Since writing "How can you defend Israel?" last month, I've been deluged by comments.
Some have been supportive, others harshly critical. The latter warrant closer examination.
The harsh criticism falls into two basic categories.
One is over the top.
It ranges from denying Israel's very right to nationhood, to ascribing to Israel responsibility for every global malady, to peddling vague, or not so vague, anti-Semitic tropes.
There's no point in dwelling at length on card-carrying members of these schools of thought. They're living on another planet.
Israel is a fact. That fact has been confirmed by the UN, which, in 1947, recommended the creation of a Jewish state. The UN admitted Israel to membership in 1949. The combination of ancient and modern links between Israel and the Jewish people is almost unprecedented in history. And Israel has contributed its share, and then some, to advancing humankind.
If there are those on a legitimacy kick, let them examine the credentials of some others in the region, created by Western mapmakers eager to protect their own interests and ensure friendly leaders in power.
Or let them consider the basis for legitimacy of many countries worldwide created by invasion, occupation, and conquest. Israel's case beats them by a mile.
And if there are people out there who don't like all Jews, frankly, it's their problem, not mine. Are there Jewish scoundrels? You bet. Are there Christian, Muslim, atheist, and agnostic scoundrels? No shortage. But are all members of any such community by definition scoundrels? Only if you're an out-and-out bigot.
The other group of harsh critics assails Israeli policies, but generally tries to stop short of overt anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism. But many of these relentless critics, at the slightest opportunity, robotically repeat claims about Israel that are factually incorrect.
There are a couple of methodological threads that run through their analysis.
The first is called confirmation bias. This is the habit of favoring information that confirms what you believe, whether it's true or not, and ignoring the rest.
While Israel engages in a full-throttled debate on policies and strategies, rights and wrongs, do Israel's fiercest critics do the same? Hardly.
Can the chorus of critics admit, for example, that the UN recommended the creation of two states -- one Jewish, the other Arab -- and that the Jews accepted the proposal, while the Arabs did not and launched a war?
Can they acknowledge that wars inevitably create refugee populations and lead to border adjustments in favor of the (attacked) victors?
Can they recognize that, when the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab hands until 1967, there was no move whatsoever toward Palestinian statehood?
Can they explain why Arafat launched a "second intifada" just as Israel and the U.S. were proposing a path-breaking two-state solution?
Or what the Hamas Charter says about the group's goals?
Or what armed-to-the-teeth Hezbollah thinks of Israel's right to exist?
Or how nuclear-weapons-aspiring Iran views Israel's future?
Or why President Abbas rejected Prime Minister Olmert's two-state plan, when the Palestinian chief negotiator himself admitted it would have given his side the equivalent of 100 percent of the West Bank?
Or why Palestinian leaders refuse to recognize the Western Wall or Rachel's Tomb as Jewish sites, while demanding recognition of Muslim holy sites?
Or why Israel is expected to have an Arab minority, but a state of Palestine is not expected to have any Jewish minority?
Can they admit that, when Arab leaders are prepared to pursue peace with Israel rather than wage war, the results have been treaties, as the experiences of Egypt and Jordan show?
And can they own up to the fact that when it comes to liberal and democratic values in the region, no country comes remotely close to Israel, whatever its flaws, in protecting these rights?
Apropos, how many other countries in the Middle East -- or beyond -- would have tried and convicted an ex-president? This was the case, just last week, with Moshe Katsav, sending the message that no one is above the law -- in a process, it should be noted, presided over by an Israeli Arab justice.
And if the harsh critics can't acknowledge any of these points, what's the explanation? Does their antipathy for Israel -- and resultant confirmation bias -- blind them to anything that might puncture their airtight thinking?
Then there is the other malady. It's called reverse causality, or switching cause and effect.
Take the case of Gaza.
These critics focus only on Israel's alleged actions against Gaza, as if they were the cause of the problem. In reality, they are the opposite -- the effect.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it gave local residents their first chance in history -- I repeat, in history -- to govern themselves.
Neighboring Israel had only one concern -- security. It wanted to ensure that whatever emerged in Gaza would not endanger Israelis. In fact, the more prosperous, stable, and peaceful Gaza became, the better for everyone. Tragically, Israel's worst fears were realized. Rather than focus on Gaza's construction, its leaders -- Hamas since 2007 -- preferred to contemplate Israel's destruction. Missiles and mortars came raining down on southern Israel. Israel's critics, though, were silent. Only when Israel could no longer tolerate the terror did the critics awaken -- to focus on Israel's reaction, not Gaza's provocative action.
Yet, what would any other nation have done in Israel's position?
Just imagine terrorists in power in British Columbia -- and Washington State's cities and towns being the regular targets of deadly projectiles. How long would it take for the U.S. to go in and try to put a stop to the terror attacks, and what kind of force would be used?
Or consider the security barrier.
