Israel - A Bad Rap
First: I am biased in favour of Israel. I was raised in a Conservative Jewish household by parents who were raised in the 1950's in the shadow of the Holocaust and knew well what the failure of the Jewish state would mean for Israelis (genocide at the hands of Egyptians, Jordanians, and Syrians) and the world's Jewish diaspora (more virulent eliminationist anti-Semitism). Israel's military victories were each a temporary lease on life until the next genocidal invasion would start.
I don't usually write about Israel because it puts me at odds with those I'm usually in agreement with, and because the current Israeli government is thoroughly odious and in bed with some really noxious political plays in the US and elsewhere.
Now Israel stands accused of being the same kind of oppressor as Apartheid South Africa. The Israeli government - and people - are accused by groups all over the world as a massive on-going violator of human rights. Is that really the case?
No.
I'm not going to get into the tangled history - 100 histories of Israel will give you 100 different versions of events. The question is: what's happening now? What's right and wrong?
Glenn Greenwald is a good person to start with. A Jewish American lawyer and journalist, in my opinion he's been right about almost everything in his amazing career and writings. I have all his books. He's the power behind The Intercept and the person Edward Snowden was smart enough to reach out to with his NSA leaks (as brilliantly documented in the Oscar-winning "Citizenfour"). I've been reading him since he started his first blog after 9-11.
But Glenn has a problem with Israel. I won't try to capture all his views - they're easily found on the Intercept and in his previous (and widely available) work for The Guardian and Salon, as well as his published work. As an insightful analyst on many subjects, Glenn (hey - he's free to call me "Abe") has over-pursued his enemy into a bad spot.
By that I mean that the real forces of evil that Glenn has brilliantly exposed are right-wing neo-fascists who control governments and corporations. They've invaded (Iraq) and murdered without just or legal cause (drone strikes among other things), and because they are in control of the mechanisms of "justice" they've avoided all repercussions.
In part because these ideologues support Israel the way concrete pillars support a bridge, it's easy to continue the rightful attack on them over the line to attack Israel. It's a step too far, and it's grossly unfair.
Israel controls three land areas that were once in Arab hands: Gaza, Golan, and the West Bank.
Gaza is run by Hamas, a Muslim religious organization dedicated to Israel's destruction, and that does not accept Israel's 'right to exist.' Israel once had Jewish settlements there, but has removed them. Hamas periodically attacks Israel with rockets and physical assaults on individuals (civilians and soldiers). Israel retaliates militarily. Wouldn't you? If Toronto was firing rockets at Buffalo, the US would have something to say about it.
Gaza is controlled at sea by Israel and on land by Israel and Egypt. Egypt has a very tight border on the Sinai where Gazans often tunnel to bring in weapons. This is another area of contention, as seen by the "Freedom Flotilla" in 2010. Certainly, the import-export controls on Gaza are a hardship, but without those controls, Hamas will import massive amounts of weapons to use against Israel. how could Hamas ever be trusted to run a port system hat's isn't the world's greatest arms market? Who would allow their neighbors to import weapons to kill them? It would be suicide.
There may some day be a fair peace between Israel and Gaza, but until Gazans stop trying to kill Israelis, that's not going to happen. For those who think Israel is the instigator of the violence - try stopping the attacks and see what happens. We'd all be pleasantly surprised at that.
But violent hatred of Jews is what keeps Hamas in power. If they can't stoke the hatred of Jews, they can't stay in charge.
The Golan Heights are another thing altogether. Taken from Syria in 1973, the area overlooks Israeli settlements and was the source of continuous bombardment of Israeli civilians for decades. It's in Israeli and UN hands now and will hopefully be demilitarized forever.
The West Bank was originally part of the British mandate which became Transjordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan). There are Israeli settlements there, and they seem to be growing, which is a major source of consternation for Glenn and others. This one puzzles me.
It's a problem for Glenn because the land has not been officially annexed by Israel, and remains technically 'occupied.' In one sense, this is an international fiction that Israel has participated in. When was the last time a country expanded and then returned the expansion? Treaties aside, aboriginal populations would love to have a massive international force on their side the way the world has aligned against Israel. The Iroquois would really like to discuss the occupation of New York.
And certainly European borders have moved around quite actively over the centuries, as have borders on every continent.
