The Next Peter Greste Will Be Tried In Canberra

Have you heard the story of Peter Greste?

He, along with several other Al Jazeera journalists, are currently sitting in an Egyptian jail cell for breaching Egyptian national security. According to the government they colluded with the Muslim Brotherhood, an internationally recognised terror group, and so were imprisoned.

The 'collusion' that the Egyptian State accuses them of is what we here in Australia (and around the world) call simply 'reporting'. Yes...reporting. It boggles the mind that any country, especially Egypt where a large percentage of the population supported the Muslim Brotherhood in the both the past election and during the protests. Some put the MB membership as high as 2 million and so it reasons that journalists would wish to discover more about this large swarths of Egyptians.

This was the job that Peter Greste was doing when he was arrested. The trial, to put it lightly, was a sham. Evidence which the prosecutors claim was proof that AJ sought to harm Egyptian national security was in fact filmed by other networks, during his summation the judge claimed that the journalists were 'in league with the devil' (who presumably could not be called as a defence witness) and even Egypt's President has come out regretting the international trial.

But to this day, several months since their sentencing, Peter Greste and his Al Jazeera compatriots are facing a seven year imprisonment for simply doing their jobs. Not even for spilling secrets or holding the Egyptian government to account for their (grave) human rights abuses. Their continued incarceration is a blight on society and we should never forget their names.

But what does this have to do with Australia?

Because in Australia if you want to hold the security agencies to account then you're going to find yourself in jail for the next decade.

See here in Australia we've recently begun to talk a lot about Islamic State. They've been getting quite a bit of press and because of that we've joined the coalition against them.

I've already made my feelings about this clear in my previous blog post about who should really be fighting ISIS but as I am not in charge of either the Australian or US armies I guess I just have to accept the decisions of the elected representatives.

However what I don't accept is the pretence of national security to bolster the surveillance state. This is what has recently happened with the passage of our new national security laws.

The laws essentially allows intelligence operations to be designated as 'SIO' or 'Special Intelligence Operations which, if revealed by the media, can land that journalist in jail for a minimum of ten years. So if ASIO was conducting one of these 'SIOs' and something went horribly wrong (not out of the scope of possibility...just google Dr Muhamed Haneef) then this colossal screw up could be branded an SIO and any mention of it would essentially be censored.

This is not how democracies should act.

Recently ASIO and the Australian Federal Police conducted sweeping raids against a number of targets across Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. This was due to a terror threat against a random member of the Australian public. It has been claimed that IS terrorists overseas contacted a cell here in Australia and told them to snatch a random person off the street and to behead them.

That in itself is a frightening scenario. The beheadings of Western journalists and aid workers have shocked the world but to have it occur here in the streets of Australia would reverberate around the country. Fear would cripple society. Not just because of the gruesome act itself but because it was so entirely random. This is how terrorists work. They don't need to do a lot...they sometimes don't even have to do anything...they just need to evoke fear.

So the Police and security agencies swooped on the suspected terrorists and arrested them. A frightening image of a sword bundled into an evidence bag was splashed across the newspapers throughout the Commonwealth.

 'Terror in Australia' the headlines read. Unfortunately of the dozen or so who were arrested they've almost all been released without charge.

"But the sword" I hear you ask

Yeah...the sword was plastic.

This is one of the most disturbing aspects of these recent sweeping changes. The threat that Australia faces from terrorism pales compared to the response. Australia has simply gotten caught up in the idea that it is a ripe target for Islamic extremism and it is based more on conjecture than evidence.

This is not to say that Islamic extremism is not a threat. It is. I truly believe that it is a matter of when, rather than if, IS, IJ, JI, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda or any of the other myriad of extremist groups are able to effectively target us on our home soil.

But the fact of the matter remains we are not facing the same threat from terrorists that Iraq, America or Israel. There is very little radicalisation within our Islamic communities and if so the Islamic communities have, with some exceptions, come out firmly and publicly against radicalisation.

Rather than conjuring up a threat to Australians why don't we begin to focus on the very real problems of domestic violence? How about we use some of those over-arching powers to ensure that women within our communities are safe to walk the streets at night without the threat of rape? Perhaps we should have a couple of SIOs on the uncomfortably close relationship between corporations and politicians?

The next Peter Greste will be tried in Canberra. That's the reality of the situation with these new laws. If a journalist decides to expose an ASIO bungle or an immoral operation (it should be noted that the government was forced to backdown in immunity for ASIO officers in the case of torture) then they will have to have major financial backing before even thinking about printing the article. The reason is that they will be hauled before the courts and they will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal fees JUST to be found innocent. That's enough to force any journalist to think twice before 'endangering national security'...or as they call it....'reporting'.

Realistically these laws should never have made it to parliament....and they should have at least been up for debate by our so called 'Opposition'. Only a year ago we were the envy of the developed world: a booming economy, a progressive government and legislation such as the ETS and NBN. Today we have is mocked overseas, feared at home and is only able to boost their poll numbers by whipping up the near invisible threat of Islamic extremism.

The same tired, old playbook.

Who Else Can Fight ISIS?

It goes without saying that ISIS (the Islamic State In Syria) is beyond abhorrent. They are an evil group and represent the very worst of humanity. Their litany of crimes, which grows more gruesome by the day, reads as if the nightmares of the Middle Ages had come to life and had taken over large swarths of Syria and Iraq.

Unfortunately the fundamentalist ideology is based on 12th Century doctrine and they have proved to be a formidable armed force. They have not only captured Iraqi oil wells but they are also financing their slaughter by robbing banks, selling slaves and are recruiting through social media.

Because of this the world has finally decided to reign them in.

Last week President Obama announced that the US Military would commence operations to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS. Fantastic. Who else is showing up? Well Poland, France, Australia, Britain, Germany, Netherlands and Canada.

Great group! Seriously! For these nations to commit troops, be they air or land, shows that they believe that ISIS is an organisation that has to be stopped at the stem before it can worm its way into the rest of the world. I wholeheartedly stand with these countries in their battle against these Islamic terrorists.

But they shouldn't be fighting this war.

This is not their war and they should not be sacrificing blood and treasure to reign in this disgusting group.

It's only in the last few hours that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and Egypt have all signalled their support for a US led coalition against ISIS.

Except their support isn't really coming with troops or planes or any kind of legitimate help.

They're mainly there for moral support. They're the guys who stand on the sidelines and say "buck up, trooper". They're not actually going to get their hands dirty. They are providing intelligence and humanitarian relief for those who are suffering under the oppressive heel of ISIS.

That's bullshit.

Consider the fact that it was Qatar and Saudi Arabia who funded ISIS as a counter to Bashar al-Assad. Also consider that Saudi Arabia is the greatest exporter of Islamic fundamentalist terror as they have been spreading the Wahhabis wings throughout the world. Petro-dollars are helping fuel the very terror that the West is now committed to fighting.

Yet none of these countries, who are all major beneficiaries of US funded weapons (state of the art weapons), are committing even a machine gun? The Israelis have already said that if ISIS takes down the Jordanians they'd blow the living hell out of them. If the Arab nations weren't so pissy about siding with Israel then I'm sure that you would be seeing Star of David adorned jets flying over Iraq and Syria bombing ISIS positions right now.

But here's the thing.

