The Israeli Perspective:
Israel’s use of settlements has a lot more nuance reflecting the diversity of Israel’s free political landscape.
The Left blames the settlements for all the woes of Israel “if only those settlers would disappear, Israel could finally achieve its potential”.
On a psychological level, the Left feels guilty (justly or otherwise) for supplanting so many Palestinians. However Israel is their home, and ensures Jewish survival, so they shift their guilt on to the settlements. On the rational (or irrational) level the Left protects its own homes, in Tel Aviv, by arguing that the only reason why there is violence against Israel-proper is because of the occupation, i.e. settlements. They conveniently ignore the stated beliefs –described above- of both religious and secular Muslims and Arabs. Ironically this is the real reason for the collapse of the Left in Israel; the illusion that there will be peace once occupation has ended has been completely dispelled by the Gaza fiasco. It seems obvious but it is a fact that has been conveniently ignored by the left-leaning media in Israel.
The secular right sees the settlements as a useful bargaining tool.
If the Arabs don’t fall in line and accept Israel’s right to exist, the right claims: "we (Israel) will maintain the settlements, and the anger that they engender in Arab countries!" The recent ascendancy of the Israel Beitanu party and its leader, Russian-born, Avigdor Lieberman is a reflection not only of a political coming-of-age of former Soviet Union immigrants but also a consequence of the left's now discredited belief that “settlements are the problem”. For the secular-right the settlements have always been a convenient bargaining tool. Think Menachem Begin (Yamit-Sinai) and Ariel Sharon (Gush Katif- Gaza).
For the religious-Right the settlements are the tangible manifestation of their core beliefs that Israel belongs to the Jews not because of the 1917 Balfour declaration, or the 1947 UN partition plan- but because it says so in the Bible. The settlements are the ideological breeding ground for the religious-Right. As the settlements grow and prosper, the religious-Right grows and prospers.
The settlement enterprise serves many interests. It is a convenient tool for the Arab, Muslim, and anti-Israel world to focus their “justified hate”, and it is a convenient football for Israeli politicians to kick around.
Meanwhile there are over 500,000 thousand “settlers” in the West-Bank and East-Jerusalem. To remove them from their homes would be no less traumatic and wrong then the expulsion and self-imposed exodus of the 600,000 Arabs from Israeli lands after the Arab world refused to recognize the 1947 partition plan.
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN. Show all posts
Friday, January 21, 2011
A Convenient Excuse: What Role do the Israeli "Settlements" Play in the Middle-East? Part l
The anti-Israel crowd is obsessed with illegal settlements in Israel. So I decided to share some relevant facts regarding the so-called settlements:
But first an update:
Arab nations have submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution is only one part of a larger effort by the PA/Fatah, to garner international support for establishing a de facto Palestinian state. The impetus for this resolution and the call for states like Brazil, to recognize a Palestinian state, is a result of the inability of the Palestinians to force Netanyahu into extending the freeze on settlements. In other words, Abbas and co. recognize that violence will not work, that America will not turn its back on Israel, and that the only other option is the UN.
Yet the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has, since the 1967 war, been in the Palestinians corner. However this has been almost meaningless because the UNGA's support is not-binding. When it comes down to business, which is conducted by the UN Security Council (UNSC), countries like Britain, which freely condemn Israel in the UNGA, refuse to act on those condemnations in the UNSC. Indeed, the US has already blocked a vote on this resolution in the UNSC.
So why are Abbas, the PA, and the Arab states putting so much effort into introducing more inane resolutions, this time opposing settlement expansion? On that note, why are the Palestinians seeking international recognition for their state, when that recognition will be meaningless, unless America and Israel accept it –which they won’t?
There are many potential answers to this question. But the question is significant because it leads the observer, in this case me, to analyze the settlement issue from a multitude of perspectives.
The Muslim and Arab Perspective:
The fact of the matter is that the argument that the so called "settlements" are the barrier to peace is a convenient excuse. For all the anti-Israel voices, Arabs, Muslims, and the Europeans who can find little else to harp on. Think about it, religious Muslims reject Israel’s right to exist, because the Koran implies that Jews were rejected by G-d for their sins, and have permanently lost their claim to the land of Israel -green-line or otherwise. Secular Muslims and Arabs can never accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Arab heartland. I mean how humiliating is it for the average impoverished and politically suppressed Muslim and Arab to watch how the Jews -the same people who 65 years ago were living with few rights in Muslim lands- thrive and dominate them in war and peace? The same can be asked regarding the many anti-Semites, who just can’t figure out why the Jews and Israel, despite all their efforts, are so successful.
