Selective Memory in the Gaza Conflict

by Daoud Kuttab 01-07-2009

A well-repeated Arab saying dealing with conflicts states: al bad’azlam, “the initiator [of a conflict] is the wrong one.” So if you are trying to figure out who is wrong in the current round of violence around Gaza, all you have to do is figure out who started it. But the moment you begin this search you will find yourself in a more complicated bind—namely, figuring out your starting point.

One thing is evident in this region—people have very erratic memories. Israeli protagonists these days talk repeatedly in a very short term frame of mind when it comes to Gaza. However, when it comes to settlement activities in the West Bank, they talk about a divine promise to Jews thousands of years ago.

Chronology might be the most important key to understanding the Middle East. Every act can be seen as a reaction to something that happened before it. Who is right often depends on where you start. Take for example the current Israeli bombardment on Gaza. Israelis insist that the bombing of Gaza is a reaction to the Qassam attacks coming out of Gaza to Israeli towns.

Hamas says that their rockets are a direct result to the siege placed on Gaza after the Islamic movement won elections early in 2006. Israel says it withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Palestinians say that by controlling land borders, sea, and air, the Israelis have not ended their occupation of Gaza. Furthermore, they say that all Palestinian territories are occupied and Israel must end the 1967 occupation and remove Jewish settlements built on the West Bank. Israel says that Jews have a God-given right to settle anywhere in what they consider their biblical land inherited by God to Abraham exclusively for Jewish use.

Looking back a few decades is revealing from another point of view. Israelis regularly declare that their occupation of Arab territories was legitimate because the areas were conquered in self defense and as a direct result of an Arab-initiated attack on them in June 1967. Israelis and their defenders repeatedly say that the Israeli preemptive war was taken because of Egypt’s blockade on their Red Sea port of Eilat. According to Israel, the demand of President Nasser for the withdrawal of U.N. troops in the Sinai and the sea blockade were nothing short of a declaration of war, thus justifying the Israeli occupation of Arab territory. The fact that a siege is considered a declaration of war is completely forgotten when the case being discussed is the Gaza strip.

It is clear that in order to distinguish right from wrong both sides need to agree on a starting point. Many today believe that the natural starting point for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the late 1940s, which witnessed the U.N. partition plan—initially the legal basis for the creation of Israel. If the partition of mandatory Palestine is an accepted starting point, then a logical conclusion to the conflict would require that an end to both direct and indirect occupation of the Palestinian half of the partition plan is in order. Irrespective of time and chronology, trading land for peace continues to be the most logical and appropriate way to address the conflict which has bridged the 20^th and 21^st centuries.

Daoud Kuttab is an award-winning Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University. His email is info@daoudkuttab.com.

Categories: Global Issues, Violence and Nonviolence, War & Peace

Tags: Arab, blockade, bombardment, bombing, border, Egypt, Election, Elections, Gaza, Gaza Strip, Hamas, Islam, Islamic, Israel, Israeli, Jewish, Jews, Middle East, occupation, Palestine, Palestinians, partition, peace, President Nasser, Qassam, Red Sea, settlement, siege, territory, Violence, War, West Bank

SisterMarie

Orwell's words are as applicable today as when he wrote them:

"Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is no kind of outrage - torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, assassination, the bombing of civilians - which does not change it colour when it is committed by our side."

martingugino

A blockade is an act of war. "Controlling land borders" is blockade.

nuclearferret

Controlling your own land borders is an attempt at national security.

martingugino

They are controlling Gaza's. Blockade.

sircalebtheethical

but when you regulating the economies of the folks inside that control it is called prison.

littleroundtop

Seems things were progressing forward , slowly , but forward till Hamas took over .
When you have a Terrorist organization in control of your government that says it is committed to the extermination of the the government of its neigbor , well glad I live here .

sircalebtheethical

hamas isn't a terrorist organization roundtop. the history of islamic organizations is in some ways similar to the early history of italian-american mafias.

