Gaza Cease-Fire Dynamics Explained: What Cease-Fire will Work?

After nearly 200 Palestinians have been killed in the Gaza Strip over the past week, there is finally increased discussion of attaining a cease-fire. The truth is, everyone knew it would have to end with a cease-fire, the only questions were how many more Palestinians would be killed, when would it happen and on what terms. Much of the discourse on this issue to tragically misinformed about the dynamics or fire between Israel and Gaza both during and outside of cease-fire agreements. Using data that ranges nearly ten years and with a closer focus on a subsection that was the 2012 cease-fire period, we explain below how these dynamics work in an effort to inform a way forward.

This first chart below depicts the number of launches from Gaza of projectiles from September of 2004 through this May. That is nearly a decade. It starts at September because that's how far back our data set goes on this issue, but this significant span of time gives you a very clear picture of the ebbs and flows. Launches can involve one projectile (which is often the case) or more. I've highlighted some key events.

[Click Image to Enlarge]

Two things become very clear when looking at this chart. The single most effective way to bring projectile fire from Gaza to a halt is through a cease-fire agreement. Military campaigns have only had the effect of increasing the number of projectiles fired. The June 2008 agreement brought projectile fire from Gaza to near zero until the Israelis broke the truce on Nov. 4th, 2008 sparking the escalation that culminated in the massive attack that was "Operation Cast Lead". What's clear from this is that the military operation generated far more rockets than the absence of it. Keep in mind the context which this is taking place, prior to "Operation Cast Lead", according to B'Tselem's statistics, over 392 Palestinians were killed on average in each year from 2004-2008in Gaza alone. That's more than one a day for 4 years.

A similar story plays out in 2012. We covered the lead up to this escalation and dynamics of fire earlier in 2012 showing how the vast majority of projectiles from Gaza were provoked by Israeli strikes causing Palestinian casualties. The most significant event that lead to Hamas' participation in the eight-day bombardment in 2012 was the assassination of Ahmad Jaabari who was killed by Israel as he was negotiating a longer term truce. Again, a military campaign by Israel generated more projectile fire than the absence of it, proving once more that there was no military solution to this problem for Israel.

After the eight-day bombing campaign in 2012, a cease-fire agreement was reached through Egypt and US mediation. We began watching adherence to the terms of that agreement closely. The terms of the agreement included both sides halting attacks and Israel easing restrictions as well. This meant:

Israel shall stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land, sea and air, including incursions and targeting of individuals.  

All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel, including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border.  

Opening the crossings and facilitating the movement of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents' free movements and targeting residents in border areas. Procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.

So what did adherence to these terms look like? Well, we graphed it out below. Numbers here for attacks from Gaza come from Israel's Shabak, so it is unlikely they are understated. Numbers for Palestinian injuries, deaths, Israeli incursions and attacks on fishermen come from UN OCHA.

[Click Image to Enlarge]

In the immediate aftermath of the cease-fire agreement no projectiles were launched from Gaza into Israel. Rather Israel continued to fire into Gaza, killing one Palestinian, injuring 42 others, committing four incursions and firing at or detaining 48 Palestinian fishermen off the coast. It was not until after most of these violations that the first projectile from Gaza post-ceasefire was launched on Dec. 24, 2012.

What the chart above clearly depicts is that even when rocket fire comes to a halt as called for by the cease-fire agreement, Israel continues its violations with total impunity. When the rockets stop, the siege, occupation and colonization of Palestine does not. I think we can draw from this some keys to a sustainable cease-fire agreement:

1. An agreement must be clear in terms of what constitutes a violation so that the actors will have to consider the ramifications of public condemnation before committing a violation.

2. An agreement must take into consideration the dramatic imbalance of power between the sides. If there is a Palestinian violation, Israel retains the capacity to hold them accountable independently and at will, often inflicting disproportionate causalities leading to escalation. But when Israel violates the cease-fire, Palestinians cannot hold them accountable. The absence of any mechanism for monitoring Israeli violations and holding them to account creates incentives for Palestinians to do so in other ways, like firing projectiles.

3. An agreement must ensure that Israel does not use its position of power to unilaterally change the terms. The previous cease-fire included an easing of restrictions as part of the detailed understanding between the parties negotiated through Egypt. This meant fisherman could fish up to six nautical miles from the coast instead of the previously imposed three nautical mile mark. It also meant Palestinians could access farm land up to 300 meters from the fence, previously Israel had fired at Palestinians as far as 1500 meters away. But during the course of the cease-fire, Israel unilaterally changed those terms, reinforcing the three nautical mile mark and going back to shooting Palestinians near the fence even as far away as 1500 meters.

4. An agreement must take into account the devastating human rights crisis and humanitarian situation in Gaza that lies at the foundation of discontent there. As mentioned above, when it came to "easing restrictions" the previous agreement was mostly about determining what would be the dimensions of the prison cell that is the Gaza Strip. For real progress, an agreement must challenge the very notion that Palestinians should be stuck in this prison at all and move toward ending the collective punishment that is Israel's siege on the Strip.

Of course there are bigger problems here as well, including the ongoing denial of Palestinian self-determination and repatriation which all people who care about justice should continue to struggle for, but an agreement that followed the points above would be a marked improvement over previous ones and undoubtedly be more durable that its predecessors given the reasons they have failed. Chances are however, given the power dynamics in Israel, Egypt and the US, it's more likely that the type of agreement that will be imposed on Palestinians will likely only fall apart. The only question is how many months it will last and how many Palestinians will be killed during this "cease-fire."

read more...

Israel/Gaza Cease-Fire Dynamics Breakdown

For months we have been tracking Israeli cease-fire violations in Gaza. In November of 2012, a cease-fire agreement was brokered by Egypt between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Previous cease-fire agreements, like the one brokered by Egypt in June of 2008 were shattered by extrajudicial assassinations carried out by Israel. The biggest question after the cease-fire agreement, as I made clear here, was who would hold Israel to account for cease-fire violations? Egypt was not going to play this role. The U.S. was not going to play this role. So effectively, Israel could fire into Gaza without accountability, provoke a reaction and then claim self-defense. Of course this has been similar to what we have seen in the past as we displayed here, here, and here.

