A Convenient Excuse: What Role do the Israeli "Settlements" Play in the Middle-East? Part ll

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.

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.

For Israel There Is Only One Choice: A Jewish Majority At All Costs!

The PLO Representative to the United States, Maen Rashid Areikat, spoke today at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University. Mr. Areikat was asked by my friend whether he believed that the current US sponsored Peace effort, towards a two state solution was more plausible then a one state solution?

Mr. Areikat responded with standard diplomatic circumlocution, that Israel has three choices.
1. Become an apartheid state, by both refusing to negotiate for a Palestinian State and preventing West Bank Palestinians from achieving full Israeli citizenship.
2. Accept a two state solution.
3. A one state solution, by giving West Bank residents full Israeli citizenship.

But I disagree Israel has only one choice:

From Areikat’s perspective, the creation of Israel alienated an entire population, and he is right.
Perhaps this population caused its own downfall and continues to miss opportunities, -failed leadership and corruption etc.- but as any cognitive psychologist will tell you it is perception not reality that is important.
It is equally true that regardless of the justness of Israel’s position the Palestinians are not going away.

But Mr. Areikat, like so many others, misses the underlying point. Israel is not just another nation where citizens define their allegiance by rooting for their national-sports team. Israel is not just a state where Jews are a majority. It is a place defined by its Jewish majority.

To repeat:

For 2000 years the worlds Jews, and their resourcefulness, were at the whim of tyrants, imams, and popes. True in the Ottoman Empire, Muslim ruled Iberia (Spain),15th century Poland, and 19th century Germany Jews were allowed to live in peace, but they were never equal citizens. And as we know now their safety was as transient, as the laws that protected them. It is also true that America, my country, has been unwavering in its protection of its Jewish minority, but even here Jews are constantly reminded by the likes of Helen Thomase, Mel Gibson, and Oliver Stone -to name a few- that America the beautiful can be high-jacked by ugly Americans.

Now Jews finally have a state, not a decaying dessert kingdom, but a developed, and pluralistic nation in the very same geography of our ancient homeland. A place where I, an American, can choose to move and thrive and where my fellow Jews who are being firebombed and beaten (usually by disaffected un-integrated [Chancellor Angela Merkel anyone] Muslim immigrant-youth)are now running.

So why should Israel's support a two state solution only to be hedged in by a proven enemy from every side?
1967 borders?!
You mean to say Israel should allow itself to be effectively split in half? Because 1967 borders=20; 20 miles wide at its most narrow point, which is also smack in the middle of Israel. Dismantling settlements?!
You mean to say that Israel should force 325,000 Jews from their homes? Isn't that exactly what Palestinians claim happened to them?

Worse why should Israel support a one state solution only to lose its Jewish majority and place itself in the hands -once again- of a people who, justly or otherwise, have been taught to hate and have murdered out of hate?
Indeed even if they were peace loving Europeans (ahem hem) why take the chance?

I know, the moral arguments coming from the left and Muslims are compelling.
But from my perspective this is not about who is the bigger victim of circumstance or whether Israel deserves all the world’s condemnation, it's not even about the moral issues of "occupation".

It's about Israel's mission to preclude another 2000 years of forced subjection to unfettered human hate. Jews are no longer defenseless. For this reason Israel has only one choice, a Jewish Majority at all costs!

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 Every War in The Middle East Weakens the Palestinians

Despite Netanyahu’s unprecedented freeze of all construction in the disputed territories PA/PLO/Fatah leader Abbas refuses to have direct negotiations with Israel demanding that Israel first concede most of what is supposed to be negotiated. Meanwhile Hezbollah/Lebanon attacks an Israeli patrol, which was cutting down a tree, after informing the UN peace-keepers as per the UNSC resolution 1701 agreement. Perhaps trying to deflect attention from the indictment of senior Hezbollah operatives for the 2005 assassination of Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.

