‘Can You Look in The Mirror After You Have Bombed an Entire Neighborhood?’

By Dr Ahmad Tibi

In the midst of the Spanish Civil War, some time in 1937, fascist dictator Francisco Franco’s regime bombed the Basque town of Guernica, with the help of Germany and Italy. In less than four hours, and after bombs weighing a total of 22 tons were dropped on it, the town was completely destroyed.

Hundreds were killed in the bombardment, which shocked the entire world and became a symbol of the cruelty of those times. Guernica was immolated in the fire of fascistic propaganda and in historical memory it is testimony to the fragility of justice during war. Pablo Picasso’s famous masterpiece, “Guernica,” has become a symbol of the destruction and horror of war.

In the bombing of Guernica, no pilot refused to obey orders. They flew – and carried out their job as dictated. Obedient soldiers. Eighty-seven years later, it is the same old song. No Israeli pilot has stood up and said “No.” “This is the limit.”

The bombardments in the Gaza Strip have hit and damaged hospitals, schools, kindergartens, mosques and churches, bakeries, public buildings and entire neighborhoods – leaving behind tragedies too numerous to elaborate – and not a single pilot has said “No.”

The pilots, who in their private lives are apparently considered by themselves and their surroundings moral men of integrity and values, sons of parents, fathers of children, good friends to their buddies – have made themselves a major part of the well-oiled killing machine that knows no mercy. Or limits.

During the past 14 months, and after multiple Guernicas in Gaza – human morality is facing yet another test. Since the war began, tens of thousands of children, women and men have lost their lives, and entire towns – like Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahia and Jabalya – have been wiped off the face of the earth in bombings by the IDF.

Cities comparable in population size to Herzliya and Dimona have been bombed into rubble. And the world, with its silence and its armaments and materiel support, is supporting this. The media in Israel wobbles between total denial and depicting the actions as heroic, justified, essential deeds.

How can a pilot be proud of this? How does he sleep at night? Killing 17,000 children and wounding about 100,000. Killing masses of civilians is not “self defense” even in the face of the horrors of the killing of dozens of children alongside hundreds of other civilians in the Gaza border communities.

We have arrived at an absurd rule: Nothing justifies October 7 – but in the name of October 7 everything is justifiable. There is no security justification for such massive bombing. No military action can justify bombing helpless human beings, or the eradication of Beit Lahia, Beit Hanoun and Jabalya from the face of the earth. This ethnic cleansing is reminiscent of the ethnic cleansing of 530 villages in 1948.

In the Israel of 2024, after 14 months of nearly constant bombardment, day and night – the voice of refusal has gone silent and is unheard. In the Jewish Israeli public, voices of protest and resistance are hardly audible.

The planes thunder and morality is silenced – and there are even those who are demanding yet more bombing and even more destruction. The few who refused to be conscripted this year – for example, Ido Ilam – and kudos to him for that – can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and the letters of refusal and resistance actions on the fingers of two, but no more than that.

Conscientious objection is entirely a personal gesture: It is a political act of resistance to the system. It is a refusal to commit war crimes in the name and for the sake of the system, a refusal to be part of a process of destruction and ruin. A refusal to kill. A refusal to steal. To destroy. To burn down a home. To rob. To deprive. And to ruin. But refusal only because of a judiciary reform is not enough.

Without refusal to take part wholesale military destruction, human society sinks ever deeper into its moral darkness, which has no limits.

“The West,” which for years fought for the values of democracy and human rights, is choosing to turn a blind eye to the horrors of Gaza. Under cover of “the right to self-defense” – as though Israel were not a regional military superpower and lacked might and means – the West is allowing it almost unlimited freedom of action and giving it a green light to destroy Gaza and deepen the occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights.

The ethnic cleansing taking place before our very eyes, and which is being broadcast live on social media, is made possible under the auspices of the Western countries that are enlightened only in their own eyes.

And the administration of the Democrats in the United States, led by President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, will be remembered forever in disgrace, alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as the destroyers of Gaza, perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and mass murder of women and children.

What will they say about this a few decades hence? What will you tell your children? Your grandchildren?

Ultimately, every individual’s morality – including a pilot’s morality – is measured by his deeds. What he agrees to do and what he refuses to do. Are you prepared to press the button that will kill scores of children? That will burn to death three generations of a single family? Can you look in the mirror after you have bombed an entire neighborhood?

Do you love the person the mirror reflects back to you in the morning? Gaza, like Guernica, did not ask to be a moral test and a symbol of the human cruelty of these times. Above all, it is a place, a home to millions of people – men, women and children – who want to live outside the walls of the biggest prison in the world. A prison that has become the biggest graveyard in the world.

