I really like John Oliver’s show. I often find his commentary brilliant, as well as his ability to distill complex subjects into plain words, often alongside witty, funny remarks. As a matter of fact, had I not liked Oliver’s show, I’d probably refrain from writing this article.
Perhaps coincidentally, I received a call yesterday from a good friend in Los Angeles. Knowing that I’m currently in Israel visiting my family, he was wondering how I was doing. We had a good talk, and eventually he told me about how the current Israel-Gaza conflict is reflected in mainstream US media.
Seeing that Israel is extremely lacking in its ability to speak to the North American population (the result of Israeli foreign relations being all but completely deprioritized over the course of a decade), I decided — mainly for the benefit of my many American and Canadian friends and acquaintances (but please, feel free to share)— to write this article.
Here is the video:
Let’s begin with John Oliver’s comment about “Tit for Tat”. Indeed, the conflict between Israel and Gaza isn’t, never was, and never will be, “Tit for Tat”. For once, Israel’s military power is, in both absolute and relative terms, immense; that, combined with the fact that Israeli military operates at the border while Gaza combatants operate from within extremely densely-populated civilian areas, has a dire consequence: in all likelihood, in any military conflict between Israel and Hamas, more people will die in Gaza than in Israel.
That being said, what John Oliver does with this information, is a rhetorical trick often being used by anti-Israelis worldwide: implying that a military conflict is “immoral”, “unjustified” or outright “illegal” due to military power and casualties’ differential.
Of course, this is nonsense. To illustrate, please try to think of a casualty ratio that is acceptable, and is possible, considering the fact (not an assumption; not a theory; a fact, that has been proven countless times in past conflicts as well as the current one) that Hamas operates within civilian areas.
Moving on: the so-called “Real Estate Dispute”.
Well, whether Mr. Oliver likes it or not, at its core, this indeed is a real-estate dispute, albeit quite complex, and dating back generations. I will not tire you with the full account of the real-estate involved (you are welcome to search for “Sheikh-Jarrah” and read all about its history); instead, I will write this:
- The eviction of existing residents is the result of a ruling of Israel’s Supreme Court, which is not exactly known to provide “carte blanche” to Israeli governments to do as they please. Fact is, Israel’s ruling party for the majority of the last 45 years is known to be very vocal against Israel’s Supreme Court as being too “interventional”. This government vs. justice system conflict is arguably Israel’s toughest internal challenge.
- The fact that the eviction was escorted by armed personnel has to do with history. Territory, for Jewish and Muslims alike, is an extremely sensitive subject which flares violence very quickly, as happened countless times in the past, including in Sheikh-Jarrah itself. None of this, of course, is mentioned by Mr. Oliver.
Oliver then quotes the UN’s Commission for Human Rights, saying that these “expulsions” would “violate Israel’s obligations under international law”. What Mr. Oliver, perhaps conveniently, neglects to mention, is:
- The “UN Commission for Human Rights” is, while indeed a commission, bears a rather weak connection to “Human Rights”. Don’t take my word for it: go ahead and check the composition (state-wise) of that council.
- International law is subject to interpretation. As Sheikh-Jarrah is (whether you like it or not) under Israeli jurisdiction, the Israeli Supreme Court is responsible for ultimately balancing between “International Law” and Israeli law, which it has done countless times in the past (often against the preference of Israel’s governments), as well as in Sheik-Jarrah’s case.
Next, Mr. Oliver says:
It is true, the militants of Palestinian groups like Hamas, fired around a thousand rockets towards Israel this week, and that is reprehensible. BUT —
— And that quote does very well to demonstrate just how narrow Mr. Oliver’s view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict really is. See that “BUT — ” at the end? it comes to serve one purpose: invalidate everything that has been said, or written, before it. This is a very common rhetorical maneuver which actually has subconscious impact, and Mr. Oliver is definitely smart enough to know this.
After that “BUT — ” comes one of the most frustrating and enraging tactics used by Israel-haters worldwide: implying that, since Israel has a defensive rocket interception system (Iron Dome), and Hamas doesn’t, has any bearing on the justification of Israeli military’s actions. According to such speak, Israeli military must only retaliate in a manner that is proportional to the casualties actually suffered by Israel. This is an absurd departure from the principle of “proportional response” enshrined in international law, as “proportion” there deals with military advantage, rather than casualties (again, don’t take my word for it. Look for it yourself).
Next, Mr. Oliver claims that destroying a civilian building sounds like a “war crime”. Well, it surely is, except that civilian buildings from which military action is being conducted, are not protected by international law. Therefore, at least as far as international law is concerned, it is actually Hamas that puts Palestinian civilians in harm’s way, by operating within densely-populated civilian areas.
