An Analysis of Media Narratives on Present Circumstances in Gaza

Robert Shortt, Gaza, Prime Time, May 7, 2015 (RTE Screen-grab).

Ireland’s principle broadcasting institution, RTE, ran a series of news reports by journalist Robert Shortt, which are concerned with the current troubles that the people of Gaza face, in the aftermath of ‘Operation Protective Edge’, last year’s war between Israel and several terrorist groups based in Gaza.

Shortt’s reportage echoes many of the recent accounts of the situation in Gaza found in the mainstream media. His reports form the basis of this article’s broader thematic rebuttal of current media coverage.

The most substantive report, ‘Inside Gaza’, was broadcast on ‘Prime Time’, RTE’s premium current affairs programme, on May 7th 2015 (RTE incorrectly posts the date as May 8th). The segment begins at 9:57 in RTE’s Internet Player.

An article, titled ‘RTE’s Gaza news coverage sponsored by Irish Aid’s pro-Palestinian proxy’ details possible breaches of broadcasting code in Shortt’s reports.

The report is introduced by David McCullagh, who accepted United Nations “estimates” of the civilian death toll, without mention of their true source — Hamas, which often used distorted figures for propaganda in the past.

“Last year Hamas and Israel fought a 50 day war in the Gaza strip. It was the third conflict in six years and the deadliest. The UN estimates that on the Israeli side 67 soldiers and four civilians were killed. On the Palestinian side, over 2,200 people were killed, including over 1,500 civilians, of whom 551 were children. Now many are warning that tensions are rising once again.”

Zaitoun Elementary School, 'New Crisis in Gaza', RTE News, May 9, 2015 (Screen-grab)

On the UN report: ‘attacking’ schools?

Shortt’s 11 and a half minute report highlights the suffering of children during and after the 2014 conflict. For example, he stated:

“Last July, Mara, her ten siblings, father, and mother, then heavily pregnant, fled the bombing of their home to find shelter in this UN school. Over a thousand people are still crammed into the classrooms of Zeitoun Elementary. Seven such centres were attacked by Israeli forces during the war causing 44 deaths, and 227 injuries.”

Shortt’s claim relates to the damage of seven schools studied in a UN Board of Inquiry report — its summary findings were issued on the 27th April. Shortt’s claim that Israel “attacked” seven UN schools is not credible. The report notes that one school (appertaining to ‘Incident (g)’ in the study) was not being used as a shelter, and the road outside another school (‘Incident (f)’) was struck, rather than the school itself. Moreover, the word ‘attack’ suggests an overt intentional wish to strike these UN civilian installations, which the UN report, although prejudicial in its own right, does not itself ascribe to Israeli actions.

Despite the specificity of the report, Shortt failed to properly identify the school in question. It may be an ‘United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East’ (UNRWA) school in Zeitoun (also spelt Zaitoun), called the ‘Shahada Al-Manar Elementary’, a site from which Hamas was identified to have fired weaponry, or ‘Zeitoun Preparatory Girls “B” School’. The UN report blames the IDF for a stray “projectile” striking the roof of the latter school, whilst stating that “militant activity was also noted” (Point D, 35) some hours earlier in the area, and that no IDF activity can be explicitly tied to the single strike. Therefore, to describe the school as having been “attacked” is misleading.

Shortt’s subsequent news report, discussed below, appears to reference the same building visually, but a sign identifies it as “Zaitoun Elementary Boys “B” School”, which was not one of the schools featured in the UN report, albeit related to the girls school of the same name. Shortt further remarks:

“Last week the UN dismissed Israeli claims that Hamas rockets were found in schools used as shelters but it admitted rockets were found in empty schools.”

Israel did not claim rockets had been found in schools actively used as shelters. Broad Israeli claims related to the use of active school shelters by terrorist groups, to launch attacks. Such claims were latterly disputed by witness testimony in the report but the conditions of the testimony can be deemed problematic with some justification, given potential conflicts of interest with the parties collecting it. Moreover, the word ‘dismissal’ is an undue and misleading description of the UN report’s findings. The UN report looked specifically at a small number of instances, namely those that involved UNRWA property (see Point 5 of the report), rather than provide an actual overview of the conflict:

“In its report, the Board noted that it was not within its terms of reference to address the wider aspects of the conflict in Gaza, its causes or the situation affecting the civilian populations of Gaza and Israel in the period before “Operation Protective Edge” was launched. Its task was limited to considering the ten incidents identified in its terms of reference.”

Furthermore it should be noted that inactive schools were not merely acknowledged to have been used for the storage of weaponry. Two of the three referenced sites were also used to fire against the IDF. Shortt’s report focuses on the area of Jabalia. The UN report notes an interesting event in relation to one of the area's local schools: it “was highly likely that an unidentified Palestinian armed group could have used the school premises to launch attacks on or around 14 July” (point 70) but Shortt does not appear to deem it necessary to mention such mitigating circumstance.

Shortt makes similarly misleading claims in an article on RTE’s site, which comes across as an apologia for the use of schools:

“Israel claims Hamas used school shelters to store rockets. But a report last week from the UN found the schools where rockets were located were empty and not the shelters where hundreds gathered only to come under attack once more.”

The UN report noted that the three schools in question were at summer recess so it is possible they could have been used if the war began at a slightly earlier date. They are designated civilian structures, so it is still a highly problematic matter to use them in war. Shortt et al. wish to dismiss the import of such unprecedented findings but they represent just a surface glimpse of long-established behaviour, e.g. from 2009:

‘United Nations Humanitarian Affairs Chief John Holmes told the UN Security Council, “The reckless and cynical use of civilian installations by Hamas and indiscriminate firing of rockets against civilian populations are clear violations of international humanitarian law.”’

The UN report’s findings add further credence to the long-expressed view that terror groups use human shields in civilian areas. The report only addressed three structures. An increasing number of international journalists have acknowledged that Hamas use human shields, while Ghazi Hamad, a representative of Hamas, grudgingly admitted they fired from civilian areas during the war, while civilians would have been resident.

It is time for the likes of Shortt, et al, to stop making excuses, whilst subtly inferring that Israel targets civilians intentionally, as per his claim (quoted above) that civilians were twice attacked by Israel.

Gaza’s embargo

The report mentions the failure of promised donations to materialise, but fundamentally blames the present problems on the blockade, with Siobhan Powell, of (UNRWA) echoing the notion. Shortt says:

“Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza after a violent split between Palestinians in 2007. Hamas has ruled Gaza since.”

It is not wholly accurate to describe Israel’s action as a ‘blockade’, other than with respect to its maritime activity, which cut off access to the sea beyond a six nautical mile zone, due to efforts to smuggle weaponry into Gaza. A blockade tends to be defined as “The isolation of a nation, area, city, or harbor by hostile ships or forces in order to prevent the entrance and exit of traffic and commerce.” UNRWA however notes that “Israel allows most goods into the Gaza Strip except for items it defines as “dual-use” materials which could have a military purpose.”

Israel allows some Gazan produce to be exported internationally, through its borders, and has assisted farmers in recent years with a variety of projects. Export levels remain small but have shown signs of increasing in the aftermath of the 2014 war, a situation that looks set to continue by addressing security issues.

Israel’s actions over land would be more correctly defined as a partial type of ‘embargo’, a forceful diplomatic measure adopted by some nations to limit its interaction with a given territory. Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed the Agreement on Movement & Access, allowing for free access of people and goods into Israel. However, after the 2006 elections, Hamas refused to recognise Israel’s right to exist or to curtail its violence, which led to the EU and the Quartet suspending assistance arrangements in Gaza. Hamas would then enter into a state of revolt by violently throwing off the legal structures of the Palestinian Authority in 2007, the interim arrangement toward forging of a new Arab state, with it concomitant security arrangements.

With Hamas instigating further belligerent acts, a maritime blockade was formally announced in June 2008: 

“In accordance with the agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, entry by foreign vessels to this zone is prohibited. Israeli Notice 6/2008”

The embargo and naval blockade grew out of a worsening scenario with a belligerent seizing absolute control in a coup. As such it was and continues to be a justified measure, as the Palmer Report accepts.

