Two days after ceasefire Israel kills Palestinian man in Khan Younis

Israel/Palestine
on 82 Comments

Ma’an News:

 Israeli forces killed a 20-year-old Palestinian man near the Israeli border in the southern Gaza Strip on Friday morning, medical officials said.

Medics said Anwar Abdul Hadi Qudaih, 20, was hit in the head with a live bullet east of Khan Younis.

Health Ministry spokesman Ashraf al-Qidra said 19 others were wounded by Israeli fire in the border area.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri accused Israel of violating the Egypt-mediated truce and said the group would complain to Cairo. “We will contact the Egyptian mediator to discuss the incident,” he said.

Witnesses told Ma’an a group of citizens were gathering to perform Friday prayer on their land near the border.

A relative of the dead man, who was at the scene, told Reuters that Qudaih had been trying to place a Hamas flag on the fence. He added that an Israeli soldier had fired into the air three times before Qdeih was hit in the head by a bullet.

This New York Times article is using Ma’an News as a source. However it doesn’t appear they’ve read Ma’an’s article.

Maan, the Palestinian news agency, reported that a group of Palestinians went to Abassan, a border area east of the southern town of Khan Younis, on Friday to pray on their land, and ended up throwing stones at soldiers, who responded with gunfire. Ashraf al-Qedra, a spokesman for the Health Ministry, identified the man who was killed as Ahmad Qudaih.

It remained unclear whether Hamas would depict the episode as a violation of the still uncertain cease-fire.

……..

An Israeli government official said on Friday that, as part of the latest cease-fire understandings, Israel agreed to discuss the buffer zone with the Egyptian sponsors of the truce. But, the official added, no negotiations have taken place yet. For now, the official said, Israel’s regulations for maintaining the zone and the army’s rules of engagement remain unchanged.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

82 Responses

  1. Maximus Decimus Meridius
    November 23, 2012, 2:05 pm

    We all knew Israel would violate this ceasefire, though perhaps we didn’t expect it to happen so blatantly, or so soon. One thing is for sure, Israel NEVER sticks to agreements. Never.

    • W.Jones
      November 23, 2012, 3:12 pm

      Maximus,

      You are wrong. As this story obviously shows, this State has succeeded in sticking to a cease-fire agreement for a whole day!

      • talknic
        November 23, 2012, 3:45 pm

        ” this State has succeeded in sticking to a cease-fire agreement for a whole day! “ Indeed, after breaking the ceasefire..

        The Western press for the main part in its usual lack of logic reports Israel’s breach while claiming the cease fire still holds. I guess if they had their heads punched in by an Israeli, they simply wouldn’t have had their heads punched in

      • W.Jones
        November 23, 2012, 6:36 pm

        “I guess if they had their heads punched in by an Israeli, they simply wouldn’t have had their heads punched in”.
        Maybe.

  2. LanceThruster
    November 23, 2012, 2:06 pm

    MURDER as cover for THEFT is *not* SELF-DEFENSE

    Israel’s argument against the 67 borders is that they insist there is not enough of a buffer zone to protect them from attacks. Israel will continue their encroachment by requiring that thier buffer zones have buffer zones to ensure adequate security. They already require that Palestinians exist in a controlled and continuosly weakened state, and that any improvement in their conditions directly threatens Israel’s security. The Palestinian issue appears to them as nothing more than “pest control” as they complain that they are perceived as if they are instead clubbing baby seals. From the Israeli perspective, the world needs to see that Israeli raids are against “vermin” rather than human beings that one might have some empathy for.

    • Kathleen
      November 24, 2012, 12:46 pm

      So create the buffer zone on Israel’s side of the 67 border. This is just another excuse used for theft of Palestinian lands

  3. Shingo
    November 23, 2012, 2:31 pm

    This is not a ceasefire violation, it’s Israel’s idea of whata ceasefire and truce looks like.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 23, 2012, 3:42 pm

      exactly shingo

      • dimadok
        November 23, 2012, 10:28 pm

        Exactly what? The men were hanging on the fence and got shot after 3 warning shots and numerous shoutings. I wonder why he wasn’t shot at the first bullet, since the rules of engagement are quite clear there.

      • Shingo
        November 24, 2012, 12:32 am

        The men were hanging on the fence and got shot after 3 warning shots and numerous shoutings.

        Really? What independent source gave that account? You’re taking Israeli spokesmen at face value, which will prove to be a lie as it always does. Why would Palestinians try to cross into Israeli territory when they know they will be killed?

      • Sumud
        November 24, 2012, 5:05 am

        Shingo ~ the murderous IDF thug evidently views the Palestinian flag as a weapon.

