Nov 4, 2023·edited Nov 4, 2023Liked by Robert Wright
Teresa Storch brought this NYT article to my attention. It illustrates the Kafkaesque legal system that Israel uses to deny Palestinians basic human rights. We need to be reminded that the common characterization of Israel as a democratic nation with civil liberties is misleading in the extreme when it comes to the treatment of Palestinians--not just during a war, but in "peace" as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/opinion/unarmed-teen-israel-gaza.html
It's important to be clear that this is an opinion piece and NOT reported journalism, so we should all be appropriately skeptical of some of the "reporting" here- such as any report of casualties reported by the Gazan health ministry, aka Hamas. The author concludes that the siege should be lifted. Doesn't qualify it at all- once the hostages are returned would at least be a starting point. No accountability for the Palestinians, only Israelis.
Edit: I should add that your claim he was denied basic human rights is factually untrue based on the contents of the article. He had an attorney, he got to have his case heard, and he lost. It's a far cry from an ideal system of due process, but let's not pretend it was non-existent.
I agree that we should distinguish between opinion and fact. Section 5B of the Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law, passed in 2012 does exclude any claims brought by Palestinians against the government of Israel and its agents. The facts of the Nabahin case are accurately portrayed by Mr. Eghbariah. Section 5B has sparked much criticism from jurists and lawyers in Israel. Last year, Ya'ara Mordecai, in the Israel Law Review, wrote a critique of the law which won the the Irving-Isadore Weinberg Prize from the Faculty of Law at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She concluded that "...section 5B of the State Liability Law,... denying the right to tort compensation in circumstances unrelated to combat actions or remotely related to them, by virtue of the exemptions listed under the said section, is hard to defend. The granting of sweeping immunity in such circumstances stands contrary to the principles of Israeli tort law and Israel's obligations under international law."
The facts of the Nabahin case are well-documented and were uncontested by the Israel Supreme Court. Mr. Eghbariah accurately states that Israeli Supreme Court president Esther Hayut stated in the decision that the result for Nabahin “is difficult, and so are its potential ramifications on Gaza residents in similar circumstances.” In other words, the law is unjust and discriminatory, and has resulted in dire consequences.
As for the facts of civilian casualties during the Israeli blockade of Gaza (which has gone on for 16 years), reliable documentation has been gathered by the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, whose primary funding comes from the Netherlands Representative Office, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation ,Kerkinactie/ Global Ministries, the International Commission of Jurists- Sweden, Mertz Gilmore Foundation,The French Consulate, and The Ford Foundation. An example of its findings can be read here: https://www.mezan.org/uploads/files/14598458701382.pdf
Mr. Banuski states that Nabahin was not denied his human rights, despite the flaws of the system, because he had his case heard before the high court and he had legal representation--he lost, but his rights were recognized. The Nabahin case reminds me of the Dred Scott case in the United States--similar circumstances and outcome. Dred Scott played a role in changing the thinking of many citizens, in bringing about a civil war over fundamental principles, and ongoing conflict for generations. Nabahin, and many other cases like it, could play a similar role in Israel, in the United States, and around the world.
Thank you for both of your responses- I've learned something from both of them. On the first point regarding human rights being denied. I think you've pointed out the obvious shortcomings in the current Israeli laws, and I hear you loud and clear and agree with the analysis that the situation is difficult and I hope that this case or another like it leads to more legal reform. But let's be clear that those criticisms are only possible in a liberal democracy that values free expression and exchange of ideas. Reform and change are much easier to contemplate and achieve in a liberal democracy like Israel. While I think your Dred Scott analogy is pretty good, let's hope that rather than triggering more bloodshed, as followed that case, that cooler heads prevail and reform is achieved through the tools of democracy.
As for the numbers, thank you for sharing the resource for the numbers in the broader conflict. It does not address the fact that the NYT allowed the use of Gazan health ministry numbers in the piece, "As I write this, more than 9,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to the Gazan health ministry." without a fact check or editors note. How many of those killed are combatants vs. civilians? The Times article is dated Nov. 3rd. Here's a piece from PBS on the numbers from Nov. 7th explaining the numbers, and the missing context "The Health Ministry doesn’t report how Palestinians were killed, whether from Israeli airstrikes and artillery barrages or other means, like errant Palestinian rocket fire. It describes all casualties as victims of “Israeli aggression.”" Neither do they distinguish whether those killed are combatants or civilians (a difficult distinction to make when the combatants embed themselves in the population and use civilians as human shields). https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-is-gazas-ministry-of-health-and-how-does-it-calculate-the-wars-death-toll
My biggest problem with the article remains the idea of calling for a cease-fire without preconditions for the safe return of the civilian hostages Hamas kidnapped.
Thanks Paul. I agree that democracy is key to any path to improvement going forward. It is no panacea, and it's only as good as the voters participating in it, but the old saw about it being the worst form of govt. except all the others is a crucial distinction. We share many important values and points of view.
Dead and wounded numbers in this situation would be questionable even if Hamas were not influencing them, but I don't think any revision would change the basic moral and legal context for our judgements.
