in the haze

Hours after his resignation last September, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehuld Olmert gave an interview to a leading newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, parts of which were re-published in the December 2008 edition of the New York Review. "In a few years, my grandchildren will ask what their grandfather did, what kind of country we have bequeathed them."

Well, Mr. Olmert, you at least had some idea when you said that peace can only take place in the absence of war. So what kind of peace is Israel trying to create when inevitably, a few more rockets that kill Palestinian civilians will give birth to another generation of suicide bombers? Israel's threat is real: a militant government such as Hamas and suicide bombers certainly have and do threaten Israeli citizens and the existence of the Israeli state.

But let us differentiate between waging a war to defend citizens and a war to defend a state. The Bush Administration has laid the blame on Hamas, saying that its hostile attacks on Israel have necessitated heavy attacks on Gaza. So in effect, the lives of 7 Israeli solider is worth equal to, if not more than, 600 Palestinians, mostly civilians. The cost of the Israeli state has been to disregard Palestinians' human and civil rights. This is not only a fault of Israel's but also of surrounding states that house large Palestinian populations. Hamas and Palestinian suicide bombers are a danger to Israel, and for U.S. leaders, Israel is justified in its quest to protect its state. It is, plainly, a response to continuous threats to its existence. But thus far, no US media coverage to my knowledge has acknowledged that the Palestinian response to Israel has been reactionary as well; it has been an attempt to defend civilian rights that been continuously suffocated.

The US media has been become obsessed with providing both sides of the Gaza situation. But math isn't so difficult that we cannot look at the straight facts:
- Israel: seven soldiers killed
- Palestine: 683 dead; 3,085 injured.

I am not going to comment, nor can I, on the tragedy and hurt both sides experience. The war is an outcome of 60 years of deep emotions. But I do not agree that the level of loss on both sides is the same. The loss of human lives, of infrastructure, homes, food, and safety is clearly weighing heavily on one side over another. So while Washington Post and New York Times strain to provide both sides of the equation, they miss the real news: policy-makers are silent about a humanitarian crisis.

If no action is going to be taken, why is the Gaza situation getting more coverage than the Christmas Day massacre in Congo, or the current humanitarian crisis in Sudan? I can take a stab: sensationalism. The word 'terrorism' isn't just lingering in commentary on Gaza, it's plain to see. "The terrorist organization, Hamas", " the real terrorist threat, Iran". The inaccuracy is appalling. The US, after determing that elections in Iraq and Afghanistan were evidence of US victory, should recognize that Hamas is a legitimate government that won an election. Hostile, yes, but it is not a terrorist organization. To label Hamas as terrorists cannot and should not be taken as a fact in the media; it is the opinion of the US, Israel, Egypt and other countries who deem it as terrorist for various reasons. For Palestinians, Israel is not defending its state, it is waging war against them and their government. By this definition, the attacks on Gaza have not been on militants, but on civil servants. Let's say Israel does succeed in overthrowing, weeding out and killing Hamas. What next? It is not difficult to imagine that Palestinians will elect another hostile government that will defend them against Israel who has obviously shown no qualms in targetting schools, hospitals and homes. Isn't it obvious? It's all reactionary.

Media stories have also been focused upon "the Middle East view" of Gaza. Projecting the ME response as united against Israel misses the entire complexity of the region. Egypt is considered the "reject" among certain ME states not because it supports Israel but because the leadership gains great political and financial security from doing so. Second, if the ME is united against Israel, where are ME leaders? How have they responded to the Palestinians?

Finally, ultimately the problem most leaders have been pointing to is Iran. If we are really concerned that Iran's leadership has and will threaten the existence of Israel and will continue to support terrorism, then maybe we should take more precarious steps towards solving the Gaza conflict rather than giving Iranians another reason to vote in a president who will rally people in foreign policy against Israel. Presidential elections are in June - what type of message will the US and the rest of the world send to Iranians before then?

As of today, Israel has agreed to principles of a cease fire. I am amazed, though, that it took as long as it did. The moral authority the world has granted Israel is incredible; it is something that neither Palestinians nor Israelis should hold. But unfortunately, Israel does. Serious action by the US wasn't taken until a UN school was bombed yesterday. It was then that the US decided that Israel was being destructive. Before then, it was justified. By what standards are Palestinian lives measured, I wonder? International norms have been vague. Not only norms of human rights, where Israel has not allowed food and medical aid to pass through to Gaza, but also norms of war. Israel took 11 days to open Gaza to media coverage.

So besides another cycle of war to defend the state and a war to defend citizens, what has this Israeli offensive on Gaza gained? Perhaps it is time to condemn humanitarian atrocities and clear violations of international norms in both Israel and Palestine if another Israeli and Palestinian leader can answer his grandchildren what type of country has he bequeathed them.