        Imagine that, being scared of some coloured fabric.

      • AhVee
        November 24, 2012, 6:51 am

        “Why would Palestinians try to cross into Israeli territory when they know they will be killed?”

        Because the department of hasbara says so, now stop asking questions and believe it.

      • dimadok
        November 24, 2012, 7:40 am

        Aljazeera – link to aljazeera.com
        Just watch the video.

      • eGuard
        November 24, 2012, 7:48 am

        Which engagement, dimadok? This is within the Gaza strip. Israel has nothing to engage there. Remember that every bullet into the Gaza strip is a border trespassing (no truth in the Israeli saying We left the Gaza strip in 2005 and all we got were rockets. Israel shoots into the Gaza strip, killing people across the border).

      • eGuard
        November 24, 2012, 7:10 pm

        dimadok: why does Israel shoot INTO the Gaza strip?

  4. Elliot
    November 23, 2012, 3:06 pm

    an Israeli soldier had fired into the air three times before Qdeih was hit in the head by a bullet

    The most moral army in the world warns three times before firing a bullet into the head of an unarmed civilian.
    Perhaps this was simply target practice for the Israeli soldiers.
    link to vimeo.com

  5. talknic
    November 23, 2012, 3:55 pm

    From the video on this page it sure looks like Israeli soldiers INSIDE the buffer zone.

  6. Citizen
    November 23, 2012, 4:25 pm

    The Bird is the Word:
    Original: link to youtube.com

    Vietnam Era: link to youtube.com
    link to youtube.com

    Contemporary: link to youtube.com

    I think it’s time for The Bird to address the I-P conflict. Yes?

  7. IL1948
    November 23, 2012, 4:39 pm

    Annie

    Quite hypocritical indeed of you to criticize the NYT for ostensibly ignoring the Maan report when you yourself omitted this passage:

    “An Israeli military spokeswoman said that soldiers fired warning shots into the air to push back some 300 Palestinians who had gathered at different locations along the fence and who were attempting to breach the border.”

    I know, I know… this information was reported to Maan by the IDF so it is patently false and/or the shooting was unjustified by the attempted breach. Your playbook is predictable at best. But feel free to go ahead and tell both side of the story next time. It’s not like your readership will be unable to blame Israel for everything even when confronted with facts that undercut the evil Zionist narrative…

    • Eva Smagacz
      November 23, 2012, 6:14 pm

      So Israeli spokesman claims that 300 Palestinians crossed the death zone and attempted to cross the border. I am sure that they can back that claim with video of the incident, as cameras are monitoring death zone 24/7.

      • Shingo
        November 23, 2012, 6:24 pm

        What’s laughable Eva is that if any of us were to cite purely Palestinian sources, these people would dismiss them as non credible, yet they themselves swallow everything the IDF feeds them, in spite of the fact the IDF has been exposed as a lie factory countless times.

    • Shingo
      November 23, 2012, 6:23 pm

      Your playbook is predictable at best.

      talk about projection. You’re so blid to your biggotry and doubel standards that you have lost all touch with reality.

      I know, I know… this information was reported to Maan by the IDF so it is patently false and/or the shooting was unjustified by the attempted breach.

      Breach. Tell me IL1948 , how do you think Israel would respond if Hamas arbitrarily imposed a boffer zone around Gaza reaching into Israeli territory? The trouble with you hasbrats, is that a grossly imbalanced and distorted situation has become the status quo and you don;t even question it. I was debating one fo your fellow traveller on another blog who tried to dismiss the murder of 13-year-old Ahmed Younis Khader Abu Daqqa as an accident that ensued as a result of Hamas firing on an Israeli incursion of 4 tanks and a bulldozer. It never even occurred to them that this was an act of war and that Israel’s response to such an incursion would be far more severe.

      It’s not like your readership will be unable to blame Israel for everything even when confronted with facts that undercut the evil Zionist narrative…

      It’s not like you and your fellow hasbrats has ever been able to come up with any such facts. What you people don’t get, and never will, is that your case is dead on arrival. There is no way to defend the indefensible, so even when you think you’ve come up with a minor point of contention, you are still not even in the running.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 24, 2012, 12:42 am

      Quite hypocritical indeed of you to criticize the NYT for ostensibly ignoring the Maan report

      i never said they ignored the ma’an report. they used it for a source, claiming ma’an had reported something ma’an did not report. namely, that ma’an had reported a group of Palestinians …. ended up throwing stones at soldiers.

