Why I Strongly Support Israel
Why I Strongly Support Israel'To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying Amen to what the world tells you you ought to prefer, is to have kept your soul alive.' - Robert Louis Stevenson
~Introduction
~The Underdog
~Myths & Lies
~Islamic Enmity
~Democracy & Growth
~Conclusions
Introduction
The dictionary definition of ‘to assume’ is defined as ‘to take for granted or without proof; to suppose; to postulate’. It is a natural human trait which has benefited our species but one that has also pitched us into numerous wars and hatreds throughout the various millennia. Everyone has assumptions about this and that, from the meditating Buddhist monk in Vietnam to the Jamaican family enjoying the sun on the beaches in Montego Bay. However, the dangers appear when these assumptions lead to the appearance of bigotry, malevolence and worst of all, loss of life. Unfortunately, the subject people of this essay have probably suffered worse than any other from the corruptive results of wild assertions - those people being the Jews.
Richard Littlejohn, the British broadcaster and journalist, recently noted a peculiar case of assumption here in Britain in his Channel 4 documentary, ‘The War on Britain’s Jews?’. When telling dinner guests, fellow journalists and politicians that he strongly supported Israel, the first question they always asked in return was, ‘Are you Jewish?’ I’ve noticed the very same thing. Why does one have to be Jewish or an Evangelical Christian to back Israel? Usually the second and third questions involve a combination of inquiries as to whether I am a Neo Conservative and/or Islamaphobic. I admit, I am exaggerating a little. It depends what company I am in and usually their political persuasions which leads to a very interesting phenomenon. It is certainly no exaggeration, I’m disappointed to say, that the majority of Left leaning individuals I come across do ask these questions.
The purpose of this essay is to shed light on the various reasons why I respect, admire and support the State of Israel. Before I bring my introduction to a close, I think it wise to state my connections with Israel and Judaism, in case of the likely event interested readers will ‘assume’ I am biased because of heritage or religion. Firstly, I am not Jewish and as far as I know have no Jewish ancestry within the last two centuries. Secondly, I am not Israeli, I am British. I’ve never even set foot in Israel. Thirdly, I am non-religious. I’m an atheist who has medium to little interest in the religion of Judaism, let alone any regard for Evangelical Christianity. Fourth and finally, I consider myself to be on the centre-left of the political spectrum which means I’m certainly not a Neo-Con. (I do in fact consider myself a Neo-Con now - edited April 2008)
The Underdog
The Social Anthropologist Kate Fox provided a detailed and interesting commentary on a certain English trait in her book, ‘Watching the English’. She wrote ‘Those who are truly, culturally ‘English’ - whatever their race or country of origin - can be distinguished by their automatic, instinctive inclination to cheer for the underdog’ (p247). Perhaps she and I are being rather big headed in assuming the Anglo-Saxon world is the only arena for such a occurrence, I’m sure it’s not but it does lead on to another reason of mine for supporting Israel and will probably lead to a few people choking on their coffee. I see Israel as the underdog, not the Palestinians.
There are between 1.3 and 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, that’s about one fifth of the total population. I do not feel it is disingenuous to proclaim that the majority of the Muslim World are at best, mildly antagonistic and at worst, openly belligerent towards the Jewish State. Then you have European anti-Semitism which is particularly at home in the Eastern countries such as Poland, the Ukraine and Russia. Russia as a larger world player has been fastidious in its various anti-Israeli initiatives, both inside and outside of the UN, over the past decades. In the Americas there are anti-Israeli initiatives and rhetoric, especially surprisingly, from the United States. Well known commentators, television personalities and anti-Israelis such as Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Noam Chomsky and Susan Sarandon, whilst in no way politically influential, do hold vast swathes of ordinary Americans under their pseudo intellectual charms. In Britain, the likes of the Respect politician George Galloway, London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Sayeeda Warsi, the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, hold their own firebrand views of Israeli defensive policies which, like in America, greatly influence certain sections of British society.
This bias against Israel isn’t only confined to a few famous instigators but also parts of the media. I will take Britain as my example. Newspapers, especially The Guardian and The Independent, regularly print articles and news stories that cross the line between fact and fiction, leaving out vital information and only mentioning that which places Israel in a bad light. Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent for the latter newspaper is notorious for his hatred of the Jewish State and, in his own words, the ‘International Zionist Lobby’. On television, the Channel 4 broadcasters have as good as swallowed Hamas propaganda word for word; it being very rare and incredibly surprising when a positive line is unravelled about Jerusalem politics. However, the most shocking I save for last, that of the British Broadcasting Corporation. ‘Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest’ it says in their ‘Purpose and Values’ section but is it?
No, certainly not when it comes to Israel at any rate. Take for instance, the recently released BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston. When first captured, the Palestinian Authority Information Minister Mustafa Barghouti stated, ‘We are apposed to the kidnapping of foreign journalists who serve the Palestinian cause’. The Beeb did not reply nor more importantly rebut, neither has Johnston since his release. In another case, Fayad Abu Shamala, another BBC Gaza correspondent, told a Hamas rally that ‘journalists and media organisations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.’ What was the BBC’s response? This was their response, ‘Fayad’s remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC’. There are literally hundreds of examples I could use of the British Press and its bias against Israel which leads to the conclusion that the Palestinians and Muslim world in general are certainly winning the war of words. Israel is the underdog and the next chapter provides even more reasons why.
Myths and Lies
The majority of British people are not anti-Semitic and what is often construed as so is in fact idle acceptance of misinformation and lack of knowledge about the region and its history. For the genuine anti-Semites (edited), no amount of reasoning, facts and learning will recede their hatred.
So what are the common assumptions and myths that people in Britain hold to be true about Israel, Zionism and the Jews but which are in fact lies? Why is this propaganda especially absorbed by the Left that once fought shoulder to shoulder with the Jews against the Fascists of Oswald Mosley in 1936, but who now side with Hamas and Hezbollah? The latter question deserves an essay of its own and that it shall receive but part of the answer lies in the support of the perceived underdog as noted in the preceding chapter, which in itself is a noble engagement, but one that can also be severely misplaced.
One of the major assumptions is that Israel is an Apartheid State similar to that of South Africa a few decades ago, where Israeli Arabs fair no better than did the black South Africans. This is a myth, a complete fabrication of the truth. Whilst some Arabs in Israel do suffer from discrimination, which is of course abhorrent, it is in no way similar to Apartheid. Arab citizens of the Jewish State can vote, participate in the government (there are a number of Arab Knesset politicians), they can own and buy land, are protected against discrimination in the workplace and have a better standard of living, education and healthcare than anywhere else in the Arab World. The blacks of South Africa had none of the above. Israeli Arabs can even serve in the Israeli Armed Forces.
Another assumption is that the ‘Wall’ separating Israel from Palestine is a racist barrier and a Zionist attempt to steal more land. Firstly, only 5% of the entire length of the barrier is actually a wall, the rest is wire fence and add to the previous fact, the concrete walls are temporary, easily removable and with no permanent foundations. Why is the barrier necessary? Because of Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians in buses, nightclubs, restaurants, shops and cafés. In 2002, before the security barrier, 451 Israelis died in terrorist attacks whereas in 2006, when much of the security barrier was in place, 30 Israelis were killed. (Statistics) If any justification is needed for this security fence/wall/barrier, whatever you want to call it, then these startling figures are surely it. Secondly, if it was a barrier based on race then there would be no Arabs living in Israel nor would Arabs be allowed access, although under tight security control which is understandable, into Israel to work, visit relatives and cross from the West Bank to Gaza and vice-versa like they do.
A third major assumption is that Israelis are doing to the Palestinian Arabs what Hitler did to the Jews in the Holocaust. This is definitely the most sickening and outrageous slandering of Israel that possibly exists, at least in Western circles. There are no gas chambers in Israel or the disputed territories, nor are there concentration camps, cruel medical experiment laboratories, ghettoes or forced starvation of Arabs by the Israeli military. Where are the millions of dead Arabs if the Jewish State is carrying out a Nazi-like massacre? George Galloway and German Bishop Hanke are still convinced: the latter saying on a visit to the West Bank in March 2007, ‘This morning we saw pictures of the bestial Warsaw Ghetto at Yad Vashem, and in the evening we were in the ghetto of Ramallah’. Such delusions are unfortunately common place but these people should ask some questions. Were the Jews in Europe under the Nazis provided with hospital treatment? The Palestinians are, even those who tried to blow up Israelis in failed suicide attacks. Small Arab children are treated in life saving operations and often get the best treatment available in the whole of the Middle East. Another question, if the Israelis wanted to eradicate the Palestinians, why would they continue providing electricity and water supplies to the Gaza Strip despite the numerous rockets and walking bombs originating from this small area? The accusations, in my view, are thoroughly baseless and despicable.
There are dozens, if not hundreds of myths and lies spread about Israel worldwide, largely as the result of Arab media propaganda and the notorious Russian conspiracy theory, ‘The protocols of the Elders of Zion’, which incidentally is widely available in Islamic bookshops across Britain, along with the Arabic translation of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’. The Muslim hatred of Jews and Israel will be explored in further detail in the next chapter.
Let me first say this. I am not intending to go into the fascinating history of Israel and Zionism in this particular essay as that would indeed make a book, of which there are already many. I can recommend one specifically, which I’ve read myself, that interested readers can order online and that is ‘A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time’ by Howard M. Sachar.
Islamic Enmity
“The Hour (of the Last Judgment) will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. ‘O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”
Hadith - Volume 4, Book 52, No’ 177; Narrated by Abu Huraira.
From the days of Mohammed in the 7th Century AD to those of the modern age, Islam has been hostile to the Jews. The Jewish tribes, such as the Banu Qaynuqa, were the first to incur the Prophet’s wrath by refusing to submit to the young and militarily successful religion. A Jewish poet, K’ab bin Al-Ashraf also fell victim to Mohammed’s anger due to a succession of supposed insults. ‘Who is willing to kill Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?’ Mohammed asked his followers (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 3, book 17, no.4436). The poet was later killed. The ramifications of which still affect us today, for example, last year in the Danish cartoon controversy, the slaying of Theo Van Gogh and also the avoidance of using the words ‘Islam’ and ‘terrorism’ in the same sentence by frightened British politicians, human rights groups, media heads and writers like Karen Armstrong.
The Koran is full of commands to kill Jews but Islamic apologists constantly refer to one verse, ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion …’ (Koran 2:256) which in their eyes clears the Muslim Holy Book of any serious guilt. Unfortunately the rules of abrogation (annulment) are not widely known to the Western World. Abrogation is when verses written later replace earlier verses if they conflict with one another. The suras of the Koran are not arranged chronologically but according to length, in descending order. Therefore it is vitally important to know which are the ‘Meccan’ and which are the ‘Medinan’ verses. The last quote is unfortunately from the Meccan period of time when Islam was against the proverbial ropes and did not have the means to wage war. Later, when Islam grew stronger, this would change as would the nature of Mohammed’s words.
‘None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?’
(Koran 2:106)
If you don’t believe my words, then read the widely circulated lectures of the respected Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajid on the subject.
Of course I am not saying all Muslims hate Jews, that would be a ridiculous thing to say. There are numerous partnerships and groups where Muslims and Jews, along with other religions, come together in art, culture, play and most importantly, peace initiatives. What I am saying however, is that there is a foundation in the Islamic religion for Jew hatred and that those who invoke the killing of Jews to be an Islamic duty, are not in fact misguided but actually correctly following the Koran. Thankfully the majority of Muslims do not intensively study their Holy Book, rather like the majority of Christians don’t their Bible. One can see nevertheless, that hatred of Israel is not purely to do with the supposed invasion and occupation of Arab-Muslim land but goes much deeper and further back into history.