The Arabs want to play themselves as the perpetual victim. They want to export this terror and then have the West come and help them when it bites them in the leg. THEN they want the West to take the blame for any Arab casualties that may occur. The Arab States not only have a role in fighting ISIS, they have the only role. They are the ones who should be forming a broad Arab coalition and killing ISIS. The West will gladly help them with intelligence, logistics and humanitarian missions but that's it.

IF (and that's a big if) the Arab armies find that they are not match for ISIS then absolutely the West should commit themselves militarily to fighting the extremist group.

I have never shied away from advocating interventionist policies if I believe that it is in the greater good of the human race. I do believe that ISIS MUST be stopped militarily. But the Arab nations have to finally come to the table and lead the charge.

Arabs, it's time to embrace your inner Saladin and start kicking ass.  

This Country Is Making Me Sad

Save for the 1930s there has never been a more depressing time to be growing up in Australia. Whilst our standard of living may be the envy of the world, our economy booming and the technology at our fingertips constantly astounding us more and more each day we appear to be lacking in a far more important element: morality. 

There is a moral vacuum in this country and it has become evident that the institutions that we once turned to for support and advice have failed us. Religion has become embroiled in scandal, politics in corruption and government services are beyond inadequate. As a young man who has grown up in this nation, imbued by my parents and civic leaders with a strong moral compass, I cannot help but look at the crumbling state of this country and feel despair. Where did we go wrong and how can we fix it? 

First it’s important to identify some of the moral failings that this country has experienced. Our religious institutions are currently on trial for not only refusing to identify pedophiles within their ranks to police but for actively covering up the crimes and bribing victims for their silence. In politics it seems that we are losing more and more Members of Parliament, on both sides of the aisle, to the Independent Commission Against Corruption enquiry here in NSW and calls for a Federal ICAC are being wilfully ignored by the Australian Parliament. Our policies and legislation on refugees, terrorism, the environment and communications infrastructure have made us the laughing stock of the developed world and our government services, such as DOCS, have become woefully underfunded to the point where they are almost doing more harm than good. 

So, yes. Looking around at the institutions one is meant to rely on, meant to have faith in, is simply asking to be slapped in the face by a depressing reality. But what can we do to change it? Is it something simplistic such as reintroducing bible studies in schools or a more drastic change such as a dictatorship? The right-wing in the US have developed a strange love-affair with Vladimir Putin, the polar opposite of the feckless Obama, so perhaps Tony Abbott should trade in the budgie smugglers for a horse (he can even keep his shirt off). 

But unfortunately it does not seem that a mere change of government from Labor to Liberal, democracy to dictatorship, will shift from the moral decay that we have begun to experience. This is not a issue which will be resolved by more, or less, faith in the public square. Simply look towards the reign of terror that is ISIS to see the danger of merging of religion and state. Equally devoicing our society completely of religion seeks to undermine the core tenant that has brought Western civilisation to the forefront of the human race. 

Is it perhaps time that we do away with age limits in politics? William Pitt the Younger was only 24 when he ascended to the Prime Minister’s chair and his reign is often considered one of the best that Britain ever experienced. From ending the slave trade to enacting a number of social and economic reforms (along with giving the French a well-deserved hiding) it is easy to imagine that allowing a bit more idealism, not yet tainted by the cruel reality of political life, could do the Parliament a bit of good. Unfortunately every time I see Wyatt Roy in a suit during Question Time I fear that I compare him more to a Ken Doll than a Ken Livingstone.  

Equally the answer is not about funding, or defunding, certain programs or institutions. A bloated budget often leads to a gluttony of problems but equally austerity measures have proven to fail time after time after time. The worst part of our moral decay is that it appears to be endemic and that no amount of public shaming can help stop it. George Pell, recently promoted to his new post in Rome, has no qualms about how he solved the ‘problem’ of institutional child abuse within his ranks and our government continues to promote policies which are making international NGOs decry our treatment of refugees. There is nothing that can help solve our decayed morality in the short term. Only long-term solutions are able to haemorrhage this wound. But for now let’s just understand that we live in an incredibly bleak time but the dawn may soon rise for a brighter tomorrow. 

Jennifer Lawrence....I'm sorry

Today the Internet collectively ejaculated.

Unfortunately I don't think I'm too far off the mark when I say that. You see today was the day that scores of men (and I'm sure some women) have dreamed of. We all finally got to see what Jennifer Lawrence looked like naked.

If you haven't heard (and you will soon) a range of celebrities have had their privacy violated and naked pictures have been posted onto the Internet. Like those men and women I reacted with glee when I learnt about these pictures. They popped up on Reddit and suddenly my mouth was agape.

Was it her?

Could it be faked?

No. Picture after picture was posted showing Lawrence and others in clearly intimate moments (I did not see any of the star mid-coitus and have no plans to look) meant only for their partner. As the day wore on and I got down to my normal day of work I kept seeing news article after news article posted about the incident.

I also saw my friends posting about the leaked pictures. It gave me an understanding that I had not thought of when I saw the original pictures. I like to surround myself with educated people and the women whom I call friends are no exception. These women are at the forefront of the Australian progressive movement and so we often see eye-to-eye over civil rights, refugee rights and the role of women in society. Because of this I trust them implicitly and take everything they say to heart. At times I may not agree with it (see: Israel/Gaza) but I know that it comes from a place of well intention and that they have studied the situation from all sides.

Their tweets began to talk about an invasion of privacy, the lewd nature of men on the Internet and the hypocrisy surrounding these photos. How could we claim to be all for Internet privacy and yet go absolutely ape-shit over naked pictures of celebrities? How would we feel if our private photos were stolen and plastered online? Why should there be rejoicing at this?

From this I performed a small but vital piece of mental gymnastics.

How would I feel if my nudes were leaked? Have I ever sent nude pictures over the internet? Yes. Of course I have. In moments of intense passion, desire or lightheadedness I have of course sent photographs of myself naked to other people. Some of them have my face in them. Even if I had posed naked for artists (I have) those photos are of a completely different nature. These photos are taken for an audience of one, not of one million, but today they are seen by all the world.

As my mind continued to make these leaps and bounds (that I now realise should have been done before) I felt an incredible amount of shame and disgust. As the day wore on I saw these less and less as pictures of a woman whom I had fantasised and desired for years and saw them as what they truly were: abuse.

If I came across a video or a picture of a woman being raped or of a child being sexually molested I would not only feel sick to my stomach I would immediately report it to the police. One time I did unfortunately come across child pornography on Twitter. It disgusted me to no ends and I honestly still feel uneasy about the seedier sides of the Internet since that day.

So why did I not do the same thing when I saw those photos of Jennifer Lawrence?

Because she was an actress and with that comes increased media coverage, speculation and (in truth) I thought that I owned that little bit of her. Now these were not the things that came to my mind when I saw the pictures...they were what I thought afterwards, what I thought when I had returned to my senses. It's a disgusting realisation for one to have: that you have turned into the thing you have always claimed to hate.

To Jennifer Lawrence and everyone else who have had their phones hacked, their privacy invaded and their lives shattered...I am sorry. I am truly, truly sorry.

No I did not post those pictures. I committed no illegal act. I will never see the inside of a jail cell for what I have done. But I have perpetuated the abuse that you are suffering right now. Please, forgive me one day.

Why the NBN Matters

This is the copper that Malcolm Turnbull wants to propel the internet forward in Australia

The world has changed substantially in the past two decades since the advent of the Internet. Suddenly families that were once separated by oceans could now come together as one, a product could be purchased in America, shipped from China at the press of a button and be on its way to England as a gift for a friend and hundreds of thousands of oppressed people could tell the world their story with a simple tweet.