      ma’an never reported that. (iow, the nyt either lied and deliberately fabricated the information or never fact checked)

      when you yourself omitted this passage:

      we don’t print articles in their entirety. it is against fair use. i left the link specifically for readers to check out themselves (drives traffic). so good of you to point out the idf reported palestinians were attempting to breach the border. i’m like so shocked they would say that!/NOT. the nyt should have simply stated that was in the idf’s report, not ma’an’s. at least ma’an showed more professionalism than the nyt. the nyt had no need to cite ma’an for this and we know why they did it, to lend credence to their narrative thinking readers would assume if this was what a palestinian news source reported, it gave it more credence.

      here’s what i didn’t do in the main body of the text, accuse the nyt of lying in their report. that’s what i omitted, i let them off easy. go cry a bucket of tears.

      btw, the nyt has now updated their story and eliminated the part i captured in blockquote/ reference to ma’an. tsk tsk, caught red handed.

      • dbroncos
        November 24, 2012, 2:32 am

        Annie

        You must have noticed who filed the NYT report – Isabel Kirshner and the illustrious Bureau Chief, Jodi Rudoren. Not surprising that it included the “stone throwing” embellishment.

  8. asherpat
    November 23, 2012, 6:16 pm

    During a armed confct in which Israeli soldiers (and civilians) were targeted from Gaza usingdirect fire, the person approached border and ignored warnings.

    If any of the outragedd commenters were in the place of Israeli sodliers, what wud you do?

    You can argue that Israel is bad, that it is illegitmate etc, but that does not mean that you can abandon logic about a particular incident, well actually, you can, and you are doing it in your comments.

    Actually, even Annie Robbins doesnt berate Israel, only brings the two articles.

    • Cliff
      November 23, 2012, 6:51 pm

      Shooting an unarmed man in the head would not be on my to-do list.

    • thankgodimatheist
      November 23, 2012, 7:01 pm

      “what wud you do?”
      For starters, I’d make a little effort to spell correctly.

    • lyn117
      November 24, 2012, 5:11 pm

      @asherpat, so you think that because it’s an armed conflict and because Palestinian civilians have been targeted by Israeli direct fire, it’s also OK to target Israeli civilians who approach the boarder fence?

    • Stephen Shenfield
      November 25, 2012, 9:41 am

      I am not sure that “sodlier” is a misspelling. asherpat may be coining a new word, and I see no reason to object to that.

      So if I were in the place of an Israeli sodlier, what would I do? (Setting aside the obvious riposte that I would do all I could not to end up in such a place.) First, I would not shoot an unarmed civilian who clearly presented no threat. Second, seeing that my fellow sodliers were intent upon shooting a civilian, I would take prompt action to prevent them doing that by disabling them (perhaps by shooting them in the legs).

  9. pipistro
    November 23, 2012, 6:19 pm

    Same article. I quote.

    “A relative of the dead man, who was at the scene, told Reuters that Qudaih had been trying to place a Hamas flag on the fence.”

    Wave a Hamas flag and place it on the fence could be viewed on a long distance. But it was a supreme outrage, wasn’t it? Worth of (some three shots into the air and) one shot in the head of a man.
    And… yes, I keep on blaming Israel for “everything.”

    • Walid
      November 23, 2012, 7:39 pm

      Just like Nakba Day 2011 at Maroun al-Ras where Palestinians kept planting their flags on the fence and Israeli soldiers kept tearing them down; Israeli snipers killed 10 and injured 120 with live amunition. It was a turkey-shoot with IDF soldiers shooting the unarmed kids from behind mounds of earth.

      Franklin Lamb wrote about the massacre:
      link to uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com

  10. justicewillprevail
    November 23, 2012, 7:32 pm

    Situation reverted to normal for Israel. Their interpretation of a ‘ceasefire’ is that they can continue killing at will, and with impunity, but Palestinians can’t do anything about it. What a bunch of hypocritical liars they are.

  11. Kathleen
    November 23, 2012, 8:34 pm

    Peaceful and you get an Israeli bullet in your head.

  12. ThorsteinVeblen2012
    November 23, 2012, 9:09 pm

    Shouldn’t the IDF be able to prove their actions were just by providing film of what happened?

  13. Talkback
    November 23, 2012, 9:29 pm

    Hasbara calls this ‘showing restraint while under daily rocket fire by Hamas’.

  14. Denis
    November 23, 2012, 10:00 pm

    This tragic event was absolutely NOT a violation of the Agreement.
    Paragraph 1A says Israel “should” stop hostilities. So if Israel doesn’t stop hostilities that is not in violation of this paragraph.