The major problem that results from this Muslim hostility towards the Jews is the modern day media propaganda that is burning furiously across the Islamic world. Anti-Jewish cartoons, media distortions, films and even children’s television programmes incorporate bigoted portrayals of the Jewish blood libel and Zionist world domination myths. Astonishingly, Europeans and Americans have swallowed the Middle East lies about Jews and Israel, whether intentionally or not and thus the mass misinformation phenomenon has spread across Left-Wing circles on all continents. Former American president Jimmy Carter is a prime example with his recent book, ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’.
Democracy and Growth
Israel is a parliamentary democracy; the only one in the Middle East. Jerusalem is its capital. What is now Israel was once an Ottoman backwater of desert, swamps and basic farmlands but has since developed into one of the most advanced nations on the planet. All of this through the solid hard work, bravery and persistence of the early Zionist settlers and the many generations that followed them right up to the present day. Tens of thousands of Jews fled from Pogroms in Eastern Europe, the Arab World, and infamously the Holocaust, to settle in what would become Israel. Through a mixture of need, religious devotion and a desire for national identity and self-reliance/defence, they built and developed a proud, strong and extraordinary little country on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea.
Nowadays Israel can lay claim to a myriad of achievements and developments that benefit not only its own people but the whole world. This small nation of around 7 million people has advanced science, technology, literature, culture and politics to new levels whilst all the time being under attack from its larger neighbours. Israeli medical engineering has saved and improved millions of lives across the globe with inventions such as: stem-cell technology to regenerate heart tissue; the first fully computerised, radiation-less, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer; the first ingestible video camera that’s so small it fits in a pill, used to discover possible cancers in the intestines; an Ex-Press shunt that provides relief to glaucoma sufferers; a device which directly helps the heart pump blood; a ‘bone glue’ that will heal bones and joints affected by disease and for one final example, a device which restores the use of paralysed hands, providing hope to many victims of strokes and spinal injuries. There are many, many more Israeli inventions connected with science that have helped people from all countries, including the disputed territories.
Most of the latest technology in mobile phones was developed in Israel as was computer voice mail. Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world; the third highest rate of entrepreneurship in the world; more museums per capita than any other country in the world; the second highest per capita of books in the world and has been instrumental in designing high tech security systems at airports to prevent bombs getting on board aeroplanes. Again, like with the medical innovations, there are many, many more technological advances originating from Israel.
All of the above plus more and people still hate Israel, excuse the Palestinian suicide attacks, call for boycotts, demand Israel to disband and worst of all, work actively to undermine the most culturally, socially, scientifically and politically advanced nation in the whole of the Middle East.. I can only ask at this point, what the hell have Israel’s neighbours given to the world in the last century, two centuries, three centuries even? Where have the development of human rights been in the Islamic world? Where have the countless genuine peace initiatives been in the Arab World? The harsh questions needed to be asked of those who attack Israel are a hundredfold.
Conclusions
I don’t believe there has been a country in modern history so reviled and misunderstood as Israel is today. It is a nation that has fought unflinchingly for its survival from the very first day of its conception but has nevertheless overcome every obstacle, bullet and bomb that its enemies have thrown against it. The Arabs have waged or threatened war numerous times over the past decades from 1948 through to 1967 and on to 1973 and beyond. Europeans who share the values and ideals of Jews worldwide have gone from enthusiastic support to an attitude of aggressive suspicion and non-violent derogation, especially on the Left. Centuries old falsities about the Jewish people have been dragged from the swamps of history and subsequently been renamed ‘Anti-Zionism’. Over half a century after the Holocaust, a new label has been found in which to hide their prejudices and has been stamped with approval and justification by the mass anti-Semitic hysteria emanating from the Islamic World. Newspaper journalists, peace campaigners and even politicians proclaim with gusto that, ‘Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism’, before parading conceited smiles and swaggering strides. Yet few ask in return, how can disagreement and outright hostility towards the existence of a successful, democratic, peace seeking and established nation, that happens to be the only Jewish one of its kind, be anything other than anti-Semitism? Remember, ‘Zionism’ in its basic terms is support for a Jewish nation state.
In the 21st Century, Israel faces yet more threats, especially from Iran and its proxies, Syria and Hezbollah. The almost certain threat of Persian nuclear weapons is growing, week by week, as peace protestors in London, Washington DC and Paris call on their governments to refrain from bombing Iranian nuclear sites and instead cut ties with ’the Zionist entity’. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas, a wing of the worldwide ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is actively attacking Israeli towns such as Sderot causing few casualties but nonetheless dreadful mental and emotional trauma.
Please don’t mistake my purpose here, I don’t hold up Israel as the ideal nation state that all others should emulate, I don’t think it is, like I don’t think the United States or even the United Kingdom are. I couldn’t name or even know if that apotheosis of nationhood actually exists. There are negatives to Israeli society and policies that I dislike and question, such as the violent actions of some of the Ultra-Orthodox community against Palestinians, the governmental corruption and the terrible road safety statistics. Despite the minus points however, Israel is in my view, a brave, vastly misunderstood and much hated (unwarranted) living and breathing embodiment of democracy and liberty fighting tyranny and religious despotism. It’s a nation that needs our support, our good will, our understanding and our help because if we refuse, we are in fact permitting large chunks of our own values and ideals of freedom be torn apart by Islamic absolutism. We in Europe, America and the rest of the democratic world are not idle spectators to this ‘regional’ confrontation between Israel and groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, as it so often might seem; we are on the very same front line! From the Philippines to southern Russia and from the Parisian suburbs to Sudan and Nigeria there lies the same inherent danger that is facing us all, that of Islamic terrorism.
The Palestinians are suffering, there is no doubt about that. However the blame for their horror is not to be put solely or even mostly, at the feet of the Jewish State. Countless times Israel has offered them peace and their statehood but each time their leaders have refused. With all my heart, I truly believe Israel is seeking genuine peace and friendship with its Arab neighbours which would be overwhelmingly beneficial to both sets of people. What has been done in Israel, regarding technology, human rights, living standards and wealth, can also, if peace and reconciliation is achieved, be had in Jordan, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. I ask my fellow countrymen and women why they morally attack that which is defending itself against tyranny and the suppression of human freedom, in order to champion the rights of those who bring their suffering upon themselves? Until we step away and rationalize the situation and put our support behind the true victim which fights the very same battle we are fighting, then we will remain in the downward spiral that is sucking away our morality, democracy, freedoms and indeed, our very existence.
I’m proud to call myself a friend of Israel.
Beaman - July 2007.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To My Country
I have not sung you, my country,
not brought glory to your name
with the great deeds of a hero
or the spoils a battle yields.
But on the shores of the Jordan
my hands have planted a tree,
and my feet have made a pathway
through your fields.
Modest are the gifts I bring you.
I know this, mother.
Modest, I know, the offerings
of your daughter:
Only an outburst of song
on a day when the light flares up,
only a silent tear
for your poverty.
'Rachel' Bluwstein (1890-1931)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have not sung you, my country,
not brought glory to your name
with the great deeds of a hero
or the spoils a battle yields.
But on the shores of the Jordan
my hands have planted a tree,
and my feet have made a pathway
through your fields.
Modest are the gifts I bring you.
I know this, mother.
Modest, I know, the offerings
of your daughter:
Only an outburst of song
on a day when the light flares up,
only a silent tear
for your poverty.
'Rachel' Bluwstein (1890-1931)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
74 comments:
If the wall (and yes it really is a wall in most urban Palestinian areas) is not a land grab then I am the queen of sheiba.
Build the bloody thing on Israeli land rather than Palestinian land and people might start to believe you.
Beaman:
This is an amazing post; it was a pleasure to read, and has "hooked" me into your blog. Thanks.
Joe:
Why shouldn't the barrier be built on palestinian land? Why should the palestinians receive a reward for decades of terrorism?
They would have twice as much land today as they do have, if the Arab world had simply accepted the UN partition plan in 1947...
Beaman I am very honored that you contacted me to read this very informative essay. I can only comment based on the beliefs that I hold and do believe to be reality. I do agree with everything you have put forth in this essay. I myself wrote about this somewhere on my other blog talking about Hamas and many of the extremist factions within the Musilm community. I am a supporter of Israel-with or without my Christain faith-but, as a Christian who has from time to time dipped into what little part of the original Christian writings that are left for us to view in the Bibles of today--am well aware that when Armegeddon does come--and it will come--man will destroy himself--it is only the ones who stand steadfast behind the Jewish people who will survive. I want to be a survivor---I am a survivor. This is very well written--thank you for sharing it with me. Jackie
You make some interesting and some valid points although I am not sure how much you may be looking through rose-colored glasses here. Again, I am not an expert but I will share with you this link for added interest.
http://peoplesgeography.com/tag/israel-watch/
This is an excellent Post well thought out and succinct. I can see that you have done your homework!
Good work Beaman.
http://shoebat.com/
You may like this site.
Beaman,
This is a very thoughtful essay. With no melodrama or hyperbole you have made a clear, cool and enlightening contribution to the discussion. You have done it in a way that a neither a Jew like myself nor an Arab (moderate or radical) ever could. This rings of no partisanship save a love and respect for truth and the future of humanity.
Best Wishes,
Yaacov Ben Moshe
http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/
Thanks - I could go through this line by line and correct your numerous factual errors, misrepresentations and unjustified logical leaps, but I won’t because I don’t think the question of whether one is “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestinian” is the right one. We should all be pro-justice and pro-peace, and our understanding of what it means to strive for these goals should be informed by the factual reality. Whether one is “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestine” is really an irrelevancy.
So when you say you “support Israel”, I can only shrug my shoulders. What does that mean? Do you mean you support Israel in the World Cup? Do you mean you support the Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball team? Do you mean you support the actions of the state of Israel, regardless of what those actions are? Does your declaration of “support for Israel” mean, for example, that you support the policies of torture and human rights abuse described here? Or are you simply saying that you support the fact of Israel’s existence (i.e. that you are a Zionist)? You can see, I hope, why the term is pretty meaningless. I support actions and policies, whether by Israel or anyone else, that deserve support and I condemn those worthy of condemnation. There’s no need for this “pro-Israel” or “anti-Israel” branding at all.
As for your attempt to equate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism, I must say that is very poor form indeed. Of course some anti-Zionists are anti-semites, but many aren’t. Many people, Jews included, oppose Zionism based on a stance of anti-racism and anti-colonialism, not anti-semitism.
If you're referring to Israel as the underdog, then I'm afraid I'll have to say that you are in the la-la land. Throughout your article you have targeted Israel's antagonists only, you have not mentioned Israel's atrocitites at all. That is a very distorted view of reality. I think you ought to see things from the point of view of anti-Israel people. find out the reasons they oppose the Jewish state. I would also suggest that you read a little of the history of Israel's establishment. That might open your eyes.
Joe: The barrier has been built in the best strategic places to stop terrorist infiltration. Yes, there are parts that severely hamper Palestinian farmers and home owners, that is indeed very sad, however as I stated in my essay, the barrier is of a temporary construction and can be easily removed once peace is installed. Don’t get me wrong, I dislike barriers, walls and things that separate people from one another as much as you but I understand why Israel has to build this barrier and I would expect the same of my country in similar circumstances.
Michael: Thank you very much.
Shinade: You’re welcome and thank you for reading and expressing your views.
Carol: Thank you for reading. I can see that many will think I am looking through rose-coloured glasses but I think also, for too long now, many more have been reading Israel in very dark shaded glasses. Thanks for the link too, I will look in more detail later on. Best Wishes.
Beaj: Thank you!
Oldqueen44: I have that website in my links section already but thank you for the tip nevertheless. He is an interesting gentleman.
Yaacov Ben Moshe: Many thanks for your review. I’m fascinated to know what Israelis and indeed, their Arab neighbours think of this essay. Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Jamie: I wish you would go through this line by line correcting errors. I would be delighted but of course I do not expect you to due to probable time constraints on your part.
