Tuesday, December 11, 2018

Finding my Grandmother: Hope and Horror in the Holocaust

Hope

I grew up knowing very little about my birth grandmother - not even her name - although I knew that she had been killed in the Holocaust. I call her my birth-grandmother, because my father was adopted.
In the last few years I have learnt that her name was Henny Jenny. She was 33 when my father, Heinz, was born in 1923.  They lived in Nuremburg, Germany.
Two years later, when she was 35, her husband Hermann died of TB (Tubercolosis), leaving her with four young children: Heinz aged 2, Ruth aged 5, Esther aged 7 and Yehuda aged 12.

Henny's next door neighbours were Max and Betty Lowenstein. The Lowensteins were wealthy and childless and liked looking after Heinz for his mother. Betty suggested to Henny that she let her adopt Heinz. Perhaps she offered a payment which would help Henny cope, while promising to give the child all the benefits of a wealthy family.
Both families were Jewish and members of the Nuremburg Orthodox Synagogue. Germany had recently been defeated in the First World War and there was growing anti-Semitism and growing economic chaos.
Henny accepted the offer and moved to Frankfurt with her 3 remaining children (she was born in Frankfurt), leaving Heinz behind.

Heinz Bernard Lowenstein (as my father was now known), grew up without knowing that he was adopted. In 1931, when Heinz was 8 his (new) father, Max, committed suicide.
In 1939, 3 days before the invasion of Poland, Betty managed to send Heinz to Britain but failed to get out of Germany herself (you can read about her eventual escape here).

Heinz didn't find out that he was adopted until after the war, when he was in his 20's. He was contacted by two siblings living in Israel, who told him that his birth-mother and younger sister had been killed in the Holocaust. No one knew exactly how the two dead family members had been killed.

In the 1980's, my father was sent a box of belongings his adoptive mother had left to a friend. The friend had died and her family now sent them to my father. The box included his adoptive mother's Nazi-issued passport, the text of the speech she gave at her US citizenship ceremony and also two telegrams sent from the birth-mother to the adopting-mother after the adopting-mother reached the United States.

In 2004, while unemployed and going through a divorce, I took an MA in History at Royal Holloway (part of the University of London). The supervisor on my dissertation was Professor David Ceserani, one of the witnesses at the famous trial of Holocaust-denier David Irving (documented in the movie "Denial" starring Rachel Weisz). I took a course on the Holocaust and would occasionally look for materials on my family history.

It took me about ten years to reach my birth-grandmother. Her name, I discovered, was Henny Jenny Messinger. In 1955 my father's Israeli brother had filled out a lost relative form in Israel and supplied this photo (the report is available online).

A German government website told me her fate:

Messinger, Henny Jenny

née Westheimer
born on 03rd November 1890 in Frankfurt a. Main / - / Hessen-Nassau
resident of Frankfurt a. Main
Deportation:
from Frankfurt am Main-Berlin
24th/26th September 1942, Raasiku (b. Reval), killing field

Destiny: officially declared dead    
                    
From this small entry I started to piece together what had happened.  I learnt that "Raasiku" is a train station in Estonia. Wikipedia told me that a trainload of 1,000 German Jews was sent to Raasiku at this date and all except a small group were then taken to a nearby seaside spot called Kalevi-Liiva, where they were shot. There was also a picture of the site:

The deportation date on the German website 
(24th/26th September 1942) happened to match the birthday of my daughter Shanny (25th September), and the name Henny Jenny, which I had not known when naming my daughter, was oddly similar. 

In trecent years my partner and I have taken holidays in Poland, where my partner's father was born, and I was surprised to find that I liked the country. I feel safer travelling in Poland with my Hebrew-speaking family, then I do in France or Britain. My daughter turns out to look very Polish.  
After my last visit to Poland I started to consider visiting Estonia to pay my respects at the mass grave. Two weeks later, a news item caught my eye: Holocaust memorials defaced in Estonia. It was accompanied by a picture of the memorials at Kalevi-Liiva, but this time defaced with a swastika:












I have seen images of defaced Jewish memorials over the years, but never imagined it would be related to my family. It motivated me to have another go at searching for my grandmother.


This time I realized that only one transport had gone from Germany to Estonia, which enabled me to trace it. I found more German records and a book with a two page description of the specific transportat, based on eye-witness accounts given at a 1960's trial of a Estonians who participated in the shooting.