If they took the area by conquest - and not just took it back from previous British, Ottoman, Persian, and other conquerors - and may someday 'return' it to Jordan or donate it to a future Palestinian State, why does that preclude Jews from living there?
The settlements are on purchased land, nobody stole the deeds. If they end up living in a Palestinian state - so what? I don't think there's a single Arab state that does not have a Jewish population. Why does the concept of an independent Palestine hinge on being free of Jews?
But it's not anti-Semitic, right?
Glenn had a typically insightful piece in The Intercept the other day. Sadly, he again used his powers to do harm rather than advance the cause of justice for which he is usually a dependable champion.
The article, Fighting Israeli Occupying Forces Is “Terrorism.” Boycotting Is “Anti-Semitism.” What’s Allowed?, compares the response to violent Arab attacks on Israelis to the response to non-violent so-called "Boycott Divestiture Sanction (BDS)" efforts.
They are two wildly different subjects, but Glenn is intellect enough to join them. But here's what's wrong. First - are Arab attacks on Israelis (including uniformed soldiers) really 'terrorism?' I think this is a Straw Man argument. As we all know, there is no one definition of the work "terrorism." So because that's what it's been called, it's - what? Prejudicial against murderers? Is it the wrong word?
Glenn thinks so because the Israelis are an occupying army. Just like the killing of American troops in Iraq, can we blame the occupied people for fighting back? Umm, yes.
Palestinians have no more right to murder Israelis - in and out of uniform - than Israelis have to murder Palestinians. The difference is that when Israelis unlawfully kill Palestinians they are arrested and tried. When Israelis are murdered, Palestinians plant trees to honor their blessed memory.
In any conflict, soldiers wear uniforms and assume the risk of being killed in action. Killers out of uniform do not identify themselves as combatants. When they kill people, it's not combat, and it's not law-enforcement. It's murder. And the point of the violence is to send a message - that's a form of terrorism. Murder to create fear and uncertainty. Clearly, Israel will not be defeated in any way by the knife attacks or even the rockets fired at their civilians. But it will make people afraid, and make them vote for lizards like Netanyahu as Prime Minister.
Glenn asks: 'is it really terrorism?' The better question is: 'is this kind of violence right or justified.' No. Not in any way, no matter what you call it. No matter who does it.
The second contention is that the BDS efforts are, by the same token, a rational non-violent response to Israeli actions. No, it's not. It's based on the assumption that Israel is a uniquely evil oppressor in the world. The nation and its citizens should be made pariahs because of the conflict and occupation. Additionally, those who are actively fighting against BDS are unjust in calling the movement anti-Semitic.
As we've discussed, Israel is fighting to stay safe against angry violent populations who want to murder them. When Arafat used the eve of the Oslo Accords to start a massive terror campaign in Israel, it was clear that there was no Palestinian partner who wanted peace. Palestinians were in it all-or-nothing - no two-state solution would do. So Israel turned to a series of right-wing strongmen who would supress and wall-off the Palestinians.
But none of that is Apartheid. The only thing keeping Arabs from a just settlement is their own violence and intransigence. It's not racism and it's not oppression. It's a bad situation that keeps getting worse as both side dig in with solutions that involve force.
Glenn also points to Netanyahu for using the 'what about the other guy?' excuse. In other words, you condemn us for bad things, where were you when the other guy did bad things? I think that's too simple.
Yes, that can be a facile and empty response in the individual instance, but I think it's valid in the broader sense. That is: where is all the is outrage for the many real atrocities in the world? Why launch a massive institutional protest against a democracy of 3 million in a world of 5 billion or so, in a region where violence an oppression of civilians is the rule rather than the exception?
There are at least 47 countries in the world which are designated 'not free.' Millions of people across the globe living under government oppression. And Israel is the one which needs to be singled out and made to suffer by boycotts, divestiture, and sanctions? Really?
But it's not anti-Semitic.
We all know that's a lot of crap. Israel under it's current administration is no buttercup of sweetness to people who would do harm. They have no obligation to be. But neither are they the monsters they're made out. to be. Israel has turned to walls rather than outreach because the hand they extended to Palestinians got blown off.