    Paragraph 1C says that refraining from restricting the free movements of the Gazans is an issue that “shall be dealt with” after 24 hours from the start of the cease-fire. OK, so this is the way Israel “deals with” the free movements of Gazans.

    So where, exactly, is the violation? Nothing is changed in the buffer zone. These guys thought differently. Why?

    These poor guys walked right into this. They didn’t see the agreement and they were told by the Palestinian leaders that they would have free movement 24 hours after the cease fire started. These people have been duped — not by the Israelis, but by Hamas.

    There is word on the net that BO will be sending US troops into the Sinai next week to stop the arms flow into Gaza. It will take months before we see what a big-time win Bibi scored here, but it should be crystal clear before the Israeli elections.

    • ritzl
      November 23, 2012, 11:52 pm

      You’re right, of course, Denis. As was your earlier para by para analysis of the so called terms of the ceasefire. Legally speaking.

      Legally speaking is what Israel thrives on clouding.

      Yet these “poor guys” are exactly the everyman who would interpret “cease fire” to mean CEASE FIRE (i.e. NO shooting as long as we stay on our side). They stayed on their side. They got shot anyway. That’s an everyman concept of injustice. Israel can’t cloud that much longer under the microscope that their actions invite.

      So, yeah, legally naive, but righteous and viscerally empathized with (if it ever gets “out there”) nonetheless.

      Significant in that, sans return rocket fire, this could be the defining example that changes everything. Or the next instance, or the next, but soon. #IsraelAttacksFirst

    • Shingo
      November 24, 2012, 12:42 am

      Paragraph 1A says Israel “should” stop hostilities. So if Israel doesn’t stop hostilities that is not in violation of this paragraph.

      That’s truly Orwellian.

      Only when it comes to Israel does a ceasefire agreement not require Israel to cease firing while the other side is obliged to.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 24, 2012, 1:11 am

      who are you addressing denis? i never claimed the ceasefire was violated.

      Paragraph 1A says Paragraph 1A says Israel “should” stop hostilities..

      yes, i already knew that. do you agree that israel should stop hostilities, do you think shooting an unarmed man in the head is not a hostile act. or is your primary concern pointing out israel didn’t break the ceasefire?

      • Denis
        November 24, 2012, 9:00 am

        Please to calm down, Annie. I was not disagreeing with anything you said, and you know I never would. :-)

        My point is that from a legal perspective, Israel continuing hostilities is cool b/c that “agreement” appears to have been drafted by Alan Dershowitz. The sad part is that Mr. Qudiah paid the price of being duped by Hamas into thinking the Gazans could go where they wanted on their own land 24 hours after the cease fire began.

        Because of the should/shall wording of paragraphs 1A/1B, if the bullet that killed Mr. Qudiah had gone in the other direction, G to I, then the agreement would have been violated. But bullets going I to G don’t violate any part of the agreement. “Should” is referred to as a “precatory” term, which means it can’t be enforced because it’s merely a statement of what would be nice. “Shall” is obligatory and enforceable.

        IOW the Palestinians are not getting screwed just by the Israeli/US juggernaut; these people are getting screwed by Hamas, Fatah, PLO. Whoever signed that lopsided agreement for Hamas must have been one of the Shin Bet spies that avoided execution on Tuesday.

        Do I think Israel “should” stop hostilities?? Well, from a strictly legal perspective, according to the agreement, it would be durn nice of Israel if they stopped hostilities, but it’s up to them. OTH, the Gazans have to stop hostilities.

        Here’s my “should” wish list from a moral perspective as opposed to a legal perspective. What I think should be done is the UN and NATO should occupy Israel, enforce the 1948 borders, determine and enforce the chain-of-title for all of the real estate back at least to 1947, remove all of the nukes from the area, establish a Palestinian-controlled corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, establish a Palestinian state with its capitol in East Jerusalem and all of the same rights, powers, and UN membership as Israel. And they should send the bill to Churchill and Truman for screwing this whole thing up in the first place.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 24, 2012, 12:28 pm

        absolutely NOT a violation…..Please to calm down, Annie.

        please do not address me like this, i’m quite calm thank you.

        The sad part is that Mr. Qudiah paid the price of being duped by Hamas into thinking the Gazans could go where they wanted on their own land 24 hours after the cease fire began….They didn’t see the agreement and they were told by the Palestinian leaders that they would have free movement 24 hours after the cease fire started.

        please denis, it was the framing of the ceasefire agreement that implied there would be some change of approach. unless you have some evidence hamas purposely misled the public i really do not think there are grounds to make blanket assertions. the whole point of framing the document mentioning what israel should do, which has no legal repercussions whatsoever, was to create some semblance of ‘balance’ in the document. where’s your evidence that was hamas’s decision alone?

        what we should be asking is what israel got out of provoking this latest round of lawn mowing besides the usual slaughter of palestinians. i presume you agree israel provoked the rockets.

