As I sat watching in horror the televised scenes of carnage from Gaza, and noted that this time the Israelis had hit a school with a UN flag, I wondered at the consequences. How would the Israelis respond, how would they excuse the inexcusable in the eyes of the international community?
I predicted three responses, all of which have sadly turned out to be true.
The first is that they would ensure news of the carnage be quickly replaced by headlines about a truce. And sure enough they did. They gave the Gazans a three-hour respite for one day and briefly let fly the idea that they had agreed to the principles of a cease-fire. Western newspapers and TV channels quickly reported the stories, pushing reactions to the latest atrocity to the sidelines. It also neutralized condemnations which finally started to come from the international community.
President-elect Barack Obama finally broke his silence, for after the school bombing he could not possibly get away with not saying something about how concerned he was by the loss of civilian life. Of course, it was hardly a withering condemnation. Far from it. But those who for some reason expect Obama to take a pro-Palestinian stance must know something about him that I don’t. Nothing he has said so far suggests him to be less of a friend of Israel than his predecessors. The question one must ask about a US president is not does he support Israel but how many Arabs will he allow Israel to kill before saying enough.
Now that the death toll has exceeded 800 and the injured approach 3,000, the word enough is beginning to be whispered in international circles. But only whispered, we are still far from an all-out call for a cease-fire. We are still in that gray area of “concern.” In other words, world leaders remain content to wait and see. To be fair, some are energetically seeking a cease-fire, witness French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s commendable attempts to broker one. The reality, however, is that the cease-fire will only be negotiated when Israel has achieved its military objectives and when the US steps in and formally says, enough. The only bet you could fairly safely lay your money on is, bar a regional escalation of the conflict, this will happen before Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20.
The second response I expected is that the Israelis would blame the victims. And sure enough they did. Apparently they bombed the school because Hamas fighters were hiding there or were even firing rockets from the grounds of the school. The fact is that there is no evidence to support this. Independent sources have verified the nonexistence of Hamas fighters in the bombed school. This has, however, not stopped some commentators and journalists from reporting it as fact.
Which brings me to the third response I expected as I watched the carnage. I thought just wait for it, in the next couple of days we will see some highly articulate and well-written columns and opinion pieces in defense of Israel which will first, press the guilt button about the Holocaust, second, claim that the Israelis offered the Palestinians peace but the Palestinians turned it down and third, that the Gazans brought it onto themselves when they elected Hamas. And for good measure, they might add a dose of fear about a nuclear-armed Iran.
Sure enough, this came true. Pick up British newspapers and there are several shining examples of such Israeli-backed propaganda. What sickens me the most though is that not only do they blame the victims, but some of them are perverse enough to say that they “weep” for those who have been killed in Gaza. They “weep” for the children and innocent civilians who have been killed, bombed, burned, and orphaned and then go on to say that they deserved it, it was their fault.
Is there anything more base than those who blame the victims and yet claim to have a heart that weeps for the dead?