The backbone of this global revolution has been a free, fast and open Internet. Our current means of Internet access in Australia has been through the copper telephone lines which were laid in Australia in the early 20th Century. These copper lines have served Australia's telecommunications needs faithfully as we progressed from having a single telephone to allowing millions of Australians to have a phone in their own home.

But these copper networks were never designed for what the Internet threw at it. It's not their fault. No one could ever have imagined the awesome power of the Internet. In 2007 when the Rudd government came into power they declared that no longer would Australia be held back by the ancient infrastructure. Instead they would cross the nation with a fibre network which would connect every house and apartment to the Internet through future-proofed fibre optic cables.

The current Australian household is lucky to get 5mb per second download on their current copper network. The Rudd government said that with the new fibre network the minimum speed would now be 100mb per second. In the near future they would even unveil plans for 1Gb per second.

These numbers may just look like numbers but to those who were deeply entrenched in IT infrastructure they were having a giant party. The possibilities for Australia were endless.

But why?

What does having a fast internet really mean? Is it just so young men could download porn faster? Perhaps play their on line video games with less latency?

Yes. But that's only the beginning.

Let's look at television.

The future of television is not in the traditional broadcast method but rather in digital streaming. In America companies such as Netflix and Hulu have completely disrupted the way that audiences consume television shows and digital media. This is a revolution that will hopefully make its way to Australian shores. Too long has Foxtel controlled every aspect of Australian television. From sport to BBC shows it seems that so many of our beloved television shows are being hoarded by 'Big Orange' and a premium demanded for simply watching them.

But let's move on to a far more important aspect than television: Healthcare

In Australia those who live in metropolitan areas have had relatively good access to quality healthcare. Those in rural areas have been forced to contend with substandard access. The NBN could essentially do away with that. The NBN allows the transmission of high-definition video and audio. If a farmer sees that he happens to have a mysterious rash he simply goes onto the computer and has a Skype conversation with a doctor. Being able to transmit HD video means that the doctor can easily diagnose the issue and prescribe treatment. But that's only the beginning. Remote surgery (aka Telesurgery) means that doctors are able to base themselves in Sydney and perform invasive surgery on patients almost anywhere in the world. What does this need? You guessed it, high-speed internet.

But what about the economy? Businesses have been able to thrive without the need for high-speed internet for hundreds of years! True, except the global economy has shifted and Australia is left behind.

No longer do businesses need to base themselves in New York, California or Sydney. Businesses can be truly global. They can have employees working in a remote village in the Congo provided they had a stable internet connection! As someone who works in social media I can't tell you the paradigm shift that has been the Internet. Customers that would once have had a small corner shop are now selling their wares on eBay, telecommuting is saving start-ups hundreds of thousands of dollars in operating costs and gigabytes of information are now being saved safely and securely in the cloud meaning that employees can, once again, work anywhere. The internet has revolutionsed the global economy and Australia is watching hundreds of billions of dollars sale offshore as companies divest from our sub-par internet.

So now that we know WHY we need the NBN and what we stand to lose if we don't have it.

So what's the issue? The NBN is on track to be built, right?

No.

As mentioned before the Rudd government stated their willingness to build a Fibre to the Home (FTTH) NBN. This means that the fibre-optic cable would run all the way to the property from the small junction box/node in the street.

Then the Abbott government was elected.

At that moment the entire future of the NBN was in jeopardy.

Why?

Because Abbott, and his Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, declared that they would build a Fibre to the Node (FTTN) NBN and from the node they would make use of the copper cables that remain in place.

Sounds great, right? They claimed that it would be faster and cheaper.

Except they're lying.

Firstly they could only guarantee 25mb upload. Unfortunately as soon as they won they retracted that claim. They can't guarantee you anything. They lied to you.

Secondly they want YOU to pay for the extra fibre from the node to the home. This means that houses that can't afford the upgrade (estimated to cost about $5,000 per home) will be left in the digital dark ages. They won't be able to access telehealth or e-education initiatives and they would be left to rot without any potential for growth. Not only is this immoral it ensures that Australia will remain a backwards country.

Thirdly they're paying Telstra billions upon billions of dollars to rent the copper network (it should be mentioned also that the new NBN board appointed by Mr Turnbull have retained their Telstra shares...if that's not a conflict of interest I don't know what is). This is the same copper network that Telstra, ten years ago, declared was 'five minutes to midnight and promised to overhaul within the next fifteen years. Well they no longer have to overhaul it because they're selling it back (excuse me...renting it back) to the Australian government at the tune of 11 billion dollars. Telstra is making out like bandits.

However let's take a look at this copper, y'know the one that is meant to last us for at least another decade and a half, and we can see that not only is the copper network in dire need of repair and replacement. So the copper that Malcolm Turnbull expects to propel Australia into the 21st century looks like it won't last another week. The infrastructure backbone of the Australian internet will likely fall apart before it can even be used. That means that it will have to be replaced before it can be reconnected which will cost Australians substantially more and delay the rollout of a truly national broadband network by years.

But, in the interest of fairness, it behooves me inform you that a study recently commissioned by Malcolm Turnbull has found that the FTTN will be a far more cost effective network. The opposition stated that the report is 'tainted' due to the fact that it was compiled by people who were already critical of the FTTP plan in the first place.

See here's the thing: Turnbull's cost/benefit scenario doesn't take into account the fact that businesses will be created and the economy improving thanks to the FTTP NBN. It doesn't understand that with high-speed Internet (and it is believed that 1GB per second will become the norm by 2024) comes a rapidly diverse and successful economy.

By abandoning a FTTP internet Malcom Turnbull has ensured that this country will pay more money for a shoddier product that will not deliver any benefit to the people of Australia. It will take an extra several years to sort out his mess and will cost even more money. Turnbull's support of FTTN proves either his incompetence or his complicity in one of the greatest rorts this country has ever seen.

 

Why?

In the wake of Robin Williams's recent suicide this is the question that so many people are asking.

Why?

One could not say that Williams was unsuccessful in life. The man had spent forty years in the spotlight and was considered a comic genius. He had starred in countless films, TV shows and cartoons that had touched the lives of so many people. Yet four days ago he felt that there was nothing left for him and decided to end it all.

Why?

The simple answer is because Robin Williams was ill. He was ill from the moment he was born and no amount of medication, therapy or even reassurance could cure him. Robin Williams suffered from depression.

In the wake of Williams's suicide people are (finally) having a frank and upfront discussion about mental illnesses such as depression. They are beginning to see that depression is no longer an excuse to feel sad, no longer a con to be mean to people or to lie in bed all day. Depression is incredibly real and incredibly dangerous. Robin Williams was, and always will be, one of my favourite actors. His films shaped my childhood and in the past few days I have gone back and watched a few albeit with tears in my eyes. But if the untimely death of Robin Williams means that we are finally going to sit down and have a talk about mental illness like adults then it is an incredibly faint silver lining around the darkest of clouds.

Depression is, to be frank, a son of a bitch. Winston Churchill famously called his depression the 'black dog'. It's a fascinating term for it but also quite accurate. Depression is always looming over your shoulder ready to make your highs seem incredible and your lows seem unmanageable. Depression is like having the entire world, every person, flower, animal or mineral, connected directly to your central nervous system. You feel everything around you completely free of any kind of filter. Your heart is directly connected to every word that people say about you but, more importantly, your emotions rather than your brain fills the vacuum that are the words they don't say about you. In the midst of a downswing of depression any words of love and reassurance feel empty and hollow whilst you are constantly analysing and over analysing their silence as a form of criticism.

