Debate on Israeli military action in Gaza

[rainonlevs]

Democracy Now! has devoted today's show to the situation in Gaza. Leading off there was an excellent debate:

A Debate on Israel’s Invasion of Gaza: UNRWA’s Christopher Gunness v. Israel Project’s Meagan Buren

On the tenth day of Israel’s continued assault on the Gaza Strip and in spite of mounting international protests, Israeli ground troops

Comments

[rainonlevs]

Excellent point. In fact, before the overt military attacks, half that number of people (11) died just from Israel refusing travel for medical treatment just since August 2008. Overall, I found the IP spokesperson's argument that though things are "very difficult" in Gaza, "there are very difficult situations on the ground inside of Israel, as well" less than compelling.

For example, take the "very difficult" times in Israel the spokesperson described due to the actions of those in Gaza, and compare them to "very difficult" times in Gaza due to the actions of those in Israel:

"People have been sleeping in bomb shelters for years, living their lives in fifteen-second increments, wondering whether or not they’re going to have time to get to a bomb shelter in the next fifteen seconds when the siren goes off."
People (mostly children) in Gaza have been living their lives without sirens or bomb shelters, just the constant knowledge that they may at any time be the target of a missile attack from Israel.

“What about my elderly mother who can’t take a shower, because she doesn’t think that she can get to the bomb shelter fast enough to be secure and safe?”
Hundreds of thousands in Gaza are short of water to drink, let alone shower.

“Which child do I take out of the bed at night, because I only have fifteen seconds and I can’t get all three?”
Mothers in Gaza don't get to choose which child to save, they only have the choice of which to pray for the most to save them from military grade bombs, bunker busters, missiles, artillery, starvation, thirst, cold or any of the treatable illnesses that they have been dying of due to lack of medical supplies.

This kind of argument that I find disruptive rather than useful. It marginalizes the facts and creates false comparisons based on emotional impact rather than objective information.

I found the UN spokesperson's points far more compelling and based on clear and well-defined facts and international law.