Shortt on steel and cement

The limited reconstruction of Gaza should be blamed on Hamas and the international community for not ensuring that construction materials are utilised for their intended purpose. Shortt thinks differently:

“Rebuilding after a war is a huge task. Rebuilding after three wars in six years is a monumental task. Add to that a blockade and a temporary cease-fire, and it’s leading to frustration and a simmering sense of anger, which is stretching hope of return to any sort of a normal life here in Gaza to its limits.”

The destruction to some neighbourhoods nearer the Gaza border with Israel is considerable. The zones of conflict were limited however, so it is somewhat misleading to present all of Gaza as being in a near-complete state of destruction, and to present the entire enclave as being in need of reconstruction thrice-over, when there were substantive efforts to rebuild previously. In 2010 Israel significantly eased the embargo, allowing Gaza’s infrastructure to be improved, yielding results that were at times unexpected, given common perceptions of quality of life in the Strip. In 2013 Israel further eased restrictions on construction materials, until these materials were repeatedly found to have been exploited by Hamas for building terror-tunnels into Israel itself.

Shortt then presents, as an unsubstantiated claim, the notion that Hamas is using building materials to construct new tunnels to conduct assaults, when it is in fact rather more than just a mere accusation:

“Israel accuses it [Hamas] of continuing to use cement and steel to rebuild tunnels to launch attacks into its territory.”

The programme segment then leads to an apologia from a representative of Hamas. Dr. Hamad Ghazy, Hamas’ Deputy Foreign Minister, who, after indirectly justifying such acts as a defence, stated:

“We want to take precautions to prevent any possible aggression against our people, but ah we gave promises that all the building materials that come to Gaza go to people who need it. Hamas will not interfere.”

Despite the contradictory message, purposefully aimed at Western audiences, Hamas’ leaders have loudly pledged Hamas’ wish to build new tunnels, and rearm. Recent reports attest to an unpleasant reality that Hamas is intensifying its tunnel-building efforts, with the use of greater mechanisation.

Dual-use cement imports had been curtailed, due to its military usage. However, tens of thousands of tons of other building materials had been transported into the Gaza Strip since the end of the 2014 war, and Israel has in another respect liberalised the import of cement. UNRWA itself notes:

“Construction materials defined as dual-use are only permitted to enter for approved projects by international organizations and, since mid-October 2014, under the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism (GRM), an agreement between the governments of Israel and Palestine, for private sector use. The GRM, to which UNRWA is not a party, allows for private sector imports, and hence for shelter self-help for large scale reconstruction which was not possible prior to the establishment of the GRM”

The Jewish State had restricted the import of cement due to Hamas’ efforts to obtain such materials, often via the black market, but has since lifted its restrictions.

In another news report, entitled ‘New Crisis in Gaza’, broadcast on the RTE’s 6.1 (6 o’clock) and 9 PM news programmes, and otherwise repeated cyclically on the broadcaster’s ‘News Now’ channel, Robert Shortt states:

“In Gaza they call concrete ‘grey gold’. Building materials are in such short supply that people are literally taking sledge hammers to the remnants of buildings here, to extract the steel rods and break down the concrete rubble, in order to use it again.”

Similarly, Shortt wrote:

“The dull thud of sledgehammers can be heard as people break up collapsed concrete floors. Donkeys pull carts piled with twisted steel rods literally torn from the wreckage. Such is the shortage of building materials, Gazans are recycling everything they can use.”

Cement factory representative, 'New Crisis in Gaza', RTE News, May 9, 2015 (Screen-grab)

Shortt presents this story as if individual Arab-Palestinians are remoulding rubble with their bare hands. However, there is in fact an established localised industry recycling steel bars and concrete. Shortt indeed does mention a “concrete factory was destroyed during the war and rebuilt at a cost of four million Euro” but does not tie the point to the recycling of concrete.

To quote one pro-Palestinian source critical of Israel:

“Abu Ali Daloul is one of the main traders of recycled iron bars in Gaza. He bought tons of the iron bars removed from the rubble of the recent war. He fixes the bars and prepares them to be used again for construction purposes.

The concrete rubble are transported to stone breaking workshops in order to be turned into pebbles for use on road paving projects. Abu Lebda is a stone breading [sic] workshop which recycles concrete rubble and provides brick manufacturers with pebbles to make bricks with

Malaka concrete bricks factory brings the pebbles from Abu Lebda’s stone breaking workshop and puts the amounts in its stores hoping the cement to pass through the crossings to be able to produce bricks suffecient to rebuild Gaza.”

Moreover, the recycling of steel and concrete building materials has become commonplace the world over, for environmental reasons. Shortt, however, would sooner have the viewer believe that this is a remarkable, near-unprecedented phenomenon!

An anti-Israel NGO, called Gisha, reported in January that quite substantive amounts of concrete had entered Gaza since the end of Operation Protective Edge, but very little has been used to rebuild Gazan homes, despite the fact that Gaza’s residents are entitled to free building materials if their homes are damaged. The materials were in fact sold to Hamas, and requisitioned by Hamas.

Dr. Mona el-Farra

In the Prime Time report, Shortt proceeds to discuss the more personal effects of the embargo upon Dr. Mona el-Farra, a leading member of a highly partisan NGO called the ‘Middle East Children’s Alliance’ (MECA):

“But the blockade goes deeper. Gazans cannot travel freely across their borders. Dr. Mona el-Farra was prevented from travelling to Ireland in March to speak at a conference.”

The conference in question was organised by SIPTU in Dublin. SIPTU, Ireland’s largest trade union, has long pushed for a strong anti-Israel agenda, and supports a boycott. Some made a fuss of her non-attendance at the time. Sinn Féin-IRA leader, Gerry Adams, took up el-Farra’s cause with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Charlie Flanagan, but the conference, far from advocating a fair just solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, actually promoted a boycott of Israel, and a one-state solution, which would destroy the self-determination of the Jewish People, in a region that is otherwise Judenrein.

Therefore, it was no surprise that el-Farra proceeded to blame Israel for not letting her travel through its borders. She suggested it was because her voice is ‘loud’. However, neither she nor the programme makers noted that both Egypt and Israel denied her passage from Gaza, nor that both states have a right to control their borders, particularly when belligerent groups lie in wait beyond these barriers!

It should be noted that the Palestinian Authority constitutes the body responsible for the issuance of Gaza’s passports, as established in the Interim agreement with Israel. It is left unsaid in Shortt’s report, but Hamas has accused its Fatah/PLO rivals of frustrating the efforts of academics and campaigners to travel from the Gaza Strip, since 2008.

For the children?

Notably, Robert Shortt’s reports focused to a significant extent on the welfare of children. He states:

“Its against this backdrop of continuing violence and confrontational politics that children like Mara attempt to grow up.”

Like many Gazan children, she has seen the horrors of war. Psychological support has helped her re-adjust.”

Similarly, to quote a promotional webpage:

“Dr El Farra was prevented from travelling to Ireland in March to speak at a conference on Gaza. Her main concern is the impact of the conflict on the children of Gaza.”

Dr. el-Farra comments further on the predicament of Gaza’s children, who suffer the effects of war:

“The direct impact is the children don’t sleep well at night, having nightmares. Different sorts of phobias. Some of them lost speech. Some of them are afraid of dark nights or back to bedwetting again.

Some cannot focus at school. They became very irritable and they cannot focus at school. And this of course has another effect which is social problems. Have restless children, quarrelous, aggressive children.

There’s no life at the moment in Gaza. You are coming as visitor but I live here, and I go everyday to the refugee camp areas, and I can see the frustration on peoples faces and souls and minds.

My concern is the youth. They will start looking for radical solutions, getting involved with more radical Islamist groups like ISIS”

In this context, Israel’s influence on Gaza, through embargo and war, is blamed for these disturbing behavioural traits. Oddly however, neither el-Farra, or the programme makers, mentioned the extent to which Hamas radicalises Gaza’s children, with thousands of youngsters going to training camps. Even some Gaza-based anti-Israel NGOs are objecting to Hamas’ use of children in this way:

“local human rights groups are accusing Hamas of exploiting children for political purposes.