On the other hand very few Muslim and Arab nations are willing to honestly explicate their true beliefs, usually because of overarching economic and political interests. But these states feel threatened by Israel’s inexplicable growth in the face of every type of challenge. They also have to contend with their own perpetually angry populations. So they target the settlements, not just in the West Bank, where they know Israel is willing to compromise, but also in Jerusalem where Israel will not. Thereby the Muslim and Arab states, (and the rest of the anti-Israel crowd) can portray themselves as reasonable state actors on the international stage, while also suppressing the anger of the Muslim street, by their opposition to the Israeli occupation.
So why did the Arabs offer this resolution now? It’s likely that the economic anger and political turmoil that is spreading from Tunisia to Egypt has a lot to do with it.
Regardless the anti-Israel crowd uses Israeli settlements as a convenient excuse to condemn all of Israel and, in many cases, all Jews. America recognizes this and refuses to jump on the bandwagon of hate.
In Part two I will discuss the many Israeli perspectives on settlements.
But first an update:
Arab nations have submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The resolution is only one part of a larger effort by the PA/Fatah, to garner international support for establishing a de facto Palestinian state. The impetus for this resolution and the call for states like Brazil, to recognize a Palestinian state, is a result of the inability of the Palestinians to force Netanyahu into extending the freeze on settlements. In other words, Abbas and co. recognize that violence will not work, that America will not turn its back on Israel, and that the only other option is the UN.
Yet the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has, since the 1967 war, been in the Palestinians corner. However this has been almost meaningless because the UNGA's support is not-binding. When it comes down to business, which is conducted by the UN Security Council (UNSC), countries like Britain, which freely condemn Israel in the UNGA, refuse to act on those condemnations in the UNSC. Indeed, the US has already blocked a vote on this resolution in the UNSC.
So why are Abbas, the PA, and the Arab states putting so much effort into introducing more inane resolutions, this time opposing settlement expansion? On that note, why are the Palestinians seeking international recognition for their state, when that recognition will be meaningless, unless America and Israel accept it –which they won’t?
There are many potential answers to this question. But the question is significant because it leads the observer, in this case me, to analyze the settlement issue from a multitude of perspectives.
The Muslim and Arab Perspective:
The fact of the matter is that the argument that the so called "settlements" are the barrier to peace is a convenient excuse. For all the anti-Israel voices, Arabs, Muslims, and the Europeans who can find little else to harp on. Think about it, religious Muslims reject Israel’s right to exist, because the Koran implies that Jews were rejected by G-d for their sins, and have permanently lost their claim to the land of Israel -green-line or otherwise. Secular Muslims and Arabs can never accept the idea of a Jewish state in the Arab heartland. I mean how humiliating is it for the average impoverished and politically suppressed Muslim and Arab to watch how the Jews -the same people who 65 years ago were living with few rights in Muslim lands- thrive and dominate them in war and peace? The same can be asked regarding the many anti-Semites, who just can’t figure out why the Jews and Israel, despite all their efforts, are so successful.
On the other hand very few Muslim and Arab nations are willing to honestly explicate their true beliefs, usually because of overarching economic and political interests. But these states feel threatened by Israel’s inexplicable growth in the face of every type of challenge. They also have to contend with their own perpetually angry populations. So they target the settlements, not just in the West Bank, where they know Israel is willing to compromise, but also in Jerusalem where Israel will not. Thereby the Muslim and Arab states, (and the rest of the anti-Israel crowd) can portray themselves as reasonable state actors on the international stage, while also suppressing the anger of the Muslim street, by their opposition to the Israeli occupation.
So why did the Arabs offer this resolution now? It’s likely that the economic anger and political turmoil that is spreading from Tunisia to Egypt has a lot to do with it.
Regardless the anti-Israel crowd uses Israeli settlements as a convenient excuse to condemn all of Israel and, in many cases, all Jews. America recognizes this and refuses to jump on the bandwagon of hate.
