The Tragedy of Human Pieces

[eumelia]

I'm on New Profile's mailing list and they send out quite a lot of informative emails almost everyday.

The one I received today was a round up of links about the IDF soldiers testimonies I already wrote about here and here:

Throughout the January war on Gaza, Palestinians in Gaza reported that the Israeli military was intentionally harming civilians, obstructing medical assistance, and destroying and vandalizing homes and property. Following the end of the active assault, human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, among others, gathered extensive testimonies from Palestinians describing these crimes in detail. (See these two sites for more information: http://www.hrw.org/en/features/israel-gaza and http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/un-urged-039find-truth039-about-gaza-conflict-20090316)

On March 19th, Ha'aretz confirmed the Palestinians' claims in published testimonies given by soldiers who fought in Gaza. In news reported around the world, Ha'aretz published excerpts of testimonies by IDF soldiers who confessed that they'd knowingly shot civilians to death in Gaza, that they'd intentionally vandalized Palestinian homes, and that the rules of engagement in the war - rules handed down from above - were exceptionally permissive. Amos Harel, the reporter who broke the story in Ha'aretz, is known as a military correspondent and is not considered a critic of the IDF. You can read his articles on the soldiers' testimonies here:

- "IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement" 3/19/2009 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html

- 'Shooting and crying' 3/20/2009 http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072475.html (From Ha'aretz's Friday magazine, this article contains lengthy excerpts from the soldiers' testimonies)

- "Testimonies on IDF misconduct in Gaza keep rolling in" 3/22/2009 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072811.html

As Amira Hass explained on Democracy Now, the significance of the soldiers' testimonies is that "the soldiers actually confirm what Palestinians have been telling for the past three months, and journalists who listen to Palestinians and believe Palestinians and know their work of taking affidavits and testimonies from Palestinians have done so during the last three months. This is the main importance." (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/20/israel_promises_internal_probe_after_soldiers) Hearing from the soldiers is important because in Israel, Hass writes, the conventional wisdom is that "Palestinians lie, so their statements should not be taken seriously." (Amira Hass, "Time to Believe Gaza War Crimes Allegations, 3/24/2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073469.html).

The IDF responded by denying the soldiers' testimonies or claiming that, if some incidents were true, they were isolated (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073208.html). The IDF also launched an investigation into the soldiers' testimonies (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072511.html).

On Monday, March 30th, Ha'aretz published this headline: "IDF ends Gaza probe, says misconduct claims are 'rumors' ". (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1074981.html) (The headline could have almost been straight out of The Onion, the satirical American newspaper.) Calling the soldiers' reports of grave misconduct "based in hearsay," the IDF concluded that it is, in fact, "the most moral army in the world." Defense Minister Ehud Barak went so far as to say that "'There is no other army in the world that is as introspective as the IDF'." (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075221.html) One could be surprised that it took the IDF all of 11 days to draw such conclusions. Various international bodies haven't reaches such hasty conclusions and are gearing up to pursue war crimes allegations.

By ending the investigation, the IDF undermines the veracity of its soldiers and officers, whose testimonies it discounted; and foiled their attempts to report and discuss those crimes their country sent them to perpetrate. The IDF laid bare the double-speak of their military leaders, whose claims of introspection and morality fall flat in the face of the soldiers' testimonies, the human rights reports and the reports about soldiers' horrific, racist t-shirts, which came out the same weekend as the testimonies (see here for JPN posts on the t-shirts: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com/2009/03/worried-aunt-in-abu-ghosh.html and here for pictures: http://jewishpeacenews.blogspot.com/2009/03/photos-of-idf-training-graduates-t.html). The international media covered these stories about the IDF, including reports in the Wall Street Journal, BBC, and Huffington Post, just to name a few.

And most of all, the IDF once again dismissed its Palestinian victims and their spokespeople as legitimate sources of information and advocates of their own needs.

A Ha'aretz article from yesterday, April 1, is a fitting coda to these events: "Sharp rise in number of reports of soldiers harming Palestinian civilians" (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1075493.html). The number of assaults - the number of assaults that were reported - in 2008 was double the number from 2007, which was itself double the number reported in 2006.