It didn't exist for nearly 40 years. Then it was built by Israel in response to a wave of deadly attacks originating in the West Bank, with well over 1,000 Israeli fatalities (more than 40,000 Americans in proportional terms). Even so, Israel made clear that such barriers cannot only be erected, but also moved and ultimately dismantled.
Yet the outcry of Israel's critics began not when Israelis were being killed in pizzerias, at Passover Seders, and on buses, but only when the barrier went up.
Another case of reverse causality -- ignoring the cause entirely and focusing only on the effect, as if it were a stand-alone issue disconnected from anything else.
So, again, in answer to the question of my erstwhile British colleague, "How can you defend Israel?" I respond: Proudly.
In doing so, I am defending a liberal, democratic, and peace-seeking nation in a rough-and-tumble neighborhood, where liberalism, democracy, and peace are in woefully short supply.
And yet, the false believers persist. They insist Hitler's Big Lie is not a lie but actually truthful and that Hitler was right all along about Jewish identity. Despite the fact that all evidence refutes Hitler's claims, his believers continue to deny that Hitler's Big Lie is a lie. It is their underlying article of faith. For 85 years now, they've been trying and failing to verify Hitler's Big Lie.
Hitler's Big Lie survives today because of pride and prejudice, not evidence. The history of Jewish Europeans is rich enough, fascinating enough and troubling enough to not need embellishment by validation with Hitler's baseless Big Lie. To do so is obscene. Hitler's Big Lie is doomed. It's only a matter of time. The only question remaining is whether David Harris wants to stand on the wrong or the right side of history, morality and decency.
Gerald Sherian, citizen
C.A.U.S.E.
Citizens All United to Stop Extremism
Considering the Barrier
The Barrier is placed on the wrong side of the 1967 green line.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a
International court of Justice
“The Court finds that the construction by Israel of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law; it states
the legal consequences arising from that illegality”
26 years of occupation and the denial of the right under International law and the U.N. Charter of Self-determination.
The establishment of illegal civilian settlement in occupied territories in contravention of article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention.
The Barrier is being erected to protect a civilian population that has no right to be there in the first place. The fact that it is there allows for claims that they are acting as agents of the occupation and thereby making them targets for a legitimate act of resistance.
http://electronicintifada.net/artman2/uploads/2/080928-pchr-settlers.jpg
As the picture shows Israeli settlers are armed. At some point armed civilians cease to be innocent and become active participants. It should also be noted that All Israeli’s over the age of 18 have to perform compulsory military service.
The French resistance did not make an exception for an of duty German soldier out of uniform.
Considering the Barrier
Mr. Meron took note of Israel’s diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not “normal” occupied territory, because the land’s status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.
But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing “intent to annex the West Bank to Israel.” The second was legal, he wrote: “In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory.” For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.
You have the U.N. Security Council calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
You have Israel’s own legal council saying that civilian settlement of the West Bank and Gaza is illegal.
Then you have the first Palestinian suicide bombing occurring in April 1993. The occupation of Palestinian territories had been going on for 26 years by that stage.
Considering the Barrier
Under international people under occupation being denied the right to self-determination have the right to resist that occupation and resort to violence. Such violence is considered under international law to be actions of self-defence. The denial of the right to self-determination is considered to be an act of aggression.
U.N. Security Council resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. Under the terms of that resolution it would seem inappropriate to suggest as legitimate any redrafting of borders.
Article 49 of the Forth Geneva Convention states:
“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
The Legal council for the Israeli foreign affairs department in 1967 Theodor Meron was asked for a legal opinion on the status of the occupied territories by the then Prime Minister Levi Eshkol.
The legal opinion was marked “Top Secret and Extremely Urgent”
“and reached the unequivocal conclusion, in the words of its author’s summary, “that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
David Harris wrote;
“Can they acknowledge that wars inevitably create refugee populations and lead to border adjustments in favor of the (attacked) victors?”
Not according to international Law.
Further in 1967, no Arab plane crossed the border, No Arab soldier fired across the border; no Arab ship sailed into Israeli waters. The 1967 war was in the words of Israeli officials a pre-emptive strike.
An attack made after the U.S. had asked Israel to postpone any action to allow diplomacy to work. An attack made with the full knowledge that Egypt was informed by the U.S. that it new of it’s planes and had subsequently called off its attack.
It was a pre-emptive strike made while the Egyptian foreign minister was in Washington meeting with the U.S. secretary of state.
In much the same way as the U.S. suggests that it was under threat from Iraq and acted to prevent an attack. I do not see the U.S. attempting to make Iraq it’s 51st state and adjusting borders accordingly.
There is a myth that Israel sat peacefully minding its own business and was unjustifiable attacked by the Arabs. Allow me to correct this misconception as well as the myth that Israel actually accepted the Partition plan within General assembly resolution 181
As stated previous 181 was passed by the General assembly in November of 1947. Between December of 1947 and May of 1948 the Security Council was debating its policy in relation to Palestine. Britain as the Mandate authority had abandoned a two state solution in favour of a single democratic secular state.
Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948.
Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948,
Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28,
the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30,
Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10
Acre on May 14, 1948...”
So while the U.N. Security Council was debating its position on General assembly resolution 181. Israel was busy taking control of cities that it had already agreed publicly were to be under Arab control. The Arabs took control of no cities that would have been assigned to Israel should the Security Council have indorsed resolution 181.
In fact before the Security Council could reach a decision Israel unilaterally declared independence
The United Nations is divided into 2 bodies
1 The general assembly that has no actual powers
2 The Security Council that has some limited powers
The General assembly passed resolution 181 that called for a partition of Palestine. At this point there was nothing for the Arabs to accept or reject. Only the security had the authority to act and it is arguable that in this instance they did not have the legal authority to do so. However this point is moot, as they did not endorse the resolution of the General assembly.
Points to consider , the general assembly passed resolution 181 in November of 1947. According to the author thus creating a Jewish state. In May 1948 David Ben Gurion made a unilateral declaration of independence. If the U.N. had already created a Jewish state in November of 1947 through general assembly resolution 181, why was it necessary for David Ben Gurion in May to announce unilaterally that we are a state?
The fact is that the Security Council failed to endorse the resolution of the General Assembly. Which meant that the United Nations did nothing, Thus requiring Israel to unilaterally (undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only) Declare Independence.
1. In the 1922 census of Palestine the total population was 752,048
2. The total Jewish population was 83,790 or 11.14%
3. The total Muslim population was 589,177 or 78.34%
A thriving Muslim culture had existed in the area since 630AD with the exception of the crusader kingdom, which lasted a mere 88 years, That’s 1204 years of Muslim hegemony.
On a purely democratic basis surely the 78.34% of the population has the right to seek it’s own self-determination free from outside influences while the rights of minorities should be protected those rights do not supersede the rights of the majority. At that point in time there was no legal or moral bases for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. For disenfranchising the rights of self determination for the ethnic and cultural majority of the population and making them subservient to an overwhelming minority.
'And if the harsh critics can't acknowledge any of these points, what's the explanation? Does their antipathy for Israel -- and resultant confirmation bias -- blind them to anything that might puncture their airtight thinking?'
Since none of the points have any merit, their lack of acknowledgment needs no explanation. The confirmation bias perhaps lies elsewhere.
Unlike Mr Harris, I'm not a paid propagandist. My butt's sore. I'm calling it a night.
Isreal was a place that Jews were to go to, after WWII, but it wasn't a place they were given mastery over. They took control of it, fighting to survive. But, Israel, having stolen the homes and property of people who lived in the area, has never made good on the theft. Israel should have paid for the property, and should still pay for it. There is no empty land in the middle east. There were people living there, with individual and village property rights. Until Israel pays, they will continue to have resistance. Until they accept that the people who lived in that area have a right to continue to live in the area, they will have war. Not that is a major concern of mine. I am a citizen of the U.S. All I want is to stop being taxed for the benefit of people in a nation that I don't want to support.
'And can they own up to the fact that when it comes to liberal and democratic values in the region, no country comes remotely close to Israel, whatever its flaws, in protecting these rights?'
There's just this little problem called 'apartheid', a word used to describe Israel by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, Ehud Barak, Hendrik Verwoerd, Hendrik Verwoerd -apartheid-era prime minister of South Africa and architect of South Africa's apartheid policies, Desmond Tutu, COSATU (South Africa’s main trade union) and many others.
"Netanyahu asks Obama to pardon jailed Israeli spy
JERUSALEM | Tue Jan 4, 2011 1:05pm EST
(Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to President Barack Obama to grant clemency to imprisoned spy Jonathan Pollard in a letter he then read publicly in Israel's parliament on Tuesday."
old Palestine land belonged to everybody who lived there jews, christians and muslims. and still does.
It just happened to have more muslims than jews.
it needs to go back to it's original state, then let their occupants decide what kind of state or what its name should be. my guess majority will call it Palestine.
Mr. Harris supporting the argument of just accepting the current reality, otherwise you are a day dreamer or worse!
I think that's the same argument of those who on the opposite side of Mr. Harris, they say: "50 or even 100 years is very small time scale for civilizations. let's just try harder to change what is so called "current reality" to something else."
'Can they admit that, when Arab leaders are prepared to pursue peace with Israel rather than wage war, the results have been treaties, as the experiences of Egypt and Jordan show?'
When one considers that the Egyptian treaty came as a result of the Yom Kippur war, as Egypt had been offering the exact same deal since 1971 while Israel was committed to holding onto the Sinai and continuing its 'War of Attrition'. Avi Shlaim's detailed study 'The Iron Wall' richly demonstrates that the olive branch has continually been extended by Israel's Arab neighbours, only to be brushed aside by Israel.