Israeli Jets bomb Gaza: 1,300 Dead

The Israeli government's propaganda about the war in Gaza has been
uncritically accepted by Canadian media, becoming the dominant discourse
in most news reports. The violence we are witnessing is explained by
declaring that Hamas has broken the truce with Israel, and therefore it is
responsible for the current level of Israeli violence, which is thereby
represented merely as a reasonable and justified retaliation. According to
this view, Israel is only defending itself against a vicious enemy which
is still intent on destroying it. At best, the excesses of the attacks
against Gaza are deplored, but their presentation as retaliation is not
even questioned.

The meaning that the government of Israel wants to give to the event is
thereby internalized, becoming the frame through which the present
situation is perceived and understood. The principle of using violence to
resolve a dispute is not put in question, so long as it is Israel that
uses the violence and the dispute is one with Palestinians. In this case
violence is seen as legitimate, but illegitimate if committed by Hamas.
This remains the case even if the means at the disposal of each of the
protagonists are not comparable and even if neither the damage they suffer
nor the capacity each has to inflict damage are not at all comparable.

This logic suffers from two fundamental flaws. First it contradicts the
empirical facts on the ground, which are well documented and are not so
much called into question as they are conveniently forgotten. Second, this
logic is openly a colonial logic.

Who broke the truce ?

Contrary to what has been repeated in editorials and in the TV interviews
of various experts, it was not Hamas who broke the truce, but Israel. On
November 4, 2008, a truce that had lasted for four months was broken by
Israel in a bombardment that killed six Palestinians. Only after these
killings did Hamas resume its rocket-launching against Israeli localities.
On November 17, Israeli planes bombed once again, killing four more
Palestinians, bringing the total number of Palestinian casualties since
November 4, to 15. These facts are well documented. (See, for instance,
the report of former Jerusalem Post correspondent, Joel Greenberg, in the
Chicago Tribune of November 17, 2008, among many others.) Immediately
after the first bombing of November 4, Israel started its full blockade of
Gaza, preventing the entry of food and medication. Between November 5 and
November 30, only 23 trucks of food and supplies were allowed into Gaza,
whereas the average in the preceding period was about 3000 trucks monthly
for a population numbering 1.5 million. The humanitarian situation,
already a disaster, and described as such by the United Nations' envoy,
became even more catastrophic as a result of the blockade. Yet neither the
bombings nor the blockade are considered to be aggressions.

A colonial logic

What is it that gets the opinion-makers to "forget" these "minor"
details?
In reality the government of Israel gives itself the right to use violence
against a population that it considers inferior. It considers that these
inferior people should not even be allowed to protest. With such colonial
logic, nothing is considered as an aggression if it is conducted against a
subaltern population. Any movement of revolt, on the part of the
subaltern, is considered a challenge to the colonial order and must be
severely punished. Accordingly, there is no need to respect international
law, as inferior people are deemed to understand only the language of
force.

Fortunately this logic is not shared by all Israelis, and movements, such
as Gush Shalom, challenged it vigourously; they also called for an
immediate ceasefire. Unfortunately the Canadian political elite seems to
have accepted Israeli propaganda fully. But the language of force will not
ever get us out of the dead end we're in; only respect for international
law will.

* Rachad Antonius is a professseur at the Universit� du Qu�bec � Montr�al.