Both of these developments could have happened ten years ago and we wouldn’t have known the difference. At the same time they reveal yet another fallacy in pro-Palestinian thinking.

You see the average Jew on the streets of Paris, London, Madrid, Quebec, Burn, Berlin , Amsterdam etc. knows exactly what to expect during any conflict in the middle east, anti-Semitism, boycotts, media libel, and flag-burning/destructive protests etc. Eventually many Jews decide that they are no longer welcome in these countries, especially the ones which are rapidly filling with Muslim immigrants. Because it is usually those Muslim immigrants who target anything Jewish, and it is the host governments which are faced with the difficult option of integrating Muslims but often find it easier to allow them an avenue to hate, the Jews are a convenient target.

So the hardworking Jew, probably a doctor, scientist, or financial analyst returns home one day perhaps with drying blood/spittle on their shirt, a light injury contributed by the dregs of their society a disaffected Muslim, left wing, or right wins thug. They sit down with their family take of their hat covering/hiding their kippa, and describe how they were jumped on a train full of people by a group of bums shouting “death to Israel” or too “bad Hitler didn’t finish the job” -they tried to defend themselves but there were too many cowards…

Why not move to Israel, there our family will be protected, after all it is one of the most successful countries in the world were Jews are allowed to protect themselves and if there is discrimination is doesn’t target Jews. They move to Israel and help contribute to the latest scientific breakthrough perhaps another Nobel prize!

The above is exactly what is going on all over the Jewish-world Israel is seeing the largest influx of Jews from North America, France and the UK since the 90’s. Never mind the steady flow of Jews from Africa, and Asia. The fact of the matter is that every war in the Middle East increases immigration to Israel, and Israel becomes stronger. The byproduct of this inevitability is that Palestinians and those who encourage their self immolation -most of the power hungry Muslim middle-east, become weaker.

It is ironic considering that that many Palestinians/left-wingers/demographers and one state advocates, believe openly or otherwise that it is just a matter of time before Israel’s Jewish majority devolves into a minority. The argument in their mind is that we can outwait the Jews and in the intern make their lives miserable (as if this somehow encourages ambivalent Jews to accept the notion that if there was no state of Israel they would have equal rights in Palestine!).

Yet what happens if Frances 500,000 plus Jewish community or even a fraction of the Americas 7 million plus Jewish population feels like they need to move to Israel? Let us further postulate that many of these Jews find that the West Bank is really cheap… But further aggressions by Hezbollah and HAMAS, stirred by their masters in Iran is exactly what actualizes the above scenario. And runs contrary to the line of reasoning that supports Abbas’s refusal to negotiate, as war strengthens Israel.

Some with noxious conspirator tendencies (those who are adept at taking a kernel of truth and using it to prove a lie please see post for discussion on this tendency: http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/07/oliver-even-if-jews-do-control-americas.html) conclude that this proves that anti-Semitism is fomented by Israel, or by the ADL. Unlikely, but either way the longer the Palestinians wait to get their act together and give up on their dream of greater Palestine, the more war and thus the smaller their chances of having a land of their own. This is besides the fact that in every war with Israel the arab/muslims always sustain more casualties.

For those who are really pro-Palestinians (not anti-Israel), you would do well to encourage less war and more conversation.

Israel Firster??? That May Make YOU a Firster!

In recent months I have seen an uptick in the use of the term "Israel-firster". This term is at times used to besmirch consistently pro-Israel conservatives, but more often it is applied to any one who advocates strongly on behalf of Israel, especially if they happen to be Jewish. Unless the advocate is Israeli, the term implies, they are disloyal to America or whatever country the individual is from because they put Israel first.

