Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (2)

2. The Higher Standard or Thomas Friedman, Perspective.

This perspective was offered by Thomas Friedman. Friedman, a New York Times columnist, is despised in the pro-Israel community for his decades of outspoken criticisms of Israel -even during the waves of homicide bombings unleashed by Arafat and HAMAS, following the collapse of the Oslo accords. I must admit that I was often turned off by what I perceived to be the (unsurprising)perpetuation by a Jew of a biased perspective in an already biased Newspaper. That is until I “discovered” his journalistic expose called “Between Beirut and Jerusalem”. There, Friedman asserts that Jewish Israel must hold itself to a higher ethical standard. I will not go into the details of his argument here but it is a compelling explanation of his excessive criticism.

Still the question for the “higher standard perspective” is not whether Israel must hold itself to a higher moral/ethical standard of warfare but rather whether Israel is already meeting this standard and is still being criticized. For example, following Operation Cast Lead to stop years of HAMAS rocket fire on Israeli cities, the expected trend of Israel bashing again emerged. Israel, as usual, contended it could not have fought the war in a more moral/ethical manner.

This YouTube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo, is of a retired British general testifying in front of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) affirming that Israel did in fact meet this self imposed higher standard.

So from this perspective a question arises: “I can understand that you hold Israel to a higher standard but even after Israel has, or at least made its best effort to, meet that higher standard, why does the disproportionate criticism continue?” Thus critics focus excessively on Israel because they expect more, but the “more” – lift the embargo on Gaza/trust HAMAS; don’t respond to rocket fire when it is shot from amongst civilians; eliminate checkpoints- are simply unrealistic expectations. To meet this higher standard would effectively mean the destruction of Israel. Indeed, the only difference between this perspective and the first is that the latter one focuses on unrealistic expectations and the former is about anti-Semitism.

3. The Quantitative/Qualitative Perspective.

This perspective takes a bifurcated approach to understanding why it is that Israel is the focus of so much negative attention when it is not amongst the major human rights violating states (Congo, Sudan, Iran etc.).

Quantitatively speaking, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict pales in comparison with other conflicts if we compare the number of casualties, illegal acts, and human rights violations caused by other conflicts.

Conversely, if we evaluate this conflict qualitatively –the larger ramifications of the conflict- then one could make the argument that the Israeli/Palestinian does deserve all the attention.
The Darfur, Sudan crises can assist in understanding the difference between the above approaches.
Darfur has seen over 300,000 killed in the past 15 years. From a purely quantitative perspective Darfur is an infinitely more pressing human rights issue then Israel/Palestinian/Arab, where about 15,000 were killed over the past 20 years. However, from a qualitative perspective, the fact that Israel is Americas biggest ally in a region with significant strategic value makes Israel a target of any nation that wants to weaken America's dominant position in the region. Whereas, Darfur is seen, falsely I should add, by these same political forces as “just another episode of Black on Black violence”, i.e. there is relatively little strategic value in making Sudan a big human rights issue.

This perspective offers a rather simple explanation to the underlying question.

Israel receives disproportional criticism, not because of the relatively minor, Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the alleged human rights abuses, but rather as the result of a larger strategic tug-of-war over the Middle-East. In other words the pervasive focus on Israel’s perceived crimes is a superficial manifestation of a deeper more conscious struggle that has a lot less to do with human suffering then it does with economic and strategic interests. The result is America’s support for Israel, defending it from spurious attacks because of Israel’s strategic value to America (please see three part series http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/linkers-and-thinkers-is-americas_25.html). While other nations and NGO’s persistent attacks reflect the desire to weaken Israel and thereby weaken America's position in the Middle-East.

All of the above perspectives ask the same underlying question, “why not them” but the individual conclusions they offer -anti-Semitism; your higher standard is unrealistic; and strategic value- are very different.

So now, from these three perspectives, is the rhetorical question, "why not them" a legitimate response to the excessive criticism?

In my opinion it depends on the specific critique.


In other words the cumulative critiques of Israel is really the conflation of three streams of criticism.

In theory, if it was possible to eliminate all the critique stemming from the argument that Israel should be held to an impossible standard, or that Israel has no right to exist, leaving only the strategic component then the response “why not them” would have no bearing on the issue.

The difficulty is knowing when this answer is justified i.e. where the criticism is actually stemming from.


Thus on the surface Harris, was correct in his response to a specific criticism. Because that criticism was perceived to come from one of two arguments. Either from the argument that Israel has no right to exist/defend itself, or that Israel should be held to an impossible standard - After all the Free Gaza Movement wanted to break a blockade that was essential for Israel’s survival. At the same time there was/is clearly a larger strategic influences at play, namely the struggle for control of the Middle-East.

So why didn’t Harris include in his article a response to a valid source of excessive criticism –namely that there is another level that has nothing to do with human rights violations, anti-Semitism, or Israels right to exist, and everything to do with larger strategic interests?

Unfortunately, like Harris, many in the pro-Israel/American community, understand the, anti-Semitic, impossible standard, and quantitative side of this argument but do not appreciate the significance of the qualitative side –the specifics of which I will leave to the astute reader's imagination.