This time I used the two telegrams my birth-grandmother sent to my adoptive grand-mother. The telegram on the right was sent by my birth-Grandmother in May 1942.

Translation:
Hope you are well. What about Heinz? [my father] Ruth [the sister who was 3 years older than my father and whose fate is unknown] left address unknown. I am engaged with dentist Rosengarten 49 years. Marriage permit not granted, because I am stateless. Intimately.
Henny

The Nazi state provided no services to Jews, so marriages could not be registered. The name is "Sara Henny" because the Nazis made all Jewish women add "Sara" to their name: Men added "Israel". 
A second telegram was sent four months later, on the 22nd of September 1942:

One last goodbye before leaving. Thanks for all dear. God bless you and Heinz. Marriage on target probably. Seek also Rosengarten. Everything is very happy.

These telegrams are life-affirming: Henny was happy and in love, but she was also concerned enough to send the telegram. She was about to take a transport and people on the earlier transports had vanished into thin air. Her daughter Ruth "address unknown", never sent anything back to her. 

Ruth Messinger

The adoptive-grandmother (Betty), sent a reply six months after each telegram. I assume they took six months to reach her in the US, which means that by the time the first telegram arrived, Henny was dead.
Two days after she sent the last telegram, Henny got on RSHA (Reich Main Security Office ) transport DA 406 from Frankfurt's Ostbanhof station. The train departed on the 24th of September 1942 with 237 people guarded by Frankfurt police.
Survivors testified at the 1960's trial, that the passengers were allowed a suitcase and brought food with them. The train was not a cattle truck but some kind of troop train. Historian Anton-Weiss Wendt believes that this was the last transport of Jews to leave Frankfurt (implying that Henny was one of the last Jews remaining in Frankfurt).  

The train pulled into Berlin's Moabit station on the 26th of September 1942. In Berlin more carriages were attached with an additional 812 people. This was also the only time the passengers were given water. Members of the Berlin Jewish community handed out soup after which the train was sealed shut. It was now guarded by transport police. Some of the passengers wore several layers of clothing so they could carry more clothes.  Clothes were expensive in those days and the passengers were only allowed a single suitcase. 
There were 108 children aged under 10, 354 men (average age 41) and 895 women. 
Source document 


Some of the passengers suspected they would be killed, but many were optimistic that the destination was resettlement.


Horror

The train arrived at Raasiku on the 31st of September (a 1,500 kilometer journey). Nine days after she sent the telegram and a week after leaving Berlin and receiving that last supply of fresh water.
A couple of hundred able bodied people (mainly men) were "selected" to be slave laborers at a nearby camp called Jägala and the rest were taken in several buses to a ditch that had been dug in preparation. 

The victims were made to undress and then taken in groups of five to be shot.  The train was the second of a group of trains sent to Raasiku over a period of a couple of months for the purpose of mass killing.
After the executions, the killers looted the passengers belongings. I find it astonishing that the killers were willing to wear the clothes of people they had murdered.

Of the 1049 Jews who were sent in the transport, 26 survived the war, 7 of them from Frankfurt. In 1944 a (Jewish) Sondercommando was sent to dig up the bodies and burn them. By that time it was common knowledge that the Nazis were losing the war, so they were hiding the evidence.

According to the testimony at the trial, most of the killing was done by the Estonian commander Karl Laak. Three other men were named: Jaan Viik, Friedrich Anijalg and Ralf Gerrets, these men were selected because they were the worst of the murderers.  The Germans (including Otto Bovensien, Kurt Venter, Kurt Krause, Heinrich Bergmann and Karl Gehse) "only" gave orders, set up infrastructure and coordinated transportation: They let others do the dirty work. This was a pattern which repeated itself across Europe.  

My grandmother had a small piece of luck: She was not on the first transport. On that one, which came from  Theresiensdadt, the inexperienced Estonian killers made a number of mistakes: The ditches were too small for the number of people murdered, so the bodies piled up above the sides before dirt was thrown on them. Not everyone was completely dead, so there was writhing and moaning in the mass of naked bodies. 
Local people came by later to loot the site and testified (at the 1960's trial) that they found crude homemade whips lying around with bits of skin attached to them. Apparently the killers took people with gold teeth to one side and extracted their teeth before they killed them; This led to screaming that could be hard in the local villages and was apparently stopped by the Germans who feared that Jews awaiting their "turn" would figure out what was going on.