In Part two I will discuss the many Israeli perspectives on settlements.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
An Evolutionary Perspective on Israel Bias in the UN and Endemic Anti-Semitism
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on the last day of its annual general conference, voted against a non-binding resolution urging Israel to accede to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).The paper -- which Washington had asked Arab countries not to table at all for fear it could jeopardize a conference on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East to be held in 2012 -- was rejected by the 151-member general assembly with 51 votes against it, 46 votes in favor and 23 abstentions. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100924/wl_mideast_afp/iaeanuclearpoliticsisrael).
Why is this news?
Over the last 60 years every apparatus of the United Nations -from the General Assembly (UNGA) to the Human Rights Council (UNHRC, previously the UNCRH )- has served as instruments to channel the international community’s anti-Israel fervor. One egregious example of this long standing trend had the 2010 session of the UNHRC (as of March 25) passing 5 resolutions condemning Israel -more than the total combined amount of resolutions it dedicated to all other countries in the world — one each on Burma, North Korea and Guinea. No mention of Darfur, Tibet, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Congo, Libya etc.
Some attribute this blatant lopsidedness to the nature of the UN. Namely its various committees, especially the human rights council, are controlled and/or heavily influenced by political blocks. The block with the most votes is that of non-aligned states i.e. most non-Western states. This means, for example, that France may verbally condemn Iranian violations but because it does not want Iran and its allies to vote against Frances interests in the future France abstains from voting for a resolution condemning Iran. Furthermore, because non-aligned states outnumber western states, they can vote any member-state into any commission. For example, Libya, a gross violator of human rights was elected to the UNHRC. But Israel, with its few allies is one state that the world can agree to condemn without fearing any vote related backlash. Indeed condemning Israel is often used to justify the existence of an otherwise inept UN. After all the UN is fighting injustice, just not ALL injustice.
Still others contend that the reason that Israel is so predictably and consistently targeted is because Israel deserves it. In other words, the fact that HAMAS cannot rearm openly, because of Israel’s embargo, and Israel’s often overwhelming defense of its population trumps the wide-spread government sponsored suppression, rape, and murder of UNHRC members like Libya and Iran.
I agree, politics is one factor that contributes to the UN’s track record but there is another.
Yes you guessed correctly, my input relates to anti-Semitism but only so far as anti-Semitism is a label for what evolutionary theory calls natural selection and what others conflate with "survival of the fittest”.
Briefly, natural selection is “the ability of an organism to survive, adapt, and proliferate in its environment” this success is attributed to genetic traits. On the other hand the “survival of the fittest” implies superior fitness/external traits. This difference is key to understanding Hitler’s conception of the uber race, anti-Semitism, and is at the root of the UN’s obsession with condemning Jews/Israel.
Hitler argued that the physical traits of the Aryan, blond hair and such, were evidence of their genetic superiority, whereas Jewish noses, somehow proved genetic inferiority . But Hitler confused the cause and the effect. It is internal genetic traits that enable organisms to thrive -ones hair color and height are the effect of genetic traits not their cause. Thus such external traits cannot serve as evidence of genetic tenacity.
OK, so Hitler confused cause an affect, whats the point?
First a question:
Why did Hitler reach for a genetic reason to condemn Jews, why didn't he focus only on the usual stereotypes?
Because many anti-Semites throughout history made the claim that Jews were inferior. At first it was Jews did not assimilate into the Roman empire. Then Jews refused to convert to Christianity. Then the Jews killed the Jew Jesus. Then the hate was justified by Jewish disloyalty to their host state, and/or the Jewish control of world banks etc...
Hitler assumed that all these Jewish "sins" must reflect a deeper inferiority of the Jew, he proved this by pointing out the Jewish nose and hair color. The irony is that Hitler's reasoning was just as flawed as his predecessors. For he used perceived external traits as evidence of internal flaws. His forbearer's pointed to Jewish stubbornness, Hitler pointed to Jewish physical characteristics
This illogical trend raises an obvious question: why do anti-Semites continually condemn Jews based on external factors like noses and conspiracies to control banks? Can one really make a claim about the innate properties of a people based on external sins? Indeed, can UN nations really sit in judgement of Israel's excessive self-defense while many of its own members rape and murder by the thousands!?
