History did not begin with the Qassams
History did not begin with the Qassam rockets. But for us, the Israelis, history always begins when the Palestinians hurt us, and then the pain is completely decontextualized. We think that if we cause the Palestinians much greater pain, they will finally learn their lesson. Some term this "achievement."
Nevertheless, the "lesson" remains abstract for most Israelis. The Israeli media prescribes a strict low-information, low-truth diet for its consumers, one rich in generals and their ilk. It is modest, and does not boast of our achievements: the slain children and the bodies rotting under the ruins, the wounded who bleed to death because our soldiers shoot at the ambulance crews, the little girls whose legs were amputated due to horrible wounds caused by various types of weaponry, the devastated fathers shedding bitter tears, the residential neighborhoods that have been obliterated, the terrible burns caused by white phosphorus, and the mini-transfer - the tens of thousands of people who have been expelled from their homes, and are still being expelled at this very minute, ordered to cram into a built-up area that is constantly growing smaller and is also under sentence of incessant bombing and shelling.
Ever since the Palestinian Authority was established, the Israeli public relations machinery has exaggerated the danger of the military threat that the Palestinians pose to us. When they moved from stones to rifles and from Molotov cocktails to suicide bombings, from roadside bombs to Qassams and from Qassams to Grads, and from the PLO to Hamas, we said with a whoop of victory, "We told you. They're anti-Semites." And therefore, we have the right to go on a rampage.
What enabled Israel's military rampage - the proper words to describe it cannot be found in my dictionary - was the step-by-step isolation of the Gaza Strip. The isolation turned Gaza's residents into abstract objects, with no names and addresses, except the addresses of the armed men, and no history, aside from the dates determined by the Shin Bet security service.
The siege of Gaza did not begin when Hamas seized control of the Strip's security organs, or when Gilad Shalit was taken captive, or when Hamas was elected in democratic elections. The siege began in 1991 - before the suicide bombings. And since then, it has only become more sophisticated, reaching its peak in 2005.
The Israeli public relations machinery happily presented the disengagement as the end of the occupation, in brazen disregard of the facts. The isolation and closure were presented as military necessities. But we are big boys and girls, and we know that "military necessities" and consistent lies serve state goals. Israel's goal was to thwart the two-state solution, which the world had expected to materialize once the Cold War ended in 1990. This was not a perfect solution, but the Palestinians were ready for it then.
Gaza is not a military power that attacked its tiny, peace-loving neighbor, Israel. Gaza is a territory that Israel occupied in 1967, along with the West Bank. Its residents are part of the Palestinian people, which lost its land and its homeland in 1948.
In 1993, Israel had a one-time golden opportunity to prove to the world that what people say about us is untrue - that it is not by nature a colonialist state. That the expulsion of a nation from its land, the expulsion of people from their houses and the robbery of Palestinian land for the sake of settling Jews are not the basis and essence of its existence.
In the 1990s, Israel had a chance to prove that 1948 is not its paradigm. But it missed this opportunity. Instead, it merely perfected its techniques for robbing land and expelling people from their houses, and forced the Palestinians into isolated enclaves. And now, during these dark days, Israel is proving that 1948 never ended.



By Shapiro, Tali at Jan 20, 2009 16:14 PM
Amira, I have a few question, maybe you can help:
Why now? Gaza has been occupied for ages, why start the insane killing now? What's so special about this point in time, that the Israeli government would allow itself such an unprecedented attack?
What was the goal of this attack, other than inflicting as much death and ruine as possible? What were the "achievements"? I've been reading up and it seems that most of the time, the idea is to keep any official agreements from happening. If this is the case, they could have just continued to do what they were doing. Why anger the world? It doesn't seem like a sound tactic.
Out of curiosity, what do you believe would be just of Israel to do? For me a two-state settlement seems right, I'm not sure about the border issue. If this is something that seems viable to you, can you please explain, why people referring to a two-state settlement are so keen on the borders of '67 specifically? I'd probably add to that massive reparations and aid. Also I strongly believe the whole educational system must be revised (not just in this issue, but I digress).
Thanks
Tali
Reply this comment
Re:
By Ishaq, Arif at Jan 21, 2009 08:08 AM
Reply this comment
Re: Re:
By Shapiro, Tali at Jan 22, 2009 14:37 PM
Thanks Arif,
I did read it. I guess I'm just having trouble with the "senselessness of it all". Maybe now's the time to learn that some questions will never be answered. Or maybe I can chalk it up to bad education. Compassion, after all, is not a trait you're born with... or is it?
Reply this comment