Of the four Estonian killers who were tried in the 1960's, Karl Laak is said to have done most of the killings, and is most likely to be the man who shot my grandmother. Laak hung himself in Canada soon after the Soviet Union requested his extradition.   
It is astonishing how many of the (non-German) men who shot about 2,000,000 Jews for the Nazi "Einsatzgruppen" ended up in Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In 2001, the Guardian reported that 400 Nazi war criminals settled in the UK. Each one of those 400 men may have killed hundreds if not thousands of people, personally, using rifles. One man, who lived in Scotland, killed as many as 32,000 people.
It is estimated that 40 migrated to New Zealand, 1,000 to Canada and 850 to Australia.

At some point I tried googling images of Kalevi-Liiva. This was when I got a shock: The killers had taken photographs and they were available online. 
The remaining passengers on the train were all made to undress before they were shot and the killers had taken snapshots.

I quite literally looked into the mass grave that contained my naked grandmother and from the view point of the killers.

Most of those shot were women and it is probably no coincidence that pretty naked women (both dead and alive) are at the center of the few pictures available from this massacre.  The killers may have got a sexual thrill out of what they did and may well have had particular reason to focus on these women: Laak , who led the shootings, was known to keep prisoners for the purpose of rape.
 

These photos are pornographic.  There are a lot of this type of image online and it seems plausible that ISIS supporters would have been inspired by this material. Searching online turned up a lot of these photos, from a huge variety of different websites and usually giving exact details of the location where the photo was taken.  Mass produced cameras were a relatively recent phenomena in 1942 and this was the first genocide ever properly documented. Perhaps because of that, it is also the best documented genocide ever.


Monday, November 27, 2017

Minorities in the Middle East

I recently heard an Israeli-Palestinian law-maker being interviewed on the Voice of Israel radio station. He had just returned from an academic conference in France where it seemed that Israel's treatment of its Arab minority was compared to minority treatment in Western Europe.  This can easily be misleading, annd I thought it would be a good idea to also compare Israel with other Middle Eastern countries. My findings from a brief investigation:
I rounded figures as they are very rough. Mostly they come from http://minorityrights.org.

CountryKurdishLarge religous minoritiesLarge national minoritiesTotal populationPer capita incomeHuman development indexLife expectancy

Syria

10-15%
Alawite 11%
Kurds 10 - 15%

20m

1,400

107

74
Christian 10%
Iraq15-20%Sunni 30%Kurds 15-20%35m14,00012069
Iran7%Azeris 24%
Kurds 7%
70m2,8009671
Turkey18%Kurds 18%75m4,7009273
EgyptCoptic-christian 7%85m1,25011170
YemenShia 33%20m60015062
SaudiShia 15%25m11,2007672

Jordan
10% Iraqi
6m

2,500

86

72
50% Palestinian
IsraelMoslem 18%(or) Arab 20%9m37,5001982

As you can see the main minority in the Middle East are Kurds. The famous Sykes-Picot agreement, and the subsequent League of Nation's Mandates ignored the Kurds, giving control of their lands to "Arab" states. Defining a state solely by the language spoken by a large group of its populace is problematic: Ireland is not an "English" state and Austria is not a "German" state.

How minorities are defined varies between countries. In some countries minorities are "indigenous", in some they are "racial" and they can also be "religous".
The British do not regard indigenous people as minorities, for example the British don't consider "Scottish" or "Irish" as a minority status. European immigrants, such as Poles may be regarded as minorities but in most tables minority status is "racial" so only non-Europeans are tabulated.

In Spain, indegenous peoples such as Catalans (16%) or Galicians (5%) are generaly seen as minorities. Although Israelis refer to "Arabs", these days, religion is the primary mode of distinction. Discrimination in Israel tends to be Ethno-Religious which I suppose reflects the primarily Ethno-Religous nature of the Jewish majority and does not comfortably fit into "racial" based groupings.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are the only states (outside tiny Gulf states) with significant migration from outside the Middle East: In Israel,unusually, migrants and their descendants form the majority of the population, with most coming from other Middle Eastern countries.

