Statement on Gaza Bill
March 5, 2008
Madam Speaker: I rise in opposition to H. Res. 951. As one who is consistently against war and violence, I obviously do not support the firing of rockets indiscriminately into civilian populations. I believe it is appalling that Palestinians are firing rockets that harm innocent Israelis, just as I believe it is appalling that Israel fires missiles into Palestinian areas where children and other non-combatants are killed and injured.
Unfortunately, legislation such as this is more likely to perpetuate violence in the Middle East than contribute to its abatement. It is our continued involvement and intervention - particularly when it appears to be one-sided - that reduces the incentive for opposing sides to reach a lasting peace agreement.
Additionally, this bill will continue the march toward war with Iran and Syria , as it contains provocative language targeting these countries. The legislation oversimplifies the Israel/Palestine conflict and the larger unrest in the Middle East by simply pointing the finger at Iran and Syria . This is another piece in a steady series of legislation passed in the House that intensifies enmity between the United States and Iran and Syria . My colleagues will recall that we saw a similar steady stream of provocative legislation against Iraq in the years before the US attack on that country.
I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States . We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 15
"It makes no sense to me to condemn one group of people for killing innocent civilians while at the same time proclaiming support for another group of people and their right to keep killing innocent civilians"
That would be true if the two were not very different. One is the intentional and deliberate targetting and killing of civilians. The other is the unintentional killing of civilians while trying to stop the first. It makes perfect sense to draw a distinction between the two. You may not support either, but they are clearly not the same.
I think that when the Deputy Israeli Defence Minister threatens the genocide of the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, it's a bit silly to pretend that the deaths of innocent civilians is unintentional.
I also think it's a bit silly for Congress to bitch and moan about the involvement of the Iranian, Syrian and Egyptian governments, while ignoring the much-greater involvement of the U.S. government.
To his credit, "Dr. No" often refuses to play along with this sort of hypocrisy. But that doesn't mean he doesn't create his own, as evidenced by the Ron Paul newsletters and pork-barrel earmarks.
Notice that is phrased in the future tense ("will bring") and is obviously a threat of what this particular official says the Israeli government will do in the future, not a statement of what it has been doing. Also in Israel there is relative freedom of speech so this official ( I think he is a deputy defense minister - I wonder how how many deputy ministers there are in Israel's swollen bureaucracy) can say what he wants. The Israeli government has not , in my opinion unfortunately, adopted this policy. Notice also that the threat is that Israel will defend itself if the Palestinians keep shooting rockets at Israeli cities in an attempt to maim and kill as many people as possible. (Do you deny that that is what the Palestininas are doing?)
If Israel deliberately targeted civilians there would be tens of thousands of dead Palestinians in the streets. That there aren't is proof that Israel's killing of civilians is not deliberate. The only thing Israel is guilty of is being too squeamish to properly protect its citizens.
I deny it! Palestinians are not trying to harm innocent Israelis. That would be militants trying to do that and probably because Israel is indiscriminately killing their family members via collective punishment as a policy. And you might do it too considering that you already feel that Israel is justified.
I really don't understand your position. It's not that I don't agree, I don't understand it.
Is shooting rockets , hundreds of them, into Israeli cities not an attempt to kill civilians?
How about the guy who marched into a high school last week in Jeruslalem and strted shooting everyone in sight. He killed eight teenagers.
Is that not killing civilains? Is your point that the "militants" are not Palestinians? Then who are they? Is it not true that the Palestinian public, or at least large segmetns of it support the killings by the "militants"? See the following quotes from the paper ablut the reactions of the Palestinian population to the shhoting in Jerusalem.
"In Gaza City, residents went out into the streets and fired rifles in celebration in the air after hearing news of the attack on the seminary "
"In Jebaliya, about 7,000 Gazans of different factions marched in the streets, firing in the air in celebration, and visited homes of those killed and wounded in Israel's ground operation this week.
In Rafah on the Egyptian border, residents distributed sweets to moving cars, and militants fired mortars in celebration."
"
Yes, it is. But not every Palestinian, or even every Gazan, shoots rockets into Israel. Or supports those who do. How many of those non-rocket-shooting people are fair game for the Israeli military?
"In Jebaliya, about 7,000 Gazans of different factions marched in the streets, firing in the air in celebration, and visited homes of those killed and wounded in Israel's ground operation this week."
7000 out a population of over 176,000 people, living in an area of about a half a square mile. That leaves about 169,000 people who didn't celebrate in the streets. How many of those people are fair game should the Israeli government decide a little collective punishment is necessary to protect the citizens of Israel?
Oh yeah, I meant to address an earlier comment but I forgot.
"If Israel deliberately targeted civilians there would be tens of thousands of dead Palestinians in the streets."
Why? There's no reason why they couldn't deliberately target civilians, but deliberately limit themselves to just killing a few hundred a year, is there? There's no reason why they couldn't defend themselves by choosing to kill...say, ten innocent Palestinians for every innocent Israeli citizen killed by a member of Hamas, is there?