It would seem then that the proclaimed/conscious flawed reasoning of the anti-Semite reflect "survival of the fittest" principles, whereas their true sub-conscious motivations reflect natural selection
Hitler, the anti-Semite, and the UN are all motivated by a similar concern. Namely the unwillingness to accept that their hate is not based on objective external factors like noses, religion, or propensity for economic malfeasance ("survival of the fittest"). Rather it stems from a deeply rooted evolutionary fear that the Jews success, despite everything, is evidence of natural selection working in favor of the Jews.
The UN has simply institutionalized, on a global scale, the irrational fears of the simple anti-Semite.
At first Israel teetered on the edge of a social, political, and existential abyss, but now it has emerged as a small world power. The nations of the world are worried once again. The UN's collective subconscious is crying “evolution is at work the Jews are supplanting us”. The conscious manifestation of this is the inexplicable and abysmal bias against Israel expressed in every corner of the UN and the reemergence of anti-Semitism in every corner of the world.
In short there is reason to believe that evolutionary principles are at the root of all this preponderance of hate by the anti-Semite and in the UN. Caused by overwhelming Jewish success that spans all known history that was, and is, perceived as an existential threat to the ascendency of the non-Jewish species. The manifest result of this perception is labeled "anti-Semitism". The perceived threat of the Jewish "species" was compounded by the failure of the various state-sponsored measures of forced conversion expulsion, and ghettos. Despite every effort the Jew not only survived but prospered. The anti-Semite interpreted this, subconsciously, as evidence of the Jewish evolutionary ascendancy and responded to it consciously by discounting Jewish success as nefarious and ill-gained, -anything to not have to face up to their own insecurities- and then persecuting the Jew.
It seems only natural that the UN manifests this carnal fear of Jewish superiority in its treatment of Israel. As Israel, like the Jew, continues to experience ever greater success despite global efforts of boycott, sanction, condemnation, terror, to force Israel into submission. Yes, the UN has taken on both the deep-seated motivations and misinterpreted manifestations of the anti-Semite. The UN justifies its hate-campaign by pointing to Israel’s wrongs, but the extent and bias of this pointing is at its root a subconscious motivation- the collective fear of Israeli success.
The tragedy is that anti-Semites and the UN continue to make Hitler’s mistake by assuming that external factors such as Jewish success, “survival of the fittest”, is valid evidence of natural selection choosing the Jew. Not only is this a inverted conception of natural selection (as described above), and thus in itself should not arouse the subconscious fear, it is also the Jewish perspective that if natural selection is correct it is in itself a tool of a higher power. It is not the final determinant of survival and success.
The world need not perceive Israel’s successes as a threat, just as the anti-Semite need not perceive the Jew as attempting his dissolution.
On the contrary:
As is evidenced by global Jewry in general and the Jewish-American experience in particular, Jews can and do contribute in every way to society.
Interestingly all the above may explain Americas pro-Israel track-record.
Why is America an exceptional example of Jewish contribution? Because America is a society that is secure in its own inherent worth and is not threatened by a subconscious psychosis that natural selection is favoring the Jew, to the detriment of the rest.
THAT is a major factor contributing to Americas general (though not unanimous) support of Israel in the UN, and Americas/Americans relatively stellar record on anti-Semitism.
Why is this news?
Over the last 60 years every apparatus of the United Nations -from the General Assembly (UNGA) to the Human Rights Council (UNHRC, previously the UNCRH )- has served as instruments to channel the international community’s anti-Israel fervor. One egregious example of this long standing trend had the 2010 session of the UNHRC (as of March 25) passing 5 resolutions condemning Israel -more than the total combined amount of resolutions it dedicated to all other countries in the world — one each on Burma, North Korea and Guinea. No mention of Darfur, Tibet, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Russia, Congo, Libya etc.
Some attribute this blatant lopsidedness to the nature of the UN. Namely its various committees, especially the human rights council, are controlled and/or heavily influenced by political blocks. The block with the most votes is that of non-aligned states i.e. most non-Western states. This means, for example, that France may verbally condemn Iranian violations but because it does not want Iran and its allies to vote against Frances interests in the future France abstains from voting for a resolution condemning Iran. Furthermore, because non-aligned states outnumber western states, they can vote any member-state into any commission. For example, Libya, a gross violator of human rights was elected to the UNHRC. But Israel, with its few allies is one state that the world can agree to condemn without fearing any vote related backlash. Indeed condemning Israel is often used to justify the existence of an otherwise inept UN. After all the UN is fighting injustice, just not ALL injustice.