So what has been happening since the cease-fire? In anticipation of similar trends, we began tracking Israeli cease-fire violations shortly after the agreement was reached. We have an ongoing list here. The media predictably continued to ignore Israeli cease-fire violations, which is why it was even more important to catalog them. If another massive Israeli bombardment of Gaza began, Israel would surely use the pretext of "self-defense" to fend off any international criticism and the mainstream media's failure to cover these cease-fire violations would have provided and supported the Israeli narrative needed to make war. Thus, we not only tracked Israeli cease-fire violations, but we also tracked if and how these violations were being covered in the mainstream. More on that later.

The chart below depicts a few things; Israeli cease-fire violations, Palestinian projectile launches and Palestinian casualties that resulted from Israeli cease-fire violations week by week of the cease-fire through January 2014. A few notes on the data; first, we refer to "projectiles" because there are different types of projectiles that are deployed, not all are "rockets" and thus "rockets" alone, the preferred parlance of the Israeli state, isn't an accurate descriptor. Additionally, we are not focusing on each individual piece of ordinance but rather on events. So if one projectile is launched or two are launched together, these are the same event. Likewise, we don't count each individual piece of ordinance Israel deploys in an airstrike wherein it routinely drops several bombs in a singular event. If we did, the number of Israeli violations would surely be much, much higher. For example, the Israeli human rights group B'tselem, citing the Israeli Shin Bet, notes that nearly 14,000 projectiles were fired from Gaza from 2005 to 2013. UN OCHA noted that Israel fired about the same number of artillery shells into Gaza......in 2006 alone. Lastly, the Shin Bet keeps numbers on Palestinian fire from Gaza but does not differentiate between fire at Israeli targets that have entered Gaza vs. those outside it. Also, it does not have data available at the week level, only the month level. Even using their numbers for Palestinian fire though, Israeli violations outnumber them nearly two to one.

There really is no comparison between Israel's capacity to destroy and the combined capacity of all the factions in Gaza. The point here is to understand how the events relate to each other, what leads to escalation, and how this effects the durability of the cease-fire agreement.

[Click to Enlarge]

As you can see from the chart, Israeli cease-fire violations have been persistent throughout and have routinely resulted in Palestinian injuries and deaths. Palestinian launches have been rare and sporadic and occurred almost always after successive instances of Israeli cease-fire violations. You can see a steady escalation from around week 48 and onward. This corresponds with mid-December during which Israel committed several cease-fire violations resulting in multiple Palestinian casualties. There was no Palestinian projectile fire in the two weeks prior to these Israeli violations which inflicted high causalities. This means that this week was the escalation point and it was Israel doing the escalating. You can see that the following weeks continue to feature exchanges that included high Palestinian casualties. You may wonder why you don't see Israeli casualties from Palestinian projectile fire depicted on this chart, that is because as afar as I can tell, there weren't any during this period.

So how have these cease-fire dynamics been covered? We've tracked New York Times coverage of the cease-fire during this period. The New York Times is representative of the mainstream and extremely important for shaping public discourse on events and thus an important window into broader mainstream coverage. The Times also has multiple reporters covering these events including a bureau in Jerusalem and a correspondent in Gaza. Finally, we simply can't track everything so the Times, with its easily searchable history, is an effective example to use.

Of the nearly 120 Israeli cease-fire violations during this period the New York Times reported on 17 of them. Additionally, most of these stories (eleven) came either during the first week of the cease-fire, when the issue was still fresh in readers' minds, or since the escalation on December 20th. That means for the bulk of this period, during which Israel committed 87 cease-fire violations and causing some 91 Palestinian casualties over nearly a one year period there were only six stories on the topic. This represents a systematic failure to cover Israeli cease-fire violations.

Making matters worse is the way events are covered in the rare instances they are covered. In most cases, Israeli actions are described as a response to Palestinian actions. So while most Israeli cease-fire violations are not covered at all, those that are are explained as justified retaliation. Thus the reader is completely misled about the dynamics of fire, why the cease-fire is threatened and exactly what is going on in and around Gaza.

The biggest challenge to the cease-fire agreement is persistent Israeli violation and the lack of any accountability for them. The politics of the Gaza Strip are complex. Israel says it wants Hamas to control projectile fire from other factions and yet it persistently violates the truce putting Hamas in a position of having to defend Israel's violations. By targeting groups other than Hamas and by expecting Hamas to crack down on their responses, Israel is playing a dangerous and deadly game of divide and conquer in Gaza that will likely lead to the unraveling of the cease-fire. Once again, Israel has proven security is not its aim, subjugation is.

For more on this topic, I highly recommend a new report by the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Center (IDMC) on Israeli fire into Gaza.

read more...

Michael Oren to CNN, Making the Lopsided Worse

The Jerusalem Post has this item. Michael Oren, the former American who renounced his citizenship to represent the State of Israel as its Ambassador to Washington, is now joining CNN as an analyst and contributor. His tenure as ambassador ended this fall after having served 4 years. More from the Jerusalem Post:

Oren, who now lives in Tel Aviv, told the Jerusalem Post that he saw the position as an opportunity to give "balanced but insightful commentary on pressing Israeli and Middle East issues." He said that what made CNN attractive was that it not only has a large domestic US audience, but has a strong an international reach as well. "In terms of getting the message across, it is quite a large and diverse audience," he said.

Balanced? Please. Oren is a former official representative of Israel and in his writings since leaving the Embassy has continued to voice pro-Israel messaging. No doubt he will continue to do so on CNN. So who exactly would he balance out?

In 2012, I did an analysis of CNN coverage of Israel's week long bombardment campaign of Gaza. Israeli official spokespeople were interviewed more than twice as often as Palestinian official spokespeople. I'd encourage you to read that entire post for more.

And can you guess who was the most often occurring guest during that period? Michael Oren.

This travesty parading as journalism, is CNN.

Here is an example of some of Ambassador Oren's "insightful commentary" on 60 Minutes (about 11 minutes in)

read more...

Israel, and Kershner, Strike Again

The bias in New York Times reporting on Israel/Palestine is so systematic, it is predictable. Literally.

When the news broke this morning that an Israeli had been shot by a sniper in Gaza while working on the fence around Gaza I knew that the killing would receive plenty of coverage in US media and of course in the New York Times by none other than Isabel Kershner. Even though Kershner routinely fails to report about Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip killed or injured by Israel, she rarely misses an opportunity to report about Israelis killed by Palestinians. That's why earlier this morning I tweeted:

Has Isabel Kershner written her inevitable piece on the Israeli shot today yet after ignoring the large number of Palestinians shot in Gaza?
— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) December 24, 2013

On cue, an hour and a half after my tweet, Isabel Kershner's story goes up at the New York Times.