“We are not disputing the right of an occupied people to resist, but it must be done by adults, not children,” one human rights activist told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

“The camps are making young people aggressive instead of educating them and teaching them to abide by the law,” the activist said.”

Thus, problematic unsocial behaviour in children can equally be attributed to radicalisation. Hamas and other Arab-Palestinian factions have engaged in such behaviour, which is illegal under international law. The issue is far from recent, e.g. with the use of children in the First Arab Revolt of 1936.

Despite el-Farra’s/MECA’s professed wish to see the welfare of Arab-Palestinian children improve, the vocal defence of terrorism, and use of children for emotive conflict propaganda, may explain why they turn a blind eye to the abuse of children on their very doorstep, an abuse that even has expression in Gaza’s media. “Every Muslim mother must nurse her children on hatred of the sons of Zion” is one of Hamas’ many statements on the desired outcome of parenting.

Schools have long been a source of radicalisation in the Arab-Palestinian territories. Even children attending UNRWA’s own putatively civilian schools can experience the force of radicalisation. The headmaster of Zeitoun Elementary Boys school openly celebrates genocide and massacre. Shortt visited the school but seemingly such behaviour didn’t deserve mention!

El-Farra frets about the possibility of Islamic State becoming popular in Gaza. While the Western media presents ISIS in justifiably strong terms, due to its extraordinary bloodlust, Hamas’ speech is notably more extreme with respect to its advocacy of the genocide of all Jews, leading to the distinct possibility that the Sunni group’s bloodlust is only impeded by arguably the most sophisticated counter-terror force in the world.

Does responsibility lie with Arab-Palestinian rule?

Shortt’s coverage suggests Israel treats Gazans worse today than say a year ago. Arguably the opposite is the case. Shortt failed to report on various developments. For example, Israel facilitates the mass transit of construction materials into Gaza. Israel is doubling the water delivery to Gaza, after a crisis due to illegal drilling in the Strip’s coastal aquifer. Israel is also helping to increase the supply of electricity in the region, and may have indirectly engaged in discussions with Hamas, to construct a pipeline going from the Jewish State to Gaza to reinforce the electricity supply.

It is of course stating the obvious to say there are very limited opportunities for the people of Gaza, and that many are likely to feel a deep sense of despair. However, although conditions are extremely challenging after the damage caused by war, further Israeli initiatives, for business and reconstruction, were initiated during the latter months of 2014.

Shortt focuses on Israel’s blameworthiness for the present circumstances blighting the Gaza Strip, but what of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority themselves? The viewer only hears mention of “dysfunctional Palestinian politics”. Perhaps he hints at a topic that goes beyond Hamas’ rejectionist stances. He may refer to factionalism and corruption but viewers are not advised even though it relates strongly to the topic at hand. Is blameworthiness attributable to non-Jews of less interest to the viewer?

It is acknowledged that political factionalism has played abidingly negative role on conditions in Gaza from the very outset.

Other than previously mentioned issues, such as the dispute over passport issuance, there have been continued disagreements between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority over the payment of trans-state energy bills, which has resulted in power cuts of up to 18 hours per day. Such a measure would have a profoundly destructive impact on any economy. Likewise, the PA is believed to be intentionally slowing the payment of wages to State employees in Gaza, which constitute a substantive source of revenue to the localised economy. Lack of pay for many months has led to protests. There have been reports that Hamas is imposing another tax on imports, the monies from stressed private sectors will go into the pockets of long-unpaid members of Hamas.

Hamas have claimed that the Palestinian Authority demanded control of 50% of the monies pledged by international donors, to aid reconstruction in Gaza, whilst also stating that they rebuffed an Israeli offer to lift the embargo, and open up Gaza’s territory for shipping and air travel, in return for a long term truce. Both Fatah/PA and Hamas have of course their own agendas in attempting to commandeer billions of dollars in promised international aid.

Shortt on facts?

As we have seen, Shortt’s capacity to place blame on Israel was achieved due to significant omissions of basic fact inconvenient to his narrative. Shortt closed his Prime Time report with these troubling sentiments:

“Gaza is hemmed in by the sea and Israel. Its people are caught between dysfunctional Palestinian politics and the constant threat of war. The tide of violence breaks regularly here. Summer is coming. People fear what it may bring.”

Tellingly, Shortt made no mention of the fact that Israel’s embargo and maritime blockade is made in partnership with Egypt. This is a normative approach for the media, which largely ignores Egypt’s crucial role. Egypt has long appreciated the threat that Hamas poses to its security, as a military faction of the long proscribed Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Whilst the Arab nation did temporarily allow access through its borders, Egypt’s policy had broadly been harsher than that of Israel, giving little assistance at all.

Be that as it may, conditions for the people of Gaza are harsh. Siobhan Powell of UNRWA stated:

“There are no jobs so people can’t provide food for their families. It’s why we have such a dependency on assistance.”

Such a claim is an exaggeration, with the employment rate of Gaza largely remaining at 55% in recent years. Beyond the hyperbole, it is one of the highest rates in the world. The international community, including UNRWA, et al, blame Israel for such circumstance. And yet, in Israel’s defence, it does foster assistance programmes, continues to provide water and electricity (sometimes at its own peril), and supplies the assistance that keeps Gaza fed, the fuel to provide comfort and transport, and the materials to at least tentatively rebuild.

Shortt’s closing statement illustrates the problem with these normative media narratives — they flatly refuse to place any meaningful blame at Hamas’ door. Any sensible evaluation would surely conclude that when Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas, via the electorate’s assistance, took the opportunity to perpetuate conflict. Israel had to act to cut off a lethal belligerent operating freely on one of its borders.

The international community decry the wars with Hamas, and they decry the suffering of the populace. A highly vocal number claim that Israel should release Gaza from its embargo, and somehow peace will be found! All such a strategy will do is give Hamas carte blanche to wage a greater scale of war. As a result, Gaza’s civilians and the Israeli populace near Gaza’s border, will suffer all the more. There is no option for peace, other than Gaza being rid of Hamas, but the common ideological blind spot, which Shortt appears to suffer from, has to blame Israel for not only for its own legitimate defensible actions, but for the pain Hamas visits on the populace that voted it in on a mandate of continued strife.

“We shall not rest until our entire holy land is liberated … To the Zionists we promise that tomorrow all of Palestine will become hell for you” (Memri)

Also published at Crethi Plethi.

Concerns over the UN Board of Inquiry Report on the Treatment of UNRWA Facilities in the 2014 Gaza War

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visits an UNRWA school, February 2012, Gaza.

The United Nations’ ‘Board of Inquiry’ issued a report to the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, in February of this year. He issued a summary of the report’s findings, on the 27th April, which asserts that Israeli military action killed and injured Arab-Palestinian civilians, who had sought refuge in six United Nations schools during the 2014 conflict in Gaza and its environs, between Israel and an assortment of terrorist groups, including Hamas, the ruling authority of the Gaza Strip itself.

Whilst stating that it was standard procedure not to issue such ‘Board of Inquiry’ reports, Ki-moon justified the publication of a summary on grounds of interest. The study was widely reported upon in a prejudicial fashion.

Questions of intent

The report did not make findings of intentionality on the part of Israel. Findings of criminality were noted to be beyond the purview of the UN Board’s report. However, the report recommended that Israel take greater care in future conflicts, suggesting a belief that the strikes were conducted in error:

“The United Nations should request the Government of Israel to give a commitment that, in the event that it plans any future military operation in proximity to United Nations premises, it will provide advance warning, sufficient to enable the United Nations to ensure the security and safety of its personnel or other civilians attending its facilities, and ensure that coordinating procedures are such that confusion or misunderstandings concerning UNRWA as well as other United Nations installations are excluded.” (Section 99, C)

The response to the UN summary was rather predictable, with numerous media outlets describing the incidents as actual “attacks” causing death and injury to Arab-Palestinians in seven (rather than six) UNRWA schools. The report also found that unidentified terrorist groups used several schools to store weapons, and to fire from those sites. This was a notable revelation but some media outlets emphasised that the report found the schools used in this manner were empty at the time. Institutions treating the story in this manner include Al Jazeera and Irish public service broadcaster RTE. Intent, on the part of Israel, to harm and kill was unfairly inferred, while the more probable intent of the relevant terror groups was minimised.