Still others contend that the reason that Israel is so predictably and consistently targeted is because Israel deserves it. In other words, the fact that HAMAS cannot rearm openly, because of Israel’s embargo, and Israel’s often overwhelming defense of its population trumps the wide-spread government sponsored suppression, rape, and murder of UNHRC members like Libya and Iran.
I agree, politics is one factor that contributes to the UN’s track record but there is another.
Yes you guessed correctly, my input relates to anti-Semitism but only so far as anti-Semitism is a label for what evolutionary theory calls natural selection and what others conflate with "survival of the fittest”.
Briefly, natural selection is “the ability of an organism to survive, adapt, and proliferate in its environment” this success is attributed to genetic traits. On the other hand the “survival of the fittest” implies superior fitness/external traits. This difference is key to understanding Hitler’s conception of the uber race, anti-Semitism, and is at the root of the UN’s obsession with condemning Jews/Israel.
Hitler argued that the physical traits of the Aryan, blond hair and such, were evidence of their genetic superiority, whereas Jewish noses, somehow proved genetic inferiority . But Hitler confused the cause and the effect. It is internal genetic traits that enable organisms to thrive -ones hair color and height are the effect of genetic traits not their cause. Thus such external traits cannot serve as evidence of genetic tenacity.
OK, so Hitler confused cause an affect, whats the point?
First a question:
Why did Hitler reach for a genetic reason to condemn Jews, why didn't he focus only on the usual stereotypes?
Because many anti-Semites throughout history made the claim that Jews were inferior. At first it was Jews did not assimilate into the Roman empire. Then Jews refused to convert to Christianity. Then the Jews killed the Jew Jesus. Then the hate was justified by Jewish disloyalty to their host state, and/or the Jewish control of world banks etc...
Hitler assumed that all these Jewish "sins" must reflect a deeper inferiority of the Jew, he proved this by pointing out the Jewish nose and hair color. The irony is that Hitler's reasoning was just as flawed as his predecessors. For he used perceived external traits as evidence of internal flaws. His forbearer's pointed to Jewish stubbornness, Hitler pointed to Jewish physical characteristics
This illogical trend raises an obvious question: why do anti-Semites continually condemn Jews based on external factors like noses and conspiracies to control banks? Can one really make a claim about the innate properties of a people based on external sins? Indeed, can UN nations really sit in judgement of Israel's excessive self-defense while many of its own members rape and murder by the thousands!?
It would seem then that the proclaimed/conscious flawed reasoning of the anti-Semite reflect "survival of the fittest" principles, whereas their true sub-conscious motivations reflect natural selection
Hitler, the anti-Semite, and the UN are all motivated by a similar concern. Namely the unwillingness to accept that their hate is not based on objective external factors like noses, religion, or propensity for economic malfeasance ("survival of the fittest"). Rather it stems from a deeply rooted evolutionary fear that the Jews success, despite everything, is evidence of natural selection working in favor of the Jews.
The UN has simply institutionalized, on a global scale, the irrational fears of the simple anti-Semite.
At first Israel teetered on the edge of a social, political, and existential abyss, but now it has emerged as a small world power. The nations of the world are worried once again. The UN's collective subconscious is crying “evolution is at work the Jews are supplanting us”. The conscious manifestation of this is the inexplicable and abysmal bias against Israel expressed in every corner of the UN and the reemergence of anti-Semitism in every corner of the world.
In short there is reason to believe that evolutionary principles are at the root of all this preponderance of hate by the anti-Semite and in the UN. Caused by overwhelming Jewish success that spans all known history that was, and is, perceived as an existential threat to the ascendency of the non-Jewish species. The manifest result of this perception is labeled "anti-Semitism". The perceived threat of the Jewish "species" was compounded by the failure of the various state-sponsored measures of forced conversion expulsion, and ghettos. Despite every effort the Jew not only survived but prospered. The anti-Semite interpreted this, subconsciously, as evidence of the Jewish evolutionary ascendancy and responded to it consciously by discounting Jewish success as nefarious and ill-gained, -anything to not have to face up to their own insecurities- and then persecuting the Jew.