If the United States government armed and funded Hamas militants the way it has the Israeli government and military, no doubt there would be tens of thousands of dead Israelis in the streets. They don't want to give people weapons to kill innocent Israelis, but weapons to kill innocent Palestinians is fine and dandy. Brilliant.
So since the United States is arming and funding Israel, how come there are not tens of thousands of dead Palestinians in the street as you say there would be if Hamas had the same funding and arms as does Israel? I think the only logical explanation reason has to be that in complete contrast to the Palestinians, Israeli military operations in Gaza in response to Palestinian rocket attacks have been directed at military targets, including rocket factories, rocket squads, and terrorist commanders. When Palestinian civilian casualties have occurred, they have been an unintended by-product of Israel's self-defense efforts. The fact that the Palestinian terrorist organizations often position their launch sites in urban areas and stockpile their weaponry in densely populated territory like the Jabaliya refugee camp in many cases makes them a party to the loss of Palestinian civilians -- who serve, in effect, as human shields. While it is often forgotten, Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005; it was clear from Israel's disengagement that the Israelis had absolutely no interest to operate in Gaza over the last number of years, unless Israel was attacked from Gaza territory. If Gaza rocket attacks on Israel did not occur, there would be no reason for the IDF to operate there.
You point out that only 7,000 out of a much larger population marched to celebrate the killing of high school students in Jerusalem. I have two points.
First, that "only" seven thousand marched does not mean that the sentiments are not shared by many more. You never get everyone who shares a position to actually take off and march. Second, Hamas was elected by a majority of the Palestinians there. Hamas has never concealed its policy towards Israel. I have to give the devil its due; Hamas has been very honest and forthright about its desire and intention of wiping Israel off of the map (Unlike Arafat who was a master dissembler). The people of Gaza voted Hamas in. Nor has the famous Arab street made any waves against any of the numerous acts of wanton and pointless murder of Israeli. Citizens. Therefore your implication that since about 169,000 people who didn't celebrate in the street, there are that many who do not support the murders is not correct.
Second lets assume that there are many Gazans who don't support the policy of Hamas of killing any one it can. Does that mean that Israel has to simply sit back and take it without fighting back even if there are innocent civilians who will get killed? I think that that is asking too much.
No argument from me on that. A party, but not the only party. I have no problem with laying all the blame that Hamas and other militant groups deserve squarely at their feet. I just don't think they deserve all the blame. I think there's plenty of fault for everybody, including Israel, the US, the UK, the UN, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, etc.
"The people of Gaza voted Hamas in."
So that makes them fair game? Less than 50% of Gazans voted for Hamas. Do the ones who didn't vote for them deserve to die just as much as the ones who did?
"Does that mean that Israel has to simply sit back and take it without fighting back even if there are innocent civilians who will get killed? I think that that is asking too much."
So how many dead innocent civilians would be too much? And why is it OK to kill innocent Palestinian civilians but not Israeli civilians? I think it's wrong that my government is condemning one side for killing innocent civilians, but helping the other side kill innocent civilians, and pretty much refusing to acknowledge its role in helping create the whole mess in the first place.
As to Israel counter attacks, I would feel justified in attacking the missile crews that are attacking my cities even if innocent civilains are killed as well. I f the alternative is to allow my citizens to be killed, I would not refrain no matter how many civilians died.
I have read that Israel often holds back if too many civilains may be harmed in connection with a particular operation. This has resulted in calls by Hamas to congregate at targetted area in order to force Israel to hold back. If it were up to me that tactic would not work. And once it didn''t work once, it wouldn't be tried again.
The true, underlying crime is that Hamas is unwilling to compromise. They are going for broke. In order to accept a compromise that allows both sides to live with each other, the people have to be educated to understand that the other side has a sincere and reasonble position. They are not just thieves that have taken what is yours with no justifcation whatsoever. The Israeli population has been educated to undesttand the palestinian point of view even if it is wrong. Even if you feel that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, you can appreciate that an Arab might honestly not see it that way. The Palestinians on the other hand have not ,and are not, educating their people to feel that even if they feel that the land of Israel is part of the house of Islam and the Jews are interlopers, a Jew might honestly not see it that way. That would require a knowledge and appreciation of the basis of the Jewish claim. The Arabs (most of them) deny anything that could conceivably promote an understanding of the other side. For example , They claim that the existenc of a Jewish temple is a myth.
That is why there is at present there is no peace on the horizon. When the propaganda of the palestinian and Arab media cahnges, it will show that a compromise is possible. That will happen only when most of the Palestinian leadership decides that that is the way to go. That will happen only when Israel acts so strongly as to make armed resitance no longer feasible. As counterintuitive as it may seem, by Israel holding back in order to reduce civilain casualties, the situation is allowed to fester and continue. In the long run it causes more deaths.
"I strongly believe that we must cease making proclamations involving conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States . We incur the wrath of those who feel slighted while doing very little to slow or stop the violence."
The US needs to quit interfering in the affairs of other countries.