Regarding the Kurds, I found this:
  • Syria - There was, prior to the civil war, forced "Arabization" leading to a ban on the Kurdish language and a ban on the use of Kurdish names. 300,000 native Syrian-Kurds were not recognized as Syrian citizens. 
  • Iraq - 200,000 Kurdish civillians were killed 1986-1989 (genocide) and 1.5 million fled their homes in 1991. Arabization forced many Kurds out of Kurdish-majority cities.
  • Turkey - There have been Kurdish language bans (not sure of the current status on this) and forced removal of villages (don't know how many).

I left Lebanon out of the table. There is no majority in Lebanon.

Israel does not easily compare with other countries, it has charecteristics of a Middle Eastern country, of a West European and of an East European country. A valid comparison needs to use a wider base. Binary comparisons are likely ot be misleading ro fail to see the wider picture.

Friday, July 28, 2017

Is Israel a colonial state?

This is taken from an answer I wrote on Quora to the question Is Israel a colony or the Jewish homeland?

  1. Israel is partially the product of internal Arab migration.
    Roughly half of Israeli Jews are from Arab countries, and as such, by migrating to Israel they have migrated within the Arab world. My great grand-parents migrated from Romania and Lithuania to England as internal European migrants I don’t think they were colonizers anymore then my co-worker’s Algerian grand father who migrated from Algeria to Israel is a colonizer.
  2. Jews are descended from aboriginal inhabitants.
    Jews regard migrating to Israel as a return to a homeland that their ancestors left for a variety of reasons. That means that they do not self-identify as colonizers. In this context it is worth noting that much of the population (both Jewish and non-Jewish) are descended from various types of colonizers including the Crusaders, Romans, Greeks and Arabs. It is generally accepted that Jews originated in this area and before the Second World War both European and American academia regarded Jews as Middle Eastern immigrants (of inferior stock). Now academia has shifted ground but the Jews are still seen as being on the “other” side.
  3. The Jewish God, language, sacred texts and religious holidays all originated in Israel.The Old Testament was written in Hebrew a Semitic language which originated in Israel. Religious holidays are timed to coincide with the weather in the Middle East and include harvest festivals, pilgrimages (to Jerusalem) and a lunar calendar which is useless in Europe where clouds cover the moon.
  4. No other independent entity has existed on this territory.Most of the independent countries to have existed on the site of modern Israel within the last 2,500 years are Jewish states. There has been one Crusader state created by the Normans which was independent. All Arab or Moslem rulers had their seat of government outside the country, as part of a wider Empire.
  5. The first European Jews who arrived in the 19th century identified as colonizers but arrived during Islamic rule .
    The first European Jews to arrive during the 19th Century (about 30,000) often called their settlements “colonies”. However the main ruler was the Ottoman Empire and most rejected their European origins, preferring to speak a local language (Hebrew rather than Yiddish). Israel’s first prime minister David Ben Gurion and second president (Ben Tzvi) both served in the Ottoman Army during the first world war and attempted to recruit American Jews to fight on Turkey’s behalf. In that sense they were asylum seekers and not colonizers.
  6. Zionism used colonialism as a tool.Those first European Jewish migrants were Zionists and the Zionist movement up until 1917 sought to settle the country under Ottoman rule (hence Ben Gurion’s support for Turkey). Early Zionists tried to setup universities that would serve the Turks while aiding migration. However when the chance arose the Zionists had no compunction about riding the British coat tails and using British rule to get their cause recognized. That I think is the base for the claim that Zionists were colonizers, but to some extent they were using the British and the relationship, which was always tense, eventually broke down (from 1938).
  7. The Arab population are also colonizers.Although colonialism is associated with modern Europe there is a case to be made that much of the Arab population arrived in Israel as Imperial colonizers. There are communities brought here by the Turks, by the Egyptians (under Muhamed Ali) as well as Bedouin Arabs who probably came with the conquest.
  8. The question is academic and not relevant.
    The Jews are here, they are blending in. In a few generations all Jews will be descended from Arab-Jewish migrants and European refugees from the Holocaust. Colonialism no longer exists and is not relevant to the modern world.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