The notion that the IDF intended to attack is hard to justify, in view of the fact that all seven incidents did not constitute protracted attacks. Several involved a single strike, typically with a non-precision guided shell, in environments where fighting had taken place. Extracts of the incidents detailed in the report are quoted:

“Incident (a): Injuries occurring at and damage done to the UNRWA Maghazi Preparatory Girls “A/B” School on 21 and 22 July 2014” […] the school was struck at roof level by direct fire from an IDF tank, likely involving a 120 MM High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) Multi- Purpose (MP) or High Explosive (HE) projectile. Injuries were caused to a man and a child sheltering at the school, as well as damage to the school premises.

The following day, two mortars hit the roof of the school after its evacuation, causing no injury.

“Incident (b): Injury occurring at and damage done to UNRWA Deir El Balah Preparatory Girls “C” School on 23 July 2014 […] Between 05:45 and 06:15 hrs in the morning of 23 July 2014, the medical isolation room on the third floor of the school was hit by a projectile, which passed through a window and two walls of an elevator shaft, partially striking the external veranda wall and exiting the school grounds. Three displaced persons, among the approximately 40 sleeping in the room at the time of the incident, suffered light injuries. No one was killed. There was relatively minor damage to the school.”

Incident (c) relates to the graver event involving fatalities at Beit Hanoun. It is discussed in some depth in the sub-section “On the veracity of testimony”.

“Incident (d): Injuries occurring at and damage done to Zaitoun Preparatory Girls “B” School On the night of 28/29 July 2014 […] On 29 July, at approximately 01:30 hrs, a projectile struck the roof of the school, penetrating the ceiling and striking the wall immediately adjacent to the door of a classroom in which approximately 40 people were sleeping. Seven residents were injured.”

Incident (e) relates to a graver event, involving fatalities, at UNRWA Jabalia Elementary Girls “A” and “B” School, on the 30th of July. The report notes that a volley of four shells struck the school: “At approximately 04:45 hrs, the school was hit by a barrage of four 155 MM high explosive (HE) projectiles, an artillery indirect fire weapon.” The IDF did not deny the strike, and have ordered an investigation. They stated the fire was aimed at another more legitimate target. Credence may be given to this claim because the report acknowledges the ordinance which struck the school is used in indirect fire weaponry that aims at targets that are not in direct sight.

Incident (f) involves the deaths of civilians at UNRWA’s Rafah Preparatory Boys “A” School on the 3rd of August. A single precision-guided missile struck the road outside the school. The IDF acknowledged responsibility for the killings, but claimed the deaths were caused in error while it was pursuing three Islamic Jihad fighters on a motorcycle, who were passing by the school gate. The UN report agreed with this assertion, stating “The Board found that the missile had been directed at a motorcycle carrying three individuals.”

Incident (g) of the report noted more extensive damage done to UNRWA’s Khuza’a Elementary College Co-educational “A” and “B” School, between the 17th of July and the 26th of August. However, the buildings on the site were empty, and the IDF found material that suggested it had been used as an Islamic Jihad command centre and observational post for a period of time. The UN report did not contradict this perspective in its findings.

Issues of balance

Whilst the UN ‘Board of Inquiry’ report is more balanced than might be expected, given the UN’s prejudicial treatment of Israel in recent decades, it is nonetheless problematic for a number of reasons.

As previously noted, the report was only released as a summary. There are no plans to ever have the two hundred and seven page study published. It is clearly problematic for any major agency to publish findings that are not fully substantiated. It is near-impossible to substantiate why the UN Board found all the incidents to be attributable to the IDF, when there is noteworthy evidence to the contrary.

If the decision by the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, to publicise details of the report, was motivated by public interest, it would surely have been convention to issue the report in its entirety, in order to allow readers to evaluate its findings. Such a move would have been in the interests of the UN, assuming the findings were based upon secure evidence. The decision to instead issue a summary would have likely been motivated by two primary considerations: either some of the report’s findings are based on contentious claims, or some evidential material not included in the summary would have worsened its relationship with Hamas. Ban Ki-moon stated in his covering letter that the actual report:

“…contains a significant body of information the disclosure of which would prejudice the security or proper conduct of the Organisation’s operations or activities.”

The ‘United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East’ (UNRWA) is of course the principle UN “Organisation” operating in Gaza. In the past, UNRWA’s Gazan branch has been criticised for politically modifying its position, to be in line with the wishes of Hamas. One issue of note was the controversial decision to back-pedal on the decision to teach the Holocaust in its school curriculum, due to Hamas’ objections based on an outright denial of the event!

It would not be unfair to suggest that Hamas has long kept UNRWA on a short leash. Despite the fact that UNRWA members often demonstrate support for Hamas, and it is accepted that many UNRWA employees are Hamas members, grave threats against UNRWA staff at gunpoint are not unknown. Thus, if the full report was redacted over security concerns, it is reasonable to infer that the summary may give a somewhat partial position.

The report relied to a substantial extent on UNRWA witness testimony, where there would have been a desire to downplay the involvement of some UNRWA employees with Hamas, and/or UNRWA failings to secure its own civilian structures to prevent their usage by combatants. A gloss was also placed on some of UNRWA’s more objectionable actions. The report asserts that the UNRWA did not hand weaponry stored at UN facilities to Hamas, but were in fact handed back to unnamed individuals, after contacting the Hamas-run police force.

The UN summary notes the contribution of unnamed non-governmental organisations to the report’s findings. Such organisations typically present a prejudicial image of the conflict in analyses.

The summary findings are also rather inconsistent. Ban Ki-moon asserts that the three schools used by belligerents for the storage of weapons were not in use. This was fortuitous, since the war occurred during school summer recess, as noted in the summary. However, it nonetheless appears that some schools may have not been wholly disused at the time, with the admission that the grounds of one school, where a terrorist group fired rockets, was open for usage by children.

On the veracity of testimony

The report also relied on anonymous non-UNRWA witness testimony, often obtained by UNRWA staff themselves. The neutrality of such staff can be questioned, due to the sympathy and affiliation of some with Hamas. Such a situation would possibly lead to selection bias, with the picking of witnesses that provide accounts favourable to Hamas’ agenda. Moreover, testimony obtained in an oppressive intimidatory environment is problematic, where reprisals against critics are not uncommon.

To take one example, the report blames Israel for perhaps the most infamous strike on a school during the war, at Beit Hanoun, which led to the death of 12 to 14 civilians, despite evidence that terrorist groups were fighting in close proximity to the school, and may have struck it. The summary notes that there was fighting very close to the school for several days, and also notes the repeated warnings from the IDF to UNRWA, to evacuate the compound over a three day period, with terrorist fighters acting in an area in very close proximity to the school:

“The Board noted that most witnesses described shelling in the vicinity of the school as a daily occurrence and that some of the residents at the school were injured as a result of shrapnel from the shelling outside the school. The Board also noted that an UNRWA security official testified to having received multiple calls from Israel’s Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) during the three or four days prior to the incident indicating that, according to the IDF, rockets were being fired from and around the school and that it needed to be evacuated. On the other hand, the Board noted that witnesses interviewed by UNRWA had said that there was no militant activity either inside or in the near vicinity of the school, though rocket launching could be heard from areas further away.” (Section C, 27)

The report notes these contradictions but the authors of the summary and/or report appear to place greater weight on subsequent witness testimony that denies these strongly fact-based assertions, due to its conclusion: “The Board found that the incident was attributable to the IDF.” The shaping of witness testimony is a crucial strategy for dictatorial entities. Significant effort has to be made to protect witnesses against illegitimate threatening influence, to obtain accurate views in such regions.

The report also contradicted a prior public statement by UNRWA, which asserted that a Hamas rocket hit the school in Beit Hanoun, making its conclusions harder to accept.