Gaza, like Guernica, reminds us how important it is to resist and refuse to participate in injustice – loudly and clearly, even at a steep personal price. Where there is resistance, there is hope, and where there is hope there is a future for all of us.

Dr Ahmad Al Tibi is a Palestinian-Israeli politician and has been a member of the Knesset since 1999. This opinion was reproduced from the Israeli Haaretz.

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Mad President and Street Brawl

By Dr Khairi Janbek

People from my generation remember a pop group which used to sing a song called the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Now, they were not themselves lunatics but merely performing for their audience and their fans, in the same manner. Neither Trump nor his band wagon are necessarily a bunch of thugs, but they are merely performing for their fans and audience.

However one cannot find any reason for world leaders to go to the Oval Office in order to provide US president Donald Trump with the material to entertain his fans and audience.

He ambushed King Abdullah of Jordan with the entry of journalists when that was not supposed to happen in order to market his absurd Gaza plan, president Emmanuel Macron of France provided him with the opportunity of posturing as an antagonist to the EU, prime minister Keir Starmer provided him with the opportunity of showing what Britain was groveling for – a free trade agreement and a role of being a bridge between the US and EU.

Ironically however, the worst of the Trump performance was left for Volodymr Zelensky, though his trip was the only one that made sense.

Zelensky for all intents and purposes, went to sign an agreement to hand the resources of Ukraine to America, but suddenly the situation deteriorated to almost a street brawl. Why? The whole thing was agreed upon by both sides from the start.

Of course, Zelensky expected a protection commitment from the USA in exchange for the mineral resources, but in fairness, without an explicit US commitment protection would have been implicitly there since supposedly, American companies and workers would be working in Ukraine, so what has actually happened to derail the whole agreement?

Of course, any such agreement with potential implicit US protection of Ukraine, is totally against Russian interests, especially according to some speculation, Putin has the intention to occupy the whole of Ukraine, therefore the talk in the corridors, is that Putin has offered Trump the exploitation of Ukrainian resources in the occupied territories of Russia, which in effect sabotaged the minerals agreement between US and Ukraine, and rescued Trump from having to give security guarantees; albeit implicit to Ukraine.

Now, at the peril of repeating the usual cliche of the EU facing a crossroad on its path, something which had happened frequently, this time it’s in fact different. The truth is that the US has been distancing itself from the EU at least from the days of president Obama, but the difference now is that the EU is being attacked by both the US and Russia, and finds itself as the large leviathan with clay feet unable to move.

The dilemma of differences within the EU are prominent, with full support for Ukraine, with some having lukewarm support, while some with no support at all, moreover the NATO future is hanging in the balance, to keep or not to keep that is the question, but what is the alternative? A European army which is yet to crystallize as an idea, or just drop all the effort?

What it boils down to now, is the idea of leadership of the “Free World”, certainly this notion has always been a nebulous idea, still, the US stood by it and projected its image accordingly, but now, it seems the US is not interested in world affairs except in what it can exploit and use and abuse for its own interests, which means, who will be the new leader of the Free World?

In fact, is there a need for a leader of the free world assuming that there is such a world? If the EU has any such pretensions, then big changes are necessary within its membership as it must be realized the road is very long for such an objective. But in the mean time, we have to settle for the theory of the mad president, ie. Trump would do anything, and peace by force with an oxymoron.

Dr Janbek is a Jordanian writer based in Paris.

Continue reading
Putting The Cart Before The Horse

With the approach of the Cairo Summit to discuss the Palestinian issue and the reconstruction of Gaza, Arab leaders find themselves facing three main scenarios to make decisive decisions that determine the future of Gaza and the fate of the Palestinians the day after the cessation of the war. The dilemma is no longer limited to reconstruction only but also includes the political and administrative arrangements that ensure the stability of the sector and prevent the recurrence of the devastating conflict.

From the American side, it seems that the Trump administration is adopting a more stringent approach, as it recently stated the necessity of displacing Palestinians from Gaza as a “solution” to ensure regional security, which reflects its traditional position biased towards Israel and complicates any Arab efforts to find an independent solution for the sector.

 This American position raises great concerns in Arab and international circles, given the disastrous consequences it carries for the Palestinians and the entire region, especially in light of the widespread international rejection of forced displacement policies.

The first scenario involves adopting a comprehensive regional solution led by Arabs, aiming to place Gaza under temporary Arab administration, which may include Egypt and perhaps some Gulf states, in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. In this scenario, a transitional body would be established to administer the Strip, which would undertake reconstruction operations, organize basic services, and reorganize the security situation in a way that prevents the recurrence of the conflict. 

