I still have to read the Lawrence Wright piece on Gaza in the New Yorker. From a friend who has:
It’s a reasonably well-meaning report, yet badly organized and haphazardly conceived–passing in and out of the Shalit story and Operation Cast Lead. No forward motion, no momentum; the effect is diffuse–partly a deliberate effect to avoid a direct, continuous encounter with the wretchedness of the life Israel has helped create in Gaza; also likely an effect of writing with insufficient purpose. The Shalit story is the frame, and that assures that human interest will outweigh considerations of international politics and power. It closes with a pathetic plea from Shalit’s father, but no such Palestinian voice is ever heard directly, anywhere.
It also cuts corners in the customary ways of the MSM–speaking, for example, of the fact that "Saudi Arabia arranged a peace accord" between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in March 2007, broken by civil war; this without the relevant proximate fact that the U.S. gave substantial assistance to the Palestinian Authority–i.e. the connection between Elliott Abrams and Muhammad Dahlan. The paragraph about March 2007 never uses the words "Palestinian Unity Government": surely a purposeful omission. Such a government is what most Arab countries and most of Europe would like to deal with, but the very word is forbidden now by the apparent enforced exclusion of Hamas from negotiations.
There’s also a fair amount of grammatical euphemism, e.g. "According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, ninety-six percent of Gaza’s industrial sector collapsed after Operation Cast Lead." He uses an active verb, "collapsed," but it is a verb that conceals agency. Consider the different feel of the sentence he did not write: "Israel destroyed ninety-six percent of Gaza’s industries."
Weiss interjects that one friend of his thought the piece was an "absolute plus" for the goal of opening Americans’ eyes.
I go halfway with your friend… The article puts together the facts about the destruction in a way that will startle those who haven’t had any real exposure to the facts before. But its tendency is to make us see the place as a terrible, just a pitiable, trap, which unfortunately the people of Gaza and their leaders have made largely by themselves. Israeli politics is barely touched. Not a word for example on the pre-election placement of the assault and the importance of the timing for the candidates Livni and Barak.
That opening photograph, by contrast, is tremendous–a tremendous shock. Oddly like the Times which occasionally lets its pictures say what the stories refuse to say.
Related posts:
- ‘Columbia Journalism Review’ joins list of publications outperforming ‘The New Yorker’ on Gaza
- ‘New Yorker’’s silence is further evidence that establishment opinion is paralyzed by Gaza
- ‘New Yorker’ Cover Could Serve Obama in the End
- Read the fine print: Only one-third of US pledge at Gaza conference to go to Gaza, none of it for rebuilding
- Gaza! Extra! Read all about it! (on the internet that is)
{ 45 comments }
Dear Congressman,
I wanted to thank you for voting in opposition to the House Resolution condemning the report by Richard Goldstone on prospective international law violations by Hamas and Israel.
While I don’t believe that the report can be regarded as authoritative in its general conclusions, it is certainly informative. Specifically, access to evidence from Israeli sources was prohibited by Israel, and the scope of his investigation was limited by design.
His primary recommendation was that Israel undertake a full, non-biased, independant inquiry into all elements of its military performance, training, definition of rules of engagement within the chain of command and formation of military objectives.
Israel is reportedly undertaking investigations of most of the incidents identified in the report, but it is unclear if Hamas is or will feel compelled to report their findings.
I believe that it would have been in Israel’s interest to say “thank you” to Judge Goldstone, in their effort to realize a genuinely professional and reliable military (considering both military effectiveness and manner of conducting operations).
It is important for US foreign policy as well, with the potential that weapons that the US provided and funded were used in a manner that was consistent with the conditions incorporated into the grants.
That is an area that the US may exert legal and friendly leverage to affect Israeli policy towards reconciliation with Palestine and the Arab world.
Thanks for your continued enlightened representation.
Sincerely,
Richard Witty CPA
Richard, what’s your point in your letter sent to us; you already know the resolution passed. Why don’t you contact the NO votes and tell them they are on the right track?
Oops, Sorry Mister Witty. Somehow I missed your opening paragraph. It’s a good letter. I wish my congressman had voted NO. I tried to get him to do so; he just ignored my voice.
great letter. =
Hats off to RW. Credit where credit is due.
I agree. It’s a good letter.
Israel is reportedly undertaking investigations of most of the incidents identified in the report
I just saw a flying pig.