UNRWA complicity with belligerents

The report summary contains a passage that discreetly acknowledges wrongdoing on the part of some UNRWA staff:

“The United Nations should request the Government of Israel to give a commitment that, at any time that it believes it has information that United Nations premises have been misused for military purposes or that UNRWA staff are involved in militant activities, such information will be promptly conveyed in strict confidence to the senior management of UNRWA or other United Nations entity…” (Section 99, b)

In another incident, three IDF soldiers were killed, with seven others wounded, in a heavily booby-trapped UN clinic that was situated on top of a Hamas tunnel. The scale of the endeavour may suggest that there was some level of complicity between certain UNRWA staff and Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Unfortunately, this serious incident was not investigated by the UN Board of Inquiry.

A broader perspective

To place the scale and number of strikes on Gaza’s schools in some perspective, three of the strikes resulted in serious harm to the civilian populace of Gaza. Two of these incidents appear to be attributable to Israel, with a combined death toll of approximately 30 individuals, but were carried out in error. The other incident at Beit Hanoun may have involved Hamas. Of the other four incidents, one caused substantive damage while a school complex was known to be empty, and the other three caused injury to a modest number, and relatively minor damage. The responsibility for these events is disputed.

According to UNRWA’s own figures, Gaza’s education infrastructure is considerable. There are 640 schools in Gaza, 221 of which are run by UNRWA, which in total serve approximately 450 thousand students. According to the World Health Organisation, illiteracy among Gazan youth was less than 1% in 2010, while the Gaza Strip plays host to five universities. By contrast, in neighbouring Egypt, the adult illiteracy rate is over 20%.

Also published at Crethi Plethi.

A review of June to December 2014 coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict on Irish television – Part Three: TV3’s coverage

This article is the third part of an extended study of Irish television coverage of the Israeli-Arab conflict, during the latter part of 2014. Part One introduces and summarises the study, whilst Part Two provides specific examples of bias on Ireland's public service broadcaster RTE.

TV3 is RTE’s chief competitor in the Irish broadcasting industry, for television-based news coverage. RTE, as the Irish State Broadcaster, obtains funding from a mix of tax revenue and advertising. Due to RTE’s broad monopoly, TV3 has complained that it is a challenge to compete in the broadcasting environment, because it relies solely on advertising revenue, for which it has to compete with RTE.

The ‘5.30 News’ reports, on the TV3 channel, during the 2014 Gaza war (‘Operation Protective Edge’), often followed a fairly straightforward narrative, that did not tend to strongly favour one side, e.g. Steven Murphy’s 23rd July segment, which did not shy away from strong content but still presented both perspectives. This may be surprising, in view of TV3’s modest budget for news content, compared to that of RTE, and because news coverage on the TV3/3e channels tend to focus less so on hard-news.

The quality of content seems to diverge to some extent, one variable perhaps being the programme makers. TV3’s ‘Ireland AM’, with presenter Mark Cagney, often favours anti-Israel perspectives, while an extended ‘FYI’ documentary (1st August, 3e), for young adult audiences, was deemed to have given fair voice to both sides. By contrast, RTE’s reportage seemed to become more overtly prejudicial as the war in Gaza progressed.

Tom McGurk (left), Israeli Ambassador to Ireland, Dr. Boaz Modai (middle), and
Palestinian ambassadorial representative to Ireland, Dr. Ahmad Abdelrazek (right). TV3, July 17th, 2014

Tom McGurk tackles Israel’s Ambassador

TV3’s news reporting focuses on entertainment and sport above politics. This may suggest the channel is less weighed down by ideologically driven analysis of the news. Unfortunately however, TV3’s primary current affairs vehicle, the ‘Vincent Browne Show’ proved to be the complete opposite.

In one extended 17th July segment, the harshness of the questioning directed by guest host Tom McGurk, toward the Israeli Ambassador to Ireland, Doctor Boaz Modai, was extraordinary. One might expect presenters to try to calm feelings when attempting to discuss emotive topics, but McGurk used highly dramatic language, gestured wildly during his argument with Modai, and obsessed about the IDF invading Gaza at night when common sense would indicate such a legitimate measure was used to reduce Hamas’ capacity to strike. He also forwarded a number of notable inaccuracies. McGurk is a journalist, ex-rugby player and RTE sports pundit.

Challenging questioning should be expected, but the presenter displayed a stark favouritism with respect to his treatment of the Palestinian ambassadorial representative to Ireland, Doctor Ahmad Abdelrazek, who he seemingly agreed with completely. McGurk did not challenge Abdelrazek’s overt falsehoods, such as a denial that Hamas fires at Israelis indiscriminately, and seeks Israel’s destruction.

Tom McGurk did not appear to take any questions or issues arising from Modai’s points, whilst directly leading the questioning from the PA representative’s points, on several occasions. McGurk insisted that Hamas are the legitimate democratic rulers of Gaza. This is a bizarre claim that anti-Israelis advance, since the regime has long exceeded its democratic mandate. Such stances are proffered by apologists, so may indicate a sympathy with the terrorist group. However, in a contradictory fashion, McGurk also makes out Gazans are completely innocent, that they have no desire to have Hamas wage war on Israel, despite having elected Hamas on a continued mandate of violence, shortly after the end of the intensive terrorism of the Second Intifada.

McGurk presented a misleading premise, that there was somehow the option for peace, after Hamas attacked Israel in a sustained fashion, ignored pleas for a cessation, and subsequently escalated the rocket barrages. He also posited the notion that Israel was punishing Gazans in a prison camp. He stated it was an act of collective punishment, and asserted that Jews were killed by the million due to “collective punishment”. Although McGurk denied it, his paralleling with the Holocaust was overt. His stance may even suggest that some Jews were deserving of punishment during the Holocaust era, since the notion of ‘collective punishment’ rests on the idea that a group is punished for the actions of some.

Tom McGurk argues with,Israeli Ambassador to Ireland, Dr. Boaz Modai (off-picture), TV3, July 17th, 2014.

At the end of the interview, McGurk’s input arguably led to a breach of the 2009 Broadcasting Act by TV3, which bears a responsibility for the actions of those programme makers whose content the broadcaster presents to the public, when he lectured Ambassador Modai on the attitudes of the Irish toward the conflict, which he presented as both pro-Palestinian and noble in intent. McGurk argued that the Irish people sympathised with the Arab-Palestinian collective because the Irish were a people historically dispossessed of their land, as he claims the Arab-Palestinians to be. However, it can be argued that McGurk’s analysis is both facile, and factually incorrect, thereby exceeding his role as presenter with a highly subjective opinion. Whilst Ireland is rightly viewed as a pro-Palestinian nation, it is worth noting that a great number of people in Ireland have little interest in this conflict. The debate is also very one-sided because there is no substantive Irish pro-Israel movement, while the Irish pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel faction is highly organised, and highly vocal. It is almost an inevitability that sympathies will be swayed if people are presented with one-sided media narratives over very extended periods. A study published in May 2011 also found that 11.5% surveyed were hostile to Jews. Thus, with some unjustifiable hostility, combined with a broad lack of interest in the conflict, a lack of genuine local debate, where only one narrative is commonly expressed, and an absence of knowledge of the issue, with some of those hostile to Israel misinformed to the point of absurdity, it cannot be affirmed that the Irish hold anti-Israel sentiment for any one particular or primary reason, and whether that reason is noble or base.

McGurk selectively views the Arab-Palestinians as a displaced people, while apparently deeming the Jewish nation as not. For McGurk, it would seem that the Jewish People, as a collective, is fundamentally a homeless group. It is well known that some early senior Irish republicans sympathised with Zionism, seeing the plight of the Irish as somewhat similar, being a people going through a similar dispossession of their homeland by external forces. There is also a concurrent parallel between the Jewish and Irish Diasporas, since the Irish experienced substantive oppression in early migratory phases. Therefore, given their history, it is certainly not obvious that the Irish people would have a greater historic similarity to Arab-Palestinians, a group culturally and in part racially descended from prior Arab-Islamic occupiers, who would subsequently make so much of the Middle East judenrein.

