I am sure that most of you reading this have seen a sign on campus with the death tallies for Palestinians and Israelis, represented by symbolic stakes in the ground comparing the two. The statistics are clear: A significantly greater number of Palestinians have been killed relative to Israelis.
Alright, so the numbers tell us a story. Israelis are this and Israelis are that. Something within me finds it hard to believe that a country so devoted to reaching peace with its neighbors would be so murderous.
Have you ever wondered how mortality numbers are computed? I have, and it is what led me to write this article. I am not here to bash on one side or the other, but just to provide another perspective. It is the story that the mortality numbers alone cannot depict. Maybe with this story some people will learn to look beyond the superficiality of the numbers we see on our bike path.
There is substantial evidence proving that the deaths from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are a huge misconception. In many ways, the Palestinian authorities count deaths controversially and inaccurately. Their numbers include suicide bombers, armed Palestinian fighters, terrorist group leaders, terrorists shot in self-defense, bomb makers and their neighbors who were killed by accidental bomb explosions and the Palestinians killed from shooting into the air at their own funerals and protests. Of course, Israel is not innocent, as seen by the many killings on their behalf. Still, Israel is not fully to blame for Palestinian losses.
More controversially, they include the deaths during crossfire between Israeli and Palestinian forces, leading to obvious collateral damage from both sides. The reason for the controversy is that children, mothers and other people not interested in contributing to the conflict become entangled in the war not by choice but by involuntary presence. The Palestinians argue that Israel is responsible for the deaths of the many young Palestinian children in battle. However, when French TV captured a Palestinian child being shot in his father’s arms, there was much debate over the source of the shot. One would find it easy to point the finger at the opposing side, but reporters across Europe came to the conclusion that, based on the angle that it was fired, the shot had to have come from a Palestinian. With such examples, using evidence like youth mortality is questionable considering the highly destructive nature of warfare.
In addition to these questionable observations, Palestinian authorities have been notorious for exaggerating the numbers they feed to the public. For example, following the Battle of Jenin, a terrorist launch site, Palestinians claimed 3,000 of their people were “massacred” by Israelis. They later brought the number down to 500, which may have been an attempt to make their claim more reasonable. After questioning the validity of their statements, the UN secretary-general uncovered the true number: a shocking 52. I think their dishonesty speaks for itself.
After covering one side of the story, you may still wonder why the Israeli death count is so low. Well, this is another topic hidden by the media and waiting to expose itself to reality. The reasons include two critical factors: emergency medical care and excellent security. According to the New York Times, Israeli medical care, specifically faster ambulances and better care in the medical room, is the reason why the mortality rates for Israelis have been lower. Imagine all the Israelis who would have died if not for their superior medical care.
One might wonder, shouldn’t the same care be provided to Palestinians if Israel is as inclusive as they claim? Well, it is. The problem is that the Palestinian Authority rejects Israeli medical care in cases of emergency. And why would they rather have their people die or fall into the hands of inferior Palestinian medical care? According to Palestinian Minister of Health Radwan al-Akhras, it is because “they prefer that [they] don’t know the truth about the number of [Israelis] wounded.” As for security, Israel is prepared in every way imaginable. The Israeli Defense Force has thwarted thousands of Palestinian terrorist attacks, ultimately preventing the death of many Israelis that otherwise would have contributed to the list of those buried six feet under. In addition, Israel has local forms of awareness for potential bombs or attacks through nationwide text messages, sirens and lockdowns — warnings that even benefit the Palestinian population.
There are so many different factors in calculating death tolls that cannot be fully explained with this article’s limited size. More than anything, I want you all to think about facts that are superficially placed in front of you. In any international issue, we Americans only get a glimpse of what a nation wants us to see. Since we are generally unaware of the story behind the numbers, such as the mortalities, we should be informed before we speak or decide on any issue. Instead of reading a sign and using it as the basis for any opinion, make sure you fully understand and don’t just be the media’s strategically planned follower.