It seems only natural that the UN manifests this carnal fear of Jewish superiority in its treatment of Israel. As Israel, like the Jew, continues to experience ever greater success despite global efforts of boycott, sanction, condemnation, terror, to force Israel into submission. Yes, the UN has taken on both the deep-seated motivations and misinterpreted manifestations of the anti-Semite. The UN justifies its hate-campaign by pointing to Israel’s wrongs, but the extent and bias of this pointing is at its root a subconscious motivation- the collective fear of Israeli success.
The tragedy is that anti-Semites and the UN continue to make Hitler’s mistake by assuming that external factors such as Jewish success, “survival of the fittest”, is valid evidence of natural selection choosing the Jew. Not only is this a inverted conception of natural selection (as described above), and thus in itself should not arouse the subconscious fear, it is also the Jewish perspective that if natural selection is correct it is in itself a tool of a higher power. It is not the final determinant of survival and success.
The world need not perceive Israel’s successes as a threat, just as the anti-Semite need not perceive the Jew as attempting his dissolution.
On the contrary:
As is evidenced by global Jewry in general and the Jewish-American experience in particular, Jews can and do contribute in every way to society.
Interestingly all the above may explain Americas pro-Israel track-record.
Why is America an exceptional example of Jewish contribution? Because America is a society that is secure in its own inherent worth and is not threatened by a subconscious psychosis that natural selection is favoring the Jew, to the detriment of the rest.
THAT is a major factor contributing to Americas general (though not unanimous) support of Israel in the UN, and Americas/Americans relatively stellar record on anti-Semitism.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
No Mention of Turkey in the Obama/Netanyahu Press-Conference
This afternoon Barack H. Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu held a post meeting press-conference. They discussed Iran, the peace process, Gaza, Israeli nuclear arms, and even answered a question on the settlement freeze by an intrepid Israeli journalist. But no mention of Turkey’s demand for a UN “impartial inquiry” into the Flotilla provocation with a bad ending or a request that Israel apologize to Turkey. In fact while the Arab states, Hamas, Iran, and even Netanyahu’s Israel speech congratulating America on July fourth, were mentioned Turkey was not (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/07/06/HP/R/35121/President+Obama+USIsrael+bond+unbreakable.aspx).
Of course Turkey may have been discussed behind closed doors. After all the Turkey-Israel alliance in the Middle-East is in everyone’s interest. However as far as the public eye can see Turkey was simply ignored. This despite the fact that the meeting was supposed to occur on March 31, but was postponed by the flotilla incident. Furthermore Erdogan’s Turkey has put tremendous political capital into publicly demonizing Israel, whether at the UNGA, UNSC, or at the recent Baltic summit. It comes as a surprise that Turkey didn’t even warrant a passing mention, even by the journalists during the Q&A.
Why?
First of all as the mid-term elections approach, Obama is attempting to affirm his relationship with Israel and pander to the over 65% of Americans who strongly support a robust American-Israel alliance. Netanyahu, for his part, needs Obama’s support on a number of strategic issues as well as his approval, so that this time when he comes back to Israel the media won't go into a frenzy about how Israel lost America's support. It may also be a non-verbal Que to Turkey to play nice or not play at all.
But the why is not as significant as the results.
If you have a chance please watch and listen as Netanyahu begins his part of the press-conference (minute 7:30). He mentions that not everything is said openly and then he immediately continues to discuss a “new” danger in the Middle-East with a final segue into reiterating the moral reasons to oppose Iran –its brutal oppression of its own people. One could easily conclude that Netanyahu was referring to a segment of a conversation not mentioned –Turkey. How Turkey's policy was a new threat, and that its stated reasons for supporting Israel’s enemies, “occupation siege…”, were hypocritical considering they are supporting a repressive Iranian regime.
Then Netanyahu concluded that Obama affirmed the USA-Israel relationship behind closed doors and in public. Clearly Turkey has not accomplished much. Erdogan’s rhetoric or political shenanigans has not separated America from Israel, on the contrary.
Of course Turkey may have been discussed behind closed doors. After all the Turkey-Israel alliance in the Middle-East is in everyone’s interest. However as far as the public eye can see Turkey was simply ignored. This despite the fact that the meeting was supposed to occur on March 31, but was postponed by the flotilla incident. Furthermore Erdogan’s Turkey has put tremendous political capital into publicly demonizing Israel, whether at the UNGA, UNSC, or at the recent Baltic summit. It comes as a surprise that Turkey didn’t even warrant a passing mention, even by the journalists during the Q&A.
