Guardian

How many rocket attacks in a ceasefire?


This is a cross post by Brett from Harry’s Place

I suppose it’s pointless to describe The Guardian’s coverage of Israel as “unbelievable”. Okay, the so-called ‘facts’ certainly are very frequently unbelievable, but the tenor of these stories and mendacity comes so thick and fast that you’d have to have recently awoken from a long coma not to still be surprised by it.

Take this latest piece of distorted, dissembling rubbish:

The savage attack Israel ­unleashed against Gaza on 27 December 2008 was both immoral and unjustified. Immoral in the use of force against civilians for political purposes. Unjustified because Israel had a political alternative to the use of force. The home-made Qassam rockets fired by Hamas militants from Gaza on Israeli towns were only the ­excuse, not the reason for Operation Cast Lead. In June 2008, Egypt had ­brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic resistance movement. ­Contrary to Israeli propaganda, this was a success: the average number of rockets fired monthly from Gaza dropped from 179 to three. Yet on 4 November Israel violated the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza, killing six Hamas fighters. When Hamas ­retaliated, Israel seized the renewed rocket attacks as the ­excuse for launching its insane offensive. If all Israel wanted was to protect its citizens from Qassam rockets, it only needed to ­observe the ceasefire.

Does the writer not understand the meaning of “ceasefire”?

A ceasefire does not mean “a significant reduction in attacks”, it means that attacks, well, “cease”.  Notice how the author describes none of the “average of three” rockets launched at Israel by Hamas following the June agreement as violating the ceasefire. Nor are the next three or four rockets fired in July, or a few more in August, and still more in September, and two or three more in October, and then November, six moths after the “ceasefire”, Hamas are still launching missiles towards Israeli towns.

No, not one of these 20 or so attacks is considered a violation of the ceasefire by Hamas. Then Israel fires on a group of Hamas rocketeers setting up a launching site… Oh NOW there is a ceasefire violation! By Israel!! And then the further rocket attacks are described as “retaliation” by Hamas, having been cruelly interrupted in their intrinsic right to fire a rocket or two every fortnight at an Israeli town, while still being regarded by The Guardian and fellow travellers as having “ceased firing”.

And of course, the desire to stop an ongoing barrage of rockets fired at one’s towns and citizens is just an “excuse” for a military reply.

How many rockets a month – some possibly landing on 90 York Way – does The Guardian think London should tolerate before our government does anything? One? Two? Three? Three a month (”on average”)? Should we employ the military? I would hope that the reason we have the military is to intervene in the eventuality that some group decides it’s a good idea to fire rockets over the border at our cities.

But perhaps that would be an aggressive response.

As to the original question posed in the title of this post, by The Guardian’s correspondent’s estimation, terrorist groups should be allowed to make about three (on average) attempts to blow us up every month before we consider the situation significant enough to respond.

23 replies »

  1. Well said Bret

    According to Mr. Shlaim, the killing of the militants is what broke the cease fire. But the intent of the rocket and mortar fire into Israel was to kill people regardless of their failure to accomplish that goal. Not military personnel, but civilians. In addition to dismissing the rocket and mortar fire as a violation of the cease fire, the targeting and attempted murder of Israeli CIVILIANS is also completely dismissed.

    Notice how Mr. Shlaim refers to the rockets as “homemade” Qassams or, in other words, just over sized firecrackers. As a matter of fact, mortar shells were also fired into Israel.

  2. Anyone looking for any decency in the Guardian’s reporting of anything in the Middle east, or indeed, any part of the world is asking for cats to stop running after mice.

    The Guardian has degenerated into a rag supporting lunatic extreme anarchist lefty degenerates. At some point, subscribers will recognize this and cancel their subscriptions.

    That will be the last straw and The Guardian will fold.

  3. Israel should not have to suffer,not 10,000 missiles from Gaza,not 5,000,not 5,not even one single one.

    Israel needs to respond immediately to these provocations of Hamas ,and respond with full force.Which it has been doing lately.

  4. Lets face it the Guardian it’s staff and most of the loony left that post there are sour and miserable sods.

    They hate everybody including themselves.Just read their articles,and their cartoons,like their weather these are bleak,dark and dour and very unhappy people.A lot like Berchmans.

    Not much sunlight there.

  5. I will not address poor old Berchmans whose patchy memory seems to be getting the better of him since he has been told this often and he just can’t retain the facts. However, that pathetic attempt at an accusation of Israel re the pre-Cast Lead campaign is so flimsy that it’s not worth reading

  6. It seems time to remind you of the definition of an Israel-Hamas ceasefire –
    Israel ceases, Hamas fires

  7. As Brett suggests, The Guardian’s attitude is that “it all started when he hit me back”.

    There is no lack of understanding. This is quite simply a reflection of hatred of Israel – and probably hatred of Jews.

  8. No surprises here. The author is one Avi Shlaim, “historian” at Oxford. Needles to say who funds such history departments and its “research” done by faculty members like Avi Shlaim.