We should indeed be all Pro-justice and Pro-peace, that’s why I am backing Israel, based on the reality of the situation as it is and always has been.
With respect I think you are being a little pedantic in relation to your definitions of ‘support’. Israel’s very existence is being questioned by vast swathes of the world’s population unlike any other on the planet. I believe it is obvious to an intelligent person like yourself what I mean by ‘support’ of Israel. I back Israel against tyrannical and fascist groups and governments which aim to attack and undermine its security and also to distort the truth. May I remind you, that your admiration of Hamas (Your Post from 15th June - http://heathlander.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/victory-for-hamas-in-gaza/) is exactly why the disputed territories remain in turmoil and also proves my point that Left Wing circles in the West have swallowed whole the Middle East propaganda.
As for my ‘Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism’ belief, I fully stand behind that. Are you perhaps referring to the fringe group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews who meet with the likes of Ahmadenijad? Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the majority of Jews in the world support the State of Israel and only disagree on its various policies etc, which anyone is entitled to do, without being against the Jewish State‘s existence. Not all Jews want to live in Israel, that does not mean they want to see Israel disbanded.
Al Iskandar: I have targeted Israel’s antagonists because I believe they are unjustified in their attacks, whether physical or verbal. I don’t deny there have been negative incidences in Israel’s history and a number of atrocities carried out by individuals but these things are not part of Israeli intentions or decrees and are not solely the domain of Israel regardless. My own country, Great Britain, has carried out crimes against humanity in its history, as has the US, Germany, France, China, Japan and virtually every nation on the planet.
I can assure you, Al Iskandar, I have seen things from the anti-Israeli perspective. I have listened to, watched and read anti-Israeli rhetoric for years. I was even one of those people who I describe in my essay as having ‘…idle acceptance of misinformation and lack of knowledge about the region and its history.’ More people than not seemed to be claiming Israel was the bag guy and so I naively believed them. If only more people would do true research, as I eventually did and as you yourself suggest, then I’m afraid the Palestinian terrorist groups and their friends would loose quite a lot of support.
Michael and Beaman, I have visited people who have had their land stolen by the building of the illegal wall. I have met others who are dragged through endless court cases to prove that their land is theirs.
Israel has a right to security. If you think a wall would help that, build it on your own land. As it happens, Palestinians have suffered far more than Israelis have. Casualties, travel restrictions, factory demolitions, imprisonment without trial, some other bugger building on your land. These things have all happened to the Palestinian to a far greater extent than to the Israeli.
Michael, I object to your blanket characterisation of Palestinians as terrorists. They are people. They deserve to have life.
The reality is that within two generations, these people have had their land and their livelihoods taken from them. Many have ended up in refugee camps. This is outwith of Israel's claim to the land: this is simply the experience of many many Palestinians.
They are then forced to give up the only things they have left - and are a bit surprised when they get slightly angry about it. Like... hello?
If there are human rights, they must apply to everyone or to nobody.
Beaman your clarity of vision and writing impresses me more each time.
As for Building the Wall on the Israeli side, where exactly might that be? Somewhere 20km's into the ocean to paraphrase our friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
I've noticed this swing from objecting to the wall for aesthetic/cultural reasons to now that it is undeniably effective against terror, to claiming it was built on the 'wrong side', nothing like a good ruse to throw people of the scent.
The land grab is a projection by Arabs, the truth be known Arabs resent having any non Muslim nation in the Middle East.
Will Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria be handing back territories to the 'Palestinians as well? Or is the only 'Palestinian' territory coincidentally in Israel?
A large number of 'Palestinians' believe Israel has no territorial rights at all, where exactly do you want the wall now?
Mr Bagel
Joe:
Before you say that I make a "blanket characterisation of Palestinians as terrorists," you need to read what I wrote:
Why should the palestinians receive a reward for decades of terrorism?
While it is true that only a minority of palestinians are members of the various terrorist organizations, the "palestinians on the street" have been supporting terrorism for many years, as shown by their voting Hamas, a blatant terrorist organization dedicated to killing all the Jews, into power.
Don't forget that palestinian civilians were videotaped having spontaneous celebrations on September 11, or that they were dancing on rooftops last summer, when Hezbollah fired rockets into ordinary towns.
A recently concluded Pew Global Attitudes poll (http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/257.pdf) shows that while support for suicide bombings against civilians has decreased in the Islamic world as a whole, it is rising among the palestinians. 70% of palestinians polled believe that such attacks are "always or sometimes justified."
So, while you are correct that they are people, and deserve a life, they have also been actively supporting the worst that people can do. My question remains: Why should they be rewarded for that?
beaman: 'The barrier has been built in the best strategic places to stop terrorist infiltration.'
No, that's apologist nonsense. Every state has the right to build a wall on its own land for security purposes. It has no right to build a wall running through someone else's land, often bisecting Palestinian villages and separating farmers from crops, people from hospitals and schools and relatives from each other. Your willingness to bend over backwards to grant Israel the right to do whatever the hell it wants to just by mumbling "security" as it does so illustrates perfectly that you are not one to accuse others of "bias".
"We should indeed be all Pro-justice and Pro-peace, that’s why I am backing Israel, based on the reality of the situation as it is and always has been."
"Backing Israel" - meaning what? This is my point exactly - this is not like picking sides in a football match. The minute you do that, you begin to lose any sense of objectivity or even the ability to see the facts as they really are. Do you mean you back Israel's policy of virtually institutionalised torture? Do you mean you back Israel's policy of house demolitions? Do you mean you back Israel's policies of collective punishment and terror? No, I presume you don't mean any of that. Which is why declaring support for "Israel" is unhelpful, at best.
'Israel’s very existence is being questioned by vast swathes of the world’s population unlike any other on the planet.'
Well, that's because Israel as a Jewish state was founded on a massive crime, and its continued existence as a Jewish state necessitates that the victims of that crime are denied justice and restitution.
'May I remind you, that your admiration of Hamas'
See, this is what I mean by poor form. You are very polite, which is nice, and you are open to discussion, which is also a good thing. But then you throw around accusations like 'anti-semite!' or 'supporter of Hamas!' that just have no basis in fact, and it ruins it all.
What makes you think that I would "admire" a religious fundamentalist group which has been responsible for suicide bombings, killings and torture? Of course I don't "admire" Hamas.
What I argued in the post you referred to was that Hamas was the legitimate, elected representative of the Palestinian people, and that they had had power stolen from them from the minute they entered office. Their supposed "coup" in Gaza was actually a counter-coup. These are all factual statements, and I can (and did) back them up in a fair amount of detail. I also advocate engagement with Hamas, as does virtually everyone with their eyes open (even Colin Powell came out in support of it recently). But I certainly do not "admire" them.
'is exactly why the disputed territories remain in turmoil and also proves my point that Left Wing circles in the West have swallowed whole the Middle East propaganda.'
That's quite funny - you accuse others of swallowing "propaganda" even as you yourself refer to the Occupied Territories as "disputed".
'Are you perhaps referring to the fringe group of Ultra-Orthodox Jews who meet with the likes of Ahmadenijad?'
No - I'm talking about liberal, secular Jews who oppose Zionism because they oppose racist colonialism. I'm talking about people like Mark Elf, Mordechai Vanunu, Avram Burg (well, he's 'non-Zionist' at least), Norman Finkelstein, etc. There even a blog on my blogroll called "Jon the Anti-Zionist Jew", and AFAIK he's an atheist.
But yes, I recognise the Zionism enjoys far more popular support amongst Jews, Israel and, I think it's safe to say, the Western world at large. No one's disputing that, although I'm not sure what you think it proves.
The bottom line is that your post as a whole, apart from the factual errors and misrepresentations that I mentioned earlier, totally distorts the situation - Israel is the aggressor, the occupier, the oppressor. The Palestinians are the occupied and the oppressed. Without that obvious and fundamental context, then yeah, I'm not surprised that you think the way you do about the conflict. Ignoring the occupation in the way you have done above is equivalent to writing about the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and expressing horror at the "fascist", "terrorist" attacks by the mujahideen against the Soviets, without once mentioning the fact that it was the USSR occupying the country, and that the Afghans were simply resisting that occupation. It's like writing about Hitler's occupation of France and expressing disgust at the terrorist "atrocities" of the French resistance, without ever including in your analysis the fundamental fact that it was Germany that was occupying France, not the other way around.
michael: congratulations, you have just put forward exactly the same argument as Hamas and even al-Qaeda do to justify their targeting of civilians. "Well, it's not only the Israeli government and army that are occupying us - the people bear responsibility to because they voted for that government in the first place. Therefore, the entire population becomes a legitimate military target."
It's repulsive.
Jamie: You say: ‘Israel as a Jewish State was founded on a massive crime’.
I can see we are definitely at different ends of the political debate here. A massive crime? I absolutely and totally disagree. If you haven’t already I urge you to read the book by Howard. M. Sachar that I mention in my essay. Nevertheless, as has been noted by a reader elsewhere, I did neglect to go deeper into the history of Zionism and the period around the birth of Israel in this essay. I will rectify that with a further essay in the near future based on my knowledge, understanding and also my views as to why I do not believe in this widely held notion of ‘a massive crime’. It would also highlight further myths about Zionism.
You say: ‘…this is not like picking sides in a football match.’
I’m not normally one to see things in black and white but when it comes to Israel, well yes, I do. I’m no fan of George. W. Bush but his words ‘you’re either with us or against us’ precisely sum up what I believe to be the case on this subject. That doesn’t mean agreeing with all the policies of Israel, or refusing to make criticisms of Israel, or ignoring the suffering of the ordinary Arab BUT it does mean supporting Israel without hesitation in the face of religious extremism and terrorism. So yes, I support Israel like I would a football team, in your particular reasoning.
Jamie, your sympathy for Hamas is apparent. In that link to your website I posted in a previous comment, you state such things as:
~‘The reality is that Hamas’ recent actions in Gaza have been necessary to prevent a coup.’
~‘The Hamas victory in Gaza represents a victory for Palestinian democracy over the proxy forces of the occupation…’
~‘The current Palestinian internal violence is the intended result of U.S. and Israeli policy.’
~‘The Hamas government should be recognised….criminal sanctions regime must end….(the roadblocks, the border closures, the annexation wall, etc.) must be reversed.’
Jamie, what you state above would be suicide for Israel. Hamas is a terrorist group not a democratic-loving conservative party. Fatah is bad enough but Hamas? My goodness!
Regarding your comparisons with the Soviets and Hitler. I think you are highly mistake to compare the Israel/Palestine situation with these particular examples. Israel is a recognised state in its homeland trying to achieve peace with its neighbours whilst all the time being attacked. It is rather incredulous on your part to equate IDF defensive operations with the offensive operations of the Red Army and Nazi Wehrmacht.
'A massive crime? I absolutely and totally disagree. '
You disagree that over 700,000 Palestinians were ethnically cleansed in 1947-48, or you disagree that ethnic cleansing is a massive crime? If the former, you place yourself outside the bounds of what is now a virtual consensus within the academic community. If the latter, you place yourself outside the bounds of the moral universe most people inhabit.
'I’m not normally one to see things in black and white but when it comes to Israel, well yes, I do.'
I can see that. You should, however, be aware of the effects this will inevitably have on your ability to view the reality in anything like a fair or impartial way.
'Jamie, your sympathy for Hamas is apparent.'
My "sympathy" for Hamas is non-existent. Everything you quote there is true. I support the right of Palestinians to elect their own government - the fact that in this case it happened to be Hamas is purely incidental. What matters is that the democratic choice made by Palestinians in January 2006 has been subverted and crushed deliberately, with cold calculation, at a cost of hundreds of lives. Again, these are factual statements, which I can support with evidence and, indeed, have done so at length.
'Jamie, what you state above would be suicide for Israel. Hamas is a terrorist group not a democratic-loving conservative party. Fatah is bad enough but Hamas? My goodness!'