Why?
First of all as the mid-term elections approach, Obama is attempting to affirm his relationship with Israel and pander to the over 65% of Americans who strongly support a robust American-Israel alliance. Netanyahu, for his part, needs Obama’s support on a number of strategic issues as well as his approval, so that this time when he comes back to Israel the media won't go into a frenzy about how Israel lost America's support. It may also be a non-verbal Que to Turkey to play nice or not play at all.
But the why is not as significant as the results.
If you have a chance please watch and listen as Netanyahu begins his part of the press-conference (minute 7:30). He mentions that not everything is said openly and then he immediately continues to discuss a “new” danger in the Middle-East with a final segue into reiterating the moral reasons to oppose Iran –its brutal oppression of its own people. One could easily conclude that Netanyahu was referring to a segment of a conversation not mentioned –Turkey. How Turkey's policy was a new threat, and that its stated reasons for supporting Israel’s enemies, “occupation siege…”, were hypocritical considering they are supporting a repressive Iranian regime.
Then Netanyahu concluded that Obama affirmed the USA-Israel relationship behind closed doors and in public. Clearly Turkey has not accomplished much. Erdogan’s rhetoric or political shenanigans has not separated America from Israel, on the contrary.
Monday, June 21, 2010
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.
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.
Understanding the Israeli Exhortation "Why Not Them" (1)
In a recent piece published in Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-harris/to-the-free-gaza-movement_b_602061.html),one amongst many, David Harris, the President of the American Jewish Congress (AJC), asked the now infamous question of the Free Gaza Movement, "why not them".
The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.
Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.
But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .
The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?
Is this a legitimate argument?
Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.
Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.
1. The implications perspective.
The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.
Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).
The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.
This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.
The Free Gaza Movement was one of the major organizers of the "provocation with a bad ending" flotilla. Harris asked them, rhetorically, why don't you organize to stop mass human rights abuses all over the world -why Israel? His conclusion, is that they do not seek to help Gaza but to hurt Israel.
Amongst his supporting evidence is the assertion that if they wanted to help Gaza, they should have delivered the aid the fastest way possible, via established land routes.
For the sake of balance, the Free Gaza Movement responds that they organized to help Gazans not other victims.
But this essay is not about this specific article or event. Rather it is meant to offer a number of perspectives on Harris’s underlying argument, as his observation is not new. Pro-Israel, and watch-dog groups covering NGO's, human rights groups, and of course the UN Human Rights Council - (UNHRC) in response to habitual and sustained criticism of Israel- regularly make this same accusation .
The "why not them argument" boils down to the question of why so much energy and resources are expended on criticizing Israel while the other more sever human rights violations are ignored?
Is this a legitimate argument?
Before that can be answered a more expansive understanding of this oft cited rhetorical question and the corresponding answers offered is in order.
Here I will attempt to analyze and expand the underlying question from three perspectives.
1. The implications perspective.
The implications perspective is always offered rhetorically and is historical in nature. It asks what can possibly explain the obsession with Israel, and the disproportional negative attention it engenders, except history? History explains the criticism of Israel as it comes from the same quarters that perpetrated the crusader riots, the wave of expulsions of Jews from almost every nations-state of Western Europe and later the Arab world, ghettos, and of course the holocaust.
Some in the Jewish community point to the Talmudic maxim, “Esiv Sonei et Yaccov” Esau hates Jacob –the decedents of Esau -commonly understood to refer to the descendants of Rome -as part of their nature hate the descendants of Jacob, the Jews (please see post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/05/why-do-i-hate-jews.html).
The implications perspective argues that the disproportionate criticism of Israel, is explained by the source of the criticism, i.e. much of criticism is not of Israel but of the Jewish nature of the state of Israel (please see post http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html). The implications are that good old historical anti-Semitism is alive and well, as evident by the, otherwise unexplainable extent of criticism of Israel, to the detriment of 10’s of millions really being oppressed across the globe. The point being that anything Israel does, short of disappearing, is open to attack.
This is one way to understand the “why us not them argument”. In part two we look at two others and attempt to draw a concrete conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