From Gaza to Belfast: My four weeks as an Israeli soldier in Gaza

In 1996, I did 4 weeks reserve duty with the Israeli army in Gaza. It was the only time I ever served in the occupied territories. I was posted as a medic attached to a field hospital, near the Palestinian town of Rafiah at the South end of Gaza. The field hospital was manned by fellow reservists who knew each other and a doctor who commanded them. I was not normally part of this field hospital, so the doctor who commanded it, placed me "in the field", supporting the soldiers.
Our unit was an artillery unit which had been sent to guard "the Philadelphi road". At the time it was probably the most dangerous place under Israeli control, outside of South Lebanon which was also occupied.
The Philadelphi road was a narrow strip of land running along the border between Gaza and Egypt.
Between 1967 and 1977 the Israelis governed Sinai and Rafiah spread into what had once been Egypt. After the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, the city was spread across both sides of the border and a narrow road went through it, which was the new border. The width of the road varied at different points but it was mostly about 10 meters wide. There were Palestinian houses on either side and the road was lined with concrete barriers, placed there to protect the soldiers. A fence ran along the Egyptian side of the road, marking the boundary between the two countries and preventing infiltration (this was before the tunnels). There were also watch towers along both sides: Small Egyptian watch towers (about one or two floors high) and massive Israeli watch towers.  I no longer remember their height but they towered over the surrounding area and I would guess they were about 4 floors up. There was a ladder to climb up and the watch tower was like a boat made of inch thick steel floating above Rafiah. When the wind blew, you could feel it swaying. As you climbed the watch tower you could see all of Rafiah and it amazed me that nobody took shots at us.
I was the medic for the Philadelphi road. I sat in the back of a jeep and we drove up and down the border, patrolling it. The seats in the back of the jeep were benches running along the side walls (not car seats), designed to allow us to rapidly jump out the back and to carry more men. I was taught to sit with my rifle poking out the back of the jeep - so if I accidently opened fire, the resulting bullet would not bounce around the jeep and so I was already in place to attack anybody trying to assault the jeep.  When guards in the watch towers needed to go for a shower, I climbed the ladder and sat in the tower, replacing them until they returned, so I saw all the watch towers. They were horrible.
We didn't only patrol the border, we also drove around the surrounding areas. I remember sitting in the jeep on the first day and there were four of us: The driver was an Ethiopian immigrant, the jeep commander, who sat next to him at the front, was born in Israel and in the back was me - born in the UK, and next to me a Russian immigrant. Both I and the Russian sat with our rifles poking out the back. On our first day we were looking for the army petrol station and I looked up from a vague day dream to realize we were about to drive up a back road into Rafiah.  "We are going into Rafiah!  We are going into Rafiah!" I screamed several times.  The driver stopped and the commander paused, we hastily backed up. It was probably the most dangerous moment in the 3 weeks.  Had we gone into Rafiah we would have faced being lynched or shooting our way out.
I didn't see many Palestinians. We lived in a small fort right near the Philadelphi road, but on occasional visits to the field hospital, which was in a large secure military base, we went through a checkpoint used by Palestinian civilians. I remember an old lady loudly gasping in horror as she saw my rifle poking out the back of the jeep. Later I was in another jeep whose commander liked to drive down to the beach and gaze at the bathing Palestinians. It looked wonderful, I wryly reflected that had it been safe for Israelis we would have been down there in the thousands eating cheap Humous and enjoying the beach.  Eventually I told the commander that we had to stop doing it because we were spoiling their relaxation time. He listened and we stopped going.
On one occasion we were sent to protect a technician who was repairing the border fence with Egypt. We stopped the jeep and I got out and stood next to him like a bodyguard.  Most artillery men are small and unfit, that is why they are in artillery. I was the opposite, as a new immigrant the fact that I was tallish and fit got me into artillery even though I had little military training.  Most people were fooled, I looked very war like, especially with all my medical equipment (I routinely carried 2 or 3 litres of intravenous drip fluid, not to mention a selection of bandages). Eventually the commanders realized that I had little military training and moved me to a less exposed position, but it took a while. While I guarded the man fixing the fence, a Palestinian woman wearing nothing but a bath robe came out onto a balcony next to the road. She started motioning for me to come to her. An Egyptian border guard scowled at her and she scowled back. I hadn't seen a woman for 10 days and it was all I could do not to start running over. Fear of a trap stopped me.
There was another fort right up against the Egyptian border which we visited. It had a table with a bullet stuck in the wood, and they said that the backyard was an Egyptian tourist spot. Busloads of Egyptians would climb onto a little platform to ogle the Israeli soldiers. When I head this, I said that I has to see it. I went out and walked to the backyard, as I walked I heard loud gasps from the assembled tourists.
The unit that replaced us were full time soldiers (doing national service), not reservists. They had a massive tank-like armoured personnel carrier,  We were the last reservists on the Philadelphi road.