To be fair, the abusers of this term are simply following their antecedents. The canard that Jews are disloyal to their country of citizenship is a as old as the bible. Pharaoh decreed that the Jews be enslaved because “they will side with our enemies”. Over 600 years later the viceroy to the Persian king Xerxes (though the exact king is disputed, Purim) passed a decree ordering the death of every single Jew in the Persian empire. Jews celebrate our victory over Pharaoh’s and Haman’s hate on Passover and Purim respectively. In pre-war Germany, despite heavy Jewish assimilation (including serving disproportionally in the Kaisers army, and the dominance of reform Judaism which was centered on giving up the central Jewish belief in the coming of the Messiah and the return to Israel), the claim that Jews were disloyal was prevalent. In that case the Jews were not as lucky.

So the users of the term Israel firsters have quite the pedigree.

But it is not enough to call them what they primarily are, anti-Semites, because they will respond “you always silence your critics by calling them anti-Semites”. Instead here is a logical argument that both refutes their claim and exposes them for what they, chiefly, are.

People that besmirch patriots of Jewish origin as Israeli firsters, shout “they push America into wars and cause American blood and treasure to be spilled for their good". Another claim they make is that it is obvious America should be like the rest of the world and condemn Israel so that we won’t be hated, but because of the “lobby” or because of Israeli firsters, America puts itself on the line for Israel.

The implication here is that any time America goes to war against an enemy that happens to also be an enemy of Israel, America is doing it to its own detriment. Or that when America gives loan guarantees or military hardware, to Israel, it causes a net loss for America. Or that America puts Turkey and Erdogan in its place, not because of their actions against Israel which strategically hurt America, but because Israel firsters are insidiously manipulating American politics.

Like the Turkish claims prevalent in Turkey, these canards are easily debunked.

America's war in Iraq may have been to the benefit of Israel, but it benefited Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait even more. Indeed the war eliminated Saddam, a man who invaded Kuawit and Iran and launched scuds into Saudi Arabia and Israel. Furthermore it made Iran, Israel’s biggest enemy, stronger because it eliminated Iran’s main secular rival/threat on its border. As for America fighting Israel’s wars with no Israeli blood being sacrificed: It is well known that America refused direct Israeli help during the first and the second Gulf wars so as not to openly antagonize the Arab street which backed America's intervention in Iraq (1). It is equally known that when Israeli population centers were attacked with Iraqi scuds during Gulf one, it did not respond so as not to jeopardize the American led coalition. Of course Israel’s intelligence in the middle-East is fully utilized by America and its real allies.

Also the firsters refuse to acknowledge that a significant majority of Americans, in every poll, consistently support Israel over its neighbors, to a tune of 60-40. They like to blame the media, as if there are not major media sources that are unrelenting in their biased criticism of Israel -New York Times and Huffington Post just to name two.

Finally what really unmasks those making Israel firster accusations is the fact that they never acknowledge that there are overriding political, strategic, and ideological reasons for America's support for Israel. Instead they say "look the whole world is against Israel", as if that’s a logical reason to stop supporting Israel. Obama reached out to the Muslim world. Those that were pro-America in the past continue to be so. Those that weren’t are no closer. It is not America's support for Israel that decides who supports or opposes America.

For those that dispute the above claims please take a moment from writing baseless comments on Huffington Post and educate yourself about the logical reasons for those that support Israel’s all-pervasive relationship with America. For example, http://pairspective.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94:the-linkers-and-the-thinkers-is-americas-support-for-israel-hurting-america-part-3&catid=35:highlights&Itemid=92. Instead of hypothesizing that the reason they hate us is because we support Israel… ask yourself why do YOU hate Israel? Are you projecting your feelings on others?

Finally, Jews in America have every reason to support America's interests. After all it is this country that protects our freedoms. It is in this country where we are able to shine and succeed, and it is this country that supports our right to advocate on behalf of the land where our mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers live -to protect itself and succeed despite all the hate directed at it. Why do we love America? It is because this is a country that stands up for the truth, and goes against the irrational populist tides that are once again inundating the old world.

So why do some living in America and taking advantage of this great country attack America's choice -not criticize, not debate, but attack? Furthermore, why do most of these people, whom you derogatorily call flag wavers, or Israel firsters, support America's choice? Is it because they are in reality American firsters?!

To be fair just as all criticism of Israel and its supporters is not anti-Semitic so too are some who use the obnoxious term Israel firsters, not motivated by anti-Semitism. Rather they irrationally assume that every action that perpetuates a grievance they have towards American policy can’t be motivated by the desire, first and foremost, for this country to succeed. You think that it’s bad for this country. They think it is good. Fine, but don’t blindly conclude that they must be Israel firsters, because they can just as easily conclude that you put anti-Semitism, Hamas, Turkey, Islam, Iran, China, Congo, Sudan, Libya, North-Korea, and/or all the above terrorists before the good of our country. Which by the way makes YOU A FIRSTER!

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.

Why Helen Thomas Resigned:

Helen Thomas was the longest serving journalist in the White House Press Corp. At the ripe old age of 89 she resigned from her post, after she candidly was recorded as saying that the Jews should get the hell out Israel, and go back to Poland and Germany.

While Thomas, the daughter of Lebanese immigrants was never, or ever tried to be, seen as pro-Israel, she was always given the benefit of the doubt that her views were political by nature. That is, she opposed Israel not because it is a Jewish state, but because of the usual political arguments.

Yes the Jewish and Israeli community both here and abroad is very sensitive to criticism, but there is still a small majority which believes that criticism of Israel is not synonymous with anti-Semitism. I dealt with this very issue in a previous post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-have-no-problem-with-jews-its-just.html which I hope you will read.

This despite the disappointing and confused responses by some in the Jewish community, posting on Huffington post (which relished the opportunity to publish that article) and other less significant media outlets. Please, when you are dealing with such an important issue, you have to argue coherently and effectively. Stick to the issue!

With that necessary digression aside, I accept the majority position, with the caveat that just because anti-Semitism is not inherent to criticism of Israel does not automatically mean that anti-Semitism is not often behind that criticism. Indeed many astute followers of the news have become adept at distinguishing the two.

Thomas was one of these respected journalists, and was beleived to reflect the above nuanced position -criticism without anti-Semitism.

Until.

Until she made her comments.

But even now let us not jump to conclusions.

What did she say?

Did she make a distinction between Israeli's and Jews? Did she make a distinction between Israeli's from Europe and Israeli's that lived in Israel and surrounding Arab nations in an unbroken chain for over 3,000 years? No and no. After all it was only some Jews who came from the death camps of Germany and Poland. But she said “they” should get the hell out of Palestine.

Did she differentiate between pre and post 1967 borders? Did she mean that only the West Bank and Gaza is Palestine? No, and no. If she meant to, then she should have said “let them go back to Israel proper”.

What I infer from her comments is that she

1. She denies the existence/legitimacy of the State of Israel, akin to HAMAS’s extremist position.

2. She does not distinguish between Israelis and Jews, which means that decades of her extreme criticism of Israel were inherently directed at Jews.

Does the above mean that Thomas is an anti-Semite? Certainly not the conventional type that Jews are all too familiar with, you know the Neo-Nazi or frothing at the mouth protester at an ant-Israel rally. If she is an anti-Semite, she is more like the sophisticated Mel Gibson type. You know, making movies that indirectly affirm anti-Semitic notions, or effectively hiding beliefs until that one candid moment when it all comes out.

However her resignation was justified. Not because of the insidious Israeli lobby, our oversensitive culture, or even her almost blatant anti-Semitism, but because

3. she completely lacks, or perhaps recently lost, the sensitivity that is integral to the fair, honest, and democratic exchange of ideas that the majority of Americans cherish.

and

4. she is not capable of objective reporting on Israel, and who knows what else. This is not to say that she has no right to her personal opinion, however egregious and extreme, but rather that her views compromise her ability to report to us in an as unbiased manner as possible (please see inside.ptribune.com for more on this point)

Finally, her resignation proves, that America, despite all its imperfection, is still a great and blessed country. At the end of the day that's why Helen Thomas resigned.