When the day comes that their kids happiness means more to them then their kids martyrdom, we'll have a shot at peace. But in the meantime, Israel's enemies need to stop pretending that this is some even-handed cause of justice. It's not. It's another shot at Jews and the Jewish state, with some unfortunate jewish frontmen giving them cover.
Sorry Glenn.
I don't usually write about Israel because it puts me at odds with those I'm usually in agreement with, and because the current Israeli government is thoroughly odious and in bed with some really noxious political plays in the US and elsewhere.
Now Israel stands accused of being the same kind of oppressor as Apartheid South Africa. The Israeli government - and people - are accused by groups all over the world as a massive on-going violator of human rights. Is that really the case?
No.
I'm not going to get into the tangled history - 100 histories of Israel will give you 100 different versions of events. The question is: what's happening now? What's right and wrong?
Glenn Greenwald is a good person to start with. A Jewish American lawyer and journalist, in my opinion he's been right about almost everything in his amazing career and writings. I have all his books. He's the power behind The Intercept and the person Edward Snowden was smart enough to reach out to with his NSA leaks (as brilliantly documented in the Oscar-winning "Citizenfour"). I've been reading him since he started his first blog after 9-11.
But Glenn has a problem with Israel. I won't try to capture all his views - they're easily found on the Intercept and in his previous (and widely available) work for The Guardian and Salon, as well as his published work. As an insightful analyst on many subjects, Glenn (hey - he's free to call me "Abe") has over-pursued his enemy into a bad spot.
By that I mean that the real forces of evil that Glenn has brilliantly exposed are right-wing neo-fascists who control governments and corporations. They've invaded (Iraq) and murdered without just or legal cause (drone strikes among other things), and because they are in control of the mechanisms of "justice" they've avoided all repercussions.
In part because these ideologues support Israel the way concrete pillars support a bridge, it's easy to continue the rightful attack on them over the line to attack Israel. It's a step too far, and it's grossly unfair.
Israel controls three land areas that were once in Arab hands: Gaza, Golan, and the West Bank.
Gaza is run by Hamas, a Muslim religious organization dedicated to Israel's destruction, and that does not accept Israel's 'right to exist.' Israel once had Jewish settlements there, but has removed them. Hamas periodically attacks Israel with rockets and physical assaults on individuals (civilians and soldiers). Israel retaliates militarily. Wouldn't you? If Toronto was firing rockets at Buffalo, the US would have something to say about it.
Gaza is controlled at sea by Israel and on land by Israel and Egypt. Egypt has a very tight border on the Sinai where Gazans often tunnel to bring in weapons. This is another area of contention, as seen by the "Freedom Flotilla" in 2010. Certainly, the import-export controls on Gaza are a hardship, but without those controls, Hamas will import massive amounts of weapons to use against Israel. how could Hamas ever be trusted to run a port system hat's isn't the world's greatest arms market? Who would allow their neighbors to import weapons to kill them? It would be suicide.
There may some day be a fair peace between Israel and Gaza, but until Gazans stop trying to kill Israelis, that's not going to happen. For those who think Israel is the instigator of the violence - try stopping the attacks and see what happens. We'd all be pleasantly surprised at that.
But violent hatred of Jews is what keeps Hamas in power. If they can't stoke the hatred of Jews, they can't stay in charge.
The Golan Heights are another thing altogether. Taken from Syria in 1973, the area overlooks Israeli settlements and was the source of continuous bombardment of Israeli civilians for decades. It's in Israeli and UN hands now and will hopefully be demilitarized forever.
The West Bank was originally part of the British mandate which became Transjordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan). There are Israeli settlements there, and they seem to be growing, which is a major source of consternation for Glenn and others. This one puzzles me.
It's a problem for Glenn because the land has not been officially annexed by Israel, and remains technically 'occupied.' In one sense, this is an international fiction that Israel has participated in. When was the last time a country expanded and then returned the expansion? Treaties aside, aboriginal populations would love to have a massive international force on their side the way the world has aligned against Israel. The Iroquois would really like to discuss the occupation of New York.
And certainly European borders have moved around quite actively over the centuries, as have borders on every continent.
If they took the area by conquest - and not just took it back from previous British, Ottoman, Persian, and other conquerors - and may someday 'return' it to Jordan or donate it to a future Palestinian State, why does that preclude Jews from living there?