Hamas is, or was, the democratically elected government of the Occupied Territories. Yes, it carries out acts of terrorism, just as Israel carries out acts of terrorism (on a scale Hamas could only dream about). Does that mean the entire world should come together and place sanctions on the democratically elected government of Israel, as they did with Hamas? Should the world impose sanctions on Israel so harsh that malnutrition amongst Israelis would rise to a third of the population? Should the world make life so unbearable for Israelis that the majority of the population are dependent on food aid for mere survival, and that close to 10% of Israelis children suffer malnutrition-induced brain damage? Should we launch a horrific assault on Israel, killing hundreds of people, the majority of them civilians, and destroying vital infrastructure, leaving the country without power for close to a year? Would that be an acceptable way to deal with the fact that the legitimate government of Israel engages in terrorism and war crimes?
Of course not. Yet that is exactly how the Palestinians have been treated. Hamas was elected into office in the middle of a voluntary, self-imposed unilateral ceasefire with Israel, offering a 10-year ceasefire and negotiations with Israel. The response from Israel and the rest of the world was immediate - they imposed what UN special coordinator John Dugard called "possibly the most rigorous form of international sanctions...in modern times", on an occupied people who were already, according to the World Bank, suffering the most severe economic depression in modern history. The sanctions were imposed with the quite openly stated intent of making the Palestinian population as a whole suffer, gradually making their lives more and more miserable until eventually they get rid of Hamas. As Dov Weisglass, an advisor to Olmert, put it: we must put the Palestinians on a diet, so that they get a lot thinner but not enough to kill them. That's collective punishment, and it's a war crime. (Though no doubt you'll try to justify it on "security" grounds).
When the collective punishment didn't work, Israel turned to indiscriminate and relentless military assault, killing close to 700 people, most of them civilians. In 2006, Israeli forces killed 141 Palestinian children, almost three times as many as the number killed in 2005.
And, according to you, the fact that I opposed this despicable and murderous campaign to subvert Palestinian democracy somehow implies I "admire" Hamas? It's not even worth a response.
(In fact, the analogy I made above is unfair, because the terrorism of the resistance is not to be equated with the terrorism of the aggressor, but the general point remains).
'Israel is a recognised state in its homeland trying to achieve peace with its neighbours whilst all the time being attacked.'
No - Israel is a recognised state fighting to maintain a brutal, illegal military occupation and to crush any resistance to that occupation. See? You just did it again, totally ignoring the fact that Israel is an occupying power. The Palestinians are living under a military occupation, as they have been for 40 years. For you to focus on the crimes of the resistance whilst totally ignoring the far greater crimes of the occupier is just perverse.
'It is rather incredulous on your part to equate IDF defensive operations with the offensive operations of the Red Army and Nazi Wehrmacht.'
Defensive operations? It's an aggressive military occupation, for Christ sakes! Hamas is not occupying Tel Aviv. Fatah is not occupying Haifa. Israel is occupying Palestinian land. Israel is forcing the Palestinians to live under military rule. Israel is continuing to steal Palestinian land daily. Israel has reduced the Palestinians to a state where a majority of them rely on international food aid just to survive. The problem is the occupation, not the resistance. In any other conflict in the world in throughout history, this would be so obvious as to go without saying. That's why the comparisons with the Nazi occupation of France and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (or the Indonesian occupation of West Papua and Indonesia, or the American occupation of Iraq, etc. etc.) are so instructive. It is only because you have swallowed so much propaganda that when it comes to the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians, you are unable to make the basic moral and factual judgement that you'd (correctly) make in all comparable situations.
I'm going to leave this here, because I've got to move on and write about other things. Thank you for the discussion.
Jamie: I disagree with your terminology for what happened in 1947-48. It was not ‘ethnic cleansing’! Any normal person would find ethnic cleansing abhorrent, as do I but that just did not happen. Abuses occurred, no doubt about that as they have done in all conflicts but the movements of peoples during that time had more to do with the Arab policies and threats.
I will cover all this in my future essay on Israel’s history, with checkable facts naturally.
Jamie, you said: ‘Yes, it [Hamas] carries out acts of terrorism, just as Israel carries out acts of terrorism…’
The difference being that Hamas has a charter calling for the elimination of the Jewish State, in fact that’s basically what the whole charter is made up of. On the other hand there are no requirements in Israeli law (Israel does not have a formal written constitution rather like the UK) or decrees urging Israelis to wipe out another country. As you know, Israel has offered peace numerous times.
Please, read the Hamas Charter. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant
Look especially at Article 22, where it fuels the anti-Jewish myths about secret societies and worldwide Zionist plots. This is an Islamic terrorist group out to undermine world Jewry not some brave ‘French Resistance’ type band of freedom fighters.
You have mentioned a lot which I can rebut and answer in detail but I have come to the conclusion that its best to put across these issues in essay form. That I shall do in the not too distant future.
Jamie, we disagree but I appreciate your time and views. Thank you.
Beaman, my thanks for being a voice in the U.K. that is not often heard, which is one in support of Israel. Alas, the perception on this side of "The Pond" is that most British think the way Jamie does.
Please keep up the good work, and thank you again for being a calm, reasoned voice in support of Israel.
BHG
Why are some readers criticizing the Wall or Separation or Security barrier? Look, between the USA and Mexico, there is a HUGE barrier. Betweem the Ulster and Ireland, there is a Security barrier. Between Ceuta (Spanish Marocco) and Morocco, there is a Barrier. No one is complaining... Why complain in the case of Israel, when we all know that had it not been for the suicide bombers, no barrier would have been erected...
BHG: I would say most British people are apathetic to the Middle East situation, which although I dislike it, is also rather natural (the human condition being that what is not happening on your own doorstep is just something on telly). The BBC and media bias doesn't exactly help the situation, that is true. We British are a fair minded bunch and if provided with the actual truths and facts would back the justified. I truly believe that.
There are of course those who do actively seek to intentionally and premeditatedly ruin the image of Israel, regardless of realities. They tend to have loud voices and are very pro-active.
Thank you for your kind words. :)
Kindly explain how the clearing of Arabs from their homes was not ethnic cleansing.
Joe, nobody had to move. The Arabs chose war, largely because of the League of Arabs who didn't give a rats ass about the Palestinian people.
First off, it was not Arab land. Only 20% of the land was actually owned, and only 3.3% by Arabs who actually lived there.
Sure there were Israelis who wanted a Jew only state, but they were unrealistic and ridiculous. Had the Arabs not started the war in 1948, nobody would have had to leave.
The majority of the Arabs who left didn't want to live in a Jewish majority state and were urged to leave by the Arab leaders. Yes, some were physically coerced off their homes, but it wasn't as large a number as you think, and it happened at a time of war.
After the war, up to 200,000 Arabs were invited back, but the Arab leaders told them not go back (I've seen the actual newspaper articles).
Israel was formed as legally as almost any sovereign land in history.
If the Arabs dropped their arms, there would be peace. That is the bottom line.
My Youtube justification of Israel.
Part One.
Part Two.
Joe: What Beaj said I agree with.
I recommend anyone to watch Beaj's two videos too. Interesting and enlightening.
Hi Beaman! My husband and I just read your post and we totally agree with it. I'm typing this as my husband is sharing some more of his thoughts here. He also feels that a danger to Israel in the future comes from the growth of the Jewish religious parties who are anti-democratic. The population growth of the religious Jews in Israel far exceeds that of secular Jews. Within 20 years, it is the religious Jews who will be a majority in Israel. Their views on the Temple Mount, alone, are enough to cause great alarm in my husband. A nuclear armed Israel with a right-wing religious government is not a prospect that my husband views with great joy. The current Arab peace initiative is, he believes, a recognition that the time to have a real peace treaty with Israel is now and not in the future, because the future chances for peace will dwindle greatly as the years go by. Although he acknowledges that the terms of the current peace initiative by the Arabs should not be accepted, they should be discussed and with modifications there is a possibility that they could be accepted. A limited number of carefully selected Palestinians could be allowed to return to Israel. A demilitarized Palestinian state could be established. And a financial settlement could be reached that would recognize the existence of the settlements in the Palestinian territories.
Clare: I share your worries somewhat. I was reading about this very subject in Haaretz the other day. I just hope Israel, whether mainly secular or orthodox will keep hold of its great democratic values and sense.
Regarding the present peace initiative. Isn't it more the case of the Sunni Arab States coming together with an unlikely ally against the ever more powerful and influential Iranian-Shia block?
Clare, you raise so many interesting points. Thank you to both of you. :)
Thank you for commenting on my blog. May I ask, how did you find it?
I was almost sitting here, reading your post, with tears streaming down my face. This is how one reacts when somebody, finally, sees the truth. Can you imagine how a people-maligned, persecuted and pogrommed on and off (mainly 'on')for thousands of years-can feel? They are grateful for someone offering the right time of day. That is almost how I felt while reading your post.
It is amazing to me, how the average person swallows the news and commentary he/she hears through the media about the so-called 'Conflict in the Middle East', without understanding a thing about the history of the area or the historical connection of the Jews to Israel. I say "so-called," because if it weren't for the Arabs, there would be not conflict in the Middle-East."
The Arabs were the ones who did not want any non-Arabs in the area, who attacked Israel on the eve of her independance-not the other way around-and who do everything in their power to thwart Israel's peace efforts, which I don't even think she should be making anymore, as the Arabs have shown that they are NOT a partner for peace; they want what they've always wanted: to push Israel/Jews into the sea. Do any of your readers know about the Arab massacre of the Jews in Hevron (Hebron) in 1939? Was that because of "Israel occupying the territories?" Or, "Israel's 'oppression' of the Arab 'refugees?'" None of which, of course, had even happened yet. Because there was NO State of Israel until 1948.
This comment is long enough, but to better understand the history of the region I want to recommend some books for your commentors (and you might also want to read them yourself if you haven't already-although your grasp of the area's history is strong), notably jamie and joe:
Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, by Samuel Katz, and From Time Immemorial, by Joan Peters
Please, stop by again: A pleasure to meet an intelligent, educated blogger. More power to you!
Lady-Light: I can't remember exactly how I found your blog, I think from another blog's link roll.
Thank you for your kind words about my essay. To learn of your reaction alone and your views about it, certainly made it all worthwhile.
I can sympathize with your views about Israel's neighbours. Especially when there was a terrorist attack, it was difficult not to get angry.
Thank you too for the book recommendations, I will certainly look them up.
:)
I strongly condemn violence for whatsover reason.
Hi Beaman, great article. I bookmarked it on delicious and stumbled it.
Have a great day!
Kristee :)
Great stuff, Beaman! After reading lots of vitriol from assorted "boycotteers" it is like a breath of fresh air.
I Wanted to add another point related to the poem by Rahel (even more beautiful in the original Hebrew), which I wrote about in one of my previous posts, and that is: you can read a People by its songs and its culture. Most Israeli songs are about peace, or hoping that 'this will be the last war,' or 'tomorrow things will be better,' or 'defending the homeland,' etc. There are NO songs that I can think of which are warmongering in any way. The Jewish People are not aggressive nor are they in any way barbaric; just the opposite: they are some of the most highly civilized People in the world. They have one of the most highly skilled and successful armies in the world (thank G-d), because they were forced to create one, in order to survive.
Gautami: I wish I could too but defensive violence is often justified.
Kristee: Thank you. :)
Snoopy: Thank you!
Lady-Light: Yes, I thoroughly agree about being able to judge a culture and people by its songs and literature. Whilst there are of course violent minority Jewish groups, the Jewish people have much, much, much to be proud of. I admire them greatly.
great post, great blog, i liked it a lot
This is one of the most boring, pretentious pieces on Israel I've read in a long, long time. As so many you don't escape the trap of the usual ridiculous dichotomies and stereotypes that follow from them.
Read a book, have you? Well done...
