Slaughter From the Sky

By: Shmuel Amir [ ::: Left Forum ::: ]

 

At the beginning of the attack on Gaza, Ehud Barak struck a pose reminiscent of Julius Caesar when he proclaimed that a decision had been made, and that “the fighting has begun.” The obvious question is what war exactly? In order for a war to take place, two sides are needed, but here in Gaza there are no two sides. On the one side is the [Israeli] Air Force, equipped with the best fighter aircraft—supplied by its “friend” the United States. On the other side, there are completely defenseless people, who face terrifying fire falling on them from the skies. Do we know of a war in which there is only one fighter? According to these basic assumptions, the fighting announced by the Israeli Defense Minister Barak is not a war, but a hunt. Hunting people who lack the capacity for basic self-defense, who are then butchered from the sky. Duck hunting. I remember the films we used to watch, in which two opponents had a sword fight. When one of them, always the bad one, dropped his sword, his opponent would return the sword so as not to kill a defenseless person. This is how it is in the movies. In today’s reality, one side stands without a sword, and faces an enemy armed from head to foot, and we call this “fighting.” The "war" in Gaza in our times is not a war, but a slaughter.

 

The first air attack began on 27 December. It lasted four minutes during which 200 people were killed. A few minutes later, the second wave began.  

 

Until the land invasion, approximately 400 Palestinians and four Israelis were killed. The summary to date points to more than 900 Palestinian dead, versus five dead Israelis. The number of injured Palestinians reaches 3,500, while on the Israeli side the number of injured is estimated at 50. These numbers tell the story of the imbalanced "War in Gaza.” 

 

 

This killing, this slaughter happening in Gaza, has a long history behind it. It starts with the colonial relations between Jews and Palestinians in this land that began years before the establishment of Israel. It is particularly amazing that the ratio of those killed throughout the years, and particularly now in Gaza, has been about one (Israeli/Jew) to 100 (Palestinians). This ratio is not by chance, but describes typical balance in colonial wars.  

This topic is discussed by the author and researcher Sven Lindqvist in his book Exterminate all the Brutes: One Man’s Odyssey into the Heart of Darkness and the Origins of European Genocide which was published 15 years ago in English. Lindqvist researched European colonialism in Africa at the end of the 19th century. If we wish to better understand colonial oppression and its methods employed these days toward the Palestinian people in Gaza, it is helpful to read this book.  

Lindqvist describes the battle between the English army and the Dervish warriors in Omderman, or Sudan. This war was waged by the British Empire in order to reoccupy Sudan. Lindqvist borrowed some of his descriptions from Winston Churchill, who at the time was a young military correspondent of an English newspaper. In this battle, a large native army (the Dervishes) was demolished by a small but well equipped colonial army possessing the latest military technology of the day. The English had maxim rifles, possessing a longer range than the old rifles carried by the Dervishes, and they could thus shoot the Dervishes before their presence was even noticed. 

The horse-riding Dervishes, according to the descriptions of Churchill, were brave and stormed upon the English forces, but almost all of them were cut down before they came into direct contact with the English soldiers. The British army suffered almost no losses from these battles. At the time, the British press published pictures of face-to-face battles between the English and Dervishes, but they were fake, for battles of this type simply did not occur.  
Lindqvist summarizes: “At Omerdman the entire Sudanese army was destroyed without even reaching shooting distance of their enemies. The art of killing from a distance became a European “specialty.” The canons of the British were particularly effective against defenseless villages. Lindqvist further writes: “the Europeans became “gods of the cannons”, who stole numerous battles much before their enemies could even reach them. They then spread throughout Asia and Africa, wrote Lindqvist, opening a new age of imperialism. “Military superiority was perceived by too many Europeans also as intellectual and even biological superiority.”  
The campaign of the English colonialists at the time is similar to the campaign on Gaza in another important way: the Israelis wonder at “the exceptional achievement” of the slaughter in Gaza. Also in those days, the English received word of the victory with great euphoria. The commander of the campaign was received by the Queen and all of Britain cheered. 