The headline:

Israelis Shell Gaza After Israeli Fence Repairer Is Killed

and the lead paragraph:

 An Israeli laborer who was repairing the security fence along the border with Gaza was fatally shot on Tuesday by a Palestinian sniper, according to the Israeli military, and Israel immediately responded by bombing targets it associated with militant groups in the Palestinian coastal territory.

both make clear that the events today were Israel responding to an attack from Gaza. But absent both from that framing narrative and her entire piece, as I knew would be the case, is any description of preceding events in the Gaza Strip in recent days which featured several and persistent Israeli violations.

Kershner doesn't tell you that in the last 10 days the Israeli military shot a Palestinian teenager in Gaza on the 15th, shot and killed a man and injured two others in Gaza on the 20th, shot an injured a Palestinian farmer on the 21st, fired at Palestinian fishing boats in Gaza on the 22nd, and shot and seriously injured a Palestinian man on the 23rd. All of these incidents happened in the days preceding today's events and involved Israel firing into Gaza. None of them are reported in her article despite being vital context for today's events.

She mentions that Israel's bombardment of Gaza in November 2012 "ended with an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire" but fails to mention that Israel has been consistently violating that cease-fire. We've been keeping track of all of these violations here, precisely because we knew Isabel Kershner and others were not going to inform you about them.

She does however, enumerate all recent Israeli casualties....in the West Bank:

The Israeli killed on Tuesday was a civilian contractor who had been working for the Israeli Defense Ministry. His death came a day after an Israeli police officer was stabbed and wounded at a West Bank junction. On Sunday, a bomb exploded on a bus in Bat Yam, near Tel Aviv, minutes after the passengers had been warned to exit, preventing casualties. The police said they were working on the assumption that the bomb had been an attempted attack by Palestinian militants.  

In addition, three Israeli soldiers and a retired colonel have been killed in recent months by Palestinians from the West Bank.

Kershner did a very similar thing in a piece last month which we called out here.

Her piece does end with this line "More than 20 Palestinians have been killed in clashes with Israeli forces this year, according to Palestinian officials."

All the Palestinians killed and injured are an afterthought in this piece. Those killed and injured by Israeli fire in Gaza immediately prior to today's events are not event mentioned. In what can only be interpreted as an effort to evoke sympathy for Israel's actions, Kershner selects to inform the reader about attacks against Israelis in the West Bank while ignoring Israeli attacks on Gaza that occurred right before today's events, even though today's events occurred in Gaza and not in the West Bank.

The reader is treated to the familiar refrain: Israel is always acting to defend itself. The New York Times can do better and its readers sure deserve better than this.

With such horribly skewed and sloppy reporting, is it any wonder Americans are so misinformed about the situation?

read more...

NY Times Euphemizes the Nakba

This week Palestine lost a dedicated and tireless advocate and mental health practitioner when Dr. Eyad El-Sarraj succumbed to a long battle with cancer. The New York Times wrote about his life and impact in an article that was, for the most part, decent. Until, of course, you got to this paragraph (emphasis mine):

Eyad Rajab El-Sarraj was born on April 27, 1943, in Beersheba, a city that was then under the British rule of the Mandate of Palestine and that is now in southern Israel. He moved with his family to Gaza to escape the war of 1948 over the establishment of Israel.

Moved? Well, that is an interesting way of describing it now isn't it? Here was my initial reaction on twitter: 

MOVED? Did they rent a UHaul? "He moved w/ his family to Gaza to escape the war of '48 over establishment of Israel" http://t.co/UT6jbcyFbK
— Yousef Munayyer (@YousefMunayyer) December 19, 2013

The NYT has a long history of euphemizing the Nakba. We detailed this in this post where we compared NYT coverage of the Nakba in 1948 with the way it is described whitewashed today.

A friend and a scholar of the Nakba, Palestinian cartographer Salman Abu Sitta, responded to my tweet on Facebook saying that Beersheba was attacked on Oct. 21st, 1948 resulting in the flight of refugees and the capture of many others. Sarraj, he said, had told him he was among those that were forced out then by on coming Israeli attack.

So, how did the NY Times cover the events in Beersheeba back then?

An Israeli Army spokesman scoffed at Cairo broadcast reports that Beersheba had been recaptured. He reported that fighting there had ceased after the Israeli forces had completed mopping up the town......Beersheba fell after about five hours of fierce fighting under the bright moon and stars of a chilly desert night. Most of its normal population of 3,000 and about the same number of refugees had fled by the time the Israeli troops had completed its capture. An Israeli army spokesman said that a considerable quantity of booty and scores of prisoners had been taken.

You, the reader, should decide. Is that how you normally "move"?

You can read the entire NYT article from Oct. 22nd, 1948 here.

read more...

PHOTOS: Palestine in the Snow

It is not very often that Palestine gets snow and rarely does it see this much accumulation. Palestine and much of the region is experiencing a powerful storm system that has resulted in snow, ice and rain from Cairo to Syria. Below are a few images of Palestine in the snow.


Tree tops in Yazid village near Nablus dusted with white snow...

 

A street scene in Moscow   Calgary  Oslo  ....Ramallah!

 

Snow falls on the Palestinian village of Qatanna near Jerusalem

 

Children play in the snow, a rare treat

 

A Caterpillar bulldozer takes a break from demolishing Palestinian homes to clear streets of Snow in Jerusalem

 

Will it be a white Christmas? Snow is falling here in Bethlehem's Manger Square

 

An image of a Nablus mountainside as snow blankets the city

 

An-Najah University in the Snow

 

A snowman made of hail in Gaza. Life in Gaza, made difficult by an Israeli siege, has just gotten much worse because of this storm. We love Gaza too!

 

Here the city of Rafah in Gaza is partially underwater...

 

Palestinians in Gaza being rescued from their homes by boat. Lack of electricity, running water and fuel for heat has made a bad situation worse.

 

A Palestinian child in Gaza tries to stay warm...

 

This man in Hebron maybe the first Palestinian member of the polar bear club.

 

A Christmas tree in Ramallah is covered in snow...

 

As is this Christmas tree at Manger Square in Bethlehem

 

Bab al-Amood, or Damascus Gate, an entrance to the old City of Jerusalem as snow falls

 

Farewell from a snow covered Palestine, see you next storm.

 

read more...