In the midst of depression you feel as if your heart has become void of any kind of hope. Each beat pumps blood around your body but you feel as if it is but one more unnecessary beat to sustain a life that is not worth living. Where your heart sits in your chest you feel nothing but a sharp pain, a reminder that people who are happy and successful feel no such physical manifestation of sadness, and your brain constantly sinks lower and lower into a pit of despair. Success does not alleviate depression. It does not make it go away. Robin Williams was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, was beloved by billions and had a loving family who cared deeply about him. Yet he also felt that everything was so hopeless he had to end his life.

That's what depression truly is. It is the absence of hope, of joy, of love and of trust. You no longer trust that small voice in your head that says 'everything is going to be ok' because it's not there anymore. Rather you have to be content with the fact that everything you're seeing, hearing and feeling is in the shadow of self-doubt and sadness.

We will never be able to understand what Robin Williams was thinking when he decided to end his life. We will never know how his depression manifested that day and if he felt that with everything piling on death was the only release. In the wake of his suicide the world mourns the man who made them laugh but hopefully now we will understand that depression and mental illness are no joking matter.

To Those On The Ground All Wars Are Crimes

It goes without saying that every single conflict in this history of man is a failure. It is a failure of diplomacy, of rationality and of humanity. The need to arm oneself, to don a uniform and to fight should always be an option of last resort.

A war can, and should, be fought on principles rather than realpolitik though this is hardly ever the case. Wars can be just and they can be morally right, they can be fought by priests or paupers.

But no matter what they are, and always will be, a crime.

The last several posts on this blog have dealt with Operation Protective Edge, Israel's latest foray into the Gaza Strip. No matter what you try to tell me I will always know that Israel has the absolute right to defend themselves from rocket attacks and the tunnels that Hamas have dug across the border.

But still this war was a crime.

I know that the IDF took measures not seen in modern combat to minimise the harm that came to civilians. I also know (and said here) that Hamas has and will lie about the number of civilian casualties. It is a core part of their military strategy to inflate the number of civilians killed and their actions have proved that it is a success. Except now it seems that the world is beginning to see through Hamas's facade.

But still this war is a crime.

It is a crime to those who had to endure it. To those who suffered. To those who lost their loved ones.

There could have been 0 civilian deaths and this war would still be considered a crime.

The destruction that the IDF wrought on Gaza is shocking. Tens of thousands are homeless and their lives are simply ruined. Those who lost loved ones are burning with a passion that will never be quelled. They are hating Israel. They will teach their children and their children's children and their children's children's children's children to hate Israel. War will almost never bring peace. War is a crime.

For those who see the Mosques that have been destroyed, the homes that are now rubble, the bodies in the overcrowding hospitals they paint a picture of indiscriminate destruction. Of wanton and reckless death. Entire streets of Gaza looks as if they have been picked up by the hand of God himself and smashed down to the ground.

The stories emerging from Gaza are of almost the complete opposite. Reporters are showing Hamas firing rockets next to UN buildings, of staged photographs and the use of ambulances as troop transports. Yet these stories will pale in the cacophony of voices condemning Israel. They will do nothing when faced with what Bibi Netanyahu called 'photogenically dead Palestinians'. Bibi wasn't wrong. But he shouldn't have said it.

Because at the end of the day all we're seeing is the destroyed buildings. All we're hearing is the twitter feed of someone complaining about 'F16s overhead' or 'constant booms' from the battle raging just a street away. We are seeing war from every angle and it is truly horrifying.

Because all wars are crimes.

We see World War II with the eyes of hindsight. We see the horrors of the Death Camps, the march of fascism and the possibility of a world ruled by a megalomaniac whose belief in racial theory was absolute. We see this now and we say that World War II was a moral and just war.

If Twitter, Facebook or 24 hour news had existed in 1940 then there would be no such chanting or cheering. Americans, Brits, Australians and Germans alike would all be lambasted for their use of 'disproportionate force' against civilian populations. Yet we are able to look back with the knowledge of what could have been and we could safely say that World War II was a just war.

To those who experienced the horror of Operation Protective Edge it is a period that will be etched into their memories until the day they die. For the Israelis who have been forced to run from Hamas rockets, that have had tunnels dug beneath their houses and have seen their homes destroyed from these weapons they too will remember it for the rest of their lives.

All wars are crimes.

But this one. This operation Protective Edge. Was just.

"Is Jerusalem Burning?"

Leave your thoughts on this article using the WoxxBoxx (Chrome/Firefox only)

I personally hate any comparisons to the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was the absolute lowest point in human history, a crime never experienced on a scale thought possible. The Holocaust was, quite simply, the absolute industrialisation of death. Ethnic conflicts before and since have not even begun to touch on the magnitude of evil that was Hitler and his death camps.

It would therefore seem hypocritical that I am about to compare Hamas to Hitler. Yet I can think of no other apt comparison where such a disregard for human life, of those you are meant to protect, other than that of Adolf Hitler.

I am not here to say that all Palestinians are akin to the SS or the Nazis. It is not. They are not. Such comparisons are not only wrong but they are insulting. They insult me, my family and every single person that suffered under the heel of the Nazis.

But.

I can most certainly see similarities between Hamas and Hitler.

The tension in the Middle East has reached unbearable levels of destruction. As of now Israel and Hamas have a 72 hour truce and IDF forces have mostly withdrawn back into Israel. We are starting to hear reports of what happened in Gaza. Something that I have heard, independently from THREE different people, is that IDF soldiers were confronted with suicide bombers, children running at them with grenades, as well as and UN facilities like clinics rigged to explode as soon as an Israeli soldier stepped inside.

This is truly something that we in the West, who devised the laws of war, cannot comprehend. We in the West, despite all of our mistakes, have a respect for human life...both the ones of our own citizens and the ones of our enemy. In World War II, generally speaking, we declared war on the armies, in Iraq (both 1991 and 2003) our fight was with Saddam and in Libya in 2011 it was to prevent Gaddafi from massacring his own people. Our wars are not against civilians but against armies, governments and perverse ideologies.

Not so for Hamas. Not so for Islamic Jihad. Not so for ISIS or Hezbollah.

Why do I say that Hamas is Hitlerian?

Because only in Hitler's twisted and cruel mind could such disregard for human life be justified. When it was obvious that he was beginning to lose the war to the Allies Hitler decided to implement a policy of 'scorched earth'. If Hitler could not have Paris then there would be no Paris left to have.

The order was given to the German governor of Paris, Dietrich von Choltitz to set explosives up at strategic points around the City of Lights. When it was obvious that the city would be lost he would push the button and leave Paris a smouldering wreck of carnage and twisted metal.

Von Choltitz, to his credit, disobeyed this order. He had seen through the charisma and glanced at the insanity behind Hitler's eyes. Yet this would not be the last time Hitler would attempt to leave nothing left. As the war was coming to an end and Hitler was trapped inside his bunker he demanded that Albert Speer, Minister for Armaments, implement the 'Nero Decree'....the complete destruction of Germany and the German people.

Once again saner heads prevailed as Speer refused to carry out such a disgusting order.

But why do I bring these up? Why do I talk about Hitler?

Because when I was reading this article yesterday I could not help but compare the two. The use of civilian buildings as booby traps, stealing supplies from your own people to build terror tunnels and firing rockets at a city that you consider holy....just to kill people?