That being said, the onus is on the Israeli military to furnish evidence for the existence of Hamas militants in civilian buildings, or of parts of the building being used for military operations; however, such evidence needs not be provided before or during the conflict. In past conflicts, such evidence was eventually provided and even acknowledged by international bodies. Has Mr. Oliver mentioned that? of course not.
Later, Mr. Oliver ridicules an Israeli military official, who had said that “Palestinians actually have an ‘Iron Dome’; it’s called ‘Don’t fire rockets at Israel’”, and then proceeding to argue that not all Palestinians are members of Hamas, and therefore, each attack by Israeli military endangers a massive number of civilians.
In that, Mr. Oliver is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, though, Hamas knows that, which is exactly why Hamas has made it a habit to operate within civilian areas, be it civilian apartment buildings, UN offices, schools, and kindergartens. Do Palestinians want this? of course they don’t. Are Palestinians not aware that this puts them in harm’s way? of course they are.
What Mr. Oliver neglects to mention, is that Hamas is not merely a “Palestinian organization”. Hamas is, as a matter of fact, Gaza’s government. Is it a democratic one? well, that depends on your viewpoint: on one hand, it was elected democratically; on the other hand, said elections took place 14 years ago. The median age in Gaza is approximately 18, which means that close to half of Gaza’s population has never experienced a non-Hamas government.
Hamas is not exactly a traditional governing body. Its number one objective is to destroy Israel (you’re welcome to read its charter), rather than ensuring the safety and well-being of Gazans. That, combined with the fact that international law is not well-equipped to deal with military conflicts where at least one side is not a traditional army, led Hamas to consistently operate within civilian areas. Now THAT is a war crime according to international law; it isn’t, apparently, a war crime according to Mr. Oliver.
Next, Mr. Oliver claims that the only time anybody listens to Gazans, is when Hamas is firing rockets. In fact, the opposite is true: Gaza is being continuously funded by international bodies, with the agreement and facilitation by the Israeli government itself, which does allow goods, as well as actual money, to flow into Gaza.
Mr. Oliver then mentions the “suffocating blockade” of 14 years. Indeed, there is a military blockade over Gaza, and what comes into Gaza is heavily regulated by Israel. What Mr. Oliver doesn’t mention (again, conveniently), is the reason why this blockade has been put up in the first place: Hamas is a hostile entity with a declared objective to destroy Israel. The blockade is, in fact, one component in a military conflict that started when Hamas took power of the Gaza Strip by force in 2006 (look for videos of Hamas operatives throwing activists of the opposing party’s off balconies and windows).
Next, Mr. Oliver argues that life in Gaza is hard even without military conflicts. This is very true: life in Gaza has never been easy, however a major turn to the worse took place when Hamas took power of it by force, 15 years ago. This is in sharp contrast to the West Bank, where the quality of life has been on an incline for many years, not coincidentally, as the West Bank front has been relatively quiet since Operation Defensive Shield, back in 2002.
Mr. Oliver then proceeds to mock former US President Donald Trump’s approach towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and then exhibits frustration over the Biden administration’s low-key reaction to the current conflict. One must wonder, though, whether the Biden administration knows about this conflict, its background and its complexities at least a tad more than Mr. Oliver.
Next, Mr. Oliver clearly refers to the death of Palestinian children as “murder”. The death of children in military conflict is heartbreaking indeed (however, for some, this is not such a big deal when said children are Jewish). We must all act to eliminate, or at least reduce, the chances of children being harmed during military conflicts. Here are some ideas, just off the top of my head:
- Not igniting wars to begin with.
- Not conducting military operations within civilian population centers.
(But hey, that’s me. And I tend to be practical.)
Mr. Oliver’s allegation of the Israeli military murdering children, doesn’t do anything to protect children. The opposite is true: it actually contributes to children being killed in future conflicts, by implying (through neglect) that conducting war behind human shields is acceptable.
Next, Mr. Oliver makes a statement that demonstrates, once again, his poor understanding of the subject at hand:
And again: none of this frees Hamas from responsibility; but Hamas doesn’t represent all Palestinians
Forget that “but” there. “Hamas doesn’t represent all Palestinians” is an extremely misleading statement. Sure, the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza wouldn’t want a military conflict with Israel. However, unfortunately, it is Hamas that forces itself and its military adventures on the Gazan population. Hamas’ rule in Gaza is a reign of terror even towards Palestinians. Mr. Oliver, however, neglects to mention that as well.
That’s all for that video.
Let’s all hope for, and act for, better days to come. I’m all for that; and for good solutions to be found, a proper understanding of the conflict is required. Unfortunately, Mr. Oliver doesn’t demonstrate much understanding of the latter, and, quite naturally, presents no solutions either.
But hey, at least he’s funny.