NY Times Watch: Israeli Violations Cease to Exist cc @Sulliview

After the truce that came into effect between Israel and groups in Gaza brokered by Egypt last November, we began to keep a list of Israeli ceasefire violations. In the past, Israel has broken cease-fire agreements while the media, particularly Western media, adopted an inverted narrative that blamed Palestinians for breaking the ceasefire. This is very important because it serves as justification for Israeli actions in the Western world obsessed with Israel's "self-defense."

The list we are keeping, as you can see, is quite long. Yet, if you read the New York Times article on the matter today, you'd never know of this context. Here is how Isabel Kershner covered the most recent exchange (emphasis mine):

In response to rockets fired from Gaza into southern Israel, apparently in support of the Palestinian prisoners, the Israeli military said it carried out an airstrike in Gaza late Tuesday night, its first since a ceasefire that ended eight days of fierce cross-border fighting in November. Warplanes struck two open areas in northern Gaza, causing no damage or casualties.  

Sami Abu Zuhri, a spokesman for Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza, called the airstrikes a clear violation of the ceasefire. “We call on international parties to intervene immediately to end the Israeli escalation and also the violations against the prisoners,” he said in a statement.  

The rocket fire from Gaza was the third such violation of a ceasefire brokered by Egypt in November, evidence of its fragility.

Did you catch that? Yes, this has been the first Israeli air strike into Gaza since the truce but certainly not the first violation as our list clearly demonstrates. Israeli Naval fire, infantry fire and artillery have all been used in violation of the ceasefire before. Yet, the context provided by the reporter on fire from Gaza makes it seem like groups in Gaza are the more frequent violators of the truce. To make it worse, the reporter suggests the three projectiles from Gaza in four months are evidence of the fragility of the ceasefire.

In fact, "Israel has violated the ceasefire several times by firing on fishermen and farmers," according to this same newspaper.

So if three projectiles from Gaza in four months are evidence of the ceasefire's fragility, what is the long list of Israeli ceasefire violations evidence of? Well, two things. Israeli impunity and, in the case of this article today, poor journalism.

read more...

Did #Israel Provoke #Gaza Escalation to Test 'Iron Dome'?

When the Israeli military extra-judicially assassinated the Popular Resistance Committee leader Zuhair Qaisi they provoked a barrage of rockets. I knew this would happen. They also knew very well that this would happen. Anyone looking at the numbers and the dynamics of violence in and out of Gaza would know this would happen. The Israelis claim that Qaisi was planning an attack through Sinai. Of course, they provide no evidence of this. We are just supposed to take them at their word. Reports also indicate that the Israelis were monitoring Qaisi's every move for some time.

Qaisi's predecessor was killed by an Israeli assassination last August in an Israeli strike which left 6 dead, including a 3 year old child. The Israelis claimed an attack that came from Sinai on Eilat had originated in Gaza. This seemed suspicious at the time. The Eilat attack was well coordinated and beyond what anyone estimated to be the operational capabilities of a small faction like the PRC. Sure enough, we later learned the IDF acknowledged that Egyptian Beduin perpetrated the attack. It was easier and less politically costly for the Israelis to retaliate against Gaza since nobody seems to ask questions when Israelis kill Palestinians in Gaza - its become routine. Had they struck at Egypt however, they would have to calculate the unknown variable of a revolutionary Egypt's reaction. Gaza was the more convenient place to go for revenge. Israeli journalist Amira Hass noted at the time how no signs in Gaza pointed to local responsibility for the attacks.

Let us grant for the sake of argument that Qaisi was planning an attack, the timing of the Israeli assassination was still elected and not forced since, as the Israelis admit, Qaisi was not an imminent threat.

This begs the question; Why would the Israeli government take an action which they know would immediately provoke a response putting more Israelis at risk than if they would not have. The Israelis claim to have had detailed intelligence to justify the assassination of Qaisi so wouldn't it make more sense to use that information to defend Israeli interests without provoking a response that would bring a barrage of projectile file? Of course it would, but that is not the course of action the Israelis chose.

It seems as though they wanted to provoke a response. But why? Why would the Israeli government put Israelis at risk when this was entirely avoidably? (Of course, they ultimately put Palestinians at risk the most but the Israeli government has never been all too concerned about that anyway)

It may be because something happened on the way to AIPAC. While Netanyahu and his Israel Lobby friends have done a very good job of convincing members of Congress to support an Israeli strike on Iran, there is one audience that is significantly less convinced and less gung-ho; Israelis.

From a poll that was released immediately before the AIPAC conference (obviously intentional timing) we learned that the Israeli public and their Prime Minister are not on the same page. Shibley Telhami writes about the poll conducted with the Israeli Dahaf Institute at the end of February 2012:

Only 19 percent of Israelis polled expressed support for an attack without U.S. backing, according to a poll I conducted — fielded by Israel’s Dahaf Institute Feb. 22-26 — while 42 percent endorsed a strike only if there is at least U.S. support, and 32 percent opposed an attack regardless.

This does not appear to be because of Israeli worries about potential American punishment. In fact, Israelis remain confident the U.S. would support them, at least diplomatically (38 percent), or join the war on Israel’s behalf (27 percent) — even if Israel struck Iran without Washington’s approval. Only 15 percent expect reduced American support. What seems behind these attitudes is an assessment of the consequences of an Israeli attack.

A majority of Israelis polled, roughly 51 percent, said the war would last months (29 percent) or years (22 percent), while only 18 percent said it would last days. About as many Israelis, 44 percent, think that an Israeli strike would actually strengthen Iran’s government as think it would weaken it (45 percent).

Two-thirds of Israelis, meanwhile, believe Hezbollah would most likely join Iran in retaliation against Israel — even if Israel did not strike Hezbollah forces. An additional 27 percent believe Hezbollah would join only if attacked.

So here is Netanyahu, putting all his effort and focus toward saber rattling, and his public isn't going along. Netanyahu would not likely carry out an attack that his public is against and Iran and the US know that electoral constraints would mean even the most belligerent rhetoric isn't likely to be backed up with action if it will cost a leader his office. The greatest obstacle to Israeli public support for a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran is the belief that the consequences of the attack from Iran, Hezbollah and other factions like Islamic Jihad, would be too high a cost to bear.

What could the Israeli government do to change this perception? Well, a successful large scale live action test of the US funded Iron Dome would probably help, and assassinating a PRC militant would provoke the projectiles to trigger one.

As the 'Iron Dome' (which can also refer to Israel's hard-headed policy toward Gaza) was put into use, Israeli right wing publications openly favoring belligerency toward Iran happily reported on the success of the system. Israeli publications that have been less hawkish on Iran took a different approach.