When von Choltitz was in Paris Hitler called him to see whether or not his order had been fulfilled to the letter. He asked his military governor there one simple question:

"Is Paris burning?"

When the roles are reversed. When Hamas remains true to their founding charter which calls for every single Jew, no matter where they reside in the world, to be put to death...what will Khaled Mashal say? What happens when the jihadist group realises that it cannot have the Islamic caliphate stretching from Arabia to Europe? What will their reaction be?

Surrender?

Peaceful coexistence?

No.

Death.

Destruction.

Slaughter.

Genocide.

The goal of Hamas would be 'if we can't have it....no one can'. There is no love in Hamas, no joy, no empathy or humanity. There is but fascistic jihadism.  There is an absolutism that shows no mercy either for the Jews or for the people of Gaza. There is no desire to moderate or negotiate. They have shown simply that negotiations and treaties are but a tactic to stock up on more weapons. They have made it clear that their concern is not for the people that they claim to represent: if they cared for Gaza they would have built schools. They would have build hospitals. They would have built infrastructure. Instead they stole the cement and resources used to build Gaza into a proper nation for Gazans to further their maniacal goal of killing Jews.

When Khaled Mashal rings his operative only a few short kilometers away he will ask one question:

"Is Jerusalem burning?"

We can only hope and pray that the person who picks up the phone will be as sane as von Choltitz. If he isn't, if his aim is the destruction of Judaism and the reestablishment of the Caliphate then the cities of New York, Sydney, London and Paris will be facing similar calls.

Woe Is Me; A Left-Wing Zionist

Sometimes I need to sit back and wonder if it's me. Am I the one that's wrong?

Today I lost a twitter follower, who I considered if not a friend then at least friendly, because of my support for Israel. She and I saw eye to eye on a number of political topics including women's rights, education, refugee policies and marriage equality. She was aware that my political leanings were very firmly in the left camp.

Yet according to her I support the occupation of a sovereign state.

I had tweeted about that, in rare times, war was a moral necessity. The live tweets and pictures coming from Gaza were horrific. I would not wish my worst enemy to currently undergo what the many innocent people of Gaza are facing. I pray that this comes to a conclusion because far too many have suffered due to the actions of a few.

I reminded people that if Twitter and social media platforms had existed in the 1930s and 1940s then it would be likely that the West would not have had the stomach for war. I wouldn't blame them. World War II, the bombing of Dresden, the Hiroshima bomb, the constant indiscriminate destruction of life and land by both sides, were all horrible. They were the reason that the Geneva Convention, laws that govern war itself, were introduced.

But was World War II an 'immoral war'?

No.

It was a necessary one. The idea of Hitler and his Nazi conquering Europe still fills me with dread.

The idea of Hamas, the Islamic State, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and other jihadist groups taking over the Middle East (which is happening) fills me with an equal fear.

But also look at Israel. Israel with her democracy, her celebration of gay rights, her rights for women, for minorities and freedom of speech...an imperfect state of course but one which strives to balance itself. Israel is up against these truly fascistic, tyrannical elements of society. I stand with the liberal, flawed, democratic Israel.

But further than that. Look at this current conflict. A conflict where the enemy uses human shields. A conflict where Hamas rockets have been discovered in 3 UNWRA schools. This is the epitome of the perversion of civilian spaces. While Israel sends text messages and leaflets to citizens to warn them Hamas steals cement meant for building Gaza and uses it to create terror attack tunnels.

This is not a conflict against Palestine. It is not a conflict against Gaza. It is a conflict against Islamic Jihad. It is a conflict against Hamas.

I do not support the occupation. I do not support the settlements. I do not support Ayalet Shaked and her truly evil comments about killing Palestinian mothers. The right will never be my home. I am left wing and I am proud of that. I mourn for every single innocent person that has lost their lives. I mourn for every home destroyed, every Mosque used as a weapons cache, every hospital used as a command and control centre, every school used as a rocket launching pad.

But I am still left wing. I believe that Israel has leaps and bounds to go before it can be the State I believe it CAN be but that does not mean I will abandon her.

Yes. Hamas Will Lie.

Leave your thoughts on this article using the WoxxBoxx (Chrome/Firefox only)


I've spoken before about the cognitive disconnect that many have when it comes to the current issue in Gaza. However no matter your political persuasion there is no doubt that seeing the images coming out of the Strip are enough to make your heart break. The sight of children covered in rubble, of women mourning husbands and of families looking at their destroyed homes make anyone with a conscience weep.

But the figures that are quoted beggar belief.

'300' it screams one week

'700' the next

As of writing it has apparently just toppled 1000.

Numbers like that sound staggering. They beggar belief and boggle the mind. Yet the next words spoken are what truly destroy your soul: "the majority of them are civilians".

Civilians? This is the Israeli army we're talking about. They speak about 'surgical precision' and 'pin-point strikes'. There can be no doubt in anyone's mind who watches the news or images coming from Gaza that all the attacks on civilians are deliberate. One cannot claim to offer such a high-tech battlefield presence and yet have such a wildly civilian centric death toll.

If I were to be getting nothing but my news from these sources, be they mainstream of social media, then I would believe that. I would believe that the only thing that could possibly justify the extreme civilian casualties was a genocide.

But...I don't.

Some may call me biased, some may call me a Zionist troll and some may call me whatever they want. However I have spent enough time wading neck-deep in the Middle East conflict to not trust numbers coming out of the media. There are a number of reasons for this but here's the very big reason:

We are in the middle of the conflict

Why shouldn't I trust numbers happening right now? Well, have you ever heard the term 'fog of war'? It was coined by the Prussian general Carl Von Clausewitz to describe the uncertainty that comes from war. Uncertainty? Yup. Clausewitz was using it to describe the fact that whenever you were engaged in battle there were so many sudden shifts in logistical, operational and strategic planning that whatever you thought you knew at 12:00pm was outdated by 12:10pm.

But it goes further than that when it comes to battling Hamas.

In Hamas you have an enemy that not only does not respect international law and the sanctity of civilians but instead openly flaunts them. This is a group that uses ambulances to transport both weapons and fighters





Uses schools to shoot from and store rockets


And defiles even cemeteries for their war crimes




UNWRA, the United Nations agency in Gaza, discovered that their buildings (areas that civilians would gather in case of an Israeli attack) had been used to store missiles. What this means is that Hamas had turned a UN run school into a legitimate and legal military target.

So why do I bring this up when talking about the fog of war? For the simple fact that if an organisation is more than willing to defile a cemetery or a school then what stops them from defiling homes?

Imagine this:

A squad of Israeli soldiers are preceding down the street, weapons at the ready, and they come under fire from a home a hundred meters up the road. They return fire with small arms and find them insufficient. In self-defence they call in an immediate strike on the source of the fire. The house is then destroyed in an artillery bombardment.
Unknown to the soldiers who have been fired upon the house also contained a family. They, along with the gunmen, were killed instantly. 

What does that mean? Who is to blame? The soldiers who ordered the airstrike? The family for staying in their home? Or perhaps one should blame the Hamas gunman who commandeered the home which thereby made it a legal military target. Once gunmen start to occupy homes they lose their status of protected property under the laws of war.

Hamas has openly used homes to store weapons, to dig tunnels, to fire at Israeli troops and rocket Israeli citizens. Under the laws of war (specifically the 4th Geneva Convention 1949) these homes are appropriate targets and Hamas knows this. Hamas wants this.