    Many groups in the British academy, as many of its American counterparts, are heavily funded by Arab countries and organizations, run by very one-tracked politically inclined individuals, and are just a closed system of belief where free thought is not allowed to enter.

    The Guardian provides the best media outlet for them. It’s a sure bet for publication.

    I mean, “savage” is a very neutral and professional word to describe a military operation, right? Notice they will never use that word to describe terror attacks.

    p.s. Go CifWatch. Keep on keeping on.

  9. No, it didn’t start with the IDF raid, but it didn’t start with the rocket attacks either, nor with the blockade of Gaza, or the election of Hamas.

    There’s little sense in slating Shlaim’s random selection of a starting point, and replacing it with a random point of you’re own.

    Gaza is one and a half million stateless people, most descended from refugees, crammed into a tiny piece of land – sort that out, and you’re half way to solving the problem.

  10. Gaza is one and a half million stateless people, most descended from refugees, crammed into a tiny piece of land – sort that out, and you’re half way to solving the problem.

    The earth is getting too small for all the people on it? People are having too many babies? What are you saying?

  11. February 4, 2010 at 12:06 am
    Abandon hope

    ‘However the spinwatch article ( I know I keep quoting this but I have never seen it countered ) explains how they were used and encouraged to enable the war to take place.’

    Don’t hold your breath AH

  12. I am new to this blog, but how about a boycott of the Guardian? There was one such effort against the Washington Post, and an unofficial one against the New York Times. It doesn’t close them down, but it does inflict some pain.

  13. JerusalemMite – I cancelled my subscription to al-Grauniad long ago, after Chris McGreal’s egregious article and al-Grauniad’s failure to address criticism of that. I know that many in my acquaintance are shocked by al-Grauniad’s willingness to prostitute itself for a “good story”, particularly one which favours Palestine over Israel, and often deliberately lying or misreporting or being selective of what it reports.

    Disturbing is how al-Grauniad became so easily fascinated by the Islamist narrative, which suggests that it fell on ground which was fertile in the first place.

    To Brett (if he looks in) – the Islamist/al-Grauniad/useful idiots’ manipulation of language is crystallised by this redefinition of “cease-fire” to suit their distorted take on the situation. It reflects a child-like cognitive developmental stage, linked to magical thinking. A small child, whose capability to reality-test is not fully developed, may be likely to insist again and again that something happened or is the case even when it didn’t or isn’t, simply because the child says that it happened or is the case.

    The reiterative nature of some of the posts here from CiF drones reflects this – their belief that if they say something, however outlandish, often enough – it is true and we have to believe them. I have seen posts here which ask such people for links to believable proof” but rarely is this forthcoming.

    Mature people can think for themselves for the most part, but such reiteration of lies feeds in to the dark side in the shape of the Goebbels effect as regards the immature.

  14. legalobserver, perhaps, perhaps not, but Hamas is ultimately responsible for the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians during the ceasefire. It is, after all, the “democratically elected” government in power.

  15. dopey is resorting to another version of “the Jews/Israelis are to blame for being the focus of attack”, ie blaming the victim rather than acknowledging that the perpetrator has a choice.

    But watch him squeal if anyone says that Palestinians have a choice NOT to be victims of Hamas’ murderous inclination and to choose NOT to be their dupes in a war.

    Mitnaged, interesting post. Dopey is a prime example here of what you describe – “if I say it often enough then it will be true” – when it is patently and evidently not.

  16. HairShirt, Hamas is responsible for much of the suffering of the people of Gaza, as has been proven time and time again, even before Cast Lead.

    My sympathies are with the Palestinian (and Israeli) civilians whose lives are ruled and made almost unliveable by what is essentially a lunatic philosophy of war of attrition no matter what the cost.

    TomWonacott, Shlaim has this in common with many on the Guardian’s pages, and I have even read that Hamas is arguing that it is not “deliberately” targeting civilians because it cannot actually aim the kassams! (This of course implies that if it could aim the kassams then it would certainly aim them at the places where they could kill the most Israeli civilians).

  17. The UK should absorb the Palestinians that are in Gaza,the British are the cause of all the problems in the ME,with their conjuring up of a Jordanian people and king.Where there was none.

    You have people in Gaza having 3 wives and tons of kids,who can’t even afford 1 wife and 1 kid.Who rely on the UNRWA to feed and clothe them.

    UNRWA should be abolished,send them to look after the real refugees.Haiti would love to have them.

    Half the Palestinian population are already in the UK.

  18. “Gaza is one and a half million stateless people, most descended from refugees, crammed into a tiny piece of land – sort that out, and you’re half way to solving the problem.’

    The problem is that its only this half of the equation that is ever discussed on Cif.

    Get the Arab states, assorted militant groups and Iran to accept the presence of a Jewish state in the middle east and you have solved the other half of the problem.