      • Denis
        November 24, 2012, 8:42 pm

        @Annie: please do not address me like this, i’m quite calm thank you.

        Yes, ma’am, I won’t. Sorry. (It’s just that you were sounding a little shrill, which is not like you.)

        @Annie: unless you have some evidence hamas purposely misled the public

        Of course I have such evidence: Mr. Qudiah with an Israeli bullet in his head. Who else other than Hamas would have told those guys that the agreement said it was OK to be wandering around in the buffer zone? Did you see the RT webcam in Gaza City Wednesday night? All those Gazans were whooping and hollaring like they finally got the IDF off their backs. Where do you think they got that load of rubbish? Not from me.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 24, 2012, 11:02 pm

        shrill? by asking who you were addressing? lol, upping the ante eh. whatever denis.

        Who else other than Hamas would have told those guys that the agreement said it was OK to be wandering around in the buffer zone?

        so that would be a no. you have no evidence. btw, it’s not technically a ‘buffer zone’, it’s gazan territory, farmland etc. if israel wants a bufferzone they should put it on their own side and stick to it.

        btw, were you aware there are bloggers in gaza who tweet and receive info from outside of gaza (shocking i know)? did you know they have access to the same media we do? your earlier comment (with your [loud] capitol letters) implied there were readers here on this thread who were unaware of the terms of the ceasefire.

        but to answer your question, the framing of the ceasefire available on the msm at that time definitely implied israel wouldn’t be killing people inside gaza: link to cnn.com

        The agreement calls for Israel to halt all acts of aggression on Gaza, including incursions and the targeting of people, according to Egypt’s state news agency EGYNews…
        Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said the agreement calls for “complete and total cessation of all hostile activity initiated in the Gaza Strip.”

        maybe putting a flag on the border is defined as ‘hostile’?

      • mijj
        November 25, 2012, 8:18 am

        Denis > “Please to calm down, Annie.”

        Troll!

        Your plan is to divert reason into an emotional squabble. Why is that?

        But your dirty little scheme is transparent. Give it up.

      • sardelapasti
        November 24, 2012, 12:14 pm

        I don’t get you, Annie. They committed aggression and war crimes in the first place (punished by hanging in Nuremberg provided they are caught), so why all the hullabaloo about their not-breaking a non-ceasefire?
        It all boils down to this: either you can one day bomb them back, arrest them and hang them, or you can continue deploring the fact that they write weasel words on ceasefire toilet-papers, and you join the Zionists in prohibiting to the Palestinians to shoot back.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 24, 2012, 12:45 pm

        so why all the hullabaloo about their not-breaking a non-ceasefire?

        sardelapasti, had it been my intention to make a hullaballoo about the terms of the ceasefire or the fact it wasn’t broken i would have mentioned it in the main body of the text. as far as i know it just so happens there is nothing in that ceasefire agreement that prevents israel from murdering palestinians in the so called ‘buffer zone’ inside gazan territory. it doesn’t mean i agree with it for heaven’s sakes. it’s just another example of israel not ever being held accountable.

        initial observers called it a maybe ceasefire and as the text dribbled out it left many of us scratching our heads. whoever brokered it should have demanded requirements of israel, not wishy washy wordings about free movements and targeting residents in border areas and procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.

        so has it been dealt with?

        link to telegraph.co.uk

        believe me, i would love israel being held accountable for war crimes, but this ceasefire agreement is not a mechanism for that.

    • Talkback
      November 24, 2012, 6:29 am

      Let’s take “B. All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border.”

      So if hostilities are carried out from the West Bank or inside of Israel it is also not a violation of the cease fire agreement. Correct, Denis?

      • Denis
        November 25, 2012, 3:36 pm

        That is correct. What Palestinians do in the WB or Israel is irrelevant to the agreement.

        Do you have a different interpretation?

      • Talkback
        December 11, 2012, 9:38 am

        Neither does Israel, right?

    • seafoid
      November 24, 2012, 8:34 am

      Tragic. Everyone shot leaving Auschwitz was also tragic. But those were the rules of engagement. Just follow orders soldier.

    • American
      November 24, 2012, 9:40 am

      ”There is word on the net that BO will be sending US troops into the Sinai next week to stop the arms flow into Gaza.”

      I’ll believe that when I see it…iow I don’t believe it.