They migrate north when Hell freezes over.
Israel is reportedly undertaking investigations of most of the incidents identified in the report, but it is unclear if Hamas is or will feel compelled to report their findings.
I salute Richard for trying his best, but this line is just crap. Israel is not conducting anything like an independent investigation–they are having meetings about how to manage this PR disaster, as reported by Haaretz:
Netanyahu instructed Justice Minister Ya’akov Ne’eman to coordinate the task force, which will present its recommendations as to Israel’s course of action on the Goldstone report and its ramifications.
The team will make recommendations on what should be done in the diplomatic, legal and public relations planes.
The prime minister said during the meeting that the establishment of an investigation committee was “not an option.”
“IDF soldiers and officers will not be subjected to investigation,” he stressed.
As for Hamas, they’re reported to be drafting a legal response to the allegations in the Goldstone Report.
Al-Massri told Xinhua that a team of legal experts and other leaders from Hamas is working “to present clarifications to Goldstone’s committee because its members have not had complete information.”
Mahmoud Zahar, a senior Hamas leader and a member of the legal committee, told reporters that “the committee “will send its answers to the judge Goldstone as soon as they are ready.”
“The committee will put evidences that prove the opposite to Hamas’ and the resistance factions’ accusations,” Zahar said.
He added that the Hamas experts “will base their evidences on other international reports by rights groups, such Human Rights Watch (HRW) which denied that Hamas militants have used civilians as human shields.”
Just testing something.
Has anyone else noticed the fact that Goldstone treats Hamas as a legally-recognised entity on a par with Israel? You don’t demand compliance with international law or independent inquiries from terrorist organisations. I think this may turn out to be the most important part of the Goldstone Commission’s work.
If it is used that way, anyway. Won’t be used that way by the US or Israel — to them, Palestinians get all of the downsides of culpability to international law and none of the protections. The rest of the UN isn’t so hypocritical though, I dare say.
As discredited as the UN may be in the eyes of Israel and the US, the fact is that Goldstone refused to toe the Israeli line (shamefully accepted by Europe as well as the US), whereby the elected Palestinian government must be treated as a terrorist organisation, worthy only of boycott and sanctions (sadly, there is hardly anything to divest from in Gaza). Moreover, the way in which Hamas’ authority and responsibility is recognised by the report – Hamas must respect international law and if it commits war crimes it must be held accountable – is such that Zionists cannot possibly disagree. I am not saying that the “Quartet” will suddenly invite Hamas to the negotiating table, but that this aspect of the report is another crack in the hasbara wall.
@ Shmuel November 7, 2009 at 3:31 am
Has anyone else noticed the fact that Goldstone treats Hamas as a legally-recognised entity on a par with Israel?
That was a very deft catch, Shmuel.
But not accountable.
Where is the Hamas spokesman saying “Dr Goldstone, your report informed us of our organization’s deviance from international law. We will conduct internal investigations of all our chain of command and cadre, publish the results and institute the appropriate reforms, and hold the offending individuals responsible including prosecution.”
Where is that equal accountability to international law?
One of the criticisms of the Goldstone report was of the structured bias of investigating a state that could legally be held accountable, and implying that the investigation of a faction carries the same legal weight, as the faction cannot be held accountable, and does not submit to international law in any respect.
Do you think the Hamas cadre is trained in international law as a component of its professional military? (”professional” as a statement of quality, not of compensation)
Israel is rejecting and condemning the report outright, and you want to shift focus to the fact that Hamas is too busy burying their dead children and preparing for the next IDF massacre to make a statmement about the Goldstone report? You are so incredibly dishonest and racist in your application of criticism, it hurts to read it sometimes, Witty.
Absolutely appalling that you would compliment a US Congressman for shutting down the investigation of war crimes. You never read Goldstone’s report. You gleaned its meaning — or so you think — from comments on blogs. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
I am wrong. I misread RW’s letter. I apologize to him.
I thought the article did a pretty good job describing the war crimes in Gaza and the petty sadism of the Israeli blockade–it was much better than what I expected to see in the New Yorker, which has published some truly dismal hasbara-style garbage in the past. I think it is clear from the article that Israel is responsible for the misery there.