Hamas barely won an election in 2006 in Gaza, then staged a coup in 2007 when it became clear it would not be able to win another election (see RW's correction below, this is misleading). Its administration of Gaza has been inept, brutal, and indifferent to the welfare of its people. Instead of isolating Hamas and undermining it and other militant groups in the region, the Israeli far right is seeking to get rid of the Palestinians, take over their land, and establish an authoritarian, religious regime. This Israeli government, which is sure to be swept out of power after this war, is squandering Israel's power and reputation by mercilessly murdering innocent civilians, illegally confiscating land owned by Palestinians, and prosecuting a self-defeating and opportunistic war of revenge. Effectively supporting Israel requires us to not support the Netanyahu government.
Re what happened after Hamas won the 2006 election, there's a back story: the US refused to accepted the outcome of the election and backed the violent overthrow of the Hamas government by its rivals. That's what led to the intra-Palestinian civil war. We'll never know what would have happened if Israel and the US, right after the election, had pursued engagement with Hamas, which was at least claiming to be open to peaceful relations with Israel. Here's some background: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804
Hey Bob! I'd love a podcast on the recent Democratic wins in Kentucky and Virginia! Mostly in the sense of how it seems to contradict how horrible Biden is polling and if either is a better indicator for the Presidential election.
Robert, To contextualize more deeply Oct. 7's terror, you should bring up that, according to mainstream Israeli journalist Shlomi Eldar, after Gilad Shalit was captured by Palestinian militants, a document was sent to then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The document included the following: “Hamas offers two alternatives: (i) A separate track, dealing only with the release of Gilad Shalit in return for 1,000 Palestinian political prisoners. (ii) A release of prisoners will take place in the broader context of a strategic approach (as follows) ..." The detailed document, “whose existence and transmission to the prime minister were denied completely by Olmert’s office at the time, constituted an offer by Hamas to conduct a multilevel dialogue with Israel, beginning with discussion about a cease-fire and the building of long-term trust, and ending with a coexistence agreement ..."
The piece includes additional examples of possible openings. And, as should be known, Netanyahu reached two written agreements with Hamas: one regarding Shalit, and another confirming the cease-fire that ended the 2012 conflict.
Teresa Storch brought this NYT article to my attention. It illustrates the Kafkaesque legal system that Israel uses to deny Palestinians basic human rights. We need to be reminded that the common characterization of Israel as a democratic nation with civil liberties is misleading in the extreme when it comes to the treatment of Palestinians--not just during a war, but in "peace" as well. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/opinion/unarmed-teen-israel-gaza.html
It's important to be clear that this is an opinion piece and NOT reported journalism, so we should all be appropriately skeptical of some of the "reporting" here- such as any report of casualties reported by the Gazan health ministry, aka Hamas. The author concludes that the siege should be lifted. Doesn't qualify it at all- once the hostages are returned would at least be a starting point. No accountability for the Palestinians, only Israelis.
Edit: I should add that your claim he was denied basic human rights is factually untrue based on the contents of the article. He had an attorney, he got to have his case heard, and he lost. It's a far cry from an ideal system of due process, but let's not pretend it was non-existent.
I agree that we should distinguish between opinion and fact. Section 5B of the Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law, passed in 2012 does exclude any claims brought by Palestinians against the government of Israel and its agents. The facts of the Nabahin case are accurately portrayed by Mr. Eghbariah. Section 5B has sparked much criticism from jurists and lawyers in Israel. Last year, Ya'ara Mordecai, in the Israel Law Review, wrote a critique of the law which won the the Irving-Isadore Weinberg Prize from the Faculty of Law at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She concluded that "...section 5B of the State Liability Law,... denying the right to tort compensation in circumstances unrelated to combat actions or remotely related to them, by virtue of the exemptions listed under the said section, is hard to defend. The granting of sweeping immunity in such circumstances stands contrary to the principles of Israeli tort law and Israel's obligations under international law."
The facts of the Nabahin case are well-documented and were uncontested by the Israel Supreme Court. Mr. Eghbariah accurately states that Israeli Supreme Court president Esther Hayut stated in the decision that the result for Nabahin “is difficult, and so are its potential ramifications on Gaza residents in similar circumstances.” In other words, the law is unjust and discriminatory, and has resulted in dire consequences.
As for the facts of civilian casualties during the Israeli blockade of Gaza (which has gone on for 16 years), reliable documentation has been gathered by the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, whose primary funding comes from the Netherlands Representative Office, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation ,Kerkinactie/ Global Ministries, the International Commission of Jurists- Sweden, Mertz Gilmore Foundation,The French Consulate, and The Ford Foundation. An example of its findings can be read here: https://www.mezan.org/uploads/files/14598458701382.pdf
Mr. Banuski states that Nabahin was not denied his human rights, despite the flaws of the system, because he had his case heard before the high court and he had legal representation--he lost, but his rights were recognized. The Nabahin case reminds me of the Dred Scott case in the United States--similar circumstances and outcome. Dred Scott played a role in changing the thinking of many citizens, in bringing about a civil war over fundamental principles, and ongoing conflict for generations. Nabahin, and many other cases like it, could play a similar role in Israel, in the United States, and around the world.
