Written January 8, 2009

It is commonly parroted by many that Israel is merely responding to external hostilities. To people who view history to be an important part of our rational processes – in particular, in coming to a reasonable conclusion as to what began the recent conflict (as of January 2009) – it is necessary to counter such a blatant lie.

First and foremost, "objectivity" does not mean refusing to take a moral stance against an enemy that is clearly perpetuating the massacre of innocent civilians.  In this case, that enemy is Israel who is marauding about in Palestine and Lebanon given free reign by its most ardent supporter, the United States. If one is truly objective, it is difficult to not notice that there is no historical basis whatsoever to the argument that Israel is merely reacting. To state bluntly, you must be absolutely blind or completely delusional to believe otherwise.

As it relates to the current conflict, it is becoming common knowledge now, despite the attempts by many to bury this information, that Israel broke the ceasefire on November 4, 2008 when they bombed the Gaza Strip as Barack Obama was voted in as the next U.S. President. Before the ceasefire, Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the next operation in Gaza which is being carried out now (Read more here).

"Sources in the defense establishment said Defense Minister Ehud Barak instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for the operation over six months ago, even as Israel was beginning to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. According to the sources, Barak maintained that although the lull would allow Hamas to prepare for a showdown with Israel, the Israeli army needed time to prepare, as well. Barak gave orders to carry out a comprehensive intelligence-gathering drive which sought to map out Hamas' security infrastructure, along with that of other militant organizations operating in the Strip." (Barak Ravid, Haaretz, 12/29/08)

Israeli intelligence recognized that there was a 98% decrease in rockets fired by Hamas and they were commended for doing a good job in being "careful to maintain the ceasefire" (Download reports: here and here). Even before the ceasefire (after Hamas won the election), Israel placed an embargo on Gaza -- which is a blatant violation of the truce -- which has resulted in a humanitarian crisis. The United Nations has been warning the world about an impending human crisis for as long as I can remember because of Israel's tight control of Gaza's borders.

U.S. and Israel argue that Hamas is a terrorist organization despite being voted in by Palestinians. As a result, the entire Palestinian population is being punished for making such an 'undemocratic' position. It is important to state that during the apartheid days in South Africa, the African National Congress and its leaders (which includes Nelson Mandela) were also declared to be a terrorist organization. They were declared as such because they incorporated a military wing into their campaign against the apartheid government. In fact, Nelson Mandela is still technically listed as a terrorist in the United States which prompted Condoleeza Rice to issue an apology recently. Quite clearly, people should not fool themselves and begin recognizing that the word "terrorist" is a malleable term designed for self-serving purposes by the United States and their allies. There is no consistent application. It applies to others but not to them.

If you look at a recent example – in particular, the Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 2006 – the argument that Israel was only reacting was used. It is common knowledge now, for serious minded people at least, that Israel began that conflict. It was parroted over and over at first that the abduction of General Shalit resulted in a decisive Israeli response. Completely removed from the narrative is everything that Israel did to end the 16-month informal ceasefire that preceded the attacks.

• (May 26, 2006) A car bombing in Sidon, Lebanon which killed a senior official of Islamic Jihad, a Palestinian group that was aligned with Hezbollah. This is denied by the Israeli government but Yedio Aharonot, a writer for the country's top selling daily, is extremely skeptical about it.
   
• (June 9, 2006) The killing of a Palestinian family picnicking at a Gaza beach which prompted Hamas to end the informal ceasefire.
   
• (June 24, 2006) Israel captured two Palestinians who they claimed to be Hamas members but was vehemently denied by Hamas. The difference between the abduction of General Shalit to this: Shalit was in Palestinian territory while Israel crossed the border to abduct the two Palestinians.

Between September 2005 and June 2006, according to an Israeli human rights group B'tselem, 144 Palestinians in Gaza were killed -- 29 were children –- by Israeli forces. No Israeli's were killed during the same time period.

Similar to what is being done today, Israel is attempting to wash the blood from its hands by claiming that Hamas is using human shields, thus explaining such a high number of human casualties. If history is of any relevance, only morons would refuse to be skeptical about such a claim. In 2006, this absolute lie has already been shot down by Human Rights Watch in a detailed study. (Read more here)

In light of this recent example (there are many), what is the likelihood that Israel is once again lying? Is it a matter of blind faith that we should believe their proclaimed truths? For the serious minded, it is necessary to call out half-truths, blatant lies and the relevancy of contemporary history. Call out murderers for what they are. Sitting on the fence and recognizing that Israel is merely responding, despite expressing grief over the deaths of Palestinians, is a terrible injustice in itself.

If you want to go back to the very beginning, specifically the past 30 years or so, it is Israel that is refusing to listen to the rest of the international community by rejecting U.N. Resolution 242 which is voted on every year with zero controversies: a full withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in accordance to international law.

Saying that Israel is merely "reacting" has no historical basis whatsoever. They have been the constant aggressors. Objectively speaking, how does a besieged government like Hamas supposed to react when their country is being squeezed to death by a hostile external force? While attacking civilians is deplorable in general, a serious minded person would recognize that the concept of an Israeli response is nothing but a myth. It is a formula that many "fence sitters" parrots. When there is such an overwhelming case against Israel, to sit on the fence is absolutely immoral.

Serious people know that Israel is not "reacting" to anything. Israel's goal is to crush any resistance in the Arab world. When an opportunity comes (a pretext to justify its brutal actions), they will take it. This whole concept of an Israeli response is a myth, a formula designed to distract people to maintain a murderous state.