Sarah Anne Minkin

Rela Mazali also writes:
Jewish society in Israel has repeatedly produced testimonial collections of this type (the first of which may have been Siyach Lochamim [Warriors' Discourse] published after the war of 1967).
Invariably following this or that military campaign, these have been instituted by now as a cultural-social ritual. While providing important, and in fact potentially incriminating, knowledge, the individual agonizing enacted by these ritual testimonials has equally, I feel, worked to maintain a deceptive façade of morality and decency.
The level of organized violence applied against Palestinians under the auspices of the state (by Israel's military and police, by Israeli settlers, through Israeli courts and legislature) has, it seems to me, increased severely over the decades of, and in parallel with, this recurrent personal agonizing. Apparently, the testimonies have not stemmed the use of violence by soldiers, settlers or state. Neither have they been transformed into incriminating evidence in courts.
On the other hand, while failing to achieve such practical consequences, they may have actually reinforced the imperviousness with which state violence is deployed; in publicizing cases of soldiers' moral deliberation and sensitivity (although always after the violent facts), they have imparted and reiterated an image of Israel's army as, supposedly, highly moral.
There is no doubt that some individual soldiers are deeply troubled by the decisions and actions they have taken and which they report in such testimonies. Overall, however, Israeli militarization has, I think, been served well by the ritual. Its substance has been coopted by the hegemony which, diffusing its critical import, has utilized it to both obscure and enable yet more actions of the kind originally called into question by the testimonies.

Back to my thoughts on the subject.
Over the week that the testimonies became News and were spoken about the whole time I likened the discourse to listening to a Rapist and disregarding the Rape victim. I know that's a very harsh comparison, but when you give voice to the Rapist, allow them to say "I'm sorry", "It was wrong", etc, one is essentially silencing the very real grievances that the Rape victim has against the Rapist.
Okay, so the family, friends and acquaintances forgive the Rapist, because they show so much remorse and regret and sorrow.
What about the victim(s)?
Do they have no say?
Usually, they are disbelieved if the powers that be chose not to find the evidence of the assault, of the dehumanisation and all the other disgusting stuff that happen throughout as assault of that kind.

I very much doubt Israel will be willing to listen to any testimony the Palestinians give, same with the international community, because now that Bibi is in power (with 24 ministers, most of them with made up positions and no health minister! WTF!!) there will be no interest in what the Palestinian people, the PA or the Internationals that are there have to say.

Add to that the murder and assault in the Settlement of Bat-Ayin in which a 13 year old Israeli boy was killed and a 7 year old Israeli boy (both Jewish of course) were wounded by an axe wielding man (Palestinian of course).

Gaza is now, in Israel's mind, pretty much forgotten. Now there is proof, once again, that the Palestinians want nothing more than to kill Jewish children, they are not interested in anything other than to cause trouble and destroy the Peace process that every single Israeli says they are interested in.

Whenever children are involved it is shocking, because such a short lifetime is now over and it seems all the more tragic, which it undoubtedly is and I truly feel for the families of those two boys.
The children of Gaza are less worthy of life than those in the Settlements in Samaria (that would be the West Bank). That is what we are fed, told and everything like that.
Israel is forced to harm civilians, right? In order to keep safe and secure.
Safety and Security will not be compromised in the name of Peace.
Pieces of humanity.
Oy.

I'll stop.
I had planned to give you more links and quotes regarding Bat-Ayin, but I think I'll just give you the titles and you can click on them if you are interested:
Working out a response by Amos Harel.
Analysis/Settlement attack plays into new government's hands by Akivah Eldar.
Settlers: Ehud Barak, left-wing policies to blame for attack by Nadav Shragai.
Israel fears Jewish extremists will avenge settlement murder by Anshel Pfeffer, Jonathan Lis and Nadav Shragai.

Comments

[logicalargument.livejournal.com]

OK, I'm failing to understand something here.