The settlements are on purchased land, nobody stole the deeds. If they end up living in a Palestinian state - so what? I don't think there's a single Arab state that does not have a Jewish population. Why does the concept of an independent Palestine hinge on being free of Jews?
But it's not anti-Semitic, right?
Glenn had a typically insightful piece in The Intercept the other day. Sadly, he again used his powers to do harm rather than advance the cause of justice for which he is usually a dependable champion.
The article, Fighting Israeli Occupying Forces Is “Terrorism.” Boycotting Is “Anti-Semitism.” What’s Allowed?, compares the response to violent Arab attacks on Israelis to the response to non-violent so-called "Boycott Divestiture Sanction (BDS)" efforts.
They are two wildly different subjects, but Glenn is intellect enough to join them. But here's what's wrong. First - are Arab attacks on Israelis (including uniformed soldiers) really 'terrorism?' I think this is a Straw Man argument. As we all know, there is no one definition of the work "terrorism." So because that's what it's been called, it's - what? Prejudicial against murderers? Is it the wrong word?
Glenn thinks so because the Israelis are an occupying army. Just like the killing of American troops in Iraq, can we blame the occupied people for fighting back? Umm, yes.
Palestinians have no more right to murder Israelis - in and out of uniform - than Israelis have to murder Palestinians. The difference is that when Israelis unlawfully kill Palestinians they are arrested and tried. When Israelis are murdered, Palestinians plant trees to honor their blessed memory.
In any conflict, soldiers wear uniforms and assume the risk of being killed in action. Killers out of uniform do not identify themselves as combatants. When they kill people, it's not combat, and it's not law-enforcement. It's murder. And the point of the violence is to send a message - that's a form of terrorism. Murder to create fear and uncertainty. Clearly, Israel will not be defeated in any way by the knife attacks or even the rockets fired at their civilians. But it will make people afraid, and make them vote for lizards like Netanyahu as Prime Minister.
Glenn asks: 'is it really terrorism?' The better question is: 'is this kind of violence right or justified.' No. Not in any way, no matter what you call it. No matter who does it.
The second contention is that the BDS efforts are, by the same token, a rational non-violent response to Israeli actions. No, it's not. It's based on the assumption that Israel is a uniquely evil oppressor in the world. The nation and its citizens should be made pariahs because of the conflict and occupation. Additionally, those who are actively fighting against BDS are unjust in calling the movement anti-Semitic.
As we've discussed, Israel is fighting to stay safe against angry violent populations who want to murder them. When Arafat used the eve of the Oslo Accords to start a massive terror campaign in Israel, it was clear that there was no Palestinian partner who wanted peace. Palestinians were in it all-or-nothing - no two-state solution would do. So Israel turned to a series of right-wing strongmen who would supress and wall-off the Palestinians.
But none of that is Apartheid. The only thing keeping Arabs from a just settlement is their own violence and intransigence. It's not racism and it's not oppression. It's a bad situation that keeps getting worse as both side dig in with solutions that involve force.
Glenn also points to Netanyahu for using the 'what about the other guy?' excuse. In other words, you condemn us for bad things, where were you when the other guy did bad things? I think that's too simple.
Yes, that can be a facile and empty response in the individual instance, but I think it's valid in the broader sense. That is: where is all the is outrage for the many real atrocities in the world? Why launch a massive institutional protest against a democracy of 3 million in a world of 5 billion or so, in a region where violence an oppression of civilians is the rule rather than the exception?
There are at least 47 countries in the world which are designated 'not free.' Millions of people across the globe living under government oppression. And Israel is the one which needs to be singled out and made to suffer by boycotts, divestiture, and sanctions? Really?
But it's not anti-Semitic.
We all know that's a lot of crap. Israel under it's current administration is no buttercup of sweetness to people who would do harm. They have no obligation to be. But neither are they the monsters they're made out. to be. Israel has turned to walls rather than outreach because the hand they extended to Palestinians got blown off.
When the day comes that their kids happiness means more to them then their kids martyrdom, we'll have a shot at peace. But in the meantime, Israel's enemies need to stop pretending that this is some even-handed cause of justice. It's not. It's another shot at Jews and the Jewish state, with some unfortunate jewish frontmen giving them cover.
Sorry Glenn.
posted by fiduciary at 1:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home