Tom McGurk exhibited very similar behaviour in the past, where he browbeated pro-Israel guests, e.g. McGurk undermined the sole Irish pro-Israel speaker, in an episode of his show ‘Spirit Moves’ (RTE Radio One, 11th January 2009), going as far as to personally insult him. After the guest pointed out that the IDF was trying to suppress Hamas, an organisation with genocidal anti-Semitic aims, McGurk said: “You’re an extraordinary cheerleader! 300 dead children and you’re on the sidelines cheerleading!” Through the programme, McGurk referred to the death of 300 children. A BBC report, circa January 6th was cited as a source. However, figures supplied by the BBC, via Hamas’ health ministry, vary between 205 and 195, in another erroneous report. These figures were strongly contested, since the tolls relate to an early phase in ‘Operation Cast Lead’, just a few days after the IDF’s ground invasion of the 3rd January, but McGurk, and his other guests, would insist upon its veracity. Hamas revised its death toll in 2010, aligning more with figures provided by the IDF.

A transcript of the 17th July 2014 discussion is available below, in an appendix of this article.

Dearbhaill McDonald Presents

Journalist Dearbhaill McDonald presented another episode of the ‘Vincent Browne Show’ on the 24th of July. McDonald chose to discuss what impact social media was having on the Gaza conflict. Indeed, sites like Twitter were used intensively to post images of apparent suffering, with a particular focus on Arab-Palestinian children. This issue may have had a profound impact on the way the media conducted itself, as well as the way in which it shapes narratives on the conflict, where propaganda, devoid of any context, could take a leading role. Questions of the veracity of these images was also relevant, with Hamas and other parties having often used images from other conflicts. This activity began to intensify in 2012, when images of heavily injured and dead children were misrepresented as having been killed by Israel. Such visceral imagery may have also played a role in the increase of anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe. These were worthy areas of discussion but McDonald chose to limit the conversation to essentially pro-Palestinian talking points: whether or not the display of such explicit imagery is acceptable, in view of our social sensibilities!

The panel comprised of guests that were hostile to Israel, with the exception of Declan Power, a security analyst, who was critical of both Israel and Hamas. Despite often criticising Israel, he was nonetheless continuously interrupted, sometimes in a hostile fashion, and at times undermined by the host, when criticising Hamas. This may suggest that the presenter and/or the producers of The Vincent Browne show fostered an intolerant climate for one side of this discussion, where any expressions of sympathy with Israel were to be discouraged.

Colette Browne, an ‘Irish Independent’ columnist, even criticised Power’s opinion that Hamas should not be indiscriminately launching rockets on Israelis. Power stated that if Hamas “really were interested in the security of their people, one of the things that would give them huge leverage is if they stopped firing these rockets”. Colette Browne interrupted to assert that “they [Hamas] stopped in 2012 and the blockade wasn’t lifted on Gaza.” This contention relates to the unlikely claim by some terrorist groups that they stopped firing rockets in the 2012 ‘Pillar of Cloud’ War, in exchange for the opening of Israel’s borders. Extravagant claims of victory are a normative part of conflicts, where terror groups like Hamas and Hizbullah often proclaim victory after resounding defeat.

The 24th July was the day of the missile strike on the UN school in Gaza’s Beit Hanoun district. The mainstream Western media rushed to a judgement on the strike, with the attribution of blame unjustly associated with Israel, which appears to have become an innate reflex since the Millennium.

Dearbhaill McDonald directed a question on the issue to ex-rugby player, Trevor Hogan, who having repeatedly berated Declan Power, was speaking on behalf of anti-Israel group ‘Gaza Action Ireland’:

“And some breaking news over the course of the programme, Trevor, that Israel is no longer standing over the position earlier that Hamas is responsible for that attack on the UN school.”

These claims did in fact emerge several hours earlier. Trevor Hogan, replied with an unintended irony:

“Exactly, Israel, Israeli spokespeople have a tendency, their immediate reaction is to deny everything, and blame Hamas, and then after everything cools down, they accept responsibility. And they’ve already done that with this latest incident. So it’s just a reminder that we should never believe a word Mark Regev, all of these spokespeople say, because they continuously twist the truth. And now as Larry and Colette has pointed out, there’s no way for them to hide anymore.”

In reality however, Israel asserted that they conducted a military campaign in the area within hours of the mainstream media’s frenzied coverage so it is fanciful for the presenter and guest to suggest they are spinning the story. McDonald and Hogan misrepresented Israel’s stance as they continued to deny responsibility for the missile strike on the school which led to the death of 15 Arab-Palestinians.

Whilst RTE’s ‘Prime Time’ coverage of the Beit Hanoun school missile strike (as described in Part Two of this article) was undoubtedly problematic, the presenter, Claire Byrne, did at least allow the fair expression of competing viewpoints. By contrast, ‘The Vincent Browne Show’ once again became an example of what any responsible broadcaster should avoid.

The attitudes of the principal host, Vincent Browne, were cause for complaint in the past, which the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland largely upheld.

Appendix

Tom McGurk’s questions to Ambassador Boaz Modai, on the Vincent Browne show (17th July 2014), show a marked contrast to the questioning directed at the Palestinian ambassadorial representative to Ireland, Ahmad Abdelrazek. Some responses are given in a synopsis due to the length of the debate.

Tom McGurk [question to Ambassador Boaz Modai]: “Tonight Ambassador thousands of Israeli troops, tanks are invading on Gaza. Presumably a very large number of people will be dead tomorrow morning?”

[Modai states that Rockets have continued with 12,000 rockets hitting Israel, stating that no government would tolerate such a thing]

McGurk: “But not many governments in the world would sent in troops, armoured cars, and tanks, into a small area of a million people, into a civilian situation, in the dark. They’ve gone in tonight with all the lights out in Gaza. Is that not a terrifying prospect?”

[Modai explains that there are two Gaza’s, and air strikes could not destroy the tunnels and rockets.]

McGurk: “But you’ve invaded both Gaza’s because they are still the same piece of territory.”

[Modai states the army will do its utmost to protect civilians]

McGurk: “Yeah but what do you hope to achieve by this? Presumably if you have members of Hamas, what will you do with them tonight, will you arrest them, shoot them on the spot, what will you do with them?”

[Modai states it is difficult to discuss the military operation]

McGurk: [Laughs] “I think we should [discuss the military operation]. There is a moral question there.”

[Modai responds by stating that the moral question is who aims what at whom — pointing out Hamas does a double war crime by aiming at civilians from civilian areas]

McGurk [Interrupting]: “Ok we’ve heard that speech all week! What is the purpose of the invasion tonight. If a certain number of people are killed, will Hamas stop, will Hamas surrender, what is the purpose of it because when you pull out, after how many people will be killed on either side, what will the difference be?”

[Modai states that the aim is not to kill people but to achieve a solution to a problem — the terror tunnels, Israel intercepted Hamas militants using a tunnel to get into a Kibbutz to cause a massacre.]

McGurk [sighing and interrupting]: “There has already been a massacre… But ambassador, there has already been a massacre, and 60 children. The world is looking at Israel in astonishment. Do you realise the damage you are doing to the state of Israel internationally and globally? To kill 60 children is a war crime in anybody’s language.”

Modai: “The easy use of the word ‘war crime’” [goes on to challenge the stance by pointing to the bombing of Kosovo in 1999, by Western nations, in which 2000 civilians were killed, including many children.]

McGurk: “So 60 don’t matter that much then?”

[Modai counters that war often leads to civilian deaths, especially when used as human shields]

McGurk [To the Palestinian ambassadorial representative, Doctor Ahmad Abdelrazek]: “The bottom line here is that the Hamas rockets have provoke the situation. And if there were no Hamas rockets, there wouldn’t be this invasion. Does that not add up?”

Abdelrazek: “The results that we see they are targeting the civilians without ah sometimes I think its for fun because what we have see yesterday, and all the journalists in Gaza saw yesterday, that the gunship, the Israeli gunship shot the four children at the beach. It was clear there are children. It was clear they are not armed but they shot two shots and the second shot the children, and blast others… when this people are on the beach there were nobody, no Hamas people, no fighters people. There are children playing football.”

McGurk [to Modai]: “Well Ambassador, would you explain to this Palestinian gentleman why… let the ambassador explain why that was done?” [Notably McGurk allows the PA Ambassador to completely side-step this question, and actually turns on Modai]

[Modai states that it was probably a mistake due to the confusion of war. He notes his surprise the Arab-Palestinian ambassador’s stance as his leader Mahmoud Abbas was critical of Hamas’ actions in targeting Israeli civilians indiscriminately. He suggests the ambassador is trying to protect Hamas].

