manner afforded to each individual, with the overwhelmingly strong preference for compensation as remedy, except in clear and agregious cases. NO RHETORIC. No decree, Israeli or Palestinian. Just the facts, reconciled fairly. No prejudice for either.
You will never understand him. No one on this site does. I don't think he understands himself. He doesn't want to be understood. He's here to cast dobut and to muddy the waters.
I can't belive you guys on this site are giving me thubms down for a comment I didn't make!!! That is not me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sarah i really appreciate your effort show the world the atrocities of brutal isreali army, their acts are really spiteful.
According to international law, it is illegal to take land by conquest. That makes Israel's occupation and confiscation of West Bank and East Jerusalem land illegal under international law. It's not necessary for the Security Council to make a ruling for this to be so. However, the United Nations has passed resolutions saying that Israel must allow the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, and it has also passed resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw to its internationally recognized (pre-1967) borders. Israel's behavior in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (and also Gaza) is in violation of international law.
I just now gave the fake Saleema a thumbs down for pretending to be you. And I gave the real you a thumbs up. :-)
thanks. I gave you a thumbs up up for supporting me. :)
You 1st sharmuta.
what agreat report , i think gazans dosnt give up and Fares Akram is a good example of that , Fares why dont you talk about the shilling of the tower next to your familly house i think its a very scaring moment . Any way i wish a good luck to you. RAMEZ AL GHOUL GAZA CITY
Thanks so much for writing this, Phil, and for "introducing" me to Fares. Aside from appreciating immensely the news, opinions, and analysis offered by you, Adam and the other contributors, reports like this one are why I visit Mondoweiss so religiously. In a sea of internet coverage on the Israel-Palestine issue, stories like Fares' would find it hard to surface were it not for the efforts of you and other journalists and bloggers, and one can see he has much to offer all of us, bringing further to light both the dark and the hopeful realities facing the people of Gaza. I think Colin correctly explained the underlying reasons for the destruction of the Al-Haddad cement tile factory, though by his own admittance, he only scratched the surface. Were Israel to even bother to justify why its military bombed the economic "target", I'm sure some terse, pathetic reply about "platforms used to launch rockets" would be offered, no doubt swallowed up as fact by the Western media without so much as a follow-up question.
It was also illegal for Jordan to take the same land by conquest, attribute 80% of the territory, then renounce all responsibility for its transition to Palestinian sovereignty. The only UN resolution that was passed by both general assembly and security council (necessary to become international LAW), is resolution 242. (There are probably others as well, but the majority of the litany of "international law" assertions by the left, aren't international law. They are passed by one house of a bicameral organization.)
Read the description about the distinction between issues of sovereignty (self-governance) and title (individual property rights). The left and the Arab world include both title and sovereignty usually in their description of "Palestinian land" or "the land was stolen". But, that nationalist equation puts any national state in a fascist mode of operation if land is taken without due process. The same standards apply to assessing Israel's behavior, but it must be based on clear legal distinctions, if you are going to parade "international LAW" as of merit. In other words, you have to know what you are saying if it is to have any weight, and if it is to result in a good outcome if applied.
Put Witty on a words-per-day limit, for God's sake.
Thanks, Richard. I am aware, that every advisory opinion can be blocked in the security council, and it wasn't Israel only that ignored it. … I am aware of that. But I also think that Norman Finkelstein is as much aware of what you write, as I am. I have the impression that he uses the UN rulings often as almost synonymously with "world consent". As he keeps stressing in this context that the US keeps blocking every developments. That's something he in fact hammers into people's heads. So your disagreement with Norman Finkelstein is somehow, that world opinion doesn't matter for Israel. That ultimately all these things have to be decided in the Israeli court. The consent of a large part of the world may in fact be something fascist? I am not an expert on the UN, but I am pretty sure that the work behind the advisory opinions or as you put it, recommendations, is done by experts on international law, so I am a bit hesitant about your "international suspicion". I doubt the recommendations solely rely on suspicion. Besides an "international suspicion" there is also "Jewish suspicion" against the search for international consent on issues. From a Jewish perspective this often seems to be considered as a world that is again trying to get rid of them another development towards a "humanity free of Jews". Below an extreme example. http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/na_intro.ht... http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/na_intro.ht... One of my sisters is a tiny part of the Big Conspiracy out to get the Jews. She works as a teacher in a Waldorf school, with difficult children, which is part of the conspiracy from a philosophical perspective in this Rainbow – Swastika – Coalition towards a New World Order: http://searchlight.iwarp.com/articles/na_intro.ht...
Do they pay you by the word?
It's the Geneva Conventions that make it illegal under international law to take land by conquest. And the Geneva Conventions do have the force of international law. This is why it is not necessary for there to be a UN resolution declaring Israel's taking of land by conquest illegal. If it was illegal under international law for Jordan to take the West Bank, then it was also illegal under international law for Israel to take any land at all outside of the borders of what it was allotted in the partition plan. I am willing to say that such taking of land by conquest was illegal, but the international community is willing to let Israel keep what it took in 1948-49.