Haaretz's Aluf Benn picks up on on how Netanyahu is "preparing Israeli public opinion for war on Iran" yet somehow fails to even mention Gaza in his piece, let alone ask the obvious question about whether shaping Israeli public opinion toward war could explain the inexplicable Israeli decision making behind provoking projectile fire from Gaza.

27 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza and 80 more injured from Israeli fire after the assassination of Qaisi.

Are these mere sacrificial guinea pigs for Netanyahu's experiment?

Mourners in Gaza are not waiting for Haaretz to ask that question.

read more...

Half the story: What @IDFSpokesperson leaves out about #Gaza

If a rocket from Gaza falls in the middle of the desert, does it make a sound?

It does if you are on Twitter. Regular updates on just about every projectile fired from Gaza is reported by the Israeli military's official twitter account @IDFSpokesperson as well as from the accounts of other Israeli military figures like that of spokesperson @AvitalLeibovich.

But what about projectiles fired by Israel into Gaza? You'd think that since this is actual Israeli military activity the spokespeople from the Israeli military would provide this information.

I often ask the @IDFspokesperson and @AvitalLeibovich to provide this information to allow for a clearer, more accurate picture of the cross border dynamics of violence. One such occasion was on last Friday - you can see the convo on Twitter below:

She clearly dodges the question and finally refers me to their blog after I made it clear that her silence might be indicative of something they are hiding.

I checked out the blog and even though they have plenty of numbers on projectiles from Gaza, they don't present similar data of their own activities. I wasn't expecting them to present such information since the objective of the Israeli military spokesperson is to protect the image of the Israeli military, a feat that is increasingly difficult with every passing year of a soon to be 45 year old occupation and in an era where information is readily available via the internet.

So, what are they hiding? What is it about the numbers that they won't tell you - the data on Israeli military fire into Gaza - that prevents them from sharing it in the same fashion they share information on projectiles from Gaza?

Before even asking Leibovich on Friday, I already had the data I was inquiring about. As part of our ongoing project on Israeli Settler Violence (we just released a comprehensive report on this last week) we coded data on Palestinian projectile launches from Gaza on a daily basis to understand how Palestinian violence, either from Gaza or in the West Bank, relates to settler violence (more on that here).

In 2011, for example, we recorded approximately 465 launches which produced 743 projectiles (some launches involve firing more than one projectile). This number, 743, is more than the number, 620, Leibovich reported in her Tweet. I believe this is because we count launches, including projectiles which are fired in Gaza and land in Gaza, while the figure Leibovich cites is a count of projectiles actually landing inside Israel.

As far as data on Israeli projectiles sent into Gaza, this is the information Leibovich and the Israeli military don't want to reveal. We've got a very good idea, however, of most of it since the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN OCHA) keeps detailed data on casualties in Palestine. By querying this database we can quickly learn a great deal about the numbers Leibovich is hesitant to report. Despite readily producing information on rockets from Gaza in 2011, here is some of the information the Israeli Military doesn't report in the same fashion:

In 2011, the projectiles fired by the Israeli military into Gaza have been responsible for the death of 108 Palestinians, of which 15 where women or children and the injury of 468 Palestinians of which 143 where women or children. The methods by which these causalities were inflicted by Israeli projectiles breaks down as follows: 57% or 310, were caused by Israeli Aircraft Missile fire, 28% or 150 where from Israeli live ammunition, 11% or 59 were from Israeli tank shells while another 3% or 18 were from Israeli mortar fire.

Conversely, rocket fire from Gaza in 2011 has resulted in the death of 3 Israelis. I've tried to find an accurate aggregate number of Israelis injured by projectiles from Gaza in 2011 but haven't found anything yet. I'd be happy to update this post with that information once available. I think, however, the point is quite clear when it comes to the numbers; the imbalance is tremendous.

Leibovich and the Israeli military provide constant updates about projectiles from Gaza, the vast majority of which do not cause casualties, while telling you almost nothing about projectiles they fire into Gaza and the tremendous amount of casualties they cause.

The Israeli military spokespeople are engaged in outright propaganda to portray a completely different reality about the dynamics of violence in and around Gaza. It is not offering transparency or real information, which is a shame for a government with 'democratic' pretensions.

But that is not all. It is not just about the shear imbalance of violence that the Israeli military wants to skew in the opposite direction. There is more that the data tells us. Last year, in a post about this issue, we showed how media portrayed a flare-up in cross border violence as a result of increased rocket fire while actual tweets from individuals in Gaza revealed that destructive Israeli strikes preceded and in fact provoked the upsurge in rockets. Of course, the events that came before the upsurge in Gaza-launched projectiles did not get reported.

Now, with the daily data we have from UN OCHA and the data we have for launches from Gaza, we can graph the two lines next to each other.

[click to enlarge]

As you can see in the chart above, increases in the red line, which signifies Palestinian casualties, typically precede increases in the blue line, which signifies launches of projectiles from Gaza. This is particularly evident before the most significant spikes in the blue line. This suggests that Palestinian launches may be explained, in part, as a response to Israeli projectiles which kill or injure Palestinians.

To understand the effect of this, I ran the numbers through a statistical analysis to understand the individual effects one day's Palestinian casualties had on the next day's launches. What I found was that both Palestinian injuries and deaths were significantly and positively correlated with launches. Palestinian deaths from Israeli projectiles into Gaza led to a 22% increase in rocket launches the following day, Palestinian injuries led to an additional 4% increase.

Absent the upsurge of launches that occurs after Palestinian casualties inflicted by Israeli projectiles, projectiles from Gaza are few and far between. The three Israelis who died as a result of Palestinian projectile fire died during periods of upsurge provoked by preceding Israeli projectile fire into Gaza. In fact, 75% of launches from Gaza came during these upsurges provoked by Israeli fire.

Israeli fire into Gaza, however, is not statistically correlated with the previous day's launches.

This suggests that it is the Israelis and not the Palestinians who, through their capacity to actually inflict high casualties with their projectiles, control escalation in cross border dynamics. While all launches from Gaza cannot be explained as responses to Israeli fire, most of them are. Of course, this is not a reality that the @IDFspokesperson or Leibovich wants to convey and that is perhaps another important reason why they are not so forthcoming with other information.

As mentioned above, I'm not waiting for them to put relevant information before you to provide the context necessary to see through the propaganda campaign. When looking at the complete picture, instead of the facade built by the Israeli Military and its spokespeople, we can better understand what is really going on.