Why?

Because for them it is a good thing when Gazan civilians die. Just ask the son of their founder and the man who was being groomed to take over.

   <iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/KakxXN5Z-XI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But there's one major reason that I don't trust numbers coming out now...information is completely unverifiable.

Who are the people that are counting all of the numbers and putting out the information?

The Gazan Ministry of Health.

Who runs the Gazan Ministry of Health?

Hamas.

Why is this important? Because the Gazan Ministry of Health declare who is a civilian and who is not. Think about this. The organisation dedicated to determining civilian vs combatant status, or at the very least announcing it to the media, is being run by the organisation that Israel is fighting.

That boggles the mind.

The Hamas Ministry of the Interior has told people on social media to always declare Palestinian dead as 'innocent civilians' regardless of whether or not they're fighters. Do you not think that the Health Ministry, run by the exact same organisation, would ask them to fudge the figures? State that more innocent civilians have died than fighters?

It's not only within the realm of possibility it's right out of their playbook.

For Hamas and the other Islamic jihadist groups the end game is not the eradication of the State of Israel, it's not even the destruction of global Jewry, it's about complete and utter dominance. You think that they're not going to lie about civilian figures during a skirmish with Israel? That they're not going to pressure reporters to talk only about the destruction wrought on the innocent and ignore fighters?

None of this, however, is to say that Gazans are not suffering right now. They are. Too many civilians have died, too many have been injured and too much damage has been made to civilian property. Much of that damage has been done in my name as an Israeli citizen and it pains me to see any suffering.

However. It must be remembered that we are up against a nihilistic enemy. An enemy that devoted more time to building terror tunnels than it did to skyscrapers. Imagine what would have happened if, in 2005, when Israel pulled out of Gaza Hamas had dedicated themselves to building Palestinian society. Remember that when Israel pulled out there was no blockade for the first several months. The blockade came into effect when Hamas began firing their rockets.

The people who are suffering due to Hamas's worshipping of death are the Gazans. Tragically however they are suffering due to my army. The blame and the fault lies solely with Hamas. But that does not make the images that we see any easier.

I Am Not Heartless

Which is the Israeli child and which is the Palestinian child?

My heart breaks for anyone who loses their lives.

I am not heartless. I do not relish in the destruction of homes, schools or hospitals. I mourn equally an Israeli death as I do a Palestinian. I mourn a Syrian death as much I do an Iraqi, an American or an Australian.

I take no joy in having to support a nation engaged in a military conflict. I take no pride in seeing friends of mine take out their weapons and head down South. I pray for their safe return, I pray that the weapons they have spent thousands of hours shooting at paper targets will remain unused.

I see the death and devastation that the airstrikes, performed by my air force, have caused and I weep. Homes that were filled of joyful memories, a baby's first steps, a family dinner where a child makes a wisecrack and the room fills with raucous laughter. Those homes have become dust now. Those homes have been destroyed by the nation that I pledge allegiance to.

But what of Netanyahu? What of the man who has ordered conflict?

I hate him.

I hate him.

I hate him.

I hate him for having to send the air force over Gaza.

I hate him for having to send my friends into Gaza on foot.

I hate him for saying that Hamas uses telegenically dead children.

"You fool" I want to scream "all children are telegenic but it's because of us that they're dead".

If I were there I would kick, punch and scream at Bibi Netanyahu. He would stand there and he would take it as I collapsed into a pile of sobs and tears.

I hate him that he said something I had no courage to say. I hate him and say that the death and destruction that Israel wrecks on Gaza will be on his head.

I hate him, I hate him, I hate him.

But.

I do not blame him.

I blame Hamas.

I blame Hamas not just for firing rockets at my family.

I blame Hamas not just for sending suicide bombers to the cafes I ate at or the buses I rode.

I blame Hamas for destroying the Palestinians.

I blame Hamas for using cement that should have been the foundations of a school instead it is reinforcing a tunnel.

I blame Hamas for wanting to kill me more than they want to save their families.

I blame Hamas for storing rockets in schools, firing them from Mosques and directing their operations from homes.

I blame Hamas for building tunnels to kill Israelis rather than bomb shelters to save their citizens.

I blame them, I blame them, I blame them.

But still I weep for those on that side who will be lost. The child who holds on to the paramedic and screams for his father, the cousin who watched his family disappear in one fell swoop of a bomb, the mother who will be burying the man she loves.

My heart breaks when I have to see my friends rush down to their bomb shelters. They take selfies, an attempt at numbing the pain and the fear that comes with a life filled with endless sirens, and publish them online to convince their families and friends that they're ok. Yet the veneer that is their brave face is slipping as they have to run to their protected space again and again and again.

As the Iron Dome intercepts another rocket aimed at their homes they sit and wait for the 'BOOM'. I know what they're thinking.

"Thank god for Iron Dome"

"It has saved our lives"

"My country protects me"

But I know that in the back of their minds they're thinking something else.

"That's $50,000"

"That was money that could have been spent on social welfare, school books or education"

"That interception saved my life...but what about my future?"

As they cuddle their screaming children, as they try to comfort them and as they remind them that no matter how scary the rockets are their parents still love them.

I am not heartless. I have been called it a few times these past few days. I have been called callous, I have been called evil and all sorts of names such as 'kike', 'Jew-boy', 'Nazi' and the like. I have been told that it would have been better if Hitler had gassed me and my family. I have been told that the blood of these children are on my hands.

I am not heartless. I am human. My eyes well with tears whenever I see what is happening over there. I want nothing more than to hug my nephew and thank god that he is safe here in Australia. With every loss, be it man, woman or child, I feel as if it is a stab directly into my heart and tearing it into a million pieces.

I am not heartless. I just stand with Israel.

I'm A Leftist - But Also A Realist.

Please add your thoughts on this article using the WoxxBoxx (Chrome and Firefox)

There exists in today's society a cognitive dissonance. I spoke, in my last post, about the way that certain groups will protest one thing but not another. This usually falls under the idea that actions by Israel deserves global marches and days of solidarity whereas those performed by the Assad regime, ISIS or any other jihadist group are swept under the rug of political correctness.

But what does this mean?

It means that many on the left are simply incapable of believing that Hamas plays by the same rules of the game.

It means that they are not able to understand that Hamas is looking forward at the very, very long-game and for them it doesn't matter if they lose 200 or 200,000 it is a willing sacrifice for the greater good.

It is truly difficult for us to comprehend this. Why?

We are raised to believe that those who seek high office, that those who have succeeded in the military or in the civil service, do so because that care about those whom they represent. Cynically the idea of democratic representation means that they must have at least some concern for their constituents otherwise they would be voted out of office very quickly.

The people who run Hamas, the people who run ISIS, the people who run Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah have no such concern for human life. They do not care if the lives they take are Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Hindi. For them there is, and always will be, the end goal.

Let's take ISIS.

Originally started in 2000 it has gained prominence thanks to their recent take-over of large swathes of Iraq. Wherever ISIS treads destruction, death, rape and mass slaughter follows very quickly. Recently it gleefully admitted that it had killed over 1,500 civilians and that in many cases they were, dragged from their homes and shot execution style. Many women reported being raped by ISIS soldiers though these numbers are surely a very small percentage of actual cases due to the fear of cultural honour killings.