McGurk: “Are Hamas not elected?”

Abdelrazek [instead of stating that he does not defent Hamas — the PA Ambassador states]: “Mr. Ambassador, you say you your soldier doesn’t target civilians, I’ll give you many examples. First of all you remember on last March, when a soldier shooted killed a Jordanian judge, just with cold blood. Many witnesses. The second, when the soldier shooted and the unity, the army said he wasn’t a member of the unity but [indistinct] he shooted the young boy.”

McGurk: [instead of allowing Modai reply, McGurk interrupts and asked the PA ambassador] “Sorry to interrupt you. I want to move you on to tonight, you are familiar with Gaza, what is that scene like tonight”

Abdelrazek: “you can imagine one point seven million people are…”

McGurk: “…in the dark”

Abdelrazek [echoes McGurk]: “…in the dark, and in an area of 300 square kilometres only, and ahh ahh ahh the Israelis say they don’t want to war but we have to know that before the beginning they started to to call the reservists, how many reservists Mr. Ambassador? More than 60,000 reservists has been called. How, what for? A tiny three hundred square kilometres. It’s a huge army for Gaza. It’s a huge army so it was deliberately preparing for the invasion of Gaza.”

McGurk: “Boaz, can I put this to you, ah you know there the accusation that this is the doctrine of collective punishment, and who knows more about the doctrine of collective punishment than the Jewish people who were murdered in millions by the process of collective punishment. How do you face that accusation because to many Gaza is a prison camp.”

Modai: “Could you repeat the question. Are you trying in any way to compare in any way the Holocaust…”

McGurk: “No, I’m talking about the process of collective punishment, where a whole group of people are punished. That is what is going on here in Gaza. Would you recognise that?”

[McGurk interrupting as Modai begins to answer] “You saw everybody tonight in Gaza being punished.”

[Modai states the Gazans are the victims of Hamas, rather than the Israelis].

McGurk: “Perhaps but what can they do about Hamas? What do you want them to do about Hamas?”

Modai: [pauses, seemingly with incredulity at the question] “What does the world do about Hamas, what does the Palestinian Authority do, I mean this is a question you should be asking? … his government is sharing power with the Hamas.” This is a terrorist organisation, do you accept that? [McGurk allows the PA Representative to interrupt.]

Abdelrazek [The PA Ambassador puts his hand up to interject]: “I’ll tell you something now. I’ll tell you something. Since we are… Mr. Ambassador. Mr. Ambassador, the whole problem lets go to the origin. The whole problem is occupation, and we say the only way to have security is to have a just solution of two state solution. When you started to negotiate with the Israeli government, Mr. Netanyahu, the prime minister, he used to say ah ah ah President Abbas doesn’t represent all the Palestinian, and when we form the unity government Mr. Netanyahu say Mr. Abbas ah ah ah should choose between peace or Hamas. Our government is recognising Israel, our government is so we don’t.”

[Modai reminds the PA Ambassador that Hamas calls for the destruction of Israel.]

Abdelrazek [taking exception]: “Excuse me, no no you have people in your government, excuse me, Mr Neftali Benai who is a minister”

Modai: “He’s not against peace. He’s for peace.”

Abdelrazek: “I’ll tell you what he said…” [reaches into his pocket]

McGurk: “Boaz, can I just ask you this? You said the people in Gaza have to deal with Hamas. How do they deal with Hamas? I mean they don’t ask Hamas to fire the rockets. How do they deal with them?”

Modai: “We’re trying to help them to get rid of the Hamas…”

McGurk [interrupting]: “…by invading with thousands of [indistinct]? By killing them?”

Abdelrazek [joining in with McGurk]: “the civilians… the civilians…”

Modai: “We are not killing the civilians [intentionally]. It’s very nice, I’m sure the viewers see how you both attack me on that.”

McGurk [interrupting as well as Abdelrazek]: “your affliction of the facts, not of any [indistinct].”

[Modai states that Abdelrazek knows well what Hamas are all about, and objects to the equivocation of Hamas and the IDF, stating that they only target civilians, not the military. Refers to the Allies having killed more civilians than military, asking does that mean they were wrong, and Germany right?]

McGurk: “Speaking of history, can I say something to you? In Ireland we have a particular understanding of this problem because we too were a dispossessed people for hundreds of years. We too understand the notion of being dispossessed in our own land. This has been the experience of the Palestinians. And that’s perhaps why Irish sentiment is sympathetic to the Palestinians. We’ve also had a peace process. We’d a thirty-year war here. Nothing was ended until both sides put away the weapons and sat down and had an agreement, and an enemies became friends.”

Abdelrazek: “Absolutely.”

McGurk: “Where are you ever going to start a peace process gentlemen? Where can there be a starting point, certainly not tonight.”

Abdelrazek: “When Israel accept the are two states on the 1967 borders.”

McGurk: “1967 Borders, no?”

Modai: “Israel already agreed to two states but there is no dialogue.”

Abdelrazek: “How you say there is no dialogue” [states Abbas is proposing negotiating now for a strictly three month period — argue back and forth about a notional ‘right of return’, and setting preconditions of the 1967 borders before negotiations.]

McGurk: “Is there a possibility ah that ah sometime tomorrow, if there’s huge numbers of people dead, that Israel will realise the level of the mistake that is being made here, because you’re looking at thousands of young kids in Gaza, and the population, as you know, almost half the population is under the age of 10 or 15. Tonight, watching their doors smashed in, and the soldiers arresting their family, what are they going to become in 10 or 15 years time?”

Modai: “You have to decide what is better, to target from the air or the ground?”

McGurk [interrupting]: or or or try the peace.”

Abdelrazek [laughing at Modai’s phrasing]: “Do we have to choose which way to be killed, Mr. Ambassador?”

[Modai refers again to Hamas’ wish for destruction]: “Do you try to make peace with someone who calls for your destruction, who shoots at your citizens indiscriminately?”

Abdelrazek: “No, no, this is nonsense.”

McGurk [to Abdelrazek]: “I’m going to give you the final word. We’re running out of time. Final thought about tonight in Gaza.”

Abdelrazek: “Already already since the the Israeli ah invaded, the Israeli troops invaded Gaza, already there are four dead people, and twenty twenty ah ah blast, but ah thank you Mr. Ambassador to give us the chance to choose our way to be killed, by air or by troops.”







Published at Crethi Plethi.

“Welcome to Gaza” – Banksy’s anti-Israel video

A screen-shot of Banksy's anti-Israel video, showing the West Bank security barrier

[March 31st update: Two paragraphs have been added just above the sub-heading ‘Omitting Hamas from the equation’]

Banksy, a popular British street-artist, has just issued a new video attacking Israel’s more recent conduct in Gaza. The video, ostensibly presented as a promotional film to attract tourism to Gaza, heavily applies sarcasm from the outset, with statements concerning Gaza’s appeal as a tourist destination, that frame bracketed follow-on points intended to reveal Gaza’s supposed reality.

The video begins by recommending a new destination for tourists: Gaza! It shows Banksy apparently climbing through a tunnel, presumably constructed by Hamas. The video claims that Gaza is…

“Well away from the tourist track (Access is via a network of illegal tunnels)”

“The locals like it so much they never leave (because they’re not allowed to)”

“Nestled in an exclusive setting (surrounded by a wall on three sides and a line of gun boats on the other)”

“Watched over by friendly neighbours” (in 2014 Israel destroyed 18,000 homes)

“Development opportunities are everywhere (No cement has been allowed into Gaza since the bombing)”

“Plenty of scope for refurbishment”

An Arab-Palestinian man discusses a street painting of a cat, presumably by Banksy. He repeatedly asks “what about our children?” The “promotional” video then ends with a message painted on a wall:

“If we wash our hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless we side with the powerful — we don’t remain neutral.”

Point and Counterpoint

Despite the fact that Banksy has attacked Israel intermittently over the years, this short and quite unremarkable Youtube video was deemed to be newsworthy. For example, on February 26th, it was featured cyclically on Irish State broadcaster RTE’s “top stories” section of their News Now channel (“Banksy video takes aim at Gaza destruction”), and given a glowingly uncritical reception devoid of any meaningful analysis.