Ultimately, this highlights a failed Israeli policy toward Gaza, not simply because it involves the inhumane collective punishment of 1.7 million people, but also because its approach to projectiles from Gaza actually generates far more projectiles than it prevents.

read more...

A Tale of Two Gaza Flotilla Reports

In an article headlined "Report Finds Naval Blockade by Israel Legal but Faults Raid" the New York Times reported yesterday on the release of the UN Secretary General's Panel of Inquiry into the events surrounding the Israeli attack on the flotilla on May 31, 2010. It also leaked a copy of the report.

The report has been sensationalized for some time -- it has been delayed in its release, having been completed in July 2011 -- due to the effect it would have on relations between Israel and Turkey. In fact, today Turkey expelled Israel's representative and "decided to downgrade its diplomatic ties with Israel to the lowest possible level" as a response to the report.

Due to the impact of the Goldstone Report on Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, it is only natural that this report will be seen through the prism of the Goldstone experience and in comparison to it. But in reality, this Palmer Report (named for the leader of the inquiry Sir Geoffery Palmer) and the Goldstone Report are two very different things.

The Goldstone report was the outcome of a fact-finding mission initiated by the UN Human Rights Council which was mandated to investigate violations of international law and human rights during the 23-day Israeli campaign in Gaza. The Palmer report was NOT the outcome of a fact-finding mission, nor was it initiated by the UN Human Rights Council. A report like that on the flotilla had already been initiated and completed a year ago, and can be found in its entirety here.

It is important to note the differences between the two reports, not only because of their starkly contrasting conclusions about the events on the flotilla and the Israeli blockade, but also because of their methodologies and intentions. Below, I enumerate some important differences between the newly released Palmer Report and what I will refer to as the Hudson-Phillips report for consistency and expediency.

1. Origins- The Hudson-Phillips report originated from a June 2nd (two days after the flotilla attack) resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which called for an "independent international fact-finding mission." The Palmer report did not originate from the UNHRC and instead was initiated by the UN Secretary General on August 2nd (two months after the flotilla attack). While the Hudson-Phillips report was tasked with:

"investigating the facts and circumstances surrounding the boarding by Israeli military personnel of a flotilla of ships bound for Gaza and to determine whether in the process violations occurred of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law"

The Palmer panel, which the UN Secretary General called an "unprecedented development" was aimed at what the Secratery General hoped would effect "positively on the relationship between Turkey and Israel"

2. Composition- The UNHRC appointed to the fact-finding mission:

Judge Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, Q.C., retired Judge of the International Criminal Court and former Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago, to be chairman and to head the mission. The other appointed members were Sir Desmond de Silva, Q.C. of the United Kingdom, former Chief Prosecutor of the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone and Ms. Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, founding member of the Board of Directors of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

As for the Palmer report, the panel of inquiry was composed of Sir Geoffery Palmer, former Prime Minister of New Zealand as chair and the former President of Columbia, Alvaro Uribe as vice-chair. The inquiry also included a representative from Turkey and a representative of Israel. The appointment of politicians instead of jurists to the Palmer inquiry suggests strongly that political and diplomatic considerations were more important than fact-finding or law.

3. Methodology: The Hudson-Phillips report is explicit about its methodology in paragraphs 18-25. It directly collected and evaluated evidence and in the process interviewed 112 witnesses. In contrast, the Palmer report interviewed ZERO witnesses and instead relied on the reports of Israel and Turkey. The Palmer report states clearly that:

The Panel enjoyed no coercive powers to compel witnesses to provide evidence. It could not conduct criminal investigations. The Panel was required to obtain its information from the two nations primarily involved in its inquiry, Turkey and Israel, and other affected States. The position is thoroughly understandable in the context of the Panel’s inquiry but the limitation is important. It means that the Panel cannot make definitive findings either of fact or law. But it can give its view.

And while the Palmer panel did get to view witness reports appended to the Turkish investigation, when discrepancies arose about accounts between the Turkish report and the Israeli report, the panel had no ability to independently substantiate witness statements or corroborate evidence. In cases where the Turkish and Israeli reports disagreed, Palmer and Uribe would just have to make a decision based on the reports from the two countries and not independently ascertained facts.

While the Palmer panel received direct input from both representatives of the states of Israel and Turkey, which allowed both states to promote their individual national interests, it featured no mechanism for direct input from the members of civil society which undertook the flotilla effort and were the direct victims of the Israeli attack. For its part, the Hudson-Phillips report made extensive efforts to garner information, but the state of Israel refused to cooperate with it.

4. Conclusions- Perhaps the most important difference between the two reports is their conclusions. The Palmer report largely vindicates Israel, calling its blockade legal, but criticizes the way in which the raid on the flotilla was carried out. The Hudson-Phillips report condemns the use of force against civilians on the flotilla, but is also very clear on the illegality of the blockage saying "any action in response which constitutes collective punishment of the civilian population in Gaza is not lawful in any circumstances."

Both reports should be read in their entirity to properly appreciate the differences between them.

So what happened here? How can two reports on the same events issued by the UN differ so drastically?

It seems what happened here is that Israel learned a very difficult lesson from the Goldstone Report: that it must ignore and marginalize any inquiries into violations it committed unless it can ensure a positive outcome for its reputation. This is not to say that Israel cooperated with the Goldstone inquiry, because it did not. And it seems Israel realized that the strategy of simply ignoring the inquiries and not cooperating will not guarantee that it won't suffer significant international condemnation as the result of a damning report that will be published with our without Israeli cooperation.

Instead, the best way for Israel to mitigate such condemnation was to cooperate with an inquiry, but only one in which they had a reason to expect a positive outcome. The illusion of impartiality created by the Palmer inquiry, because it included Israeli and Turkish representatives, is no substitute for a genuine fact-finding commission -- especially not for the families of the 9 dead civilians and the 1.5 million more civilians suffering from the Israeli siege -- but for Israel it accomplished the task at hand. Clearly, Israel participated in the Palmer inquiry with the same sort of confidence John Gotti had walking into court; evidence and justice didn't really matter and it knew the outcome would be a desirable one.

The Palmer report was never intended to ascertain what happened on the flotilla, why it happened and who is at fault. Rather, it accepted that both Israel and Turkey had a narrative of these events, and its job was to marry those narratives into something acceptable enough to both sides to get Israel out of the flotilla mess unscathed, and improve relations between the two nations.