A more independent assessment, from Amnesty International: Israeli forces killed hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians and destroyed thousands of homes in Gaza in attacks which breached the laws of war, Amnesty International concluded in a new report published on Thursday. Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 days of death and destruction, is the first comprehensive report to be published on the conflict, which took place earlier this year [2009]. “Israel’s failure to properly investigate its forces’ conduct in Gaza, including war crimes, and its continuing refusal to cooperate with the UN international independent fact-finding mission headed by Richard Goldstone, is evidence of… Read more »
I doesn’t surprise me knowing about Amnesty International anti-Israeli policy. This is only one of the many reports. Amnesty in 2008: Anti-Israel Obsession Continues to Undermine Moral Principles NGO Monitor May 27, 2009 In 2008, Amnesty again focused disproportionately on Israel’s response to aggression from Gaza, and led the NGO campaigns accusing Israel of “collective punishment” and “war crimes.” Amnesty’s publications in the region portray Israel as among the worst human rights violators in the Middle East (second only to Iran). In 2008. Amnesty issued more in-depth reports (9) and “Wire” articles (22) on Israel than any other country. The… Read more »
NGO Monitor, whose report you quote, functions essentially an Israeli government mouthpiece, as widely recognized within Israel itself (see below). Given the devastation to Gaza that Amnesty International documents, what basis does NGO Monitor have to describe Amnesty’s description of conditions in Gaza (‘use of “unprecedented use of force”‘, “virtual imprisonment”, ‘bringing the Palestinians to the “brink of human catastrophe”’) as “highly exaggerated language”? I don’t see anything in the NGO Monitor report you quote that contests the fact that 300 Gazan children perished in Operation Cast Lead, or that factually challenges Amnesty’s assertion that “the victims of the attacks… Read more »
I would be very careful to stand by an organization that stands for this. Does it really matter who wrote it, or is your anti Israel sentiment so strong that you discard anything written by people who do not think like you? Read below: “In February 2010, Gita Sahgal, head of the gender unit at Amnesty International, was suspended after she “accused the charity of putting the human rights of Al-Qaeda terror suspects above those of their victims,” according to The Times. Sahgal was said to believe “that collaborating with Moazzam Begg, a former British inmate at Guantanamo Bay, ‘fundamentally… Read more »
SP,
I will take it then that you have no FACTUAL issue with Amnesty’s report on Operation Cast Lead.
Amazing article,
I was never aware that the Israeli forces notified Palestinian citizens that they were going to be attacking certain areas.
And to Klaus you sound very anti Semitic and you only care for reports that speak badly about Israel. Stop drawing your own conclusions on SP’s opinion. I feel that this is an un-bias article and Klaus is pursuing his own agenda.
Christopher, I would much appreciate it you could identify anything I’ve said that you consider anti-semitic. In the 1960’s, people who shined a light on US mass murder (My Lai, etc.) in Viet-Nam were often labeled “anti-American.” That makes about as much sense as hanging the anti-semitic label on people who factually identify criminality committed by the Israeli government. (As to the obvious question, “what about crimes on the other side?”, the answer is: the original article was a transparent, if perhaps innocent, whitewash of Israeli governmental brutality, so that is what I am responding to.) Some of the harshest… Read more »
Ha..don’t worry Klaus,”anti-semite” is just the anti-intellectual cowards argument that is used when there is no legitimate counter-argument to the truth. Its rare that counter-arguments stand on their own without the childish name calling thrown in. What a weak crutch for weak minds. Or, perhaps, its a necessary crutch for the extremely guilty. Attributing avoidance to stupidity undermines criminality. Take it as a compliment that your argument and sources are threatening, and therefore truthful. The same goes for amnesty international. Their reports don’t line up with the right interests, and so they must be “antisemitic”. Ha…only the guilty need to… Read more »
No offense to the author of this piece, but I see he has failed to at least do a minimum effort to do some research to back up his claims. He is presented with what to him appears to be very one-sided numbers on the casualties of Israeli-Palestinian aggression, and tries to discredit the numbers by attacking the methodology of the reports without actually having first hand knowledge of the reports. In essence he is attacking the NGO reports without actually reading the reports. Very disappointing considering we have free access to the library’s database of primary and secondary sources.… Read more »
Are internet auction site sales exempt from the long distance selling regulations?