This body could also work to pave the way for comprehensive Palestinian elections to be held later, so that Gaza would be part of a unified Palestinian entity. 

This temporary administration would work to restructure institutions within the Strip, ensure the regular provision of health and education services, and rehabilitate infrastructure damaged by the war. It would also undertake the tasks of securing the crossings and ensuring the flow of humanitarian aid, while imposing strict control to prevent the infiltration of any elements that might contribute to destabilization. 

It is expected that the contributing Arab states would have different roles, as Egypt could handle security aspects, while the Gulf states would contribute to financing and reconstruction. This option requires Arab and international consensus, as well as internal Palestinian acceptance, which may be difficult in light of the differences between the factions. 

Israel may not view this scenario favorably, as it strengthens the Arab role in Gaza and limits its influence there. In addition, the success of this scenario depends on the Arabs’ ability to impose a unified vision and work to reduce external interventions that may hinder this solution. Ultimately, this scenario remains a realistic option, but it is fraught with challenges that require active diplomacy and strong political will.

As for the second scenario, it is to support the restructuring of the Palestinian Authority and grant it full control over Gaza after reaching internal understandings with the various factions, including Hamas. In this framework, the security services are integrated into a unified framework under the supervision of the Authority, and the administrative institutions are unified, with an Arab and international commitment to provide financial and logistical support to ensure the success of this transition.

One of the main pillars of this scenario is rebuilding trust between the various Palestinian factions, which requires intensive efforts from regional and international mediators, especially Egypt and the United Nations. This proposal also requires providing guarantees that the faction leaders will not be targeted or excluded from the political scene, which necessitates establishing a joint governance mechanism for a transitional period.

This scenario depends primarily on the ability of the Palestinian Authority to impose its effective control over the Strip, which is doubtful, especially in light of the deep differences between the West Bank and Gaza, and the lack of trust between the Palestinian parties. 

In addition, Hamas’s acceptance of this proposal may be conditional on effective participation in governance, which may not be acceptable to Israel or some regional powers. Moreover, this solution faces obstacles related to the extent of the international community’s ability to commit to funding reconstruction, and to ensuring that Israel does not obstruct any efforts aimed at strengthening the Palestinian Authority’s control over the Strip.

The third scenario, which may be the most complex, is to impose an international solution under the auspices of the United Nations, whereby international peacekeeping forces are deployed to oversee the administration of Gaza for a transitional period, during which the Strip is rebuilt, and the political conditions are prepared to find a comprehensive Palestinian settlement. 

In this scenario, the infrastructure is rehabilitated, security guarantees are provided to prevent the outbreak of new confrontations, while the way is opened for an internal Palestinian dialogue under international auspices to reach an agreement on the future of governance in Gaza. 

This scenario also includes international supervision of the rehabilitation of civilian institutions in Gaza, ensuring the distribution of aid, and preventing the use of resources in any military activities that may lead to a renewal of the conflict. 

It could also contribute to reactivating the peace process between the Palestinians and the Israelis through an international mechanism that ensures the implementation of any understandings reached. 

However, this option faces several obstacles, most notably the rejection by some Palestinian forces of any direct international intervention in Palestinian affairs, and Israel may refuse to deploy international forces near its borders, preferring to keep Gaza under siege or in a state of instability that keeps it weak and unable to pose a security threat. 

Moreover, any international intervention will require consensus among the major powers, which may be difficult to achieve in light of global political tensions. Each of these scenarios carries its own challenges, and the optimal choice remains linked to the extent of the Arabs’ ability to unify their positions and make bold decisions that go beyond narrow political calculations. 

The main challenge lies in reaching a solution that spares Gaza further destruction, establishes a new phase of stability and development, and ensures that the Palestinian issue is not exploited in regional conflicts. The question remains: Will the Cairo Summit be able to overcome Arab differences and present a unified vision to save Gaza and its future?

Hasan Dajah is professor of Strategic Studies at Al-Hussein Bin Talal University

Continue reading

You Missed

Masafer Yatta – A Travesty of Justice

Masafer Yatta – A Travesty of Justice

Bahrain Revives Its Pearling Legacy

Bahrain Revives Its Pearling Legacy

Glasgow Cinema Boycotts Coca-Cola

Glasgow Cinema Boycotts Coca-Cola

61 Palestinians Killed in Israeli Jails

61 Palestinians Killed in Israeli Jails

Israel Starves Gaza For Politics

Israel Starves Gaza For Politics

Israel’s Aid Blockage…Collective Punishment

Israel’s Aid Blockage…Collective Punishment