See also the title of one of the blogposts that links to your piece of drivel...
Sir Jorge: Thank you.
Gert: I would be interested if you could explain further the reasons why you find the essay so boring and pretentious. Is it because you disagree with my viewpoints or merely that you class the essay as structurally substandard?
This is a great post.
I put off reading it until I had the time to devote to read the whole thing. Really good stuff.
I have always been hesitant to take "sides" in the Israel vs. Palestine debate because it's clear that neither side has its hands clean. It's such a polarizing issue that even attempting to strike a middle ground or tenuously supporting either side causes people to bite your head off-- as I'm sure you know very well.
That said, I agree with just about everything you've said-- that Israel is largely misunderstood and reviled, often only because of the herd mentality nonsense of veiled anti-Semitism that too many people fall prey to. I am consistently appalled at how many of my colleagues (and these are newspaper people, both aspiring and working journalists, for whom objectivity is an ideal) hate Israel to an absurd degree.
One day, when my son is grown and I have the time to do it, I want very much to go to Israel.
Incidentally, you're a fantastic writer.
Beaman... I want to give you as honest a response as I can. First, I find the whole Middle East situation flabbergasting. To me it seems a war between religions and we all know there is no answer to that. The separation of church and state was an advancement the western world made that has proved to benefit the structure and soundness of it's society. Although new problems have a risen (the breakdown of a healthy spirituality in it's citizens and family values) due to this move, it has proven to be a workable solution... which brings me back the Middle East, particularly, Israel and Palestine - there is no workable solution to the political problems facing these groups because their decisions are based on religious beliefs and religion is based on faith, not facts.
Your essay is fantastically composed and I commend your great effort. However, I don't see a solution in joining sides if the decisions being made by either of those sides is based on religious beliefs. To me it seems it will propagate only perpetual disaster.
To rebut this piece effectively would take hours to do, time I prefer to spend on more interesting things.
Suffice it to say that your piece is full of simplifications, exaggerations, stereotypes, half-baked emotive nonsense and more. In essence, you claim many are biased against Israel and you're not wrong. You fall however in that same category of flagwavers, unable to see that in this conflict both bear enormous responsability. You have simply, for equally spurious reasons as those who are considered "anti-Israel", chosen a side. Your choice is similar to those who choose a football team to support: you've even got a team tune...
Ruthie: I can understand your hesitancy to take sides. Until relatively recently I did the same but I can’t any longer. That doesn’t mean of course that I don’t care about the Palestinian’s suffering but just that I believe one side is to blame much, much more than the other. Indeed, it’s a biting off head offence. :-p Perhaps your son can go on a Kibbutz.
Thank you for taking time to read and comment. You’re last sentence is very sweet.
Camille: You make some good points, as always. I disagree a little however. It maybe better for an Israeli to explain this rather than myself but I think to the Arabs, yes, it is a religious war but to Israelis, I think it’s more a defence of a country, a largely secular nation (population wise). Indeed, that’s why I see more sense coming from Israel because they do not invoke religious scripts in order to teach their people hatred of the other or to excuse killings, like the Islamic nations. Israel is truly Western.
Thank you Camille for your kind words and above all for your comment. I appreciate it from you very much.
Gert: Yes, I have chosen a side and I make no apologies for that. I disagree also that both sides bear enormous responsibilities. I’m most likely being Politically Incorrect when I say that the Palestinians/Arabs bear by far the greater burden of blame. What is taught to children in Palestinian schools and on television, being one of the major examples of their erroneous behaviour.
I would be thrilled if you could point our which parts of the essay are exaggerations and stereotypes.
Beaman you are right. Israel is not putting the emphasis on it's religion that the Palestinians are doing. But there is so much religion associated with Israel that many who are watching bring into the discussion... ie anti semantic views etcetera, that it is hard to wade through all the dust churned up by that. I think many supporters of both sides are blinded by the religious views. That's what I was thinking when I brought it up. And I think it would be hard for both the Israelis and for the rest of the world to forget that the Israelis are of the Jewish faith. Wouldn't it be interesting if all involved could get to a place where the religious views weren't dominating the scenario? Hmmm... don't know if I see that happening in my lifetime. Sorry to be pessimistic. I would very much like to see peace for all involved.
Since as you're asking so nicely, here are just a few snippets:
"Why does one have to be Jewish or an Evangelical Christian to back Israel? Usually the second and third questions involve a combination of inquiries as to whether I am a Neo Conservative and/or Islamaphobic [sic]. I admit, I am exaggerating a little."
A little? Let me assure you that I'm on the left and support Israel too, yet no one has ever asked me if I am a Neocon or an Islamophobe. I do however support also the Palestinian cause for a two-state solution: for that alone I've repeatedly been accused of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism (and that is no exaggeration...)
"The Social Anthropologist Kate Fox provided a detailed and interesting commentary on a certain English trait in her book, ‘Watching the English’. She wrote ‘Those who are truly, culturally ‘English’ - whatever their race or country of origin - can be distinguished by their automatic, instinctive inclination to cheer for the underdog’ (p247)."
Emotive stereotyping with a very broad brush. Look at Britain's history. Karen who?
"There are between 1.3 and 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, that’s about one fifth of the total population. I do not feel it is disingenuous to proclaim that the majority of the Muslim World are at best, mildly antagonistic and at worst, openly belligerent towards the Jewish State."
Nobody will deny antagonistic feelings in the Arab and Muslim world towards Israel but it's foolish to not accept that there are root causes for this which lie firmly in the last 100 years of ME history and in particular from 1967 on.
"Russia as a larger world player has been fastidious in its various anti-Israeli initiatives, both inside and outside of the UN, over the past decades."
Russia's attitude to Israel is largely a Cold War relic: it was indeed during the six day war that things nearly came to a head between the US and the USSR over the latter's support for Egypt and Syria. US support, now so carefully spun as a story of American largesse to the ME's most beleaguered country, starts there (1967) was nothing more than "realpolitik as usual".
"In the Americas there are anti-Israeli initiatives and rhetoric, especially surprisingly, from the United States. Well known commentators, television personalities and anti-Israelis such as Michael Moore, Rosie O’Donnell, Noam Chomsky and Susan Sarandon, whilst in no way politically influential, do hold vast swathes of ordinary Americans under their pseudo intellectual charms."
Support for Israel among the US general public is overwhelming: there are no "vast swathes of ordinary Americans" that think otherwise. It's also very customary for the US right wing to accuse anybody who might not support Israel unconditionally of anti-Semitism, Communism, anti-Zionism or of being a "self-loathing Jew". Your statement is also oxymoronic: read it again...
"In Britain, the likes of the Respect politician George Galloway, London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Sayeeda Warsi, the Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, hold their own firebrand views of Israeli defensive policies which, like in America, greatly influence certain sections of British society."
Again, I smell the dislike of any dissent over the Israel/Palestine in your text. Perhaps we should all fly the Star of David over our roofs, as a token of our undying loyalty to Israel?
"In another case, Fayad Abu Shamala, another BBC Gaza correspondent, told a Hamas rally that ‘journalists and media organisations [are] waging the campaign shoulder-to-shoulder together with the Palestinian people.’ What was the BBC’s response? This was their response, ‘Fayad’s remarks were made in a private capacity. His reports have always matched the best standards of balance required by the BBC’."
For this assertion you provide neither a reference (funny how you feel you needed to do precisely that over Karen Fox's "underdog" tripe) nor any context. Bad, bad BBC...
"For the genuine anti-Semites like Galloway, Livingstone, the Muslim Council of Britain and many of the British Union leaders, no amount of reasoning, facts and learning will recede their hatred [sic]."
That should have read "[...] will make their hatred recede." but never mind.
Well, it took some two thousand words or so but predictably accusations of anti-Semitism have finally reared their ugly head.
"Why is this propaganda especially absorbed by the Left that once fought shoulder to shoulder with the Jews against the Fascists of Oswald Mosley in 1936, but who now side with Hamas and Hezbollah?"
This is lifted almost verbatim from Richard Littlejohn's shockdoc and therefore a mild form of plagiarism...
Let me give you a much needed miniature history lesson. When the State of Israel came into existence in 1947, it was overwhelmingly supported by the European Left, for a variety of reasons. For one, the Left saw there another opportunity for the creation of a Socialist utopia. Most Zionist cadres were leftists (Ben Gurion was a Marxist, although he later recanted). The US had no great interest in a Leftist/Leftish little country in the ME, busy as they also were rebuilding Germany into a bulwark against Soviet Communism.
After 1967 things start to change as by the Left the perception of Israel as a neo-colonial enterprise starts (rightly or wrongly) to grow. As Israel, against all odds (not to mention UN resolutions and International Law) refused to return the Occupied Territories and instead (at first rather reluctantly) allows Jewish settlers to settle there, Left support starts to wane slowly but surely.
Very few on the left actually side with Hamas or Hezbollah in the narrow sense of the word. Personally I do believe that boycotting a legally elected party like Hamas has proven to be completely counter-productive and has contributed to their radicalisation.
"[...] they can own and buy land, are protected against discrimination in the workplace and have a better standard of living, education and healthcare than anywhere else in the Arab World."
Over-simplification. The Arab/Muslim world is large and diverse. Diaspora Palestinians live and work all over the world (including many in the US and the UK). To unequivocally state that they have it better in Israel than in anywhere else in the Arab world shows the depth of your hagiographic illusions.
Israel is by no means unique in its discrimination of ethnic minorities, whether they be Arab (Palestinian) or Mizrahi or Russian Jews. But I have first hand information from an Israeli pen-pal and recent Aliya that such discrimination exists.
"Firstly, only 5% of the entire length of the barrier is actually a wall, the rest is wire fence and add to the previous fact, the concrete walls are temporary, easily removable and with no permanent foundations."
Aaaahh, the difference between a wall and a fence... Well, we'll see if the peace process finally yields something whether the "fences" will come down. Again, I have first-hand information (this time from a recent British Jewish Aliya, currently serving in the IDF), that the fences definitely encroach on Palestinian territory.
"Secondly, if it was a barrier based on race then there would be no Arabs living in Israel nor would Arabs be allowed access, although under tight security control which is understandable, into Israel to work, visit relatives and cross from the West Bank to Gaza and vice-versa like they do."
If it was up to a sizeable minority of Israeli (and some Diaspora) Jews, Israel would indeed be Arab-free (and include the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, part of Lebanon [up to the Litani] and a good dollop of Sinai). Don't believe me? Ask me for the blogs and websites that advocate precisely these things but be careful what you wish for... (it's rather a long list).
"A third major assumption is that Israelis are doing to the Palestinian Arabs what Hitler did to the Jews in the Holocaust."
Almost no one actually believes that apart from a few propagandists and their acolytes. They are about as numerous as those few nincompoops who believe in the "Joooooooish World Conspiracy" (TM).
"There are dozens, if not hundreds of myths and lies spread about Israel worldwide, largely as the result of Arab media propaganda and the notorious Russian conspiracy theory, ‘The protocols of the Elders of Zion’, which incidentally is widely available in Islamic bookshops across Britain, along with the Arabic translation of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’."
There are dozens of myth and lies spread about the Middle East, by just about anyone that has a stake in the conflict. Western propaganda has the edge over Arab propaganda in the sense that it's slicker and much, much more widespread.
In every war there's shooting part and a shouting part...
"From the days of Mohammed in the 7th Century AD to those of the modern age, Islam has been hostile to the Jews."
Hostility between the adherents of all three monotheisms has been rife right from the beginning. Have you forgotten about the centuries of Christian persecution of Jews in Europe? The Vatican's collusion with the Nazis? The frequent periods during which Jews had nothing to fear from Islam (see also Jews in the European Caliphate)? The numerous Christian crusades against Islam?
"Of course I am not saying all Muslims hate Jews, that would be a ridiculous thing to say."
