Gaza 'conflict' a euphemism for a defenceless slaughter

After seven weeks of lethal bombing by Israel, some 2100 Palestinians - of whom 70 per cent were civilians - had been killed. PHOTO/AP

History is written by the victors, or so the saying goes.

Whatever the truth of this dictum, it is difficult to argue against the fact that the portrayal of current events tends to be heavily weighted in favour of the more powerful or influential parties.

A case in point would be the manner in which the ferocious assault by the Israeli state on the virtually defenceless inhabitants of the Gaza strip has so frequently been justified as one of self-defence or - even more outstandingly - as having been absolutely necessary to the survival of the Israeli state.

On July 8, the Israeli state unleashed "Operation Protective Edge" with an aerial bombardment of the Gaza strip, a tiny sliver of land home to 1.8 million people, half of whom are 15 years of age or younger, and the fifth most densely populated territory in the world.

On July 17, the Israelis launched a ground assault.

For seven weeks the Israeli military pummelled and pounded the residents of the Gaza strip, leaving a quarter of the population, 475,000 people, displaced. By the time an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire had been agreed on August 26, some 2100 Palestinians - of whom 70 per cent were civilians - had been killed.

According to the World Health Organisation, in addition to the estimated 500 Palestinian children who were killed, over 3000 more were injured with approximately 1000 suffering a permanent disability.

The United Nations has estimated that at least 373,000 children in the Gaza strip will need specialised psycho-social support. Moreover, based on the number of adults killed, it has been estimated that as many as 1500 children in Gaza could now be orphans.

On the Israeli side, 73 people - 66 soldiers and seven civilians, including one Thai national, were killed.

Yet, despite this massive disparity in casualties, many commentators persist in calling this punitive assault on the relatively defenceless inhabitants of Gaza a conflict, as if it had been a struggle between two relatively balanced forces.

Surely, given the massive imbalance in deaths between the two parties, if there are any borders that need defending, they are those of Gaza.

One of the major justifications for this Israeli assault on Gaza has been the argument that Hamas is bent on the destruction of Israel and is unwilling to negotiate.

This is untrue. Since coming into power, Hamas has declared on several occasions its willingness to enter into a 99-year truce with Israel if Israel, in turn, withdraws to its pre-1967 boundaries, as per the UN resolution 242.

In fact, the lack of willingness to entertain any thoughts of co-existence has frequently been expressed by high-profile members of the Israeli state.

The deputy leader of the Israeli Knesset (its parliament), Moshe Feiglin, has openly stated that the Gaza strip should be fully conquered militarily and its inhabitants expelled. According to Feiglin, the expelled Palestinians should be held in tent camps, essentially large-scale concentration camps, along the Sinai Border until their final destination had been determined. Those who resisted should be exterminated.

The Israeli politician Ayelet Shaked has argued that the mothers of resisters should also be killed.

And now, in the shadows of the current ceasefire, the Israeli state continues to grab land from the Palestinians as evidenced by its announcement on August 31 that it was expropriating some 400 hectares belonging to the West Bank in the Etzion Jewish settlement bloc near Bethlehem, by declaring it to be state land.

Justin Frewen is a Wanganui-based United Nations consultant, who has served the UN on humanitarian missions for almost 20 years.