    • lyn117
      November 24, 2012, 5:13 pm

      @Denis, I’m having trouble grasping how you think shooting anyone in the head from across the border fence is not a “hostility”

      • Denis
        November 24, 2012, 8:32 pm

        I didn’t say it wasn’t hostility — of course it’s hostility. It’s murder in my book.

        But the point I’m making is that the agreement doesn’t place any obligation on anyone except the Palestinians not to engage in hostility. And so — ACCORDING TO THE AGREEMENT — there is no violation when Israel dings Palestinians, but any Israelis getting dinged IS a violation.

        I am not making this stuff up. I could have written a more fair agreement than this thing before I left high school.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 24, 2012, 11:07 pm

        But the point I’m making is that the agreement doesn’t place any obligation on anyone except the Palestinians not to engage in hostility.

        and you hold hamas responsible for not clearly communicating that to the population of gaza and that’s why hamas is responsible for the death of Qudaih.

      • Denis
        November 25, 2012, 3:51 pm

        Do I hold Hamas responsible? To a certain extent. They are the closest thing these people have to a government. They are the ones who represented the people in this agreement. Yes, I feel Hamas has an absolute duty to accurately communicate to the Gazans that the agreement did not mean that Israel would no longer enforce the no-go zone.

        From the tweets I saw coming into Harry Fear, who is in Gaza City, it was clear the Gazans thought the agreement ended Israeli restrictions on their movements within Gaza. Maybe Hamas was too busy dragging bodies through the streets in an attempt to prove Geller right to get the word out on what the agreement they made really says.

      • Denis
        November 25, 2012, 4:07 pm

        This is fascinating. Your link to the Telegraph gives a different version of the agreement that Ma’an gave, that Mondoweiss gave, and that HuffPo gave — and about three other sites I saw gave.

        The agreement according to the Telegraph is symmetric in that it says both Israel and Palestine, shall cease hostilities. Someone, somewhere is swapping words around.

      • Denis
        November 25, 2012, 4:10 pm

        As for your doubts that Hamas in any way responsible for the miscommunication, here is a quote from the NYT article you linked to above. Note the line “because their leaders said.”

        But that was clearly not the understanding of the hundreds of Gazans who thought that they would have access to the so-called buffer zone, a 1,000-foot-wide strip of land along Gaza’s northern and eastern borders, that had for years been so tantalizingly close, and yet beyond reach. Palestinians flocked to the fence on Thursday and Friday because their leaders said the cease-fire eased what they call Israel’s “siege” on Gaza, including restrictions on movement in the so-called buffer zone, a 1,000-foot strip on Gaza’s eastern and northern borders.

  15. Taxi
    November 24, 2012, 1:35 am

    Top Ten Steps That Are Necessary for Lasting Gaza-Israel Peace (or, Good Luck!) – Juan Cole.
    link to readersupportednews.org

  16. douglasreed
    November 24, 2012, 9:32 am

    How Israel’s policy drives anti-Semitism

    The ultra right wing Likud party of Israel controls the elected Netanyahu coalition government that formulates and implements policies against the indigenous Arab population in Gaza and the
    Occupied Territories.

    To most of us, Israel is seen as the most heavily-armed state in the world, on a per capita basis, the only undeclared nuclear weapons power on the planet, and an arrogant bully that strips the people of Palestine of land, of freedom, of dignity and of life.

    It is empowered and enabled to do so by the continuous supply of arms and funding from an American congress that is heavily influenced by the most powerful foreign lobby in the US whose purpose is to support and fund Israel from out of American tax monies.

    For now six long years, this nuclear armed state has conducted a blockade of 1.7 million people in Gaza to deny them essential supplies and restrict the amount of food to subsistence levels in order to try to effect an illegal regime change. This inhumane and illegitimate policy has, incredibly, been allowed by the rest of the world, a large section of which is beholden to the US either for bilateral trade or for aid.

    Gaza, of course, has no tanks, planes, helicopter gunships, cluster bombs or WMD with which to defend themselves from this blockade, but only hand-assembled, short- range rockets which they fire haphazardly in the direction of Israel but which are very largely ineffective.

    However, recently in Britain and the rest of Europe, we watched in horror as Israeli F16 US-supplied strike aircraft savagely attacked the besieged people of Gaza, bombed their houses, destroyed the infrastructure and killed many civilians including children and reporters in a ferocious strike against a largely defenseless population. They left a large part of the densely populated city a smoking ruin of bombed buildings and tangled metal among which the bereaved held the funerals of their loved ones.

