|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:28 pm Post subject: Cease Fire, Cease Siege |
 |
|
Cease Fire, Cease Siege
| Quote: |
ARISH, Egypt � Yesterday, en route to the Rafah border crossing that leads into Gaza, our driver pointed to a long line of trucks laden with goods that are desperately needed in every area of Gaza. "You see," he said, "all of this is to help people." Generous people, around the world, want Gazans to have food, shelter, fuel, medicine and water while the Israeli military ruthlessly attacks their homes and neighborhoods. The aid shipments will surely save lives and ease affliction. Nevertheless, this relief will meet only a fraction of the need. What's more, the Egyptian government's recent decision to allow humanitarian goods into Gaza through the Rafah border crossing, a border over which they have sovereign control, is a departure from the normal state of siege that Gazans have endured for most of the past sixteen months.
A friend, Caoihme Butterly, who had lived in Gaza during the period when the borders were sealed, told me that the limited access to food drove up the prices for basic foods. "A kilo of lentils cost $4.00, but the average person lived on less that $2.00 per day. "Gazans don't want to live on charity," said Caoihme, "but the humanitarian provisions become political. We were campaigning just to have the border open once a week, but we didn't succeed."
It seems that mutual understanding about the need to open Gaza's borders had been achieved in the negotiations that established a June 19th, 2008 cease-fire agreement between Israel and Gaza. Israel agreed that 72 hours after the mutual agreement took effect, crossing points into Gaza would open up to allow 30% more goods to enter Gaza. Thirteen days later, all crossing points would be open between Gaza and Israel, and Israel would allow "the transfer of all goods that were banned or restricted to go into Gaza."
Jimmy Carter, in a January 8, 2009 Washington Post article entitled "An Unnecessary War," noted that if importation of humanitarian supplies had returned to the normal level that had existed before Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, 700 trucks would have passed through the opened borders every day, carrying food, water, medicine and fuel. Carter writes that, following the June 19th agreement, "rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza."
It's true that Hamas's consequent decision to fire primitive rockets into Israeli villages caused terror, panic and demoralization amongst Israelis living in those villages. I believe it's wrong to use weapons under any circumstance. Attacks against civilians prompt spiraling, hideous waves of retaliation and revenge. But Israel responded with a disproportionate capacity to inflict harm and suffering by imposing a state of siege, targeting innocent civilians by denying them essential medicines, health care delivery, fuel, water and food.
I learned about the horrors of economic warfare during repeated visits to Iraq, when civilians suffered under economic sanctions, when pediatric wards in hospitals were like death rows for infants and hundreds of thousands of children were punished to death. But I was a shamefully slow learner. In 1991, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and before the United States began bombing Iraq, I was part of the Gulf Peace Team, an assembly of international peace activists camped on the Iraq side of the border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. "What alternative does the U.S. have?" reporters asked us. "Do you think the U.S. should just sit back and allow Iraq to illegally invade another country?"
"The economic sanctions are a viable alternative," I said. "Continued use of economic sanctions would be a less violent way to persuade Iraq's government to leave Kuwait."
What a foolish and uninformed statement I'd made. Iraq was subjected to thirteen years of the most comprehensive state of siege ever imposed in modern history, and the sanctions directly contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children. Now, many people committed to peacemaking understand that economic warfare can be just as brutal and devastating as bombing, although news coverage generally recedes and then disappears once the bombing wars stop.
This morning, an Egyptian friend corrected me when I questioned him about the June 9th, 2008 cease-fire negotiation between Israel and Gaza's Hamas government. "In fact there was no cease-fire," he said. "The war became an economic war, and it targeted civilians who had committed no crime, particularly children."
People who live on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing understand the impact of the bombing. At a tea shop and a barber shop, windows are cracked. An owner of a small shop near the border told me that his children can't sleep at night because they hear constant explosions. The Egyptian community of Rafah has also witnessed, previously, month after month of quiet inactivity at the Rafah border crossing, during the period when the Egyptian and Israeli governments agreed to seal the border shut. Trapped, isolated, hungry and desperate, Gazans endured economic warfare while the world ignored their pleas for relief from slow motion death. We must call for an immediate cease-fire and a "cease-siege." As the June 19th, 2008 agreement made clear, a ceasefire for Gaza cannot only mean an end to bullets and bombs, but must also end the less visible-but equally destructive-economic violence. I hope that trucks like the ones our driver pointed to will be lined up for months and years, carrying tons of cement and reconstruction materials, along with humanitarian relief, as Gazans rebuild, above ground, constructing a peaceful future. |
People still accusing the Palestinian side of breaking the ceasefire seem to ignore that that the Israelis were not even upholding their part of the ceasefire agreement in the first place. They had agreed to end this strangling seige. I've watched since the inception of this awful embargo, wondering when it will come to an end. It's a terrible situation, and depressing that it has been allowed to continue for such a long period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When Hamas agrees that it will forswear military action beyond Israel's 1967 borders Israel ought to lift the embargo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| When Hamas agrees that it will forswear military action beyond Israel's 1967 borders Israel ought to lift the embargo. |
Ya, when Israel agrees to return to it's 1967 borders and agrees to remove all of illegal settlements and acknowledge the rights of Palestinians to have their own country and exist as a people if they so choose then Hamas should agree to forswear military action and agree to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| When Hamas agrees that it will forswear military action beyond Israel's 1967 borders Israel ought to lift the embargo. |
Ya, when Israel agrees to return to it's 1967 borders and agrees to remove all of illegal settlements and acknowledge the rights of Palestinians to have their own country and exist as a people if they so choose then Hamas should agree to forswear military action and agree to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. |
When the Palestinian side agrees to end its war then Israel ought to go back to 1967 borders.
UN 242 calls for land for peace , not unilateral withdrawal for nothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blade
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
UN 242 calls for land for peace , not unilateral withdrawal for nothing. |
Who said anything about UN resolution 242? I know I didn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blade wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
UN 242 calls for land for peace , not unilateral withdrawal for nothing. |
Who said anything about UN resolution 242? I know I didn't. |
Well it says what each of the sides are required to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
