top
Racial Justice
Racial Justice
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

On Hating Israel

by Emily
What we know but can’t say out loud.
Europe, the United Nations, many elites in America, and, of course, the entire Arab and Islamic worlds, are against Israel. Their venom arises from three pretexts.


1. Occupation?

Israel purportedly occupies land that is not theirs — a travesty said to be wholly unique on the world stage, and so deserving of special and universal condemnation. Yet contra the Palestinians' constant lament, there is a great deal of occupied territory in the world today — tragedies that completely evade the moral radar of the United Nations and are unimportant to any of the self-proclaimed moralists of the Arab world.

Since 1974, a good part of Greek Cyprus has been under Turkish control — the homes and property of the Greek-speaking Cypriots confiscated, the native population expelled, and the island partitioned. The entire country of Tibet has been annexed by China, quite illegally and without much complaint from any besides a few in the United States.

What happened to Lebanon? The Syrians have occupied the entire country, where Palestinians find themselves helots, and the Lebanese themselves are little more than butlers to their Syrian overlords. Kurdistan is the property of three different countries; the Balkans are a mess with literally millions of ethnic Slavs, Albanians, Serbs, and Greeks living in lands controlled by others. A quarter million, not three thousand, have died there in the last fifteen years. What gives Russia the right to hang on to Japanese islands they confiscated in the closing weeks of World War II? Terrorist organizations — similar to Hamas and Hezbollah — in Ireland and Spain seek similarly to blow people up to claim for themselves an autonomous and hereditary homeland.

What is different in many of these cases is that the Tibetans did not try to invade China on three occasions. Greek Cypriots did not, in a series of wars, try to push all the Turks into the Mediterranean. Nor did the Lebanese seek to storm Amman, lose a war against Syria, and thereby lose the autonomy of their homeland. Clearly there is something else going on in Palestine besides the world's moral indignation over the principle of occupied lands.

2. Borders and Refugees?

Wars have a bad history of displacing residents. I doubt whether millions of Germans will ever get back any of their land in what is now eastern France and western Poland. Thousands of Russians have been finding themselves increasingly unwanted in the Baltic states. Will Ionian Greeks — residents of the Western coast of Turkey since the 11th century B.C. — ever return to their homes after the brutal expulsions of the 1920s? Millions of Islamic Pakistanis and Indian Hindus find themselves living in artificial countries in which they were not born.

By any fair measure of ancient or modern history, the situation in Palestine is not unique. Indeed, Israel is trying to be far more just to its defeated enemies than most victors — whether Turks, Poles, French, or Chinese — have been in the past. I omit questions of body counts and collateral damage. Pace the United Nations and the Palestine-propaganda machine, the real killing in the world today is going on in Central Africa, the Amazon basin, the former Soviet Union, and India. What is amazing is not that Palestinians have died in the fighting, but that in comparison to urban fighting in Chechnya, Mogadishu, and Panama, so few have perished. In that regard, Mr. Arafat's invocation of Stalingrad is as historically silly as it is obscene to the memory of those hundreds of thousands who perished on both sides in the winter of 1942-43.

3. Racism?

A constant charge — most recently and repugnantly made by a freed Mr. Arafat — is that the Israelis bear a racial grudge against the Palestinians. He has alleged that, like Nazis, Israelis seek to cleanse non-Jews from the West Bank. The U.N. itself for years tried to pass resolutions equating Zionism with racism. Yet by any fair measure the Israeli government is light-years ahead of the Arab world in terms of racial and religious tolerance. Privately, Arabs would concede that they are treated far better in Tel Aviv than any Jew would be now in Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, or Amman. We do not read in the Jerusalem Post, as we do in the Arab dailies, that Palestinians are "monkeys" and "vampires." Nor is there a sizable literature in Israel — as there is in the Arab world — devoted to proving their enemies are subhuman. Real racism and hatred exist in this present conflict, but they are expressed almost entirely by Arabs, not Jews. Had a paper in Tel Aviv alleged that Arabs drink blood and are related to primates, the world's outrage would be second only to the moral indignation in Israel itself.

If Israel is guilty of little more than defending itself, and of not allowing its defeated adversaries their land back until the Jewish state is guaranteed security, what then really is at the heart of the world's hatred against the Israelis? The answer is rather transparent and can be summarized easily by five general considerations.

