http://perpetuaofcarthage.blogspot.com/2009/02/un-admits-israel-didnt-bomb-un-school.html

I believe you have completely misunderstood the purpose of my article. Your accusations are coming from someone who does not comprehend the academic field of research and writing, you evidently do not comprehend the seriousness of what is going on in Gaza and therefore to discuss this further with you would be a waste of time.

Thanks for a careful response. As I said, if your plan was to create a negative to Heinsohn’s argument you did it. He is placing the entire responsibility on the Palestinians, you are placing it entirely on the Israelis. I don’t think that you and him disagree that a viable economy in the Gaza strip would make both sides better off. Heinsohn places the entire responsibility for Gazans not having an economy on the Palestinians, you place it on the Israelis.

As to the ceasefires Haffington Post articles, I have no doubt in the credentials of the researchers and their institutions. More so, they probably did the best they could provided the data they had. However, the point is that these data present a partial picture. Deaths are countable, thus it is easy to make a quantitative statement with them. However, how do you count an act of violence that does not bare any casualties? What about a missile that falls but does not kill anyone during a ceasefire? Do you count it as a violation of the ceasefire or not? How is that kind of violation factored in their data? Also, when the death does occur, what was the context? Is a civilian death from random shooting equals a death of military personnel in an armed encounter? Their data does not account for these differences and I do not think you can derive any decisive conclusion out of it.

I think the case I mentioned is a good example for the importance of context in responsibility placing. I took the information about the encounter on November 4th from searching the mainstream media. Here is a reference from Guardian and another one from the NY Times:

Guardian:

“The truce was due to end tomorrow but has been unravelling ever since Israel crossed into Gaza, killed six Hamas fighters and destroyed a tunnel on 4 November.”

NY Times:

“The Israeli military said in a statement that its forces had identified a group of gunmen trying to place an explosive device near the border fence, leading to an exchange of fire. Four of the gunmen were fatally hit and an Israeli soldier was lightly wounded, the statement said.”

I am sure you can easily find more references. Now, this is where it is getting complex. Was digging a tunnel into Israel and/or placing explosives conducted by armed men a violation of the ceasefire? Or was it only a response of the IDF to these activities a violation of the ceasefire?

I am not sure it makes sense to refer to other points where I think you are lacking context or are framing things in a particular way if we clarified that your intent was to create a negative to Heinsohn’s article. In that case, your choice of rhetoric makes perfect sense.

When I say that we seek “information that does not conflict with our believes and worldviews” I mean that he bases his arguments on data and interpretations that help him make his point. You do the same in order to base your criticism. You revealing your references does make it easier to criticize your argument, him not revealing it makes it harder to criticize his explanations, but not his general idea.

I am not sure I would call his article “a scholarly peace of work” as it is clearly an opinion piece (which he is trying to base on his “theory”), but that is a different story. I do hope that you are wrong in your statement that his “theory” “is having a detrimental influence on US foreign policy” (tried to google his institute, but couldn’t easily find it, so I cannot judge how powerful it is). But that is again a different story.

Sincerely hope for peace in the region.
Dima

I think it is quite clear that the article was a direct response to the outrageous suggestions in Heinsohn’s article. As a result my response was an attempt at contextualising his arguments, and showing on a number of levels the absurdity of his suggestions, in light of that context. The reality of the situation in Gaza today speaks for itself, and therefore I feel it does not require a “deep and meaningful argument” to be made for it.

Your suggestion that I am doing in my article what Heinsohn is doing in his is absurd. I am not promoting genocide and I am not promoting a theory. My role is as critic. Heinsohn holds a high position in a University and is a powerful scholar, I do not believe he is simply seeking “information that does not conflict with our believes and worldviews”. He is actively promoting a theory that is having a detrimental influence on US foreign policy.

As for the example you provide of the breaking of ceasefires, this was a study carried out by a joint Tel Aviv University-European University team, which I beleive can be taken with some seriousness, and certainly would have gone under some academic rigour! As for the details, I do not know the specifics, you provide no sources to your claim. Also, if you could provide any other examples where my response could be seen to lack context, lack a frame of argument or not support its claims, I would greatly appreciate it.

I do not believe that I have in any way oversimplified the conflict, nor denied its complexity. My article is a response to a scholarly peice of work, and I do not claim to even be attempting to explain the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is quite natural for us to seek information that does not conflict with our believes and worldviews. This is what Heinsohn is doing in his article and this is what you are doing in yours. Perhaps your intention was to produce the negative of his article to show how absurd it is. In that sense it is a successful rhetorical exercise and you definitely make your point. But if your intention was to make a more meaningful and deeper argument, I think your article is not doing a very good job.

For example, you place the blame for breaking the ceasefire on Israelis basing it on the Haffington Post article. The article is doing an interesting exercise, but one that would not really stand academic rigor. For example, it says:

“..what happened to end this striking period of peace? On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.”

What do I learn from this? I learn that Israelis just went out there and shot a random Palestinian. That definitely serves your and Nancy Kanwisher’s rhetorical argument. Yet, if you go and look for what happened on that day you will see that it was slightly more complicated. It turns out that it was a fire exchange between the IDF and a group of armed militias who were planting explosives along the border with Israel. According to the Israeli sources, one IDF solder got wounded in that fight. So, who is there to blame or place the responsibility on? I don’t think this is a very easy task.

Of course, this just one example, but I do think it is representative of a phenomenon. There is a great degree of complexity in this conflict and I don’t think that any attempt to simplify it does any justice. On the contrary, such attempts only push people to barricade further in their respective positions.

You see now why the UN is a joke and a ‘play ball’ of the nation states to get more power. Did anyone did anything when Tibet was invaded? Did anyone did anything when Russia bombed the 9*@(*@ out of Chechnya? Did anyone did anything when Sudan was busy to ‘clean’ their country up? No. International law is a joke and is only used when it benefits major powers. It’s still the law of the jungle, the right of the strongest. And I don’t think this will change. Nor do I blame this on anyone. It’s just a part of the nature of mankind.
–>
“Most people are not rational, they are TRIBAL: “my gang yay, your gang boo!” It really is that simple. The rest is cosmetics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Brecher

Israel should be held accountable for its crimes, and the U.S. should stop abetting it with unconditional military and diplomatic support.

Thanks again Tamara for the eloquent refutation.