More statistics: What every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine

"What every American needs to know about Israel/Palestine" is a quote from the site Ifamericansknew.org . Statistics shown on this site, addressed primarily to interested American readers, are self explanatory and well referenced. The figures that followed were last updated in November and are likely to rise significantly as a result of the latest Israeli offensive on Gaza. We read:

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed since September 29, 2000 till Present:
123 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians, and 1050 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis.
Israelis and Palestinians Killed since September 29, 2000 till Present: 1062 Israelis and at least 4876 Palestinians have been killed.
Israelis and Palestinians Injured since September 29, 2000 till Present: 8341 Israelis and 33034 Palestinians have been injured.
Daily U.S. Taxes to Israel and the Palestinians:
In the Fiscal Year 2007 the U.S. gave more than $6.8 million per day to Israel in comparison to $0.3 million per day to the Palestinians.
UN Resolutions Targeting Israel and the Palestinians:
Between 1955 and 1992 Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.
Current Number of Political Prisoners and Detainees: 1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.
Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes, since 1967 till Present: 0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 18147 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel.
Current Israeli and Palestinian Unemployment Rates:
The Israeli unemployment rate is 7.3%, while the Palestinian unemployment rate is estimated at 23%.
Current Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land: Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and "outposts" built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land.

Link: http://www.ifamericansknew.org/

Arabdemocracy

When 400=4: The Mathematics of Israeli propaganda

By Joseph El-Khoury

The Israeli onslaught on Gaza is the latest example of the type of asymmetrical warfare that has characterised armed conflicts over the past 20 years, specifically those involving a Western Military Power. In many ways, the fire-fight with Hamas is a repeat of the 2006 war with the Hezbollah on Lebanese soil: Large scale artillery strikes from the air, sea and ground followed by an invasive ground offensive that is all but certain in the Gaza case. The asymmetry is apparent in the military resources, manpower, technological advances and intelligence available to both parties but also in the collateral human cost. In 2006, Israel lost 158 citizens, most of them soldiers on duty. On the Lebanese side the estimated toll was between 1000- 1300, the majority of which were civilians (30% children under 13 according to UNICEF sources).During this latest round of fighting the Palestinians have suffered around 440 mortal casualties (25% civilians according to the UN) in 8 days while Israel have reported the death of 4 civilians from rockets fired on Israeli towns from Sderot to Ashdod and beyond. Despite the discrepancy in numbers and the extent of the devastation on the Palestinian side, foreign commentators felt it their duty to provide a balanced view of the conflict, against all odds. This effort to avoid being accused of biased generates some heroic attempts to equate the impact of the conflict on both sides. To bolster their case, the Israelis had to come up with alternatives to combat the flood of images coming out of Gaza showing torn limbs, dead babies and bleeding corpses scattered around a parking lot. Despite the efforts of official medias to sanitise the war for their sensitive audiences through a ban on gore and blood, the availability of alternative sources of information and the cyber activism of Palestinians and their supporters have ensured that the reality of the war is still accessed by a significant number of people who make up mainstream opinion in the West. Although many would argue that International sympathy for the Palestinians is yet to protect them or advance their cause, there is little doubt that without it the Israelis would have carried out their fantasies of apartheid at a faster pace. Israel anyway is concerned about its image, and the Zionist lobby has promptly risen to the rescue recycling old myths and creating new ones with the aim to perpetuate the overarching myth of the Israeli David vs. the Arab Goliath on which it relies to remind Europe of its guilt and responsibility towards the Jewish people.