1. Realpolitik

We must never forget the crass self-interest of states — a trait that the Greek historians felt was at the heart of most conflict, albeit often crudely disguised by pretexts such as "justice" and "fairness." There may be nearly half a billion Arab-speaking peoples. Millions of Islamic citizens reside now in the West. Just a few hundred miles of the Mediterranean separate Europe from medieval regimes in Libya, Algeria, and Syria. The importance of the Arab world vis — vis Israel, then, can be gauged in an array of cultural, economic, and political fears and opportunities — from the size of expatriate populations to profits to be made from expansive trade and enormous markets. Were Israel large — say 400 million Jews — and the Arabs around them scarce (perhaps 10 million), then we would see dozens of U.N. resolutions condemning Mr. Arafat, for everything from murdering U.S. diplomats in the past to his present complicity in ordering suicide bombing.

2. Oil

Somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of the world's oil reserves are beneath Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq. For the next 30 years or so, Europe, the United States, and Japan must depend on this steady supply of imported petroleum. And while these Western economic powerhouses obviously try to seek alternative suppliers in Russia, South America, and Norway, the fact remains that for the foreseeable future, in such an interconnected global economy, Middle Eastern oil — and its unstable and unsavory caretakers — are essential to the world's economic health. We have seen various efforts by these regimes to disrupt such supplies — from Saudi Arabia's oil embargo of 1974 to Iran's bombing of tankers in the Persian Gulf to Saddam Hussein's torching of the Kuwaiti oil fields — and so realize that prejudices, internecine wars, and inexplicable feuds at any hour can incite all these autocracies. Far easier — and cheaper — to keep silent about their routine horrors, or indeed actively abet their often absurd agendas.

Moreover, the income from oil brings these dictatorships Western technological expertise and military hardware — and hence the sympathy of millions in the West, who depend on selling them everything from cell phones and computers to jets and drill bits. The thousands of Europeans and Americans who buy, trade, and ship crude oil can hardly risk the ire of their own benefactors. So they usually cloak their crass utilitarianism in more patriotic slogans of "national interest" and "economic security." Had Israel 25 percent of the world's oil reserves and her Arab neighbors none, the European Union would now be damning the Palestine bombers as the thugs and terrorists they are.

3. Terrorism

The majority of the world's international terrorists of the last 30 years — the very worst killers who blow up international jets, storm the Olympic Games, murder Western diplomats, storm embassies, take hostages, and vaporize civilians at work — have been in the service of radical Islamic and Arab causes. That is not to say that Japanese, Irish, Basque, Malaysian, white racist, and Armenian terrorists have not murdered frequently — only that Arab assassins have been far more likely to attack on a global scale, especially against Europe and America. Since at least the 1967 war, the world has known that supporting Israel might well result in the killing of diplomats, athletes, tourists, and soldiers in their sleep, at the office, and on vacation. In contrast, had the Mossad been murdering Frenchmen, Americans, and Germans all over the world, politicians would now be scrambling to assuage Israeli discontent and seeking to ascertain the "root causes" of such grievances.

4. Anti-Semitism

We do not quite know why anti-Semitism persists in a supposedly educated and modern Western world at a time when assimilation, integration, and intermarriage are ever more common and a crass secularism has blurred distinctions among the major religions. Traditional stereotypes and hatred, of course, are always passed on to each new generation; and we must never forget the power of envy that highly educated, competent, and professional Jews incur from the less gifted and less successful. Nevertheless, the current rise of anti-Semitism is quite blatant — especially the shameful blasphemy in the indiscriminate use of the words "holocaust" and "genocide," and in the sudden reappearance of swastikas next to Stars of David. I am a 48-year-old Swedish-American Protestant and have expressed support for Israel for 30 years — but never once before had I been asked, "Are you Jewish?" This past year alone, however, that question — usually framed as an accusation — has arisen at least 50 times — along with printed and electronic invective that would make Mr. Goebbels proud.

Here we must be frank: The Arab world bears a great deal of the blame for the current new hatred. Islamic prejudice is the engine that drives European anti-Semitism. The state-run newspapers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are no different from those in Germany in the 1930s. Saudi diplomats and religious figures unapologetically voice loathing right out of Mein Kampf — itself a bestseller in parts of the Arab world. The truth is that had the Palestinians been attacked and won four wars against the Israelis, and so right now found themselves occupying the state of Israel, much of the world would say, "More power to you for defeating and occupying those pesky Jews."

5. Aristocratic guilt and the cult of the underdog

With few worries about hunger or drudgery, and with ever-increasing material appetites, many Westerners have used that indulgence of affluence to condemn the very culture that produces such a good life. Nihilism, cynicism, and sarcasm are the symptoms we see among our bored and guilt-ridden elite, who belittle both the capitalists who manage their wealth and the arms and backs of the purportedly crass middling classes who actually produce it.

Radical environmentalism, romantic multiculturalism, and authoritarian utopianism all reflect a rather smug idealization of the disadvantaged and nature in the raw. Central to this creed is identification with the supposedly anti-Western world of the universal downtrodden — and, really, almost anyone or anything else in the past three centuries that has come up against the juggernaut of the dominant culture of Western industrial capitalism.