A few weeks later, I got a new job working for an Israeli phone company.  They sent me to Ireland to learn about their new billing system. On my first day at work, I was given 2000 dollars in cash and plane tickets. I flew to Galway in Ireland. After a few weeks in Galway, Southern Ireland, I decided to go see Belfast.
I hired a car and told the car hire man where I was going.  "Is it a problem?" I asked.  "No" he said and then "I have just the car for you". He rented me a metallic green Audi. As it happened I was wearing a green fleece. I didn't realized the significance of it.  In those days there were no motorways in Ireland, but there was outside Belfast and I drove into Belfast at 100 miles per hour. Children waved at me. I didn't understand why.
In Belfast I went to the notorious Falls Road area, there I saw British troops creeping between the houses, trailed by small children carrying stones.  It was like Gaza except that it was Europe and the houses looked lovely - though there was a noticeable lack of cars.
When it was time to eat, I found it very hard to find a restaurant (Belfast had little night life) but someone told me to try near the university. I found a massive 3 floor pizza place next to the university and had a good meal. There was a stag night party there and as I left the restaurant I saw what was clearly a stripagram - a woman wearing little but a fur coat - going into the restaurant.  I cursed my back luck at leaving the restaurant too early. At that second a British army jeep went by. A rifle was poking out the back in my direction.

Three months later, Netanyahu opened a tunnel that ran along the Western Wall in Jerusalem. There were massive riots and all hell broke out along the Philadelphi road. 17 soldiers died (shots came from both Egypt and Gaza) and an Israeli Colonel was killed in the fort on the border (the one with the bullet in the table). My reaction was massive relief: I was glad it didn't happen when I was there.

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Do Israeli withdrawals lead to peace?

Since 1949, Israel has occupied and withdrawn from territories that are much larger than its internationally accepted area (which is about 21,000 square kilometers). Below I have drawn up a table of occupations.

Only two withdrawals have resulted in, or from, peace agreements: The 1979 withdrawal from Sinai was the result of a treaty with Egypt and the 2005 treaty with Jordan was the result of a partial withdrawal from the West Bank (in reality it was more of a ceding of control) resulting from the Oslo agreement.

Only once did Israel withdraw for very clear reasons of international pressure; In 1956 when it occupied both Sinai and Gaza. Most other withdrawals are the result of internal Israeli dynamics and/or military conflict, though international pressure may have play some role.

The key finding is that only if withdrawals were preceded by a peace treaty did they lead to (some kind of) peace. The imposed 1956 withdrawal actually made the situation more volatile: Nasser misinterpreted it as proof of his power leading him to overplay his hand in 1967.

If the objective of "BDS" (supporters of sanctions against Israel) is a forced Israeli withdrawal than that will mostly likely not lead to "peace".  Of course what BDS mean by peace is ambiguous: The extermination of Israel could be said to be a form of peace.

The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza has, arguably, not improved conditions there and it seems safe to assume that unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank would lead to exacerbated conflict.

Can you force Israel to talk to the Palestinians and then force the talks to lead to an agreement?
Pressure only on Israel would give the Palestinians an incentive to stiffen their conditions and could make agreement harder. BDS have never pressured the Palestinians (or condemned their anti-Semitism), which is one of the many reasons that BDS lacks credibility.

In 1938 the British forced Palestinian Arabs and Jews to negotiate in London. The Arabs refused even to use the same door as the Jews and would not sit in the same room. No agreement was reached, so the British imposed one of their own: The 1938 White Paper. It's hard to say how much the White Paper changed the future, except that it did make the Holocaust much worse.