In this optic, the internal racist anti-Arab discourse is kept under wrap. Another one emerges on the blogosphere and in the media, in which Israelis claim ‘never to have disliked Arabs’ as if this century old conflict was a popularity contest and the IDF’s intention was to bomb Gaza into friendship. On the other hand, Arabs are portrayed as full of unexplained hatred towards Jews. Paralleling that we are confronted to a deliberate almost orchestrated emphasis on psychological trauma experienced by the Israeli side. Without minimising the impact of any loss on indiviudals, the theory is that in the absence of fatalities, ‘stress’ generated by the Kassam rockets and the existence of the Palestinians in the first place is equivalent to the carpet bombings of entire villages (Bint Jbeil) and crowded slums (Rafah). So the average British or French spectator is invited to connect with the plight of the nice middle class family in Siderot who lives under constant threat from rocket attacks. The nice family is carefully chosen to hail from some European country and frequently retaining some of the habits of that country facilitating the process of identification. The personal stories seem familiar, the dog, the family dinner, and the blue eyed children; all in contrast with the portrayed lives of the poor Palestinian living his refuge in overcrowded noisy dwellings. Western audiences have little in common, at least superficially with these families and as a consequences struggle to feel their pain and empathise with their suffering beyond the basic human short-lived reflex. In fact, their plight is even used against them, as they seem to revel in it encouraged by the militant rhetoric emanating from radicals who praise and glorify pain to boost morale. For Westerners, these words are difficult to contextualise except through their own experience of the effect of Muslim martyrdom. But unlike Hamas, those who are actually interested in a solution for the Palestinians cannot ignore Western public opinion and should cultivate it to understand the Palestinian perspective beyond self-serving pity. To counter Israeli propaganda, a revised communication strategy is more vital now then ever before.

The fight is no more one

By Wael Abdelraheem

In October 2008, Syrian Foreign minister Waleed Moallem visited London where he held meetings with the British officials and voiced certain opinions on the Israeli Syrian negotiations. In an interview on one of the satellite stations he announced that the indirect negotiations between the two countries had reached a crucial point, and that Syria had received a commitment from Israel to retreat to the 4th of June 1967 borders. A commitment similar to Rabin’s promise in a previous round of negotiations. Moallem also noted that the Israelis had been informed by the Turkish mediator of the UN documents which specify the borders of the 4th of June line; an essential point according to him.
More intriguing was his answer to a question about the possibility of an agreement between the two countries, regardless of a comprehensive regional peace that would resolve the Palestinian issue. He literarily said that this was a possibility in the event of a successful outcome for the ongoing negotiations.
How does that translate politically for the Syrian regime? It simply means that it is backtracking on its previous commitment to the principles emerging from the 1991 Conference in Madrid but also the foundations of Syrian diplomacy for the past 40 years, in accordance with the Baath party ideological speech and the statements of the National Progressive Front. These same foundations, which consider a fair and comprehensive peace the only satisfactory option, were used in the criticism of past Bilateral agreements between Israel and Egypt at Camp David, and the ones that followed at Oslo and Wadi Araba with the Palestinians and Jordanians.
In practice, Moallem’s statement means Syria could sign a peace treaty with Israel in return for the Golan Heights even if the independent Palestinian state remains a fantasy, if the Palestinian refugees never return, and if East Jerusalem is engulfed in a Greater Jewish Capital.
Hence who follows the developments of the Syrian position finds that they have been consistent in their demand to recover the whole of the Golan Heights, but have reneged the basis of the negotiation techniques that Damascus adopted for decades. There is no ambiguity about this speech, and I will not speculate on whether the Syrians are stating their true intentions. But it is no doubt a curious complexity in the position of the Iranian and Syrian axis and their allies. It seems that the resistance speech heard in Beirut, Damascus and Tehran aims essentially at the return of the Golan, occupied in the war to free Palestine. The Baathists relied on that same speech to reach power in Syria. There is also possibly a hidden contradiction between Teheran and Damascus on the best way to approach the Arab-Israeli conflict including the negotiations.
If there is no contradiction but cooperation and complementation, then a number of important questions require consideration: what do the protestors want from Palestine, since they do not mind signing a peace agreement with Israel regardless of whether the Palestinian issue is resolved or not? Why do they insist on keeping an active front in Lebanon? Why not reopen the old fronts with Israel if they sincerely wish to continue the struggle? And finally why do they consider that the missiles are the optimal method of resistance but never use their own rocket batteries that are more efficient than the Kassams, the Grads and other Katiushas?
But if the Syrians and Iranians disagree on the outlook for the conflict with Israel, and if Iran has broader targets than only reaching a just solution for the Palestinians, then what are they? It is to eliminate Israel from existence, in the name of a fight against imperialism? It has so far refrained from engaging foreign troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, with which it shares common borders? In fact, it barely resisted the occupation of these two countries in the first place, while foreign presence is likely to threaten Iranian security.
Perhaps these are simple and naïve questions but the answers are in the hands of the Palestinians who have to think twice about the call for a united fight against a mutual enemy launched by the protesting regimes … The fight is not one, and neither are the rules of engagement. Over the past 25 years we have only seen the blood of the Palestinians and the Lebanese being shed in the name of this common. So enough lies.