originally, communities come together and shared resources, so that everyone was able to live together more comfortably. what these mafias found was that part of the job of sharing resources and working together was protection, so they took on para-militaries, meager times led to extreme measures and organized crime.

islamic organizations come together and share resources so that everyone is able to live together with greater comfort. part of comfort is protection, so islamic organizations tend to have paramilitaries. meager times, when brought on by outside oppression (the history of israel) lead to extreme measures- what some would call "terrorism"- what members of hamas would likely call fighting for the right to live soveriegnly.

http://thewaterboy88.blogspot.com/

Lord_Voldemort

"But mom, HE started it!"

After a fight continues long enough, "who started it" becomes less and less important. It is Hamas' determination to continue the fight until Israel is eradicated that is the most important consideration now.

LV

Mark86

It is easy for you to say what the most important is now. But you clearly have a one sided investment in the conflict. Another person would say that the most important thing to consider is Israeli ethnic cleansing the land it currently has. But it seems important to note, if Israel had not assassinated so many of the more invested and state building leaders within Hamas then there would be more voices within Gaza for Gazans to put their support behind. Yet when the only leaders that Israel fails to kill are the violent ones then of course Hamas is never going to change their vision of destroying Israel. And if Israel is only willing to label Hamas as a terrorist organization and not talk to them then why should Hamas be flogged for not acknowledging Israel as a state.

martingugino

For me, the consideration is strong vs weak. The stronger party has the greater responsibility to act morally.

Joe_Allen_Doty

Palestinian is the modern word for the Bible word "Philistine." Israelites have been at war with the Palestinians/Philistines since around 1350 BC. Conflict with them is first shown in the Book of Judges in the Old Testament.

Gaza was Philistia in Bible times. In my opinion, the Israelis need to let the non-Jews in Gaza alone.

I was at Chu Lai South Vietnam in the US Army when the 1967 war took place. Jay Brick, a Jew in my company, made a big deal of it.

If you want to go back to before the nation of Israel took over the country of Canaan in the beginning, Israel at the time was a large ethnic group without a country. When the ancestors of the Israelites left Canaan originally, they were not in authority in that Country.

I just say let Israel handle its own problems. The Christians in the USA ought to stay out of it. No matter what the Christian Zionists (such as John Hagee for instance) want and how much they try, Jesus will come back when God the Father says it is time and not when Christians want it to happen. The USA helping Israel out won't speed things up either.

BuckeyeDon

The Christian Zionists seem to believe that perpetual war in the Middle East is God's will. In that sense, they are no different than Hamas (see Lord Voldemort's comment above).

BrentH

"The Christian Zionists seem to believe that perpetual war in the Middle East is God's will. In that sense, they are no different than Hamas (see Lord Voldemort's comment above)."

How is it avoidable, unless you actually expel the Palestinians? (Which won't happen - although such a scenario would not put the Palestinians in any worse a situation then they are in now). Israel stops bombing and gives up territory, they get bombed. They fight, they get bombed.

Don, do you actually think that the Palestinians aren't incorrigably racist and pathologically genocidal? Only a blind man would believe those two statements not to be true. But it is clear that the world is full of blind men. It is mind-boggling the grotestque moral perversion that masquerades as even-handedness.

If Palestine had Israel's weaponry, there would be no Israel now. The Israelites have no desire to exterminate the Palestinians . If they did, there wouldn't be any Palestinians left, much less so many civilian structures still standing. And how many Palestinians would not have been killed if Hamas use civilians as shields?

BuckeyeDon

"Don, do you actually think that the Palestinians aren't incorrigably racist and pathologically genocidal? Only a blind man would believe those two statements not to be true."

Um, did you really intend to write what you wrote here? Palestinians are human beings made in God's image, just as you and I are. Some of them are Christians, including members of the same communion I am part of. Many of the Christians have left, however, because most Palestinians can't earn a decent living in Palestine, with all the roadblocks, checkpoints and other restrictions.

