OPINION:Much of the criticism of Israel's recent offensive against Hamas is based on a biased reading of the actual conflict, writes ZION EVRONY
TWO FEATURES stand out in Proinsias De Rossa's anti-Israel tirade disguised as an account of his visit to the Gaza Strip (Opinion, Irish Times, February 18th). One is the venom of his prejudice against Israel. Otherwise why begin his report with an allegation of graffiti-writing misbehaviour by a single soldier?
Following a string of uncorroborated charges against the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), we must read to the 16th paragraph before we find a formulaic mention of the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and of Cpl Gilad Shalit, detained for years.
De Rossa seems willing to accept uncritically everything he is told by “politicians” and other interested parties in Gaza, despite the long history of outright falsehoods issued by Palestinian propagandists. So, too, does he accept without question the claims of Palestinian civilians, despite the inconsistency and misinformation found by media watchdogs.
The second feature is his almost comic naivety regarding Hamas. Has he not read its Islamist 1988 charter? Can he really know so little of this terrorist organisation, and its institutionalisation of Sharia law in December, as to believe it is about to allow Gazans the “freedom to follow their own gods” when it has made life almost impossible for Christians there? De Rossa’s piece is the latest example of a type of Middle East narrative that abandons any attempt at impartiality and instead seeks to demonise one party to the conflict, Israel, while absolving the other of any responsibility.
The fact is the IDF made every effort possible to avoid civilian casualties, using hundreds of thousands of leaflets, phone calls and radio broadcasts to warn of impending attacks, and aborting missions where civilians were in the line of fire. However, in any war, accidents are unavoidable and regrettable. The fact half of the Israeli soldiers killed were victims of friendly fire demonstrates this.
Nevertheless, overall responsibility for civilian casualties must be placed where it belongs: on the cruel and cynical Hamas “human shield” tactic. Objective reports now accept many civilians were deliberately placed in harm’s way or killed in crossfire initiated by Hamas or hurt in houses and other buildings Hamas had booby-trapped. Ignoring Hamas’s responsibility for these civilian deaths only encourages Hamas to use this technique.
Regarding the reported numbers of civilian casualties, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (Camera) has pointed out that in the statistics supplied by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), males 15 or older – the age category of Hamas fighters – are three times more numerous among casualties than in the population as a whole, raising the suspicion the PCHR has misclassified Hamas fighters as civilians. The identities of 880 of those killed confirms 580 belonged to Hamas and other terrorist groups, against fewer than 300 non-combatants. That said, the death of even one innocent civilian is a tragedy. Like all Israelis, I am pained by the deaths of civilians, and Israel’s leaders have expressed deep sorrow over all innocent casualties.
There is also the allegation the IDF committed war crimes in Gaza. The IDF scrutinises its operational activities; uniquely among armies, it is subject to oversight by both governmental and judicial authorities, including the Supreme Court. So far, no official body has presented any evidence of war crimes committed by Israel; rather, such claims have been based on rumour, half-truths and unconfirmed allegations. As time passes, more and more evidence is emerging that these charges are false.
For example, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Jacob Kellenberger, told the New York Times on January 14th that no evidence had been found for the oft-repeated story of illegal use of phosphorus by Israel.
And it was alleged that, on January 6th, Israeli fire had killed 43 civilians sheltering at a UN school in Jabaliya. An investigation by an independent Canadian journalist found the school was never hit – a fact now acknowledged by the UN – and nobody was killed in the school compound. Moreover, those killed were on the street outside and totalled 12, of whom nine were Hamas who had fired mortars at Israeli troops. By contrast, it is certain Hamas – by murdering hundreds of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings, targeting nearly a million with rockets and mortars, using the people of Gaza as human shields and killing Fatah opponents – has repeatedly committed war crimes.
Another part of the anti-Israel narrative is the claim Israel’s response to Hamas rocket attacks, while justified in principle, was disproportionate. Despite all the political and media comments, I have yet to hear a single suggestion as to what a “proportionate” response, or a realistic alternative strategy, might have been to combat Hamas attacks.
Should Israel have behaved like Hamas and launched one rocket/mortar at Gaza for each of the 8,000 launched at southern Israel over eight years? It would be very difficult to argue against this on proportionality grounds, yet, can anybody doubt that such indiscriminate fire would have caused much larger numbers of deaths among Gaza civilians? Under international law and state practice, proportionality is not a matter of equality of numbers but a requirement that the force used does not excessively endanger civilians when eliminating a specific target.
It should be emphasised that Israel’s low casualty figures, despite the thousands of dangerous rockets, result from the measures it takes to protect its citizens. In contrast, Hamas deliberately exposes Gazans to death and injury, not only by placing munitions dumps and rocket-launching sites in or adjacent to civilian buildings, but also by preventing – at gunpoint – civilians leaving targeted areas after Israel sent warnings.
De Rossa claims to see a growing European consensus that non-engagement with Hamas is a mistake, and that Hamas “need to know precisely what is required of them”.
As a member of the European Parliament, he must be aware the position of the EU, in common with that of the other members of the quartet (the UN, US and Russian Federation) is that a place at the negotiating table is available to Hamas if it complies with three simple conditions: recognition of Israel, renunciation of terrorism and respect for previous Palestinian agreements with Israel.
His argument fails to appreciate the Hamas charter, which stipulates no one may agree “until the Day of Resurrection” to any settlement other than a single Islamic state in place of Israel, labels all peace conferences “a waste of time” and makes jihad against Israel a religious duty binding on every Muslim.
Asking Israel to engage in dialogue with such a movement is going far beyond what was asked of the British and Irish governments in peace process. To enter formal talks, Sinn Féin/IRA had to sign up to the Mitchell principles, the first of which was the use of “exclusively peaceful means” to resolve political issues. Any negotiations with a Hamas that refused to renounce terrorism would have only one item on the agenda: Israel’s destruction.
Engaging with Hamas would grant legitimacy to that terrorist organisation, and be disastrous for the Palestinians. Not only would this constitute a serious blow to the two-state solution championed by Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the international community, but the rise of Hamas would doom Palestinians to a future ruled by jihad, religious extremism and the edicts of Sharia.
Zion Evrony is ambassador of Israel to Ireland