The colonial powers primarily fought against the natives in a situation of absolute military superiority. Accordingly, they did not understand how the natives even dared to resist. Europeans attributed the opposition of the natives to stupidity and a primitive nature, inherent to their race. The true motive of the indigenous population, the powerful desire to break free from the oppressors, was never understood by the colonialists.  

The source of the colonial format in our area is the Zionist colonial war, which has been continuing for more than 100 years, but gained substantial strength following the 1967 occupations.  
Tom Segev, an almost lone voice in the noise of the patriotic choir, recently chose (Haaretz, 29.12.08) to present several old axioms of the Jewish-Arab conflict and was not afraid to mention the Zionist ideology as the source of our false assumptions concerning the Palestinians. He argued, "Israel is hitting the Palestinians in order to ‘teach them a lesson,’” as the fundamental Zionist assumption. We are representatives of progress and education, the rational wisdom and morality, while the Arabs are a primitive, violent mob. 
Segev continues: “Bombing Gaza is meant to eliminate the ‘Hamas government,’ but this is based on the assumption accompanying the Zionist movement since its inception, according to which it is possible to impose upon the Palestinians a ‘moderate’ leadership that will give up their national aspirations. We are simply defending ourselves here.”  

He then emphasizes, “However, the struggle is not against a terrorist organization that took the residents of Gaza hostage, but a religious national movement supported by many. From the beginning of the Zionist presence in Eretz Israel, there was no military action that advanced dialogue with the Palestinians.”  

In addition to military actions, Segev mentions the plans to settle Arab families from Gaza in the West Bank following the 1967 war. I remember this version—immediately after the end of the battles, Prime Minister Eshkol inquired whether it was possible to send the Arabs of Gaza to Iraq and settle in their place Jewish settlers in Gaza.

Recently the second stage of the “Gaza war” began. The media reported that military representatives conveyed to the political powers that their “target bank” is empty, and there must therefore be a transition to a deep military invasion into Gaza. Here the conditions change from those of the first stage of the confrontation, as there is most likely to be real contact between the sides. However, these conditions—as during the second Lebanon war—ensure that the balance of power is still far from being equal. A majority of the losses suffered by the Palestinian fighters are due to a remote control war: from the air, the sea and the ground (canons). Also during the ground stage, the battle is not between equal sides, but continues to exist in a colonial format. On one side there is a large modern military with advanced technology, against a resistance guerilla group with limited equipment.  

Mountains of texts have already been accumulated on the history of the war of Israel against Gaza: Who started it? Did the Arabs come to settle Jewish Gaza or was it the opposite? Who settled within a densely populated area, taking 20% of its land and a substantial part of its water reserves? Who prevented establishment of industrial infrastructure and even an electrical station, and afterwards complains that we are providing electricity even though the Gazans are shooting at us? And who left Gaza without "paying” and still complains that gratitude is not shown to it later? For the time being we will leave these questions, such as the argument how each side receives its military equipment: through tunnels (contraband!) or through ports and airports in Israel (legitimate and respectable), who then violated the ceasefire, then feigning shock when rockets began to be fired.  

Numerous additional questions remain without discussion: which side is “intentionally” killing civilians and who is "unintentionally" killing civilians at three, four and now one hundred times the rate of the other? According to a report by B’Tselem, in the seven years since the firing of the first Qassam until the beginning of Operation Cast Lead, 13 Israelis were killed. During this same period, Israel killed 2,990 Palestinians, of whom 634 were children. In total during this period, 4,781 people were killed by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. A large number of those killed were civilians, including women and children. These statistics must be taken into account when we attempt to answer the question of who here are the real terrorists. What is the extent of the “Hamas terror” in contrast to the state terrorism of Israel.  

Despite the importance of these topics, they do not contain the root of the problem. The root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was and remains to this day the relations between the occupier and the occupied; the oppressor and the oppressed; the colonialist and the indigenous.  

The State of Israel would like to see only defeated Palestinians in the occupied territories, Palestinians who will not dare raise their head against the ongoing rule over their lives. Those wishing true and sustainable peace must know that the end of Palestinian resistance and beginning of peace will arrive only after elimination of colonialism, in all of its forms.