To stoop to this level and make such a blanket statement is unconscionable. BrentH, who is being racist here?

You need to take that huge log out of your eye, BrentH. And put yourself in the Palestinians' shoes before you utter any more blanket condemnations.

BrentH

I was making a generalization that is certianly true of the vast majority of them, as any person who has eyes to see can tell, and so my statement is factually correct. It just points out things that SoJo people don't like to deal with.

They are made in God's image, but the vast majority are Muslim, and in Satan's thrall. They freely choose to be thouroughly racist. Would it be wrong to characterize Germany in 1944 as thouroughly racist? No. The only difference between the level of hate between the two is that the Palestinians aren't white and wealthy. That makes their racism a thing to be excused.

"Many of the Christians have left, however, because most Palestinians can't earn a decent living in Palestine, with all the roadblocks, checkpoints and other restrictions."

Yeah, Don, right. That''s why they're poor. It's all the checkpoints. Without the checkpoints, they'd be prosperous, like Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Sure, it is.

"To stoop to this level and make such a blanket statement is unconscionable. BrentH, who is being racist here?"

I know SoJo considers pointing out incovienent, undeniable facts to be unconscionable. How dare I. Deal with the truth, Don. You're a moral pervert.

You need to take that huge log out of your eye, BrentH. And put yourself in the Palestinians' shoes before you utter any more blanket condemnations."

Are you excusing their behavior? Now you want me to understand and sympathize with unjustified genocidal tendencies.

BlueDeacon

If you understood the origins of the conflict you might not make such inflammatory remarks. The Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular regard Israel as a bully that basically stole that land for the sake of maintaining Western imperialism -- which is quite an issue considering that Western nations, specifically the British and French, went into the Middle East and redrew the boundaries to keep various tribes fighting each other. I understand why they do what they do, beyond justifying it.

BrentH

"If you understood the origins of the conflict "

I'm not intimidated by petty patronizing. You guys demonstrate your lack of understanding here day after day.

"The Arab world in general and the Palestinians in particular regard Israel as a bully that basically stole that land for the sake of maintaining Western imperialism"

Isreal isn't a bully, though. They think so because they are moral fools. No one cared about Palestine until Jews were put there. Arabs are Muslims, Muslims hate Jews because of their religion, which is an evil religion. It's ok to say it, if you're a Christian you must believe that. There was plenty of room for Jews and Arabs to live side by side.

No rational person would believe that Israel was created to "maintain Western Imperialism", once the dust settled. No one should have believed it by the time the 1967 War started, and only a fool would believe it now.

That's just a phony narrative to excuse genocidal racism. It's obvious that it's phony, and you guys are guilty excusing what is probably the most wicked people and wannabe oppressors on the face of the earth today. It's no different than being a Nazi sympathizer.

I

BlueDeacon

BrentH -- You should know that those kind of inflammatory comments contribute nothing to the discourse here. And you simply have not addressed the history I just described.

BrentH

"BrentH -- You should know that those kind of inflammatory comments contribute nothing to the discourse here. And you simply have not addressed the history I just described."

Yes, I did address it.

Don's comments towards be were just as inflammatory. But he won't get called on it.

BlueDeacon

Utterly false -- you considered it inflammatory because you don't agree with it and for no other reason. And no, you didn't address it, only dismissed it.

BrentH

" you considered it inflammatory because you don't agree with it and for no other reason. "

It was an attempt to hide from the issues by accusing the messenger of racism.

"And no, you didn't address it, only dismissed it."

I addressed it. Israel was doing nothing to make anyone beleive they were agents of the west.

BuckeyeDon

Brent, my comments were not inflammatory. Stating that an entire nation is "incorrigably racist and pathologically genocidal" is demonstrably a racist comment. There's simply no way to get around that.

If you want us to stop accusing you of making racist remarks, then refrain from making racist remarks. It's that simple.