OK, one last time about Hamas and western hypocrisy. Kudos to The Guardian for reporting the murder of a Palestinian child by the Israeli army. Aya Al-Astal wandered towards the Israeli border:

the Israeli army later said Aya was behaving in a suspicious manner reminiscent of a terrorist - she got too close to the border fence - and so a soldier fired several bullets into the child, hitting her in the neck and blowing open her stomach.

In what's one of the most coherent responses to grief I've read, her mother explained, "We have no idea why she went there but she was a child. She was so small. She was nine years old. She didn't wear a hijab. It was clear she was just a young girl. This is hatred."

Unlike what you'd suspect from a google search, they don't all carry guns - Palestinian child tends flowers next to the Wall

This comes on the heels of the murder of a 13 year old boy, whom the Israeli army suspected was going to throw stones at vehicles. Predictably, the Israeli army 'regrets the incident', but "added that they were accidental, unlike those caused by suicide bombs."

How could the shooting death of a 9 year old girl be accidental?

Hamas's response doesn't fit easily with the stereotype of rabid, frothing fundamentalists. Gaza leader Mahmoud al-Zahar said:

"Why is it that the Israelis can continue to kill our people, innocent people walking down the street, and there is no criticism from those who tell us we must give up our historic struggle against occupation? Why are they so afraid to criticise Israel but tell us what to do?"

Another 'accident' in the making - Israeli soldiers arrest a Palestinian boy

This shooting is significant for a few reasons. Firstly, it underlines precisely why Hamas can make political capital out of the Occupation. It just has to point out the obvious hypocrisy of the west and the Zionists. If a 'two-state solution' includes the Israeli army's right to kill children, is it any wonder Fatah, as a party to the 'peace process', is discredited in the eyes of Palestinians?

Secondly, if The Guardian hadn't covered the story, I wouldn't have known about it; the BBC, CNN or New York Times ignored it. (Naturally they have to mention the 400 deaths caused by Hamas, without mentioning the much larger number of Palestinian deaths caused by Israel, never mind the economic and social misery caused by the Occupation. But I'll take what I can get.)

Which brings me to the third point: imagine if Hamas had shot an Israeli child. There would universal condemnation. The reactionaries would write dark tomes on the 'meaning of Islamic civilization'; anti-Muslim racism would spike in the west, and most importantly, the Israeli army would mount an incursion into the Occupied Territories, killing Palestinian civilians. All this would be a regrettable but normal consequence of Palestinian violence.

But the Israeli army shoots a 9 year old girl, and no one even mentions it. Anyone who believes there's no pro-Israel bias in the media and government, or that Zionism is simply plucky Israel standing up for itself, should not sleep well tonight.

Who's arming their kids again? - Israeli settler teaches his son how to fend off the natives

Clouding the issue

On a disturbing note, has anyone on campuses noticed the recent campaign to bring attention to the genocide in Darfur, promoted by student Zionists Hillel?

Darfur is pitched in the media as a mainly Arab government funding militia attacks against Black Africans. However, it's far more complex; both aggressors and victims are black and Arab, and Sudanese grievances come from all regions. It's a political, not a racial conflict:

The perpetrators, in this case, the Darfuri Arabs who are attempting to exterminate the “indigenous” people of Darfur, “are ‘Arabs’ in the ancient sense of ’Bedouin,’ meaning desert nomad…. Darfurian Arabs, too, are indigenous, black and African. In fact, there are no discernible racial or discernible religious differences between the two: all have lived there for centuries; all are Muslims.”[36] Ethnic identities and categories have long been fluid in western Sudan, but have recently hardened around the political labels of Arabs and African.

Check out Hishad D Aidi, writing in Middle East Report, for an excellent article on the construction of racial identities. Aidi argues that American groups are using Darfur to reshuffle the national racial hierarchy. Conservative black groups are bashing Arab-American groups.

Genocidal, yes. Arab, no - Janjaweed militia members

While I applaud anyone learning more about Darfur, I have to question Hillel's sudden commitment to stopping genocide, given the continuing murder and immiseration of the Palestinian people - or, for that matter, the ongoing slaughter in Iraq or Afghanistan, both sanctioned by the U.S., Israel's paymaster. It seems far too convenient to find aggressors who are self-identified Arabs. I would argue that, whatever the sentiments of individual Hillel members, this is part of an agenda to split the 'soft' progressive forces who would be drawn to anti-Zionism in the campus activist milieu.

By their own admission, Zionists have been on the defensive before:

Israel's supporters also worried about the prominence of pro-Palestinian activists within the campus anti-war movement. They fear that if the anti-war movement picks up steam, it could become an even more significant vehicle for promoting anti-Israel sentiment on campus.

Outside of the hardcore of Zionist youth, it's a tough sell, particularly when the Israeli army insists on shooting kids. Getting involved in Darfur activism is a way for Hillel to pose as progressives, and drive a wedge between politically inexperienced activists, and those with an analysis of imperialism.