In 2005, Banksy is believed to have produced a Christmas card that recalls old Christian anti-Semitic imagery concerning Jews rejecting Jesus, with Israel now obstructing the movement of Mary and Joseph via the security fence. Anti-Semitic website “If Americans Knew” has widely used the image to suggest Israel imprisoned the notionally Christian town of Bethlehem.

Banksy's "Christmas card"

Concerning Gaza, Banksy states

“Gaza is often described as ‘the world’s largest open air prison’ because no one is allowed to enter or leave. But that seems a bit unfair to prisons — they don’t have their electricity and drinking water cut off randomly almost every day,”

Banksy’s particularly strong criticism is unwarranted. Israel supplies water and electricity to Gaza, along with foodstuffs, medicine, and other items. It also provides medical assistance to thousands of Gazans each year in Israeli hospitals, regardless of political affiliation to Hamas. Israel is not obliged to supply water and electricity to Gaza since the zone involved is not a signatory to the Fourth Geneva Convention but it still does so to lessen the impact of the maritime embargo. 

Ultimately, there would be no blockade if Hamas had not engaged in protracted periods of belligerency, which largely impacts the civilian populace in Southern Israel, just a few miles from the Gaza border. Substantive numbers of civilians have been fleeing Hamas’ attacks since its election in 2006. The Palmer Report has found Israel’s maritime blockade to be a legal act due to Hamas’ sustained hostilities.

Hamas, as the de facto governing body controlling the region, is the authority responsible for supplying water to Gaza’s populace. Israel transferred control of the water supply infrastructure to the Palestinian Authority, with their withdrawal in 2005, and exceeds its OSLO II 31 MCM water supply obligations, by supplying the Palestinian Authority with increasing amounts of water in more recent years: 52 MCM in 2012, constituting 67.75% more water annually.

Unfortunately, Hamas damaged the supply substantively in the intervening period. It has drilled several hundred wells without authorisation from the joint Israeli-Palestinian water authority, thereby harming water quality. In 2013, Israel doubled its water supply to Gaza, with the construction of a new pipeline. During the 2014 war, Israel continued to supply Gazans with water, and repair damage to the infrastructure.

Hamas’ own actions led to frequent power blackouts over the territory, whilst Israel initiated projects to improve and maintain the electricity supply. In June 2014, Hamas rocket fire damaged the power supply. The many media reports claiming Israel had destroyed the plant were fanciful since it would soon come back on line. During the war, COGAT also imported substantial amounts of fuel for domestic use.

In broader terms, Israel has sponsored several hundred projects to improve conditions in Gaza which ill-befits Banksy’s image of evil Israel.

Banksy appears to suggest that Gaza is surrounded on all sides by Israel, and sarcastically refers to its “friendly neighbours”. Odd then that he makes no mention of Egypt, the other nation that shares a border with Gaza. Egypt intermittently allows passage out of Gaza but prevents the entry of water, electricity and foodstuffs into Gaza. It can be suggested Israel is the party at war with Hamas but Egypt has long been keen to prevent Hamas, a military wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, from flourishing, and is taking increasingly drastic steps to prevent Hamas and Islamic Jihad from infiltrating the Sinai.

It is surely pure invention to claim that “a line of gun boats” surround Gaza by sea. With the maritime blockade, sea access was restricted from the 13th August 2008 after Hamas instigated further acts of belligerency. A six nautical mile limit for Gaza’s fishermen was established, which was temporarily restricted to three miles when hostilities escalated.

Banksy claims 18,000 homes have been destroyed by the 2014 Gaza war. This figure was postulated in August/September 2014 by Arab-Palestinian representatives. Figures are difficult to establish with some estimating as few as 10,000 buildings were destroyed, whilst the UNRWA asserts that 7,000+ homes have been destroyed, doubling its previously held figures during a recent campaign to raise further funds. The UNRWA’s anti-Israel activism is notorious so it is likely that its figures err rather generously. Either way, it is untrue to claim that 18,000 homes have been destroyed by Israel, and particularly disingenuous to reveal such a figure without mention of Hamas’ policy of firing from residential areas and placing their fighters inside family homes.

Banksy claims that tunnels are the only method of access to Gaza. Presumably, this claim is not meant to be taken seriously. However, it does reinforce the imprisonment narrative, whilst presenting to his audience an amusing stance on Hamas’ use of tunnels for black market imports as well as terrorist activities.

It would surely have been intolerable for Banksy’s anti-Israel narrative to have informed his viewers that Hamas use tunnels to conduct terrorist attacks against civilians. The immense amount of cement used in such tunnels has been widely discussed. Hamas diverted thousands of tons of building materials away from the construction of homes and public infrastructure despite apparent supervision by international bodies and aid agencies. The terrorist group continues to do so.

Banksy claims no cement has entered Gaza, which is a follow-on point from his assertion about the number of houses that were destroyed during the 2014 war. Dual-use cement has been proscribed, due to its military usage. However, Banksy’s claim is disingenuous because thousands of tons of other building materials have been transported to the Gaza Strip. Israel’s COGAT agency stated that in excess of 62,000 tons of constructions materials were transferred between August 2014 and February 2015, which is believed to have assisted 43,000 Gazans. Israel has since lifted the ban on cement.

Banksy also infers there are few opportunities for the People of Gaza. However, whilst conditions would doubtlessly be extremely challenging due to the war, further Israeli initiatives, for business and reconstruction, commenced in the aftermath of the conflict.

Omitting Hamas from the equation

Perhaps the most notable aspect of Banksy’s video is not so much what it states but the content it leaves out. There is a complete absence of any reference to Hamas, rocket and mortar attacks, Islamist terrorism perpetuated against Israeli civilians etc. In other words, the video provides zero context. There is only space for poignant images of Arabs living in a bomb damaged environment, and apparent instances of Israeli oppression and aggression.

The video’s absolutist dichotomy is reinforced by a total absence of images or footage that includes Hamas. The viewer is not any wiser about Gaza’s governance. In fact, without explanation, the video features a scene of heavily armed IDF soldiers, with the words “The locals like it so much they never leave (because they’re not allowed to)”. However, the video footage of the soldiers appears to have been shot in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), because the security barrier is shown in the background. The inclusion of such content may lead to the viewer to believe that Gaza is still occupied by Israel.

By implication, Banksy cast Hamas as powerless, when he wrote “of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless…” This is a normative claim by anti-Israel activists, who excuse Hamas’ belligerency, incitement, and terrorism against a civilian populace which it desires to see exterminated.

Perhaps Banksy should ask which party truly tyrannises the Gazan populace? Could it be an Islamist regime that no longer constitutes the territory’s legitimately elected representatives, that puts its people in harms way to continue its belligerency at all costs, to be used as fodder in intensive anti-Israel propaganda?

Other than shady motivations, what could possibly prompt omissions of Hamas from this narrative?

“Art” versus reality

Over the years, Banksy has become an integral part of the British cultural landscape, endeared to many by the left-wing themes of his work which are arguably compatible with Britain’s more recent cultural patterns. His critiques of Israel are in keeping with this paradigm, where there is little space afforded to pro-Israel perspectives.

Any promotional tourist video will of course be expected to present the location being advertised in the most attractive fashion possible. Such videos are expected to be economical with the truth. Banksy’s rather artless faux-tourist video is presented as an opposite. It is presented as the unpleasant truth confronting the viewer. Unfortunately however, a rich unintended irony occurs since the video features is a string of normative and propagandistic pro-Palestinian falsehoods.

Perhaps the most meaningful scene in Banksy’s video occurs where an Arab-Palestinian man asks “what about our children?” This is a question that can cut both ways. It has a particular resonance for anyone with a passing familiarity with Hamas’ policy of radicalising the children of Gaza.

It can be argued with justification that, despite all its profound falsehoods, this Banksy reveals a deeper truth – how disingenuously the anti-Israel movement present this complex conflict. Viewers might ask if the echoing of conflict propaganda clarifies ethical matters or merely thickens the fog of war.





Also published at Crethi Plethi.