Here's where you lost me: "likened the discourse to listening to a Rapist and disregarding the Rape victim. I know that's a very harsh comparison, but when you give voice to the Rapist, allow them to say "I'm sorry", "It was wrong", etc, one is essentially silencing the very real grievances that the Rape victim has against the Rapist.

I'm confused about the point you are making here. How is it that when the wrongdoer acknowledges wrongdoing, owns it and takes responsibility for it and apologizes for it, that is silencing the victim? Isn't that concept of conscious accountability exactly what should happen?

This is separate from the question of whether a particular individual was sincere in his repentance in a particular case. I'm asking about the underlying principle involved.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Concious accountability is what should happen, but I'm wondering how other than saying "I'm sorry" and maybe feeling guilty about what they did are their lives going to be any different?

How are they going to be punished, if at all. This confession absolves them and their futures are not going to be that much different than what they would have been had they not spoken about what had happened.

The silence I talk about is the fact that after a confession of this kind, a victim can go on saying "you have wronged me", but nothing will come out of it. It only assuages the guilt of the perpetrator, the victim will continue to suffer (possibly regardless), the circumstances that led to the assault are not going to change and will most likely, at some point, happen again.

Is that clearer?

[logicalargument.livejournal.com]

I guess I see that as being more about the next step - "OK, good, you have repented, what now? What are you going to do about it?" - rather than about the repentance itself being a further wrong to the victim.

Follow-up is an important part of the concept of "restorative justice," which is part of what I'm talking about here. Apology is followed by some form of reparation /restitution, and when the situation is one which is likely to recur, some kind of positive action by the offender to change the pattern so that it does not keep happening again in the same way. This could be political organizing or consciousness-raising when the issue goes beyond the specific individuals affected in a particular instance. If I'm understanding you correctly, what you're saying is that the apology isn't true accountability if it isn't followed by constructive action to change the system. Am I getting that right?

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

You are.

As I said, the confession of wrong doing is pretty meaningless when nothing is going to change because of it.

To me, it appears to be just another symptom of Israel's righteous-indignation.

[shelestel.livejournal.com]

I would compare it not to rape, which has the sound of an isolated incident, but to an abusive relationship with its three phases. [not because the comparison to rape sounds harsh; sounds about right (whether the usual connotations of the word rape are legit is another question)] Remorse and regret are an integral part of the ongoing state of affairs, and the expectation that some "changes" should follow from them seem to me naive.

I think you're stopping one step short though, missing the fact that a fairly large amount of victim voices consists of "I'll kill you, motherfucker!", with some relevant means often at hand. To overlook that voice is to otherize the other side condescendingly, moralistically and dismissively, which can be more venomous than ignoring it altogether. In other words, it needs to be accepted that the other side does not follow the outlined behaviour pattern for a poor helpless victim whom we all so love.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

What?

What?

Israel doesn't have a health minister?

What?!

[tinyrevolution.livejournal.com]

You're so right about the confessions.

Criminals publicly boasting the fact that they got away with their crimes, and then getting a pat on the back to boot? Oh, how sweet of them to face occasional mild superficial condemnation while still evading JUSTICE! And society's acceptance of those crimes is confirmed when nothing else happens.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

30+ ministers and not one of them is for Health.

Oh, and two (out of the 30+) are women.

I'm feeling the democracy at work here.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I think, historically, the only voice we (Isreal) has heard from the Palestinians has been "I'll kill you motherfucker", as you say, but without the context of the soldiers testimonies.
My point is, we'll continue to hear that voice, because it serves the agenda of keeping the people of Gaza and the West Bank "Other", while comforting the soldiers who committed the crime and still ignoring the testimonies of Palestinians who were under attack who don't say "I'll kill you".

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Yeah, nothing is going to change, it's already been forgotten as far as I'm concerned, from the Israeli psyche, the Chief of Staff is still saying it's a crock and no one in the Israeli media is talking about what appears to shaping up an international investigation.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Do women just not often stand for election? Or do they have to be selected by their parties before they are allowed to stand, and the parties just won't select female candidates?

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Or I suppose do the electorate just not like voting for women?