But you've more or less managed to say it anyway...
"One can see nevertheless, that hatred of Israel is not purely to do with the supposed invasion and occupation of Arab-Muslim land but goes much deeper and further back into history."
Absolute nonsense: current trouble and strife between Arab-Muslims and Israel is firmly rooted in recent history (roughly 1900 to present date). That some on both sides feel the need to invoke old religious hatreds doesn't change that. Only quacks and pseudo-historians believe the conflict can and should be explained from a Biblical perspective.
"Astonishingly, Europeans and Americans have swallowed the Middle East lies about Jews and Israel, whether intentionally or not and thus the mass misinformation phenomenon has spread across Left-Wing circles on all continents. Former American president Jimmy Carter is a prime example with his recent book, ‘Palestine: Peace not Apartheid’."
Carter's choice of title is unfortunate. But Carter is one of the few Americans that have tirelessly campaigned for peace and dialogue between Israel, the Palestinians and their Arab/Muslim neighbours. Some credit is due, in my opinion...
"The Arabs have waged or threatened war numerous times over the past decades from 1948 through to 1967 and on to 1973 and beyond."
Yep, I suppose the Six Day War was started also by the Arabs and 1973 wasn't an attempt at payback....
"Europeans who share the values and ideals of Jews worldwide have gone from enthusiastic support to an attitude of aggressive suspicion and non-violent derogation, especially on the Left."
Repetition of what you wrote before, again without any insight into why this may be so...
"Newspaper journalists, peace campaigners and even politicians proclaim with gusto that, ‘Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism’, before parading conceited smiles and swaggering strides."
Pure perception. "[...] parading conceited smiles and swaggering strides". Dear me. This is schoolyard prose.
"The almost certain threat of Persian nuclear weapons is growing, week by week, as peace protestors in London, Washington DC and Paris call on their governments to refrain from bombing Iranian nuclear sites and instead cut ties with ’the Zionist entity’. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas, a wing of the worldwide ‘Muslim Brotherhood’ is actively attacking Israeli towns such as Sderot causing few casualties but nonetheless dreadful mental and emotional trauma."
The fact that Israel possesses 200 - 250 nuclear warheads, long range ballistic delivery capability and second-strike capability means of course nothing. About this, Israel informs us, we should simply stick our heads in the sand... Ok, let's bomb Iran! Yeehaw!!!
"Please don’t mistake my purpose here, I don’t hold up Israel as the ideal nation state that all others should emulate, I don’t think it is, like I don’t think the United States or even the United Kingdom are."
Not even the United Kingdom is an "ideal nation", eh? Sure, it's managed to strike up quite a rap-sheet over the last few hundred years or so...
"The Palestinians are suffering, there is no doubt about that. However the blame for their horror is not to be put solely or even mostly, at the feet of the Jewish State. Countless times Israel has offered them peace and their statehood but each time their leaders have refused. With all my heart, I truly believe Israel is seeking genuine peace and friendship with its Arab neighbours which would be overwhelmingly beneficial to both sets of people."
Glad you use the verb "to believe", because that's exactly what this piece really is: a belief-system, neither hindered nor helped by any real knowledge or evidence.
The peace-process has itself been disrupted, scuttled even, numerous times from bothsides, for varying reasons. A detailed reading of contemporary Israeli/Palestinian history shows that with such clarity only the blind would not be able to appreciate. But you're a bit of a
slow reader, aren't you?
In conclusion, you contributed another x,000 of words to the body of nonsense that is being peddled by pundits, bloggers, pseudo-historians, anti-Semites, Israel-firsters, Islamophobes, propagandists, carpet-baggers and snake-oil merchants, without providing a shred of evidence or any enlightenment. The only enlightenment I've gotten from this piece regards the utter paucity of your understanding of the conflict.
Gert:
‘Let me assure you that I'm on the left and support Israel too, yet no one has ever asked me if I am a Neocon or an Islamophobe.’
I was writing about my personal experiences and yes, most on the left that I discuss Politics with do ask those very questions. You’ve had different experiences, fine.
‘I smell the dislike of any dissent over the Israel/Palestine in your text. Perhaps we should all fly the Star of David over our roofs, as a token of our undying loyalty to Israel?’
I don’t mind disagreement whatsoever but not when it’s fuelled by bigotry and hatred.
‘For this assertion you provide neither a reference’
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gross200406181018.asp
‘Well, it took some two thousand words or so but predictably accusations of anti-Semitism have finally reared their ugly head.’
Anti-Semitism doesn’t exist then? I make a point based on what I believe to be the case.
‘This is lifted almost verbatim from Richard Littlejohn's shockdoc and therefore a mild form of plagiarism…’
One sentence? Yes, the connection between the Fascists of the 30s was remembered from watching that particular programme but what is wrong with that? It certainly wasn’t copied word for word.
I appreciate my ‘much needed history lesson’ from you but I have studied this myself for quite a while. Nevertheless, thank you.
‘To unequivocally state that they have it better in Israel than in anywhere else in the Arab world shows the depth of your hagiographic illusions.’
You make a valid point, I should say, Middle East.
‘I have first hand information from an Israeli pen-pal and recent Aliya that such discrimination exists.’
I don’t deny it does exist but just not in the over hyped way many critics of Israel accuse it of being.
‘I have first-hand information (this time from a recent British Jewish Aliya, currently serving in the IDF), that the fences definitely encroach on Palestinian territory.’
Indeed it does. I don’t deny that fact but I don’t have trouble with this fact either.
‘Have you forgotten about the centuries of Christian persecution of Jews in Europe? The Vatican's collusion with the Nazis?’
I know about it, of course.
‘The frequent periods during which Jews had nothing to fear from Islam (see also Jews in the European Caliphate)?’
As second class dhimmis or equal citizens?
‘The numerous Christian crusades against Islam?’
Indeed, but they can in turn be construed as a defensive measure against Islamic invasion into the Holy Land, (rightly or wrongly).
‘The fact that Israel possesses 200 - 250 nuclear warheads, long range ballistic delivery capability and second-strike capability means of course nothing. About this, Israel informs us, we should simply stick our heads in the sand... Ok, let's bomb Iran! Yeehaw!!!’
The difference being that Israel doesn’t threaten to use them for offensive purposes, Iran does by claiming to want Israel wiped off the map.
‘But you're a bit of a slow reader, aren't you?’
Your personal jibes do not add anything to the conversation/debate. It rather puts me off your otherwise interesting, though not necessarily accurate input.
‘The only enlightenment I've gotten from this piece regards the utter paucity of your understanding of the conflict.’
Thank you for taking time out of what I guess is a very busy schedule of speed reading and cerebral stimulation.
Brilliant article! I'm glad that you wrote it.
One thing that pissed me off in Britain was the People's Justice Party, which won a few seats in Muslim areas. They campaigned to "free Palestine" and to "free Kashmir". Note here that everything that they claim [rightly or wrongly] about Israel - that it was created by unseating native people, that it is an "apartheid state", that it violates human rights - can be applied ten times over to Pakistan. Pakistan's whole raison d'etre was religious apartheid. The P.J.P. supports Pakistan against India and then supports Palestine against Israel. It's a shame that so many Muslims in this country think like that.
Israel has not done badly under some very bad pressures. All nations have bad things in their past, and I actually think that Israel is near the bottom of the atrocity league. All Arab governments are scum. There are lots of people who criticise Israel above Arab governments. They're cowards. It's not even racicsm: it's cowardice. They're scared of violence and want to keep on the right side of international suicide bombing Islamist twats. I hope that Israel destroys Islamism forever.
Namaste'
Camille:
You said: And I think it would be hard for both the Israelis and for the rest of the world to forget that the Israelis are of the Jewish faith.
Not all Israelis are Jews. About 20% are not... There are Druze, Christians, Samaritans, and, of course, Muslims. All of those groups would be killed off, too, if states such as Iran get their way.
"The difference being that Israel doesn’t threaten to use them for offensive purposes, Iran does by claiming to want Israel wiped off the map."
Once again, you simplify up to the point were words lose all meaning.
That the regime in Tehran is anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic is of course true. However, the "wipe Israel off the map" quote is almost certainly a biased translation and a gross distortion of what is actually being said, even by Ahmedinejad.
High ranking officials have repeatedly stated that that Iran has no intention of attacking any country in the world, but those comments are usually drowned out by repetitive and ad nauseam parading of the "wipe Israel off the map" claim.
Ahmedinejad has also almost no executive power and is constantly being put in his place by the various executive bodies in Tehran.
Iran also flatly denies wanting to develop nuclear weapons although in the medium-long term that will almost certainly be their aim.
The idea that Tehran would attack Israel by means of a nuclear strike is risible because it would mean sudden, radioactive death for the former. No country would engage in a hot nuclear showdown with a country that has far more nuclear capability than itself. This whole idea of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel stems from the ludicrous idea that the Iranian regime is a bunch of madmen and from the despicable and constant portrayal of that country by the US as the "New Nazi Germany" (that animosity is of course a two way street). It's clear that the US's propaganda machine achieves it's targets, as it always does.
So, not only does Israel have the right to have nuclear weapons for defensive purposes, if anyone else in the region seeks similar status, they should be annihilated. Charming... I suggest you write some poetry about it...
Finally, a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be the equivalent of striking down a bloke in the pub, just in case. "He was looking at me funny, Your Honour..."
Milltown crackpot:
You are living proof that there are some really stupid atheists out there too, as well as living testament that Islamophobia and Arabophobia are rife in this country, much more wide-spread in fact than anti-Semitism.
gert:
Finally, a pre-emptive strike on Iran would be the equivalent of striking down a bloke in the pub, just in case. "He was looking at me funny, Your Honour..."
Not really, as Iran has a history of actually using illegal "weapons of mass destruction."
Milltownatheist: Thank you. :)
Gert:
However, the "wipe Israel off the map" quote is almost certainly a biased translation and a gross distortion of what is actually being said, even by Ahmedinejad.
How do you know this for a fact?
The idea that Tehran would attack Israel by means of a nuclear strike is risible because it would mean sudden, radioactive death for the former.
And martyrdom for him and his nation perhaps. This holocaust denier wants Israel destroyed and no amount of debating linguistics can hide this fact.Why do the massed crowds at Ahmadinejad rallies shout 'Death to Israel' while he smiles and waves in acknowledgement, if they had no violent intentions towards the Jewish State?
"God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime," Ahmadinejad
www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3239579
"How do you know this for a fact?"
Here's just one blog post that explains why what Ahmedinejad is claimed to have said may not be what he actually said...
"And martyrdom for him and his nation perhaps."
Nonsense. Ahmedinejad for starters doesn't have the executive power to "push the button". In fact, he has almost no power whatsoever... You're also conveniently forgetting (or not knowing) how complex Iranian politics actually is: there are still a lot of reformists around...
"Why do the massed crowds at Ahmadinejad rallies shout 'Death to Israel' while he smiles and waves in acknowledgement, if they had no violent intentions towards the Jewish State?"
Iran's hostility towards Israel is largely the result of Iran's proxy war with the US. Prior to 1979 Iran and Israel were the closest allies in the region, collaborating closely economically and militarily. But when in 1979 the Iranians get rid of what they saw as a US puppet regime (the Shah), relations between Iran and the US immediately turn to extreme hostility on both sides. It would be valid to argue that both countries are waging a proxy war on each other, with poor old Israel stuck in the middle.
Iran's hostility towards Israel mirrors US hostility towards Iran. Look for example at the huge US right wing blogging crowd that chants "Nuke Iran" on a daily basis. Hell, they even sell T-shirts to that effect (and tea mugs!), perhaps you should get one?
The big difference between Iran and the US is that Iran cannot turn it's threats into actions but the US can...