Yet this is an actual tweet that I read today

What is the difference between ISIS and Israeli troops attacking Gaza?
— Mohammed Omer  (@Mogaza) July 19, 2014

 The difference? Any claims of the IDF intentionally targeting civilians have, at almost all times, been found false. It was claimed in 2002 that Israeli forces had committed a massacre in the Jenin refugee camp. This was a lie. A UN report in 2009 stated that Israel intentionally targeted civilians. The author of that report has since retracted his claims.

The one time that Israel has been rightfully accused of failing to uphold their duty was in 1982 during the Lebanon War. This was a mark upon the State of Israel and has always been considered a stain on our collective consciousness.

Since that day the IDF has strived to protect civilians in war zones. Hamas, and various jihadist groups, have not.

But why? Does Hamas not care for the citizens of Gaza? Do Hezbollah not want Lebanese children to grow up peacefully and do ISIS not want to ensure that their families are safe?

Yes. They do.

Hamas does care for the citizens of Gaza.

We know this because they provide social welfare and education (though it is a strictly Islamic education) for citizens.

However Hamas cares about something more than their citizens.

Their goal.

Their absolute commitment to their goal.

The destruction of Israel, Judaism and anyone else who does not share their mindset.

This includes Christians, Muslims, Atheists and Humanists. This includes everyone that is not a Sunni Muslim.

For them that is the goal. For many of us we cannot believe the lengths that they would go to.

We literally cannot believe that they would sacrifice their own citizens. We cannot believe that they would place missiles in Mosques, schools (including UN run schools) and in homes. We simply refuse to believe that a group could be that callous, that evil and that gleeful over the destruction of human life.

It is far easier to believe that Israel is bombing them.

Israel says that Hamas uses ambulances as transportation, a violation of the Geneva Convention, that Hamas is putting Palestinians in danger, that Hamas is firing rockets into civilian neighbourhoods FROM civilian neighbourhoods.

When you tell someone that then they simply accuse you of lying. They claim that it is nothing more than an excuse.They fail to come to terms that there can be true evil in this world.

I state in the title that I am a leftist. I am. Many fail to understand how I can be both a leftist and a Zionist, how I can support Israel and yet still claim to support human rights.

It's quite simple. For me Israel is the right side of this horrible war.

This is the side that has taken unprecedented measures to save human lives. This is the side that has sent SMS text messages to those that they are targeting, that have developed innovative techniques to save lives, this is the side that agreed to ceasefires and held its fire despite the other side breaking theirs.

Name me another country that would warn their target ahead of time that they were coming?

Name me another country that spends so much time holding their fire, taking rocket after rocket after rocket, despite having the right and the duty to stop the terrorists on their border?

But my left-wing love for Israel goes far beyond the current conflict.

I love Israel because it is a representational democracy. I may not like some elements of Israeli society (read: haredim and the more extreme religious settlers) but I know that they deserve a vote as much as I.

I love Israel because of their open attitude towards gays. I can walk down the street in Tel Aviv to a gay bar, kiss a man and I won't face any sort of discrimination or death.

I love Israel because I can stand in front of Prime Minister Netanyahu's office and call him a twat and nothing would ever happen to me (he may even invite me in for coffee and I can explain why I think he's a twat).

I love Israel because they send out teams of doctors to save lives no matter where they are.



I love Israel because it now has one of the world's most liberal laws in regards to women's rights.

I love Israel because it affords Arab citizens their full rights.

Is Israel perfect? No! Far from it. But I know that it can achieve the level of perfection that I dream for it. There are many things that continue to disturb me about Israeli society but they are also things that I know citizens of Israel will continue to strive and fix.

But that is why I love Israel.

Why do I hate Hamas? Why do I hate Islamic Jihad, ISIS or Hezbollah?

Because their ideology is perverse and evil. Because they are knowingly destroying their own cities, their own citizens, to fulfil their maniacal dreams of Islamic caliphates. They want to drag this world back into the 12th Century and they're more than willing to sacrifice 200,000 Palestinian civilians to do it.

Hamas know that the Israeli people and the international community cannot stomach the death of innocents. We have little desire for war and if we believe that we can stop it then we will.

But sometimes war is a necessity.

Sometimes the only way to survive the person who wants to kill you is to kill them first.

It will not be long until the international community looms so large that Israel will be forced out of Gaza. They may accomplish their goal of targeting Hamas' tunnel infrastructure or they may not. All we know now is that the innocents of Gaza are suffering for the crimes of their leaders.

I am a leftist. I believe that social justice can and must prevail. I believe that women deserve full and equal rights, I believe that the market must be regulated and I believe in a complete separation of Church and State. I know that climate change is real, I know that labour unions must be supported and I know that I am increasingly worried with the role big business has in shaping our laws.

But I am also a realist. I know that Hamas fires from civilian areas. I know that Hamas, which runs the Gaza Health Ministry (the ministry where everyone is getting their casualty figures), inflates and exaggerates the numbers of dead in Gaza. I know that Hamas hides weapons in mosques, schools and homes. I know that they have bunkers under hospitals so that Israel won't harm them. I know that there is no greater enemy to the Palestinian people than Hamas or whichever jihadist group decides to take their place.

I know that Israel strives to limit the casualties in Gaza. I know this because Israel is the country that I demand the most of. It is the country that I cannot help but love yet desire for it to improve.

I am a realist.

But I am also a leftist.

I support Israel and I am left-wing

For me there is no contradiction.

Yes, We Are Different From Hamas

Please feel free to leave feedback through the Woxxer app (available on Chrome & Firefox) or through comments.

Today the State of Israel is in mourning. No, it is not because one of our citizens was killed yesterday by a Hamas rocket. It is not because our children are being forced to spend their days in bomb shelters or because they have not had a truly peaceful nights sleep in over a decade. It is because tragedy occurred in Gaza. Today it pains me to inform you that four young boys lost their lives, by what appears to be, at the hands of our army. 

How can we possibly come to terms with having the blood of children on our hands? Four children, who have done nothing to harm us, have to be buried by a grieving family. This is unfortunately the incident that will define Operation Protective Edge. Israel has just lost the narrative. 

But why? We can get on television, Twitter, Facebook and share as many of the IDF Spokesperson's photos as possible (oh and props to the IDF....they are without a doubt the best public relations department of any army in the world) but that won't help alter the narrative. It won't help put the conflict into a scenario that many people understand. 

I have one way. It's something I use when trying to justify Israel's tactics to friends.

Imagine a mentally disturbed man grabbing an M16, a human shield, closing his eyes and open firing into a crowd of people. Even if he does not hit anyone it is the obligation of the police to stop that man by any means necessary. This includes the chance that they might hit and kill the civilian that the man is using to protect himself.

Truth be told Israel has always been a victim of its own success but on this occasion especially so. The world media, activists and arm chair commentators care only about one single solitary statistic: death. Palestinians, Europeans, Americans, Australians and everyone else in between will point at the gulf between the Israeli and Palestinian death count and refer to it as a massacre. 

Never mind that they act with wanton disregard for human life when it comes to any other conflict in the world, especially if the victims are Palestinian. 

See what Stop the War Coalition (UK) says in regards to Israel's recent operation in Gaza: 

Israel's barbaric bombardment of the most densely populated area on earth must stop now. Barack Obama, David Cameron and UK foreign secretary William Hague's support for "Israel's right to defend itself" is nothing less than collusion with war crimes killing women, children and disabled people.