The article probably does fall short in covering the politics and yes, he doesn’t mention that the US played a huge role in instigating the Palestinian civil war, hoping that Fatah would win. I gave Wright a pass on this, because I was happy to see what he did write about, but you’re right–the article could be considerably better. Still, it was stronger than the Moyers interview and by the standards of the MSM in America, it was very good. Which would make it so-so by truly objective standards, but I’ll take it as a good start.
Of course, what I expect to see is that Wright will come under criticism for being anti-Israel–that’ll be the main sort of pushback he’s likely to get. It’ll be interesting to see what letters from readers they will publish. If anyone writes one from the Palestinian-sympathizing side, I’d suggest a tone of mixed approval and mild criticism.
But its tendency is to make us see the place as a terrible, just a pitiable, trap, which unfortunately the people of Gaza and their leaders have made largely by themselves. Israeli politics is barely touched.
I don’t want to call it meaningless, but unless the above matters are honestly addressed, it can’t be taken too seriously.
RE: “He uses a transitive verb, “collapsed,” but it is a verb that conceals agency. Consider the different feel of the sentence he did not write: “Israel destroyed ninety-six percent of Gaza’s industries.”
If you want to see the same rhetoric played out on the MSM media’s narration of why the USA is now in such a terrible economic position due to the partnership of lefty government and private Wall St–well, it’s right there in front of your face.
RE: “He uses a transitive verb, “collapsed,” but it is a verb that conceals agency. Consider the different feel of the sentence he did not write: “Israel destroyed ninety-six percent of Gaza’s industries.”
If you want to see the same rhetoric played out on the MSM media’s narration of why the USA is now in such a terrible economic position due to the partnership of lefty government and private Wall St–well, it’s right there in front of your face.
Citizen, a suggestion; Mondoweiss can take a long, long time, to load a comment.
It’s taken ten minutes for me after pushing “Submit”. And sometimes it loads right up. Could you be pushing “Submit” twice thinking (as would only be reasonable after that kind of delay, I often think it’s frozen up) that the comment is not loading?
I did that a couple of times, which I timidly mention, not wishing to imply that your computer skills are as scanty as my own.
I sure don’t claim that my comter skills are very good.
Look, i can’t even spell.
I think your friend’s analysis of the pre-election politics really also points to the ineptitude of Hamas (or maybe intention), that had the result of convincing the Israeli electorate that their defensive concerns outweighed any peace-seeking.
My contention is that Hamas actions shifted the Knesset 4 – 5 seats to the right, thereby electing likud, over kadima.
I thought the article was informative, my best praise.
I still love it how the Israelis reject progressivism — reject you, Witty, with your self professed “progressive Zionist” platform — and you blame the way Israelis vote on Hamas.
You’re a racist. You literally blame everything on Palestinians and nothing on Israelis.
I agree that the article was an improvement over Philip Gourevitch’s recent whitewash of Rwanda and Paul Kagame. But as I read it I was reminded somehow of a “liberal” member of the Soviet Writers Union in, say, 1971, as he carefully framed mild criticisms of the Soviet system (”mistakes were made”) without risking the same fate as Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
A quibble: “collapsed” is here used as an intransitive verb rather than a transitive verb. It is transitive verbs that have direct objects and generally own up to some kind of active agency.
PW’s friend’s point however remains dead right.
“collapsed”
Israel, just a big lovable schlimiel! They walked through Gaza and the industry fell down.
There are dozens of “points” you could choose from, but tell what is this all about?
“From the Israeli perspective, at least, the Gaza problem was supposed to have been solved in August, 2005, when Ariel Sharon, then the Prime Minister, closed down the Jewish settlements on the Strip and withdrew Israeli forces. The international community and the Israeli left wing applauded the move. But, almost immediately, mortar and rocket attacks from the Strip multiplied. Five months later, Hamas won its parliament victory. Ari Shavit, a prominent columnist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, told me recently in Jerusalem, “We dismantled the settlements, and then we sat back and said, ‘Let’s have a new beginning.’ What we got was rockets and Gilad Shalit. People became very angry, and Shalit becomes an icon of that frustration.” ”
Amazing re-write of what occurred – not mention of the hermetically sealed borders, closure by sea, intimidation by air, and the strangling of the Palestinian economy in Gaza (note that is did not say “Gazan’s,” what are Gazan’s?). Nothing about the further strikes at the Palestinians in Gaza, the great swath of land pushed back to a further buffer zone destroying more Palestinian homes and the wanton killing of innocents that may wander in the “zone.” What is this nonsense that is receiving partial praise in some posts?
They never ‘left’ as anyone who’s been there will tell you and even if they did, Hamas could make the exact same argument over their unilateral ceasefire during which the blockades never stopped, nor did Israeli terror – Hamas stopped and all they got was bulldozers and rockets.
I think the point about the ‘leaving’ lie is similar to making ‘concessions’ over settlements, they’re trying (successfully I might add) to make it look like that for Zionists and Kahanists the cessation of illegal activities is somehow something that can be taken to the negotiating table.
“Yeah I raped all those women, but then I stopped and all I got was consecutive life sentences, ain’t that some shit?”
“What is this nonsense that is receiving partial praise in some posts?”
Bulls***.
Yes, there are bad parts, but even that part you quote starts with “From the Israeli perspective”. The Israeli perspective is morally blind and any intelligent person reading on from that point will see that in the article itself. For instance, there’s this–
“There is very little for children to do in Gaza. The Israeli blockade includes a ban on toys, so the only playthings available have been smuggled, at a premium, through tunnels from Egypt. Islamists have shut down all the movie theatres. Music is rare, except at weddings. Many of Gaza’s sports facilities have been destroyed by Israeli bombings, including the headquarters for the Palestinian Olympic team. Only one television station broadcasts from Gaza, Al Aqsa—a Hamas-backed channel that gained notice last year for a children’s show featuring a Mickey Mouse-like figure who was stabbed to death by an Israeli interrogator. The mouse was replaced by a talking bee, who died after being unable to cross into Egypt for medical treatment. The rabbit who followed the bee passed away in January, after being struck by shrapnel from an Israeli attack.
The main diversion for children is the beach, and on Fridays, after noon prayers, the shore is massed with families. Unlike the topaz waters off Tel Aviv, here the sea is murky, a consequence of twenty million gallons of raw and partially treated sewage that is dumped offshore every day. The main water-treatment plant is broken, and because of the blockade the spare parts that would fix it are unavailable. Fishermen with nets wade into the surf as kids romp in the stinking waves.
Israeli authorities maintain a list of about three dozen items that they permit into Gaza, but the list is closely kept and subject to change. Almost no construction materials—such as cement, glass, steel, or plastic pipe—have been allowed in, on the ground that such items could be used for building rockets or bunkers. While Hamas rocket builders and bomb-makers can smuggle everything they need through the secret tunnels, international aid organizations have to account for every brick or sack of flour. Operation Cast Lead—a three-week-long Israeli attack on Gaza, which began in December, 2008—has left Gaza in ruins. “Half a year after the conflict, we don’t have a single bag of cement and not a pane of glass,” John Ging, the director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees, told me in July. (Later that month, Israeli authorities announced that they would allow the U.N.R.W.A. a limited amount of steel and cement. Ging says that that has yet to happen.) Humanitarian supplies that suddenly have been struck from Israel’s list of approved items pile up in large storage warehouses outside the Kerem Shalom crossing, and international aid worth billions of dollars awaits delivery. “For the last two school years, Israeli officials have withheld paper for textbooks because, hypothetically, the paper might be hijacked by Hamas to print seditious materials,” Ging complained. (Paper was finally delivered this fall.) When John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, visited Gaza in February of this year, he asked why pasta wasn’t allowed in. Soon, macaroni was passing through the checkpoints, but jam was taken off the list. According to Haaretz, the I.D.F. has calculated that a hundred and six truckloads of humanitarian relief are needed every day to sustain life for a million and a half people. But the number of trucks coming into Gaza has fallen as low as thirty-seven. Israeli government officials have told international aid officials that the aim is “no prosperity, no development, no humanitarian crisis.”
So don’t spout nonsense about how the article doesn’t even deserve partial praise. The part I just cited above is damn good journalism–it’s not some partisan spouting a party line. The credibility about Israeli cruelty is enhanced by the fact that the writer also gives the Israeli viewpoint and also feels compassion for the suffering of their people and is also critical of Hamas. I don’t equate the two sides and see Israel as the aggressor, but there are children suffering on both sides, and atrocities committed on both sides (though again, Israel’s are far worse). Anyone who thought the Moyers interview at all worth any praise should be much more enthusiastic about this article–Moyers didn’t even mention the freaking blockade.
Hey, look, more pro-Israel propaganda. Sure, it says that Israeli soldiers fire randomly across the border, but I’m sure that’s just exactly the image Israel wants American liberal subscribers to the New Yorker to have of them–
“I spoke to Osama Mozini, a professor of education at the Islamic University, who oversees the Shalit negotiations for the government. A barrel-chested man with a stiff beard, he spent five years in an Israeli prison and was arrested three times by the Palestinian Authority because of Hamas activities. I asked him why he could not be more flexible in his negotiations for Shalit. Israel was plainly eager to make a deal that would involve the release of hundreds of Palestinians, many of them convicted of bloody crimes. Mozini bridled at the implication that the Palestinian prisoners were murderers and Shalit was not. “This one who has been abducted is an Israeli soldier who was on the border throwing shells that were killing Palestinians,” he said. “We did not take him from the market or from his family. We took him from a military tank on the Gaza border.”
The I.D.F. won’t say whether Shalit had been involved in military actions against Gaza, but the tanks that line the border do lob shells into the territory, causing many random casualties. While I was there, a teen-age girl was killed, and her young brother injured, in such an incident. The Israelis maintain a buffer zone along the border about half a mile deep, which places at least thirty per cent of the Strip’s arable land off limits. In practice, the zone is even wider, according to Mohammed Ali Abu Najela, the Oxfam researcher. “Nearly every week, there are reported cases of farmers being shot at,” he told me. He said that Gazans understand the rule to be this: “If I can see you, I will shoot you.” ”
But yes, v, none of this is worth any praise. You have completely convinced me.
V–Sorry I was snarky. But tone aside, I think you’re wrong about the worth of the article.
I recommend you read it again Donald, we should be past the stage of trying to look for diamonds in dung. Frankly, I am tired of rhetoric lifted from context
We at this blog are past the diamonds and dung stage. The MSM is not–this was a good first step towards diamonds and away from dung.
Also, I don’t remember your stance on the Moyers/Goldstone interview, but I can’t fathom the different reaction between the Moyers interview, which the majority here thought was great, and this New Yorker piece, which is simply better in every respect.
Moyers filled his interview up with the hasbara narrative about how the conflict came about, and totally left out the blockade and all the Israeli violence before it. It was “rockets from Hamas” and then “Israel’s over-reaction”. I was quite disappointed with it.
I’ll probably repeat most of this at the new thread, since I guess discussion on this piece will migrate over there.
RE: “That opening photograph, by contrast, is tremendous”
CAPTION: “…in a cemetery in Beit Lehia that was destroyed by tanks…”
SUGGESTED CAPTION: “…in a cemetery in Beit Lehia, Gaza that was destroyed by Israeli tanks…”
“TANKS” DON’T DESTROY CEMETERIES…ISRAELIS DESTROY CEMETERIES
I found the article very interesting. There is certainly some good in it. Wright presents stark facts that can only be damning for Israel. But I like Phil’s friend’s phrase of “writing with insufficient purpose”. It’s almost like Wright went to Israel and Gaza, and reported what he saw and heard without knowing anything about the situation beforehand. (Which is perhaps better than the usual writers who are already steeped in hasbara narratives.) He also accepted a lot of Israeli frames of the issues, literally framing his article with the (already overplayed) Shalit story.
To address some specific parts and issues in the story:
The treatment of Gazan detainees is harsh; since 2007, they have been barred from any family visits, though they can exchange messages from family members. In March, the Israeli justice department began to consider reducing the privileges of Hamas and Islamic Jihad prisoners to match the likely “incarceration conditions” of Gilad Shalit. How can you talk about the treatment of Palestinian prisoners without mentioning Israel’s documented uses of torture? At least as allegations? Is this a lack of background, i.e., he never heard about it so he never thought to mention or investigate it?
Shavit and other Israeli intellectuals have proposed that the Egyptians deed a portion of the Sinai to Gaza, to make the Strip more viable—”a semi-Dubai,” as Shavit terms it. The Egyptians have expressed no interest. “Egypt’s strategy for Gaza is to make sure it’s Israel’s problem,” Alpher said. The idea makes no sense in the first place, and is totally irrelevant. Gaza is Israeli territory, pending statehood. What does Egypt have to do with anything? If Israel wants Gaza to be bigger and more viable, why would it ever be Egypt’s duty to provide the extra territory? Does the blockade have any impact on viability? I mean, it’s simply mind-boggling that Shavit thought this in the first place, let alone that it ended up in Wright’s story.
International organizations declared that in order for Hamas to be accepted it would have to recognize the State of Israel, renounce violence, and respect extant diplomatic agreements. What international organizations? Are we not talking about governments here? “International organizations” gives the sense of benign and impartial NGO’s, aid organizations (which would never condition their work on Hamas rhetoric) perhaps.
The U.N. delegation heard ample testimony about the use of civilians, including children, as human shields. I believe he is talking about Israeli use of Palestinian human shields here, and yet he completely fails to make that clear. And that’s especially important here, since most people find this idea surprising after hearing the constant accusations of Hamas using human shields.
On December 19th, the six-month truce between Hamas and Israel formally expired. Israel was willing to extend it, but Hamas refused. Haniyeh complained that Israel had failed to ease the blockade, as the agreement had stipulated. Hamas rockets began flying again. By then, Gaza had run out of allies. Yossi Alpher, the Israeli political analyst, who co-edits the online forum bitterlemons.org, was in Europe when the invasion began. “I was having a good stiff drink with a Saudi colleague,” he recalled. “He told me, ‘This time, do it right.’ ” This is a major failure of the article, to accurately describe the lead-up to Cast Lead. Though this is a distorted history favorable to Israel, it’s not even wrong in the usual ways. I mean, it ignores both Israel’s violation of the cease-fire and that Hamas began firing rockets before the formal expiration of the cease-fire. It also of course misrepresents Hamas’ stance, which welcomed talks on a new cease-fire. And what is the story supposed to represent? To me it is perverse, two privileged people toasting death and destruction from afar. But certainly this one Saudi guy shouldn’t represent proof that everybody (even the Arabs!) thought Israel was right to invade Gaza.
I have to agree with Robin.
From the Israeli perspective, at least, the Gaza problem was supposed to have been solved in August, 2005, when Ariel Sharon, then the Prime Minister, closed down the Jewish settlements on the Strip and withdrew Israeli forces. The international community and the Israeli left wing applauded the move. But, almost immediately, mortar and rocket attacks from the Strip multiplied.
Statistics on rocket attacks don’t bear this out, and furthermore, it ignores the steady number of attacks by Israel on Gaza following their pullout. Wright isn’t unbiased he frames the whole conflict as an attack on Israel, like summarizing the 1948 war as an Arab attack on Israel while ignoring the massacres perpetrated by the zionist forces prior to the Arabs entering the war and ignoring the fact, for example, that Jordan never attacked Israel at all.
Israel got exactly what they wanted from the Gaza pullout, if the Prime Minister’s office is to be believed.
“”The American term is to park conveniently. The disengagement plan makes it possible for Israel to park conveniently in an interim situation that distances us as far as possible from political pressure. It legitimizes our contention that there is no negotiating with the Palestinians. There is a decision here to do the minimum possible in order to maintain our political situation. The decision is proving itself. It is making it possible for the Americans to go to the seething and simmering international community and say to them, `What do you want.’ It also transfers the initiative to our hands. It compels the world to deal with our idea, with the scenario we wrote. It places the Palestinians under tremendous pressure. It forces them into a corner that they hate to be in.”
Dov Weisglass, in an interview for Ha’aretz
Take note of the date on that article, incidentally. The Israeli strategy has been planned well in advance.
Absolutely, Chaos. To be remembered every time some Shavit or other proposes the “Sharon doctrine” or a “third way” (and of course every time someone spouts the garbage that “Israel generously withdrew from Gaza and all it got in return were Hamas rockets.”)
“Statistics on rocket attacks don’t bear this out, and furthermore, it ignores the steady number of attacks by Israel on Gaza following their pullout”
Funny how none of you see fit to mention that Israel fired 7,700 shells into Gaza over the 12 months after they pulled out of Gaza.
What’s more, is that while Israel may have pulled out, they never released Gaza from theri vice like grip and left with a scortched earth policy.
Look at what the US government is willing to do for Jews while it dithers about besieged Palestinians and attempts to bury the Goldstone report!
[WSJ] Secret Mission Rescues Yemen’s Jews.
Comments on this entry are closed.