Let's take the ABC quote for example:
"God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt occupier regime,"
Had, during the cold war a US spokes person uttered with regards to the USSR:
"God willing, in the near future we will witness the destruction of the corrupt Communist regime,"
... then many Soviets would have seen this a threat to their own safety. But in all likelihood it would have meant exactly what it says: that the US was seeking the overthrow of the Communist regime, not "wiping the USSR off the map". There is a huge difference and it is the interpretation of "wiping off the map" that is almost certainly self-serving and disingenuous... It should come as no surprise that a mainstream US news outfit like ABC chooses the interpretation that fits its position best.
Well put and articulate. Far too many anti-semites and anti-zionists alike can not begin to phrase thier views. It's good to see a 'Beaman' speak from a position of strength and confidence vs. emotion. I'm gonna add your link to my blog and keep up with you!
Beaman, thank you for linking to me. I'm also going to link to you, Beaman, because you, like Meryl Yourish, have distinctly defined why Israel, a legitimate and sovereign country, deserves the right to exist. Screw the Israel bashers here. They are clueless. They are the ones who keep diapering and bottle feeding Muslim terrorists so that they never grow up. Palestinian arabs are not exactly chained to their homicide belts and kassam rockets. Israel doesn't stop them from succeeding - that's a Muslim home grown failure.
The fact that Jews in the British Mandate have been attacked by Arabs since the early 1900's - recall the Hebron massacre of Jews in 1929 as one example - was not because of any territorial dispute - but just because Jews existed.
Currently there are 30 conflicts around the world and 25 of them involve Islam.
Maybe Islam is the root of the problem.
Gert:
'Translated, Ahmadinejad was expressing his support of Imam Khomeini's statement that "this regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."'
Political Rhetoric
The supposed regime being the Zionist one? Which is in fact the Israeli government which if eliminated from the pages of history would mean no more Israel, right? Two days after his speech there was an anti-Israel rally. You're playing with semantics Gert, Ahmadinejad and the majority of Islamic nations want Israel destroyed.
Gysgt Beaman: Thank you! It's good to see another Beaman around, I've not come across many outside family circles.
Smooth: I tend to agree, I see the underlying problem being that of Islam and its teachings. As you said, 25 out of 30 is saying something.
I haven't read all of the replies. Three issues I want to address:
1) Re: seperation of church and state and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The answer is simple:
Would seperation of church and state made the conflict between Irish and British, and therefore the foundation of an independent Irish state unnecessary?
2) re: the crime committed in the foundation of Israel against the Palestinian, and the claim that the only way to rectify this crime is by the elimination of Israel as a Jewish nation state.
answer a: let us remember that the Jews living in the British mandate at 1948 did not suddenly decide to expel all the peaceful Palestinians for no reason. The event in question was awar in which both sides fought each other. There was no passive side. The stated objective of the arab side was very much an ethnic clensing of the Jews (if not worse), and indeed no Jews remained in the parts of Palestine/Israel that came under the control of Arabs.
answer b: Let's assume that the Palestinians have been treated harshly. Still, is it fair that the only way to rectify this 'crime' is by the elimination of the Jewish nation state? Should the US, Canada, Australia, New-Zeeland, Argentina etc. should be similarly dismantled? are not the crimes of their creation much worse than Israel's? And what about the creation of India and Pakistan with its vast numbers of deaths and refugees. Pakistan was created to serve as a nation state for the Muslim minority in the Indian subcontinent. Must it also be dismantled? And what the European nation states. How nice it is to practice colonialism for decades and centuries, and then one day decide that it's over, and return safely to secure European nation states. Must they not also be dismantled to pay for the crime of colonialism? The Soviet Union was toppled and dismantled indeed, but here too the Russians retained their nation state. Nobody felt it was necessary for that to be dismantled. Germany was temporarily divided, but it was not dismantled either.
3) Re: the fence. It was wrong of Israel to build the fence the way it did (in the parts that were buiilt). The Israeli Supreme court said as much. At parts it does go into the territories, though not as much as people claim. However, to present the fencde as motivated by racism or by land aquision while ignoring the actual reality of suicide bombings, is not only false, it undermines the justified demand that the fence follow a different path. This is yet one more example of how one sided criticism or support of one side undermines the ability to fight for real peace. Bush has been guilty of it in his support of Israel, but people on the European and American left have proven to be as bad as he was (in that regard) if not worse.
One other point
re: antisemitism and antizionism
1) not all cases of antizionism are antisemitism but some are. It should be reviewed at a case by case basis. It is false to claim that antisemitism does not exist today or that it does not play a part in criticism of Israel.
2) However, even when antizionism is not antisemitism there is nothing admireable in it. Imagine somebody saying, I'm not anti-Christian but only anti-British, I'm not anti-catholic only anti-Irish. To be anti-zionist is to be anti the existence of Israel. It is completely different than being critical of Israeli policies. Just as there is a difference between opposing british or american policies and being anti-British or anti-american, or for that matter anti-Arab or anti-Iranian or anti-Turk. It is bigotry even if it is not directed against those Jews who know their place as a passive docile minority in the Christian and Muslim world.
"You're playing with semantics Gert, Ahmadinejad and the majority of Islamic nations want Israel destroyed."
I'm not "playing" and this is not a game. Semantics are always important, as is context. This is even truer when we're dealing with translations from languages very different from our own. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand this because you're willing to swallow any rhetoric coming from the other side of the Atlantic, from the "good guys" who also gave us the Iraq debacle, lied through their teeth about Weapons of Mass Distraqtion, the "9/11 - Saddam connection" and the "clear and present danger" Iraq posed to the West.
As regards the "fact" that most Islamic nations want Israel destroyed, that is simply plain old nonsense. Israel has good relations with both Egypt and Jordan. Most other Islamic nations are pretty resigned to Israel's existence, albeit perhaps not overjoyed with it. Do you not think that to the many Arab/Muslim nations existing far away from Israel, all this brouhaha has become something really rather far away from their beds? Something they don't exactly lie awake fretting about 24/7?
Israel's biggest mistake was to allow settlers in Gaza and the West Bank, even though it was done fairly reluctantly at first. These decisions [to allow settlers] were seriously controversial inside of Israeli politics and it's very easy to point to a few big names (Moshe Dayan and Yitzak Rabin, to name but two) that were very opposed to the idea. Now, 40 years after the Six Day War, the Middle East is still paying the price for that irresponsible decision.
The religious settlers in the West Bank really make me laugh: "G-d gave us the land"; no dears, the IDF did or are you seriously suggesting that without the occupation you would have settled the land anyway?
Your belief that all this is caused by "Islamic teachings" really shows your puerile and Manichean need for simplistic pseudo-explanations: religion plays almost no part in this although some extremists on both sides do invoke it as the root cause. But then these people have only ever read one "history book": the holy texts...
Grow up.
Israel is a apartheid-theocratic dictatorship:
1) only less of 40% of the de jure residents (according to international law) have the right to vote (so that the jewish minority can become majority)
2) There are in israeli prisons 12.000 political prisoners, most of them witout judgment, some since 30 years !
3) There are every year hundreds of summary executions by death squads of members of the opposition to the apartheid regime.
Etc., etc, etc.....
Is this terrorist, racist, fundamentalist regime a democracy ? No kidding !
Micha: You make some very interesting and important points. I largely agree with your reasoning. Thank you for commenting.
Gert:
You're the one who doesn't seem to understand this because you're willing to swallow any rhetoric coming from the other side of the Atlantic
So believing anything the US says is 'swallowing rhetoric? They were wrong about the WMD, yes but so were many other nations. Iran and Iraq are two totally different debates and problems. Iran does have the ability to make WMD and that is clear.
As regards the "fact" that most Islamic nations want Israel destroyed, that is simply plain old nonsense. Israel has good relations with both Egypt and Jordan.
Thanks to US payments and the understanding they do not have the capability to defeat Israel, yes. The general public would be cheering on the streets if the Jewish State was destroyed.
Your belief that all this is caused by "Islamic teachings" really shows your puerile and Manichean need for simplistic pseudo-explanations: religion plays almost no part in this...
Well, I'm afraid I will have to remain not grown up because I disagree with you here. Islamic theology is not the sole cause granted but it is one of the main stimulants.
"So believing anything the US says is 'swallowing rhetoric? "
No, it isn't but it can't be denied that an awful lot of self-serving rhetoric comes out of the US and not only from Government either. Take a look at the rightwing US blogosphere: despite it now being widely accepted that WMD didn't exist (and the administration has accepted that) there is a considerable part of that blogosphere that is STILL looking for them, as well as another part that still unconditionally supports the war...
Besides, "believing" is always the wrong starting point; I'd have thought that an atheist would understand that. Scepticism, scrutiny, the seeking of corroboration should be the initial approach, rather than "believing".
"Thanks to US payments and the understanding they do not have the capability to defeat Israel, yes."
Yep, silly me. It has nothing to do with Yom Kippur and the subsequent (1979) Israel/Egypt peace treaty and later Israel's withdrawal for Sinai. Not a jot... Thanks for putting me right on that one (lol).
"The general public would be cheering on the streets if the Jewish State was destroyed."
Despite your characteristic over-simplification that might, broadly speaking, be true. But a resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict could do much to change that.
"Iran does have the ability to make WMD and that is clear."
This usually comes from those that couldn't distinguish between a proton and a neutron, between PU 239 and U 235, etc, even if their lives depended on it. Assuming that you're right (you're not far off) even the development of such weapons doesn't give us licence to attack that country. We didn't attack Israel, North Korea, South Africa, India, Pakistan or even DRoNK.
Before an attack could be realistically contemplated there is much we can do to seek assurances from Iran. Also, even destroying its nuclear facilities would only buy some time: if they truly have the know-how then rebuilding these facilities better and deeper would only be a matter of time... And they would do it with a vengeance...
"Islamic theology is not the sole cause granted but it is one of the main stimulants."
The Palestinians are among the most secular of Arabs. Only Hamas is clearly Islamist inspired and even that is a rather recent phenomenon.
I have to say that I really don't feel confident saying that I know Zionism is (in terms of a bona fide definition). I've had acquaintances who have given their own interpretations, both positive and negative, and I've walked away more confused. I do, on a level, agree, that the state of Israel can't be wholly blamed for actions/measures that are taken, there's also the other war machine on this planet that (of late) has been making regular treks into the Middle East, and stands in the background; the suffering within Israel, on both sides, is incredibly unnerving to observe. It's there. Hatred doesn't help, neither do high financial donations from the US to Israel. It's fair enough to have an ally, but it's more positive to work toward some sort of reconciliation, rather than the consolidation of military weapons and Shock and Awe tactics; it doesn't do any one (on both sides0 any good, people die and those left behind are left with a void they have difficulty filling or making any sense out of, and that alone is enough to maintain resentment or fuel hatred. We're not only living in a physically dangerous world, but a world where thought is questioned, where assumptions are made, where things are interpreted in accordance to whatever political movement is in fashion, where to disagree with some policies/concepts means to label a person anti this or that, when it's not a case of being against a culture or relgion. For example, it's easy to be labeled an anti-Semite if one expresses a dislike toward people like Kissinger and his Machiavellian tactics, and I admit that I don't like his influence on this world, and some would interpret that as anti-Semite, when it's not. At the same time, I think that Kolokotronis, one of the main players of the Greek war of Independence from Ottoman rule, was a psychopath (and I'm Greek and I say that), and that (based on the easy way some groups create categories) would label me 'anti-Greek'. I think that sometimes people are afraid to take on the issues that lie outside a religion or culture, or discuss the issues, their feelings, so it's the label (often without discussion, or without any logical argument).
As for me, I'm not a fan of Realpolitik (the format introduced to the White House by Kissinger, where morals and ethics are pushed aside), it doesn't matter what country it is, what statesman/woman, it's never been a positive thing, and the violence that has evolved in the world is a testament to the futility of Realpolitik.
I do admire you for writing a detailed essay, and detailing your thoughts on the issue, because it's a territory where many fear to tread.