    British people automatically identify with those under persecution or oppression, those being repressed, humiliated, or worse, tortured or killed and our laws, and those of the EU, reflect this national humanitarian attitude.

    It is not surprising, therefore, that the British Foreign Office condemns outright the continuing illegal settlements in Occupied Palestinian Territory and demands that all illegal settlers be repatriated back to Israel. But these demands from the UK and from the EU, the UN and the US, are treated with contempt by an Israeli government that takes money from both the US and the EU and gives two fingers back, in return.

    That there is, and has been over the past years, an increasing hostility towards Israel and Israelis particularly throughout Europe, at the treatment of the largest indigenous people of the region, the Arabs of Palestine, is hardly surprising.

    The problem is, however, that although most Israelis are Jewish, the majority of Jews is not Israeli and has no wish to be so. However, that distinction is understandably lost on most people, which is tragic because it means that in the public consciousness, Jewish communities around the world are tarred with the same brush of being sympathetic to the bombing and killing of defenseless families in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    That is the tragedy of Netanyahu’s policies, i.e. an increasing anti-Semitism throughout Europe and the world that may not directly affect Israel but impacts dangerously on Jewish communities worldwide.

    • Betsy
      November 24, 2012, 12:31 pm

      Do you have any data to show that there actually is increasing racism against Jewish people? What strikes me in US is that I do not see such a rise (except among the folks wearing tinfoil hats).

      We really need data on this. Hypothetical statements are dangerous. Also, it would be desirable to use carefully researched indicators & ones that are comparable to the usual measures used to assess racism. I don’t use the word anti-Semitism, because it has bad baggage historically. Why not just speak of racism?

    • Kathleen
      November 24, 2012, 12:53 pm

      I think Israeli’s are going to have a tougher time as they travel the world.

      • mikeo
        November 24, 2012, 4:33 pm

        Places where I have travelled Israeli’s have a pretty bad rep…
        Us brits do too!

        They even talk about it in Jewcy: link to jewcy.com

  17. Kathleen
    November 24, 2012, 12:52 pm

    More indiscriminate Israeli targeting of unarmed Palestinians.

  18. douglasreed
    November 24, 2012, 1:13 pm

    Anti-Israeli sentiment, unfortunately morphing into antiSemitism, has been steadily rising in France, Germany, Britain, Poland, Hungary and throughout Europe over the past years and measurably since the massacre of civilians by the IDF in Gaza over Christmas 2008.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 24, 2012, 1:14 pm

      says who? or how are you measuring that? i am not doubting it could occur, just wondering who the sources are.

      • piotr
        November 24, 2012, 10:26 pm

        I can only say something about comments in Polish news sites. There is a large number of anti-Palestinian comments which are often suspicious (they could be posted also by Israelis). As far as anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli comments are concerned, it is of course hard to tell what is morphing into what.

    • Mooser
      November 24, 2012, 1:44 pm

      “Anti-Israeli sentiment, unfortunately morphing into antiSemitism, has been steadily rising in France, Germany, Britain, Poland, Hungary and throughout Europe over the past years and measurably since the massacre of civilians by the IDF in Gaza over Christmas 2008.”

      Gosh, seems to me anybody of average intelligence, let alone those with a genetic +15IQ advantage, could have easily predicted this and taken in into account. Would have though Zionists would be experts in Jewish history… oh well.

    • American
      November 24, 2012, 3:49 pm

      “Anti-Israeli sentiment, unfortunately morphing into antiSemitism”

      I continue to have a problem labeling the resentment Israel is arousing as anti semitism, except in the sense that people are or may be applying responsibility for Israel to all Jews. Anti semitism is ‘irrational’, the resentment the Jewish state is creating for itself among many is in fact for “rational” reasons. This is some kind of double bind in the situation. I don’t know that calling it anti semitism doesn’t contribute to the problem of it being taken as or seen as classical anti semitism by the Jewish community instead of what it actually is. Yes, the zionist promote opposition to Israel as anti semitism for their reasons but I think we at least should distinguish the current resentment of Israel and it’s enablers and the reason for it from what is actual anti semitism. Yes, there may be real anti semites in anti- Israel because it is Jewish, but still the meme of anti semitism in this takes or could take on a life of it’s own and that is not good.
      And yes I am not explaining this well but maybe someone will get it.

      • pipistro
        November 24, 2012, 5:12 pm

        I’d rather talk of anti-Israelism, coming from their strange attitude, something like “making enemies and then shout they are enemies.”
        No match with anti-Semitism.
        Look

      • American
        November 24, 2012, 8:12 pm

        Illistrates it well doesn’t it?

      • RoHa
        November 25, 2012, 12:59 am

        Ithink I understand you, American, but I will spell out what I think you are suggesting.

        1. Before Israel and Zionism, some people hated Jews for irrational reasons. This was classical anti-Semitism.

        2. Israel and Zionism arouse perfectly rational anti-Israelism.

        3. Since it seems (to the non-Jews) that nearly all Jews are supporters of Israel, they too are subjects of anti-Israelism.

        4. Zionists deliberately, and some other people accidently, confuse this overall anti-Israelism (“hatred” of Jews for support of Israel) with classical anti-Semitism (hatred of Jews for being Jews).

      • American
        November 25, 2012, 10:08 am

        RoHa,

        That’s it basically in a nutshell. Calling it anti semitism pulls into this one specific situation all the historical Jews vr the others and actually “revives” in the public mind the entire can of worms in anti semitism.

      • Mooser
        November 25, 2012, 11:22 am

        What a system! Zionism commits the crime, Judaism takes the hit! And then Jews defend Zionism as if God His self commanded it in Leviticus.
        Jews never turn to Zionism and say: “What the hell are you doing to us?”

        Now I’ll tell you why that is: See, Judaism can only supply religious comfort and some social niceties for Jews, but Zionism promises land and power for Judaism! And Jews being as religious as anybody else, naturally they choose the Golden Ca…,. er, I meant Zionism.

        I mean, who would just be a Jew, when they can be a Judaism?

  19. amigo
    November 24, 2012, 1:31 pm

    There is a scene in “Shindler,s List” where Ralph Fiennes has his turkey shoot against unarmed Jews.

    Not too much difference in these two incidents.

    How much less daylight will separate these two ideologies in a few years.

  20. douglasreed
    November 24, 2012, 1:54 pm

    Public domain information, Annie, for some years. Just check it out. Maybe start with official reports from the CST monitoring organization in London then go to similar in Paris, Berlin etc.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 24, 2012, 2:49 pm

      does that stand for ‘Country Technical Services’ doug? the reason i was asking is because of recent legislation in calif. from the sound of it one might imagine anti semitic incidences were rife at UC. what is the name of that monitoring org in london, thanks.

      • Bumblebye
        November 24, 2012, 3:44 pm

        Annie, I think he means the “Community Security Trust”, which imo inflates anti-semitic incidents, and/or magnifies out of all proportion to achieve their figs. Maybe they’re using the European provisional definition, or something pretty similar?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 24, 2012, 5:13 pm

        similar to ADL i wonder bumble

        link to electronicintifada.net

        check this out

        The secret CST documents that smeared anti-Zionist Jews as extremists

        link to electronicintifada.net

      • Bumblebye
        November 24, 2012, 6:16 pm

        Cheers Annie!
        Meanwhile, I found a heckuva good news story for Gaza:

        link to stopwar.org.uk

        This guy is so famous worldwide that even those of us who attempt to avoid all things football can’t fail to know his name!

      • Bumblebye
        November 24, 2012, 8:30 pm

        Another one from the same website, but I can’t link it from there:
        link to youtube.com
        Owen Jones, very young (and looks & sounds even younger than he is), political commentator, telling the genuine truth on bbc’s flagship political program Question Time, watched by millions (and bound to be up due to the conflict), getting a huge round of applause from the audience. I hear a lot of him on radio, and he is really brilliant.

  21. radkelt
    November 25, 2012, 12:07 am

    Didn’t Herzl welcome and count on provoking anti-semitism as a means to “legitimate” Israel as a state?
    Doesn’t Netanyahu perpetuate this when he declares that Israel is a state for all Jews?
    Recent polls indicate that many young Jews don’t share the intense identification
    with Israel that older generations do.
    We are obliged to correct, when given the opportunity, the public perception that conflates Israeli policy with mainstream American Jewish views despite the efforts of some to do just that.

  22. Mooser
    November 25, 2012, 11:28 am

    We are obliged to correct, when given the opportunity, the public perception that conflates Israeli policy with mainstream American Jewish views despite the efforts of some to do just that.

    1) It isn’t “mainstream American Jewish views” which is making American policy vis-a-vis Israel, it is Israel first Zionists, and BTW, do you see the MAJ community protesting vociferously and seperating themselves from it in no uncertain terms? No, you do not.

    2) Whether the American Jewish Mainstream public views (whatever) supports Israel isn’t really the issue. The Israeli public does, and those that don’t don’t seem to be, shall we say, asserting themselves.

    So what is your point, exactly, that Jews should always watch their public image, and minipulate it to their advantage??

Leave a Reply