Turkey is clearly incensed over this report. With 9 of its citizens dead and others badly injured in an act of civil disobedience against what Turkey and much of the international community considers an illegal blockade, it is unlikely Ankara will remain quiet about this. Still despite this, Israel could have apologized for the killings -- "most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range" -- but decided not to because it seems even an apology would be too incriminating for an state that has become paranoid about its perception internationally.

But Ankara seems to understand Israel's vulnerability to international isolation, and now, without Israel issuing an apology that could have mitigated a breakdown in ties, Turkey seems hell-bent on hitting Israel where it hurts: in the court of international opinion. The Turkish ambassador to the United States tweeted earlier today: "Israel should understand that no country is above the international law and that the Mediterranean is not a lake of its own." Its foriegn minister also declared that Turkey will initiate proceedings in international legal arenas on the legality of the Israeli blockade.

Israel's stubbornness at this stage reminds me of its stubbornness prior to the 1973 war when it ignored diplomatic efforts to secure minor withdrawals from Sinai that might have avoided the entire confrontation.

Here again, after a foray into the Palmer report with the purpose of mitigating further international marginalization, Israel only finds itself having angered Turkey more. In a revolutionary region where Israel is loosing what few autocratic friends it had rapidly, it once again finds itself barreling toward further isolation.

I can't say I'm surprised; that will continue to be the case as long as Israel's occupation and it's siege of the Gaza Strip continues.

read more...

JTA & the IDF: Making Men out of Boys in Gaza

Before the attacks in Eilat refocused the mainstream media's attention on the Gaza Strip (negatively of course) Gaza continued to face the regular violence inherent in siege and occupation.

One incident occurring this week involved a Palestinian who was shot 10 times in the chest and head in by Israeli soldiers for entering an Israeli declared 'buffer zone'.

Like most events of this nature, it received little coverage. Palestinians shot for being where the Israelis don't want them to be are a frequent occurrence and do not raise eyebrows anymore. Whether it is Palestinian farmers too close to Israel's 'buffer zone' or Palestinian fishermen too close to the Israeli Navy enforced blockade line, when Palestinians get shot for simply going about there daily lives they are part of the norm and not really newsworthy.

A few outlets did report on the incident, here is Ma'an News Agency's report:

Israeli forces shot dead a Palestinian teenager near the central Gaza Strip city of Deir Al-Balah late Tuesday, medical officials reported.

Medics said the Palestinian, who was not identified, suffered "more than 10" gunshots to the head and upper body after soldiers east of the Al-Masdar area opened fire.

Gaza health ministry official Adham Abu Salmiya told Ma’an that an ambulance crew transferred the teenager's body to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in central Gaza.

Early reports focused on the age of the victim. Above the victim is identified as a teenager whose identity is not known.

After an investigation, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights in Gaza found the following:

[A]t approximately 18:00 on Tuesday, 16 August 2011, Israeli soldiers stationed at the border northeast of Deir al-Balah opened fire at a Palestinian, who was nearly 400 meters from the border. As a result, he was wounded by 10 bullets in his head and chest. He was left wounded without being offered any first aid. After coordination was made with IOF, at approximately 19:20, medical crews were able to retrieve the body, which was then transferred to al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir al-Balah. After four hours later, the child was identified as Sa'd Abdul Rahim Mahmoud al-Majdalwai, 17, from al-Nussairat refugee camp. He was hit by 10 live bullets mostly to the head. In his testimony to PCHR, the victim's father said that his son had been suffering from a mental disability and a speech impairment.

In short, Israeli soldiers shot a defenseless17 year old mentally disabled refugee boy. If anyone was paying attention, this highlight the cruel nature of occupation and siege.

The JTA had a, well, slightly different take (emphasis mine):

JERUSALEM (JTA) -- Israeli troops shot and killed a Palestinian man who entered a security zone near the Gaza-Israel border.

The man, 22, approached the border on Tuesday night between Israel and Gaza where, according to the Israel Defense Forces, terrorists often plant bombs or attack Israeli patrols. It is not known if he had any weapons or explosives with him.

The shooting death occurred less than a day after Israeli airstrikes hit four targets in the Gaza Strip in retaliation for a rocket attack on Beersheba, killing a Palestinian man. The Israeli Air Force on Tuesday morning also struck a squad of terrorists preparing to fire rockets at Israel, thwarting the attack, the IDF said.

JTA referenced the IDF, added 5 years to the boy's age, made no mention of the absurd number of times he was shot and instead used language to insinuate he was likely a threat to armed soldiers on the other side of a border. Were any Palestinian sources checked with? Does it even matter?

Boys made into men. Victims made into perpetrators. Truth is the first casualty.

Another day in Gaza.

read more...

Palestinian Gandhis Part VII: Young Filmmakers

In the final post of our "Palestinian Gandhis" series, we come across two young artists, "Arab" and "Tarzan," whose peaceful resistance mainly takes the form of film, though their voices are also heard throughout Gaza in murals and street art. In this installment, they discuss their influences, their intentions, and their work.

Filmmaker Pam Bailey had this to say about them:

The power of art as a tool of resistance, cutting right to the heart of oppression and betrayal, is unleashed in the work of Mohamed ("Arab") and Ahmed ("Tarzan") Abu Nasser. The identical twin brothers are true "renaissance men" – they play the guitar, paint, sketch, write screenplays, direct and act. However, filmmaking is their favorite form of expression, despite the fact that Gaza has no film school, and no cinemas.

The brothers are at once boys at heart – acting younger than their 20 years – and ancient in their lived experience. In the video you are about to watch, you will see at one point a close-up of an anguished woman, painted in muted swirls of greens, blues, orange and black. The girl was Tarzan’s love, killed in the Israeli onslaught of 2009. The sketched portraits of a woman you will see strung across their room are of their mother.

There are very few art competitions or exhibitions in Gaza, but Arab and Tarzan took top honors in one of the few, sponsored by the Al Qattan Foundation. In their winning entry, they created a series of mock promotional posters, each one advertising a movie named after an actual Israeli military operation. The obvious violence depicted on the posters (as entertainment) creates a jarring juxtaposition to the idyllic names Israel gives to its invasions: "Summer Rain," "Autumn Clouds," "Colorful Journey."