Now let's see what they say about the current conflict in Syria: 

We are against western intervention in Syria. There is civil war raging there which has been going on for two years, and which began following protests and demonstrations against the government as part of the ‘Arab spring’. The tragedy has led to the loss of perhaps 100,000 lives and a huge refugee problem. There can only be a political solution to this crisis and this should be for the Syrian people to decide.

WHAT? Are these seriously from the same group? Firstly let's just update their statistics a little bit. The dead number over 160,000 but I think what is even more important to Stop The War is the number of Palestinian dead (as that appears to be the people who deserve 'Western intervention'). As of February this year (the latest figures available) over 2000 Palestinians have been killed. 2000! Yet these Palestinians are not worthy of international rescue. They, and the rest of the civilians who have lost their lives in this conflict, should simply fix their problems by themselves. 

"But it's a civil war" I hear you say "we shouldn't intervene in those". 

Errr....no. 

Firstly we have intervened in civil wars before (remember the Yugoslav Civil War?) and we have truly regretted not intervening in other civil conflicts. 

But the conflict between Israel and Palestine (in this case it's a conflict between Israel and Hamas along with other jihadist groups) is not a civil war. Israel does not want the Palestinians to be a part of Israeli society and Palestinians don't want to be part of Israeli society. In time we will have peace with the Palestinians (most likely it will be as the Israelis offered Arafat in 2000 which was a negotiated land swaps, symbolic right of return and pulling out from the WB) but until then we have to deal with the threat of Hamas rockets.

Yet today people are looking at Israel's unintentional shelling of those four poor children on the beach in Gaza. To this I say that Hamas has bombed more beaches, more cafes, more schools and more homes than Israel could ever dream of.

Why?

Because for Hamas each murder of a civilian is not only their express goal of launching missiles but they celebrate with each death. They name public fountains and works after terrorists that have massacred innocent people, they hand out sweets when Jews die, they encourage the slaughter of their own people. They fired rockets at Tel Aviv beach, they bombed Israelis in cafes, they made Israelis question the ability to even step outside the front door.

This post may seem like a repeat of everything that you've read on pro-Israel blogs and it's true. But that's because people often find it such a hard concept to grasp. There are many things that Israel has done wrong in its short life. It should have made a greater emphasis at peace and reconciliation in 2004 when Arafat died and it certainly shouldn't have occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, though hindsight is always 20/20.

As I write this we are about to head towards a temporary ceasefire, abided by both sides, for aid to get through to Gaza. I, along with all Israelis and Palestinians, hope that fighting ceases and that peace will reign. However jihadism is something that should concern us all and failure to adequately confront it will lead to a lot more innocent people being killed. 

When Is A Civilian Not A Civilian?

Hamas. Not people who you would want to cross.

Please feel free to leave feedback through the Woxxer app (available on Chrome & Firefox) or through comments.

The Middle East has flared up again, with all the usual hallmarks of accusations and denials. Whilst I was visiting Israel last month three boys were kidnapped by Hamas operatives and brutally murdered. During that time Hamas increased its rocket fire from the Gaza Strip in violation of a ceasefire that had been in place since November 2012. Whilst Hamas has been firing rockets on an almost daily basis into southern Israel it was the targeting of major population centres such as Beer Sheva, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv that made this unacceptable to the Israelis. More than 3.5 million Israelis were forced to seek shelter from the rockets which Hamas fired.

  In response to this Israel launched Operation Protective Edge, a series of air and sea strikes against Hamas targets with a potential ground incursion force in the near future. As the airstrikes reach their third day we are seeing casualties mount and what appears to be a path of destruction by Israeli planes, drones and helicopters. I can point to article after article which shows Hamas’s heinous and wilful practice of hiding amongst civilians, of using homes, schools and Mosques as ammo dumps and launch sites. I can show you how Hamas cheers when an Israeli dies and artificially inflates the figures of their dead (remember the 2002 ‘Jenin Massacre’? Hamas and other Palestinian groups claimed that thousands had been killed. After a UN investigation it was determined that 54 people had been killed and half of those were Israeli soldiers). But this blog post isn’t about that. It’s about the role of civilians in conflicts. Namely, when should a civilian no longer be declared a civilian?

 Firstly let’s look at the law: The Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) clearly defines a civilian as:

Any Person not belonging to the armed forces (see Chapter III, Section I) is considered as a civilian and the same applies in case of doubt as to his status. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. 

 And civilian property as:

  Civilian property is anything which is not a military objective, i.e. which by its nature, location, purpose or use does not effectively contribute to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization would not offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. Thus, military equipment, a road of strategic importance, a supply column on its way to the army, a civilian building evacuated and reoccupied by combatants are military objectives. In case of doubt, a property which is normally assigned to civilian use should be considered as civilian and must not be attacked 

 So it’s fairly obvious who is considered a civilian. I have no problem with this and in fact I wholeheartedly support and urge civilians to be protected during times of war.

 I just want to draw your attention to this:

 After the first strike, people were gathered by Hamas operatives on the roof of a home which belonged to a known terrorist as "human shields", hoping their presence would deter a second strike. This was reported by the residents themselves. 

 Now the role of a civilian in armed conflict is one who is caught in the middle, who has no power over his or her fate and is simply a pawn of armed powers. The civilians caught in the crossfire in Syria, Iraq, Congo or Sudan are perfect examples of this.

More importantly a civilian in an armed conflict would do well to get to the designated safe zones as quickly as possible (designated safe zones are often schools or hospitals….though seeing how Hamas fires from, and stores weapons within both schools and hospitals they are wilfully in breach of the 4th Geneva Convention). The question that I pose is: Are those who run back into a building that they know will be destroyed still considered civilians?

 One cannot say that they did not have warnings. Residents of Khan Younis admit that they have received phone calls and leaflets telling them to leave their area and specific houses that will become targets. Furthermore the IDF has implemented what they call a ‘knock on the roof’ strategy, that is hitting a roof with ordinance that contains no explosives so all it does is create a loud noise. This warns people to leave the house as quickly as possible. So the IDF is acting well within its legal obligations (even exceeding them) in warning civilians within a particular area. Yet these civilians chose, willingly (or perhaps with a gun in their backs?), to go back into a building that was targeted for destruction. Despite their actions they will still be tallied as civilian deaths.

 Why? Their action is not that of a normal civilian.

They chose to act as human shields.

 But what is a human shield?

 Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention, and the International Criminal Court define a ‘human shield’ as:


International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia qualified physically securing or otherwise holding peacekeeping forces against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a communications centre, as using “human shields” (emphasis added) 

 Whilst this particular ICC ruling referred to the Peacekeepers it adheres to civilians as well. Now, once again, Hamas’ use of human shields has been well documented though has not (in my opinion) been adequately condemned.

But in this instance, according to witness testimony, the civilians ran back into the building willingly.

 Look at this video:




The warning shot is fired (limited damage done to the structure) and residents then leave. They then return, once again, willingly to act as human shields. In this case the IDF avoided destroying the building in order not to kill people.

But what if they had not seen residents returning to the building and thought it empty?

Is it still an intentional targeting of civilians?

Are the IDF pilots and drone operators murderers?

 There has to come a time when we distinguish true civilians from those who are actively sheltering and aiding terror groups. Perhaps it’s time we look at whether or not we should be more liberal in our interpretation of ‘combatant’?

Asymmetrical warfare is a very real thing and perhaps, just perhaps, committing suicide to inflate casualty figures in order to cause international reprimand should fall under the role of a member of an armed force?