Thank you for both of your responses- I've learned something from both of them. On the first point regarding human rights being denied. I think you've pointed out the obvious shortcomings in the current Israeli laws, and I hear you loud and clear and agree with the analysis that the situation is difficult and I hope that this case or another like it leads to more legal reform. But let's be clear that those criticisms are only possible in a liberal democracy that values free expression and exchange of ideas. Reform and change are much easier to contemplate and achieve in a liberal democracy like Israel. While I think your Dred Scott analogy is pretty good, let's hope that rather than triggering more bloodshed, as followed that case, that cooler heads prevail and reform is achieved through the tools of democracy.
As for the numbers, thank you for sharing the resource for the numbers in the broader conflict. It does not address the fact that the NYT allowed the use of Gazan health ministry numbers in the piece, "As I write this, more than 9,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to the Gazan health ministry." without a fact check or editors note. How many of those killed are combatants vs. civilians? The Times article is dated Nov. 3rd. Here's a piece from PBS on the numbers from Nov. 7th explaining the numbers, and the missing context "The Health Ministry doesn’t report how Palestinians were killed, whether from Israeli airstrikes and artillery barrages or other means, like errant Palestinian rocket fire. It describes all casualties as victims of “Israeli aggression.”" Neither do they distinguish whether those killed are combatants or civilians (a difficult distinction to make when the combatants embed themselves in the population and use civilians as human shields). https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-is-gazas-ministry-of-health-and-how-does-it-calculate-the-wars-death-toll
My biggest problem with the article remains the idea of calling for a cease-fire without preconditions for the safe return of the civilian hostages Hamas kidnapped.
Thanks Paul. I agree that democracy is key to any path to improvement going forward. It is no panacea, and it's only as good as the voters participating in it, but the old saw about it being the worst form of govt. except all the others is a crucial distinction. We share many important values and points of view.
Dead and wounded numbers in this situation would be questionable even if Hamas were not influencing them, but I don't think any revision would change the basic moral and legal context for our judgements.
A recent conversation between Ezra Klein and Yossi Klein Halevi provides impressive insight into the thinking of peace-seeking Israelis who are struggling with these moral dilemmas. The news is not good, but important to know. In case you haven't seen it, here is the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/10/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-yossi-klein-halevi.html?searchResultPosition=2
Hamas barely won an election in 2006 in Gaza, then staged a coup in 2007 when it became clear it would not be able to win another election (see RW's correction below, this is misleading). Its administration of Gaza has been inept, brutal, and indifferent to the welfare of its people. Instead of isolating Hamas and undermining it and other militant groups in the region, the Israeli far right is seeking to get rid of the Palestinians, take over their land, and establish an authoritarian, religious regime. This Israeli government, which is sure to be swept out of power after this war, is squandering Israel's power and reputation by mercilessly murdering innocent civilians, illegally confiscating land owned by Palestinians, and prosecuting a self-defeating and opportunistic war of revenge. Effectively supporting Israel requires us to not support the Netanyahu government.
Re what happened after Hamas won the 2006 election, there's a back story: the US refused to accepted the outcome of the election and backed the violent overthrow of the Hamas government by its rivals. That's what led to the intra-Palestinian civil war. We'll never know what would have happened if Israel and the US, right after the election, had pursued engagement with Hamas, which was at least claiming to be open to peaceful relations with Israel. Here's some background: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/04/gaza200804
Thanks, important information. I wrote a similar comment on WP--will revise that comment.
Hey Bob! I'd love a podcast on the recent Democratic wins in Kentucky and Virginia! Mostly in the sense of how it seems to contradict how horrible Biden is polling and if either is a better indicator for the Presidential election.
Robert, To contextualize more deeply Oct. 7's terror, you should bring up that, according to mainstream Israeli journalist Shlomi Eldar, after Gilad Shalit was captured by Palestinian militants, a document was sent to then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The document included the following: “Hamas offers two alternatives: (i) A separate track, dealing only with the release of Gilad Shalit in return for 1,000 Palestinian political prisoners. (ii) A release of prisoners will take place in the broader context of a strategic approach (as follows) ..." The detailed document, “whose existence and transmission to the prime minister were denied completely by Olmert’s office at the time, constituted an offer by Hamas to conduct a multilevel dialogue with Israel, beginning with discussion about a cease-fire and the building of long-term trust, and ending with a coexistence agreement ..."
H/t: https://www.juancole.com/2023/10/hamas-2023-counterfactual.html
The piece includes additional examples of possible openings. And, as should be known, Netanyahu reached two written agreements with Hamas: one regarding Shalit, and another confirming the cease-fire that ended the 2012 conflict.
Adam Tooze's new Chartbook provides a detailed look at the history of Israel's economic, political, and foreign policy from 2000 to the present. https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-251-israels-national-security?utm_campaign=email-post&r=2csb7&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email