I have always admired the work of Gisha, and therefore read its response to my “Impressions of Gaza” with much interest — and comparable disappointment.
The response refers to exactly one statement of mine: ‘heavy equipment in Gaza is not “lying idle”, as Chomsky describes.’ My statement is quite accurate. Gisha’s researchers can learn very easily that heavy equipment is indeed “lying idle,” contrary to its charge, simply by visiting the maintenance buildings full of heavy equipment lying idle, because parts cannot be obtained for repair.
Gisha responds by observing that construction goes on. Plainly, that observation does not refute the accurate statement that heavy equipment is “lying idle,” because it is disabled for lack of parts and is therefore unavailable for clearing rubble from Israeli bombing, dealing with the miles and miles of hideous slums, and other urgent tasks.
The rest refers to statements I did not make, a fact obscured by the lack of citations.
Though irrelevant to what I wrote, the attempted rebuttals are nevertheless of some interest. Thus Gisha writes: “Israel does not limit the entry of medicine into the Gaza Strip. Shortages of medicine that have occurred in Gaza were and are the result of disputes between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip.” This is presumably intended to be a response to my comment that “The director of the Khan Yunis hospital, who is also chief of surgery, describes with anger and passion how even medicines are lacking, which leaves doctors helpless and patients in agony,” as a result of the failure of Egypt to open the Rafah entry to Gaza.
Evidently, the Gisha comment is again irrelevant to the accurate words of the hospital director that I quoted, and to Egypt’s responsibility. Its comment does, however, provide a significant criticism of Israeli policy that I did not bring up. As Gisha observes, Israel chooses not to send medicine and medical equipment directly to Gaza, but rather to work through the PA in Ramallah — one element of the US-Israel-PA program of trying to undermine Hamas, while also harming the people of Gaza.
One may also ask why Gisha feels that it must absolve Israel of a criticism of Egypt, which doesn’t even mention Israel.
The rest refers obliquely to statements by credible sources that I quoted accurately. If Gisha believes their comments and analyses are wrong, it can contact them: but with reasons, not evasions. In any event, this has nothing to do with the accuracy of the article of mine they criticize.
I certainly agree with the final injunction: we should not make “compromises on factual accuracy.” Good advice, always.
A reply to Chomsky by Sari Bashi, Gisha’s executive director
November 20, 2012
Dear Professor Chomsky,
I read with interest your response published November 17 on Israeli Occupation Archive. The editor’s note reads that it was sent to us on November 12. We did not receive it. I read it for the first time today, and we will of course promptly publish it on “Gaza Gateway” in both English and Hebrew.
In your response, you correctly note statements from our November 8 post, “What we want from Noam Chomsky“, which should have been worded more clearly. I regret that. We tried to clarify them in the follow-up post we published on November 14.
I appreciate your commitment to the people of Gaza, a commitment which we share, and I hope for better times for the region.