Comments on: The Wounds of Gaza or the Demise of Editorial Review? http://www.thelancetglobalhealthnetwork.com/archives/611 Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:38:34 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3 hourly 1 By: Doron Dekel http://www.thelancetglobalhealthnetwork.com/archives/611/comment-page-1#comment-12651 Doron Dekel Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:16:47 +0000 http://www.thelancetglobalhealthnetwork.com/archives/611#comment-12651 Compared to the letter to which it responds, this letter is better phrased and more carefully written, but is also biased. Its bias is more subtle in that it doesn't tell non-truths, only half-truths. For example, in describing the events that led to the attack, it doesn't mention that a cease-fire existed earlier and that Israel was the first one to materially breach it, as it often did in the past ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html ). Even more troubling is that Israel carefully made plans to attack civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure, a fact that were either known to the authors or should have been ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057648.html ). Once aware of the legal instructions to the Israeli army, one can reasonably conclude that the main purpose of calling civilians in advance of deliberately destroying their houses and their livelihoods and obviously putting their lives and limbs at risk, was to provide legal cover to the individual attackers. Anyhow, it is clear that, as was the case with the US in Iraq, that all branches of a democratically elected government contributed actively to the decision to launch a highly disproportionate attack against a practically defenseless population when much less violent options to protect its citizens existed and weren't fully explored. I suggest we keep in mind Hannah Arendt's phrase "the banality of evil". Atrocities are not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were morally justified. Compared to the letter to which it responds, this letter is better phrased and more carefully written, but is also biased. Its bias is more subtle in that it doesn’t tell non-truths, only half-truths. For example, in describing the events that led to the attack, it doesn’t mention that a cease-fire existed earlier and that Israel was the first one to materially breach it, as it often did in the past ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html ). Even more troubling is that Israel carefully made plans to attack civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure, a fact that were either known to the authors or should have been ( http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057648.html ). Once aware of the legal instructions to the Israeli army, one can reasonably conclude that the main purpose of calling civilians in advance of deliberately destroying their houses and their livelihoods and obviously putting their lives and limbs at risk, was to provide legal cover to the individual attackers.

Anyhow, it is clear that, as was the case with the US in Iraq, that all branches of a democratically elected government contributed actively to the decision to launch a highly disproportionate attack against a practically defenseless population when much less violent options to protect its citizens existed and weren’t fully explored.

I suggest we keep in mind Hannah Arendt’s phrase “the banality of evil”. Atrocities are not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were morally justified.

]]>