In the companion film, for which the brothers wrote the script and acted, Arab and Tarzan take on a much more controversial topic: intra-Palestinian (Hamas vs. Fatah) fighting. The film, called "Colorful Journey" after an Israeli attack on the West Bank, is shot in Hollywood style, showing two Palestinians stalking each other, preparing to pounce and kill. The fact that the two men (Arab and Tarzan) look exactly alike brings home the point that their feud pits Palestinians against themselves. Just as it appears the "moment of truth" is at hand, a helicopter appears above, and it is clear – without being explicit – that the two have been killed by this new intruder. The helicopter represents Israel, and the message is loud and clear: Why are Palestinians fighting each other, when they face a common threat that will destroy them both?

These are risky subjects for such young men to take on. But when you grow up in Gaza, this is the stuff of survival.

read more...

Palestinian Gandhis Part VI: Breakdancing

Similar to the last segment in our profiles of "Palestinian Gandhis" which looked at "resistance Hip-hop" in the Arab World, the Camp Breakerz are using their love of breakdancing as their form of nonviolent protest. It's a way for them to take the negative energy stemming from the stresses of constant siege and turn it into an art form that they can show the world. They are putting their own spin on it, teaching it to the youth of Gaza, and starting a peaceful revolution of their own.

Here's what filmmaker Pam Bailey said about this excerpt:

Costanze once said, "dancing is like dreaming with your feet." And that’s what it is for the young men in the Camps Breakerz breakdancing crew. Ask one of the nine members, all from Gaza’s Nuseirat refugee camp, why they like breakdancing (a type of hip hop, along with rap), and they will invariably tell you they feel "free" when they "break."

Breakdancing is a style of street dance that was created and developed as part of hip-hop culture among African Americans and, later, among Latino youths in New York City. For that reason, like rap, breakdancing is often ostracized in Gaza as foreign to the Arab culture. However, the Camps Breakerz have made the art very uniquely their own, while also giving other young people a productive outlet for their energy and frustrations.

The crew chose the name Camp Breakerz in part to advertise their pride in their origins. "People think (refugee) camps are just for poor people with no culture," says Ahmed, who danced until an Egyptian soldier shot him in the knee, and now serves as manager. "But in fact, the camps have talent."

Breakdancers are called b-boys, or b-girls. Unfortunately, because of the conservative culture in Gaza, breakdancing is not yet considered acceptable for girls, and certainly not in mixed company. However, the crew is committed to helping interested girls "dream with their feet" as well, and are looking for suitable sponsors and opportunities.

Sponsorship in general, however, is one of the Camps Breakerz’ biggest challenges. Like any organization, they need money, facilities and equipment to survive and grow. As a result, most available funds go to formal, and bureaucratic, NGOs (non-governmental organizations). The Camps Breakerz are forced to practice in Ahmed’s cramped home (the sports club in which they used to practice was destroyed in the last Israeli war), and they don’t have the mattresses, etc. needed to train others elsewhere. But now there is good news! Until recently, they have been unable to leave Gaza to perform or compete with other b-boys. Now, an Italian businesswoman is working to bring them to Europe in the fall. Although Egypt now has eased the restrictions on its border with Gaza, allowing much greater freedom of movement, men between the ages of 18 and 40 still require a visa from Egypt or another country to leave – often very difficult to get. Wish them luck!

read more...

Palestinian Gandhis Part V: Lyrical Resistance

Resistance Hip-Hop in the Arab world has taken off in recent years. Pioneers in this area include Palestinian groups like DAM who have used English, Arabic and Hebrew lyrics to convey messages of resistance through hip-hop. In this installment of our "Palestinian Gandhis" series, we introduce you to the DARG team, a Palestinian hip-hop group from Gaza that raps about resistance. In this video interview with the group, they discuss what hip-hop means to them and the struggles of being hip-hop artists under occupation and in Palestinian society. Filmmaker Pam Bailey explains further:

Hip-hop – which includes both rap and breakdancing – first gained prominence in American ghettos among inner-city youth, who inventively made “something out of little or nothing” to express their gritty reality. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that hip-hop spread to other regions where youth struggle to define their identity in the face of adversity. Rap is like spoken-word poetry, a torrent of free-association – with no filters or concern for political correctness. It’s this raw, “uncut” characteristic, its fans say, which allows rap to speak directly to the soul.

For all of these reasons, rap has taken root in the Gaza Strip as well – but not without a fight. Because of its Western roots, rap is scorned – and even condemned -- by many in the conservative, traditional culture of the Strip. In 2009, the Hamas government even shut a show down. But despite – or perhaps because of – this “go against the grain” attitude, rap is coming into its own in Gaza. And the band featured in this video – the DARG (Da Arabian Revolutionary Guys) Team – is starting to get attention internationally as well. Even if you don’t like rap, and few outside the “X Generation” in America do, I encourage you to watch this video. The youth of Palestine will largely determine its future since in Gaza they account for more than half of its population, and rap puts their hopes, dreams and angst into sharp focus.

Unlike most of the unsung heroes featured in this series, the DARG Team recently managed to leave the Strip and tour Europe. When I first met the band in the Winter of 2010, they had been trying unsuccessfully for months to leave Gaza to tour. The band had been “adopted” by filmmakers Nicolas Wadimoff and Beatrice Guelpa of Switzerland, when they visited Gaza the previous year to shoot their documentary, “Aisheen” (Still Alive in Gaza). When the two journalists returned home, they linked the DARG Team with rappers there and a partnership was born. That’s why I work so hard to persuade artists, businesspeople, teachers, etc. to travel to Gaza and elsewhere in Palestine; once they are face to face with the people, and discover the talent and energy there, they become champions. Not to be defeated, the DARG Team and their Swiss counterparts staged a “virtual concert,” which I was fortunate enough to observe. The team performed in Gaza City, the Swiss performed in Geneva, and the two were hooked together via satellite. The connection was a bit choppy at times, but it was strong in many other ways.

A year later, their European partners were successful, and the DARG Team got the necessary visas to get them out of Gaza. If you need any other proof of the transformative power of freedom, this is it. Prior to their six-month tour, the team’s lyrics were dominated by death and destruction – particularly after the 2008/9 war. (The song “23 Days” is featured in the video as an example of the team’s pre-tour lyrics.) Following the tour, when they readily returned to Gaza, their songs were about pride and identity. (It is a myth that all Gazans want to permanently escape. If they were allowed to come and go like most of us can, the majority would ultimately return home.) They had witnessed the solidarity of many others in the global community, and tasted what the world had to offer. The post-tour lyrics of "Heads Up" reflect that new, optimistic outlook. Listen for yourself:

read more...