I must say that I appreciate beaman's support of Israel, since in the last few years it seemed as if everything that's been coming out of Europe in general and Britain in particular was extremely anti-israeli if not worse.
But ultimately it shouldn't be about being pro-israel or pro-palestinian or anti-muslim or anti-semite or anti-american, or whatever other anti or pro attitudes people seem to adopt. What is needed is a certain balanced, sensible ways of looking on things.
It is possible and right to criticize Israel for the occupation, the settlements, and for some of what it does without demonizing Israel completely and denying its legitimacy to exist and to defend itself from very real threats. It should also be possible to criticize Israel without sinking to the kind of hyperboles and imagery that come too close to bogotry.
It is possible and right to support Palestinian statehood, and human rights, without becoming apologists who justify or excuse everything the Palestinians do while ignoring their own very significant contribution to the reality both sides are in right now.
It is possible and right to support diplomacy and peace without pretending that they can solve every problem, that there aren't times when the use of military force is necessary, that there are times when peace is not so easily attainable, and that diplomacy is very cynical.
Similarly it should also be possible to recognize that a violent ideology exists and is influencial inside the Muslim world instead of either condemning Islam completely or trying to imagine away this very real problem.
And it should be possible to criticize US policy when it is wrong without turning it into the paragon of all evil in the world and pretending that the many problems in the world -- including terrorism -- are somehow imagined or caused by the US.
All this should be obvious. But for some reason it isn't. People always seem to go to extemes. This has caused harm to the effort to deal with the situation in Israel/Palestine.
Instead of supporting peace based on the only acceptable solution: A Jewish nation state next to a Palestinian-Arab nation state living in peace next to each other; the world has focused either on delegitimizing Israel completely and excusing the Palestinians actions, or (in fewer cases, and I don't think Beaman is doing it), to support Israel uncritically.
Hello
help me to write the biographies of great personnalites of jewisheritage.fr
shalom
It's two in the morning and about time to go to sleep, but I can't hold my emotions, so I'd better write now:)
The article you wrote is the voice that's almost never heard lately. It is somehow more legitimate to compare us to Nazis than to see us as a nation that should have a state. By the way, I don't believe that it's by accident that the Europe that allowed to murder 6 million Jews now feels free to call us Nazis. Now Europeans can finally breath with relief - it wasn't their crime after all! Jews turned out to be wicked themselves, so it was ok to participate in the Holocaust!
I believe that Jewish State wouldn't be destroyed after all - I belive this because I'm religious and I tend to believe that things sometimes are kept for us, although not according to the logic or common sence. But if we look at the way things run for the last 15 years, I should feel very pessimistic, as I, in fact, do. But still, somehow I believe in our survival. Thank you.
Geula, Israel
Anon: Thank you for your message. I appreciate it very much.
Thank you Beaman for your warm support for Israel. It is much needed today after yesterdays attack of 56 Kassams on Sderot. I see myself as a Human Rights person and totally agree with JamieSW's comment.
What we need is peace and understanding and to stop all fighting on either sides.
What "hit" me about your post was the question why do so many people hate us? It's not the facts, it's not what we do or don't do. There are many human rights violations in many countries and I think none of them get this antagonistic reaction as we do.
So thank you again Beaman.
I realize we live in an impossible situation, in a mixed up region.... I have seen the terrible wall that's being built in Palestinian towns and villages, I am thoroughly against it and believe that the word "security" has been expanded more than it should. The solution is not in using strength.
There's no comparing us to South Africa and it's apartheid but yes we are a long way away from equall rights for Arabs in Israel, yet I feel that a little less hatred from the world and a little more good intentions will only help improve what needs to be improved.
I also wish to thank you for the Yigal Shalit banner, we adopted it on our Tel Avie blog: http://seetelaviv.blogspot.com and wish to remind every body of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwaserr: all three are Israeli soldiers captured over a year ago, kept in captivity with no contact at all with the outside world. Ans last but not least is Ron Arad. May they be freed immediately and lets go on with a peaceful existence for everybody. And I mean EVERYBODY.
By mistake I wrote a wrong name: one of the soldiers in captivity is of course Gilad Shalit, my apologies.
Pnina: I agree with the majority of what you say and I'm very proud to be a strong supporter of Israel. It's a very brave country. Hopefully one day, unfortunately not soon I fear, peace will come about in that region. Israel deserves peace.
I will take a look at your website now. Best regards.
Beaman
BEAMan i dont think your supporting juctice,im just wondering where does terrorism comes from..israel or palestine!!!surely its israel, who is the occupier? the opressor?offcoures its israel,when someone choosed to risk his life by blowing himself up to defend himself and his people..his country..you call him a terorrist,man they only have thier bodies to defend thier country!! this war is not equal.the world should put an end to israel's occupation,palestinains are being killed day afer day!! so this is what you support!
Beaman: Fool? Rachel Corrie was certainly not a fool, but you are most certainly uneducated about what matters.
It isn’t just Amnesty International condemning the Israeli’s for the genocide and ethnic cleansing going on. It is also the U.N. and Human Rights Watch, and anyone else with a conscience.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission has condemned Israel for committing crimes against humanity, which is the direct precursor to genocide.
The U.N. Human Rights Commission: “Also affirms that the deliberate and systematic killing of civilians and children by the Israeli occupying authorities constitutes a flagrant and grave violation of the right to life and also constitutes a crime against humanity;…” Article 68 of the United Nations Charter had expressly required the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council to “set up” this Commission “for the promotion of human rights.”
The architect of all this suffering is Ariel Sharon, aka The Butcher. And Sharon was a butcher. As Israeli Defence Minister in 1982 he led the fateful invasion into Lebanon and caused the needless death of untold thousands of Palestinians living in the refugee camps, by directing the murderous Phalange militias in their rampage through the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps. He was charged by an Israeli commission as a war criminal for alleged crimes related to the Sabra and Shatila massacre during the 1982 Lebanon War.
During the massacre soldiers raided refugee camps, and raped women, and children and disemboweled them. Ariel Sharon’s name is synonymous with butchery; with bloated corpses and disemboweled women and dead babies, with rape and pillage and murder.
The Kahan Commission held him personally responsible for the massacre. The Kahan Commission formally known as the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut, was established by the Israeli government on 28 September 1982, to investigate the Sabra and Shatila Massacre (16 September-18 September, 1982). The Commission was to make recommendations on Israeli involvement in the massacre. And it was the decision of the commission that Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon, was found to be personally responsible. for the murderous Phalange militias in their rampage through the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps.
To date over 20,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished, and only one Israeli home was exploded. “Any humanitarian looking at the sheer number of innocent civilians who have lost their homes can only condemn Israel’s house demolition policy as a hugely disproportionate military response by an occupation army. According to -–Peter Hansen– Commissioner General of United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA)
The Israeli blockades and brutally enforced curfews are effectively stopping Palestinian bread winners from going to work. The bulldozing of Palestinian owned olive and other agricultural fields is having a horrific effect on the Palestinian people’s ability to survive. The bulldozing of Palestinian homes by the Israeli military and police forces is throwing hundreds of families into the streets. It is collective punishment of a people and the murder of hundreds of Palestinian children and women is a policy of genocide!
So this is not a symmetrical situation. As matters of fact and of law, the gross and repeated violations of Palestinian rights by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers living illegally in occupied Palestine constitute war crimes. Conversely, the Palestinian People are defending Themselves and their Land and their Homes against Israeli war crimes and Israeli war criminals, both military and civilian.
Beaman: Again you speak of things that you know nothing of. This only backs up my point that you are uneducated about the things that really matter.
You said, "The same Commission that condemns Israel but only has ‘deep concern’ for Darfur? The same Commission that has refused to condemn Palestinian militants using children as human shields? They didn’t even condemn Rwanda in their previous incarnation."
The UN has condemned the Sudan for committing crimes against humanity in Darfur. They have condemned Rwanda. And they have condemned the Palestinians as well as Israel.
Report condemns Sudan over Darfur Monday, 12 March 2007
UN condemns "barbaric" Rwandan massacre Friday, December 12, 1997
UN tribunal condemns former Rwandan councilor for 1994 genocide, rape 28 April 2005
And last but not least they have condemned the Palestinians but along with that the Israelis disproportionate response.
United Nations condemns Palestinian rocket attacks and Israel's 'disproportionate' response 1 March 2008
In the words of the secretary general of the UN:
The Secretary-General placed blame on both sides, calling on them to cease the violence and restore order. “I condemn Palestinian rocket attacks and call for the immediate cessation of such acts of terrorism, which serve no purpose, endanger Israeli civilians and bring misery to the Palestinian people,” he said. “While recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself, I condemn the disproportionate and excessive use of force that has killed and injured so many civilians, including children. Israel must fully comply with international humanitarian law and exercise the utmost constraint.”
Beaman: You also said, "The Kahan Commission held him personally responsible for the massacre. That’s not true! The Commission determined that the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla was carried out by a Phalangist unit, acting on its own but its entry was known to Israel. No Israeli was directly responsible for the events which occurred in the camps. Sharon’s worst crime in this incident was being ignorant of the potential danger."
That is what's not true because: The investigation found that Mr Sharon - as defense minister of the Israeli forces - was indirectly but PERSONALLY to blame for the massacres.
And the Kahan report also condemned Israeli General Rafael Eitan for "breach of duty" in not taking steps to stop the massacre...
The judicial report criticised Israeli prime minister Menachim Begin and his government's role and dismissed the argument that Israel could not be held directly accountable.
And this was also not the first time Ariel Sharon got in trouble over massacres. In 1953, he founded and led the "101" special commando unit which carried out retaliatory operations, following terrorist attacks in Israel. The unit remained independent for only five months and was disbanded after it raided the West Bank village of Kibya, killing nearly 70 innocent civilians.
February 8,1983: Sharon quits after massacre inquiry
Israeli defence minister Ariel Sharon has resigned after an inquiry concluded that he had failed to act to prevent the massacre of hundreds in two refugee camps. Mr Sharon was forced to step down by an Israeli tribunal investigating the 1982 Lebanon killings. The investigation found that Mr Sharon - as defense minister of the Israeli forces - was indirectly but PERSONALLY to blame for the massacres. The Kahan Commission's report said Mr Sharon had made a "grave mistake" by failing to order "appropriate measures for preventing or reducing the danger of massacre" at the camps... It concluded that the former defense minister should have foreseen what the Phalange would do when they entered the camps... The Kahan report also condemned Israeli General Rafael Eitan for "breach of duty" in not taking steps to stop the massacre... The judicial report criticised Israeli prime minister Menachim Begin and his government's role and dismissed the argument that Israel could not be held directly accountable. In Israel, 300,000 people had taken to the streets of Tel Aviv to demand that Mr Sharon resign."
Israel: Sharon Investigation Urged
(06/23/01) -- "A criminal investigation into Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon´s role in the massacre of civilians in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla... As Defense Minister, Ariel Sharon had overall responsibility over the Israeli Defense Forces and allowed Phalangist militias to enter the camps where they terrorized the residents for three days."
And guess what? That wasn't Ariel's first time dealing with the murder of innocent civilians that he was held responsible for.
Ariel Sharon Bio
Sharon's reputation as a military hero began in 1953, when he founded and led the "101" special commando unit which carried out retaliatory operations, following terrorist attacks in Israel. However, the unit remained independent for only five months and was disbanded after it raided the West Bank village of Kibya, killing nearly 70 innocent civilians.
If you wish to have a real debate with the other citizens of the EU, I invite to our forum.
It may not harmonise with your opinions, but I guarantee it will be REAL.
fiddleferme (aka cat whatever)
Dare ya to dialogue with the heavyweights of the Union...ha HA
http://forums.ec.europa.eu/
See ya there if you have the nerve.
fiddle http://fiddleferme.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment