To The Chorus of Chronic, Compulsive Critics of Israel

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
cnorman18

To The Chorus of Chronic, Compulsive Critics of Israel

Post #1

Post by cnorman18 »

Time to go on the offensive. I'm more than a little tired of having to defend Israel; I think I'll take a run at SUPPORTING Israel, and see how the opposition does.

Ran across this on The Huffington Post. It seems to be addressed to some members here, so I thought I’d pass it along. I expect the responses, if any, will prove Harris’s points rather neatly.

To The Chorus of Chronic, Compulsive Critics of Israel

By David Harris, Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee, and Senior Associate, St. Antony's College, Oxford University

Posted: July 25, 2010 04:04 PM

July 26, 2010

You just can't contain your rage against Israel, can you?

A mere mention of Israel and you're out of the starting gate in record time with another tirade accusing it, and its defenders, of every conceivable evil in the world – from Nazism to Apartheid, from blood libel to mass murder.

The facts be damned—they only get in the way of your outrageous assertions and gross distortions. You follow the approach recommended by Lenin: "A lie told often enough becomes the truth."

Your narrative is pre-cooked, airtight, and impervious to reason. It's filled with a hatred of Israel that eludes logical explanation, a blindness that shuts out any contrary evidence.

For you, Israel can do no right other than to close up shop and call it quits, while the Palestinians, your hallowed victims on a pedestal, can do no wrong. Strikingly, all this is done in the name of such vaunted values as democracy, legitimacy, and an end to occupation.

Yet you interpret and apply those values in rather strange ways. Take democracy.

Israel is a democracy. Much as you may breathlessly try to dismiss the notion, it's a fact.

Israel has free and fair elections, smooth transfers of power, and an independent judiciary. It has a wide array of political parties, a freewheeling parliament, including members who have openly cavorted with the country's enemies, and a feisty press. It has a well-developed civil society and countless human-rights and civil-rights groups. It protects freedom of worship for all. It has a vibrant gay community. It has strong labor unions. And minority communities enjoy legal protections.

No, Israel may not be perfect – and I would never suggest otherwise – but, then again, what democracy is, especially one so young and subjected to so many challenges to its very existence? But democracies, by their very nature, invite self-criticism and improvement.

Now take a look at Israel's neighborhood.

For all your purported concern about defending democracy – or freedom or human dignity – why is your voice on mute?

Could it be that your real ideal is a Hamas-run society, with its all-enveloping political and religious suffocation, relegation of women to the status of virtual male property, intimidation of the tiny Christian community, unadulterated anti-Semitism, and reverence for the cult of violence?

If your world view is defined by the belief that Palestinians are mistreated, then why not a peep about their condition in, say, Lebanon?

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have lived in Lebanon for decades, yet by law they are excluded from working in dozens of professions, have no right to own property, and have limited access to healthcare. Is this acceptable to you? Have you petitioned the Lebanese government to respect their human dignity? If so, please don't keep it a secret.

In fact, why not go a step further and expose the absurdity of a flotilla heading from Lebanon to Gaza to "assist" the Palestinians? Whatever happened to the notion that "charity begins at home"?

And, dare I ask, when was the last time you spoke out in protest against the treatment of women, gays, religious minorities, labor activists, and human-rights defenders in the larger Middle East?

You talk about legitimacy, accusing Israel of being an "illegitimate" state.
Israel is an entirely legitimate state.

From the Balfour Declaration to the League of Nations Mandate, from the recommendation of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine to the overwhelming vote of the UN General Assembly, Israel's foundation is rock-solid. In fact, it's far stronger than that of most other countries.

And I'm not even invoking the Jewish people's ancient history and literature, and the findings of archaeology to support it, relevant though they are.

Not only is the nation entirely legitimate, but so is its government, a product of the periodic expression of the will of its people.

But if you're truly seized by questions of legitimacy, why not examine some of Israel's neighbors?

You'll discover a few uncomfortable truths.

First, their historical legitimacy is questionable, the result either of conquest or cynical European leaders drawing borders at will. And second—as in Syria, for instance—political legitimacy derives more from the bullet than the ballot, and from the entrenched notion of filial dynasties.

Either way, it doesn't do much for the legitimacy case.

And then there is the "end to occupation."

Since the 1967 war, Israel, unlike many nations victorious in battles of self-defense, has withdrawn from lands it seized.

It gave back to Egypt the vast Sinai region, with its oil fields and strategic depth, withdrew from Gaza, and yielded to Jordan on border issues. It has also pulled all its troops out of southern Lebanon and dramatically lowered its profile in much of the West Bank. And it has repeatedly declared its readiness to embrace a far-reaching two-state solution with the Palestinians that would entail further territorial sacrifices.

Israel, so small that it's barely a speck on world maps, has one overriding preoccupation – security. Until the Palestinians finally get their act together and pursue peace seriously and credibly, Israel has every right to act against groups operating in Gaza and the West Bank that stockpile weapons and plot terrorist attacks.

Any other nation defending itself would act similarly – or, perhaps, more ruthlessly and with less regard for the well-being of civilians cynically used by enemies as human shields.

But those of you in the chorus of chronic, compulsive critics of Israel blithely ignore Israel's withdrawals to date and repeated offers of peace, instead robotically hammering away at the "evils of occupation" – by which you presumably mean Israel's very existence, irrespective of its borders.

Yet again revealing your rank hypocrisy, the chorus is strangely silent when it comes to other occupations.

Take, for instance, Cyprus. The island has been divided since 1974, there are tens of thousands of Turkish troops in the northern part, and it is an open secret that the Turkish government generously encourages thousands of settlers – yes, settlers – to move there from Turkey and shift the demographic balance.

Any chance that the chorus will speak up? It hasn't since 1974, and is unlikely to start now. After all, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has positioned himself as the champion of Hamas – and, for the chorus, that must be a dream come true. Why jeopardize it?

Winston Churchill faced his own chorus of chronic, compulsive critics who willfully tuned out obvious truths when he sought to alert the world to the great dangers of the 20th century.

He famously said: "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

Sounds as if he had people like you in mind.
Question for debate:

Do the chronic and compulsive critics of Israel apply 'the values of democracy, legitimacy, and and end to occupation" appropriately? Are those standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors?

Moderate Guy
Student
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:11 am

Post #2

Post by Moderate Guy »

Do the chronic and compulsive critics of Israel apply 'the values of democracy, legitimacy, and and end to occupation" appropriately? Are those standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors?
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "chronic and compulsive critics of Israel," but regarding the points:

Anyone who says Israel is something other than a democracy, is clearly wrong

Anyone who says Israel is NOT an occupying force in Gaza, is clearly wrong.

Anyone who questions the legitimacy of the State of Israel, is clearly wrong.

Are these standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors? The non-democratic, totalitarian status of the neighbor states is certainly well known - so I'd have to give a qualified YES. Some of the neighbors are better reported than others (especially Iran). Although it's well known that Saudi Arabia is totalitarian, there's not much reported about it. Still, the situation is not reported incorrectly, as far as I know.

cnorman18

Post #3

Post by cnorman18 »

Moderate Guy wrote:
Do the chronic and compulsive critics of Israel apply 'the values of democracy, legitimacy, and and end to occupation" appropriately? Are those standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors?
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "chronic and compulsive critics of Israel," but regarding the points:

Anyone who says Israel is something other than a democracy, is clearly wrong

Anyone who says Israel is NOT an occupying force in Gaza, is clearly wrong.

Anyone who questions the legitimacy of the State of Israel, is clearly wrong.

Are these standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors? The non-democratic, totalitarian status of the neighbor states is certainly well known - so I'd have to give a qualified YES. Some of the neighbors are better reported than others (especially Iran). Although it's well known that Saudi Arabia is totalitarian, there's not much reported about it. Still, the situation is not reported incorrectly, as far as I know.
The fact that the totalitarian nature of the states surrounding Israel is known is hardly the point. The fact that the UN has taken more than 900 actions against Israel, while the nation in second place -- Sudan -- has been the object of fewer than half that number, rather clearly indicates that the standards to which lip service is routinely given are not being equitably applied in any substantive way.

Moderate Guy
Student
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:11 am

Post #4

Post by Moderate Guy »

cnorman18 wrote:
Moderate Guy wrote:
Do the chronic and compulsive critics of Israel apply 'the values of democracy, legitimacy, and and end to occupation" appropriately? Are those standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors?
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "chronic and compulsive critics of Israel," but regarding the points:

Anyone who says Israel is something other than a democracy, is clearly wrong

Anyone who says Israel is NOT an occupying force in Gaza, is clearly wrong.

Anyone who questions the legitimacy of the State of Israel, is clearly wrong.

Are these standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors? The non-democratic, totalitarian status of the neighbor states is certainly well known - so I'd have to give a qualified YES. Some of the neighbors are better reported than others (especially Iran). Although it's well known that Saudi Arabia is totalitarian, there's not much reported about it. Still, the situation is not reported incorrectly, as far as I know.
The fact that the totalitarian nature of the states surrounding Israel is known is hardly the point. The fact that the UN has taken more than 900 actions against Israel, while the nation in second place -- Sudan -- has been the object of fewer than half that number, rather clearly indicates that the standards to which lip service is routinely given are not being equitably applied in any substantive way.
That sounds reasonable, expecting the UN to be more even handed. However it sounds a bit like a child who has just gotten in trouble and complaining that another kid has been even worse.

You're pointing out the UN is getting it wrong with respect to (for example) Sudan. I agree. But are they really getting it wrong with respect to Israel, or is Israel truly doing some bad things?

cnorman18

Post #5

Post by cnorman18 »

Moderate Guy wrote:
cnorman18 wrote:
Moderate Guy wrote:
Do the chronic and compulsive critics of Israel apply 'the values of democracy, legitimacy, and and end to occupation" appropriately? Are those standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors?
I'm not sure who you're referring to as "chronic and compulsive critics of Israel," but regarding the points:

Anyone who says Israel is something other than a democracy, is clearly wrong

Anyone who says Israel is NOT an occupying force in Gaza, is clearly wrong.

Anyone who questions the legitimacy of the State of Israel, is clearly wrong.

Are these standards applied fairly and equitably to Israel's neighbors? The non-democratic, totalitarian status of the neighbor states is certainly well known - so I'd have to give a qualified YES. Some of the neighbors are better reported than others (especially Iran). Although it's well known that Saudi Arabia is totalitarian, there's not much reported about it. Still, the situation is not reported incorrectly, as far as I know.
The fact that the totalitarian nature of the states surrounding Israel is known is hardly the point. The fact that the UN has taken more than 900 actions against Israel, while the nation in second place -- Sudan -- has been the object of fewer than half that number, rather clearly indicates that the standards to which lip service is routinely given are not being equitably applied in any substantive way.
That sounds reasonable, expecting the UN to be more even handed. However it sounds a bit like a child who has just gotten in trouble and complaining that another kid has been even worse.

You're pointing out the UN is getting it wrong with respect to (for example) Sudan. I agree. But are they really getting it wrong with respect to Israel, or is Israel truly doing some bad things?
It isn't so much that Israel is getting cited for war crimes, of which it is guilty (though there are nuances and degrees of guilt, that is another debate); it is that the Palestinian terrorists are virtually never cited at all, for anything. The complaints of the Israelis with regard to Palestinian terrorism, racism, dishonesty and bad faith, and violations of agreements are uniformly and invariably ignored and dismissed entirely -- and it is the UN which is continually touted as the "unbiased authority" that should determine relative guilt and impose fair and equitable solutions here.

To use your own analogy of a child in trouble: yes, every child complains that other children are doing worse things -- but if you see with your own eyes that one child is the teacher's whipping boy while other children, who are openly doing things that are at LEAST as bad, and perhaps worse, are being allowed to continue that behavior with impunity and without comment, would you regard that teacher's actions as fair and just?

The crimes against Israel are not only ignored and dismissed by the UN, but by critics of Israel here on this forum. There is one member here who consistently refuses to even acknowledge the existence of a terror campaign. After being repeatedly challenged on that very silence, he refuses to even acknowledge those challenges. It is that member to which I thought this article might be most properly directed.

Moderate Guy
Student
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:11 am

Post #6

Post by Moderate Guy »

cnorman18 - I have not doubt that you have followed this more closely than I, so don't take my comments/questions as disagreement - I'm just trying to understand further.

I looked for more information on this, and found the following wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Pa ... ed_Nations

Please let me know if you think it is a balanced article. It provides some support for what you said, but also describes some challenges. I'm guessing three factors are at play: 1) It's easier for the UN to condemn action by a state than by resistance groups. It is, after all, the United Nations. 2) as the wikipedia article suggests, there is no unanimous definition of terrorism. I'm not sure I fully buy this, but there's something to it. 3) there may be a bit of David/Goliath sympathies going on here: it's the US/Israel alliance against the disorganized Arab world and the historically oppressed Palestinians (I'm not judging this view as necessarily true, just suggesting this as a mindset).

I'll be interested in your response to my hypotheses.

cnorman18

Post #7

Post by cnorman18 »

Moderate Guy wrote:cnorman18 - I have not doubt that you have followed this more closely than I, so don't take my comments/questions as disagreement - I'm just trying to understand further.

I looked for more information on this, and found the following wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel,_Pa ... ed_Nations

Please let me know if you think it is a balanced article. It provides some support for what you said, but also describes some challenges. I'm guessing three factors are at play: 1) It's easier for the UN to condemn action by a state than by resistance groups. It is, after all, the United Nations. 2) as the wikipedia article suggests, there is no unanimous definition of terrorism. I'm not sure I fully buy this, but there's something to it. 3) there may be a bit of David/Goliath sympathies going on here: it's the US/Israel alliance against the disorganized Arab world and the historically oppressed Palestinians (I'm not judging this view as necessarily true, just suggesting this as a mindset).

I'll be interested in your response to my hypotheses.
The introduction to the article is all right, but it is woefully incomplete. Notice the disclaimer at the top of the page; this article obviously needs some work. The runup to the Six-Day War of 1967 isn't even mentioned, only the refugee problem that followed it, and the PLO is implied to have been founded in the 70s. It was founded in 1964, long before the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. There are no details given on the failed negotiations at Camp David in 2000. There is some information about "claims" of UN bias later in the article, but there just isn't enough information here. I'd look elsewhere if you want to find complete and unbiased infomation. Wikipedia is too easily skewed by partisans on volatile issues, and that applies to both sides. I'd look for sources that can't be altered by readers.

I understand that you're just seeking information, but your three ideas here have more to do with propaganda than with facts. Look at my posts on the other Israel threads, especially the "Questions for Debate: Israel" thread, and notice which points are not being rebutted and the many questions in the OP which no one wants to answer or even acknowledge. One more tip; whenever anyone posts an outrageous "quotation," be sure to Google it. The more outrageous it is, the more likely it is to be fabricated.

I'm working on a personal writing project at the moment, and have little time left for these debates. I've said my piece, and you can judge the responses to it for yourself. Thanks for your interest.

Post Reply