Territory
Total Area in square kilometers
Date of Occupation
Date of Withdrawal
Cause of withdrawal
Did it lead to a peace treaty?
Sinai
60,000 
1956
1956
US & USSR demands
No
Gaza
360
1956
1956
US & USSR demands
No
Sinai
60,000
1967
1979
Peace treaty with Egypt
Yes 
Gaza
360
1967
2005
Israeli internal pressures / Hamas attacks
No
Golan Heights
1,800  
1967
N-A


West Bank
5,640  
1967
1993 Ceded control of 20%
Shared control of another 20%
Treaty with PLO
Yes (but with Jordan) 
South Lebanon
2,000 (estimate)
1978
1978
UN Security Council demand
No
South Lebanon
2,000 (estimate)
1982 (included brief occupation of Beirut)
2000
 Israeli internal pressures / Hezbollah attacks
No

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Disproportionate responses: The UN Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza Conflict

It is ironic that UN reports on conflicts which involve Israel always accuse Israel of a "disproportionate response", ironic because that is a precise definition of how the UN handles Israel: For example, according to UN Watch, the UN General Assembly passed 25 resolutions in 2013, 21 of them condemning Israel.

The UN report on the 2014 conflict was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council,  a body which from 2006 - 2015 issued over 100 resolutions of condemnation, over half addressed to Israel.


The latest report records Palestinian suffering and searches (with a magnifying glass) for possible evidence of Israeli war crimes. I think it is fair to say that no other conflict is subject to such tight inspection. Such inquiries have forced the Israelis to take increasing care during wars and conflicts and as a result, the Israelis probably take more care to avoid war crime accusations than any other army. So if you hate the Israelis you have more reason to hate them and if you love them, you have more reason to love them.

We can't really quantify how relatively bad - or good - we Israelis are, because other conflicts are not subject to the same scrutiny. We also can't tell if we are getting worse or improving because the report does not compare out behaviour with previous conflicts.

The report argues that war crimes are judged by the proportionality of the response and then assesses proportionality in terms of numbers killed, where there is a clear imbalance. However, that is only one way of assessing war crimes.  Intent to kill civilians would be another and persistence of behaviour needs to be taken into account (is it isolated or systematic abuse).
The Palestinians launched 5,000 missiles at Israel (paragraph 66) and the Israelis bombed them 6,000 times (paragraph 111), so there are other ways of measuring proportionality, and the death toll disparity is partially the result of extensive Israeli investment in protection, while Hamas frequently encouraged Palestinians not to seek protection and did not invest in the issue.

The lead up to the conflict, when the Israelis often did not respond to missiles and the Palestinians persistently fired missiles for no reason, is not discussed. The Israelis tend to accumulate anger and then vent. The objective of the venting is to discourage further attacks by causing a lot of damage. The war is thus a defensive-offensive war: offensive in terms of destruction, defensive in terms of objectives and the report is focusing on a narrow section of a longer conflict.

How you understand offensive vs. defensive hinges on what you think of the Israeli blockade and that is a serious problem with this report.  The report relies on a "Gaza is still occupied" formula, this is addressed in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the report. Gaza is still occupied because:

"...the law of occupation also applies in areas where a state possesses the “capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make its power felt"."

Egypt has a border with Gaza which vilifiers of Israel find convenient to ignore. There is no reason why flotillas to Gaza should not go to Egypt and then cross into Gaza from there. The reason why the Palestinians had so many weapons was that the Moslem Brotherhood had been in power in Egypt and allowed a flow of weapons into Gaza. Precisely for that reason Israel does not have the capacity to easily re-occupy Gaza, as the report claims.  At the moment, it would be easier to conquer Damascus then to re-occupy Gaza.

The UN Security Council, which is the only UN body whose decisions are considered binding on all UN members, seems to accept that there was a full Israeli withdrawal in resolution 1860 but says that Israel retains some responsibility towards the population of Gaza and must continue to allow free flow of goods, water and electricity. Through-out the conflict Israel kept up these services and goods continued to flow in and out of Gaza. The Israelis can interfere with the flow of goods, but their ability to use these elements for control is restricted by the Security Council.  It is not an occupation but some other form of relationship.

It is probably a good idea to report on conflicts, but then all conflicts must be reported on, not just those involving Israel.


Recreating ancient kingdoms: Arab Nationalism vs Zionism.

Although Zionism and Arab Nationalism are at loggerheads over Palestine (or perhaps Southern Syria), the two have a certain amount in common...