Thus, for some Westerners, it is not so much the facts of the last 50 years in the Middle East that drives their hatred of Israel. Nor the plenitude of Arabs and paucity of Israelis nor, perhaps, even worry over the price of gas for their Volvos and SUVs — nor their fear of bombs and germs, nor envy of Jews. Rather, the Palestinians are weak and the Israelis are strong. So — like the hosts of disadvantaged in America — Mr. Arafat and his minions are deserving of injured-party status as their birthright, getting a pass from liberal censure to mouth hatred and prejudice. In turn, the Israelis — almost like white affluent Republicans in America — are thought to be so strong and confident precisely because they are exploiters, and thus are held collectively responsible for the oppression and current plight of their long-suffering "victims."

Partly Marxist, partly ignorant, and mostly naive, these insufferable and affluent European and American leftists see their solidarity with Palestinians as inseparable from their own embarrassed personas. It is easy, cheap — and safe — to right the injustices of the world by marching, shouting, and signing petitions, rather than by living among, marrying, seeing daily, or materially aiding the "other." It can all be done in a few seconds on campus, on television, or in the suburb — without any true self-introspection about what really ensures one's own rather comfortable material existence in the university, media, or government.

The truth is that Westerners' support or hatred for Israel increasingly tell us far more about ourselves than they do about the real situation in the Middle East.
by blah
So, you compare Israel to many other horrible examples of occupation and then ask why people pick on Israel.

Before a year ago, I might have had the same view, but before a year ago, the left in Europe and the US was if anything moderately proIsrael.

AntiIsraeli sentiments on the US left and in Europe probably started during the reign of assasinations Israel started a year ago. People expected more from a developed country and the fact that it was done in the open was different from most other conflicts. Don't claim that suicide bombers are different, a quick search on the headlines from Nepal, Chechnya, Colombia.. reveal similar acts of war targeting civilians but most civilized governments do not respond in kind (or at least try to hide it when they do through death squads and the like).

If Western countries had been able to stop Israel, I think Israel would have been forgiven, but Western governments(and the US in particular) not only did not impose sanction but really didnt punish Israel at all for this behavior.

Even after Israel started the policy of assasinations, the "Left" in the US and Europe didn't openly do much. There were probably more protests in the US surrounding US support for Colombia back then than there was against US support for Israel (and that was before the war in Colombia really heated up).

So what changed?

The main thing that changed relates to the recent actions by the IDF in the West Bank (curfews that almost pushed the population towards starvation, shooting at the press, bulldozing of houses, shooting at Red Crecent workers, shooting at UN convoys...) Such things may not be unique in the world but people are used to thinking of these as the actions of pariah states (like Burma, Iraq etc...) How could this state with an open media and a democratic government support such attrocious actions? How could the world community sit by and do nothing (despite all the words)? People expected more from Israel and its exactly because of this that the focus is so strongly on Israel today.

Is there antisemetism in the US and Europe? Of course, but the weird part in this conflict is that the traditional antisemites are backing Israel. Gianfranco Fini, the head of the neofasict party in Italy (who has openly spoken highly of Mussolini), is not only proIsrael but he was even invited to visit in recent days (according to http://www.haaretzdaily.com).

The real reason that the left in the US and Europe is so opposed to Israel is that Israel's actions are attrocious and at the same time people like George Bush are calling Sharon a "man of peace".

I, like many on the US left, am Jewish. The only thing that sickens me more than watching Israel's actions towards the Palestinians (and the inaction of the international community in the face of what may become genocide) is that right wing Christians (who always used to hate me and pick on me in school since I did not celebrate Christmas) are now claiming that anyone who opposes Israel is antisemetic. The real antisemites are backing Israel since they know that Sharons actions will only backfire against Jews worldwide.
by Anonymous
Let's all quit throwing around the term 'antisemitism.' The Israelis are Ashkenazim, European Jews. The Palestinians are the Semites.
by jeff
- The "occupied territories" have been occupied not since 1967, but since 1948. The occupiers were Egypt and Jordan, both did not bother to create an independent Palestinian state.
- Palestinian authority rejected Barak/Clinton proposals in 2000 without even coming up with a counter offer. Yes, we don't forget this! Instead negotiating the terms of end of "occupation" they started a terrorist war against Israeli people.
- Red Crescent of Palestine ambulances are used to transport palestinian combatants and ammunition.
- Arab attacks on jews in Palestine started years before the 1967 war.
- Suffering of palestinian civilians is caused by the decision of Palestinian militants to wage war from towns and vilages and use their own civilians as cover.
by jax
anti-semitism
"Hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as a religious or a racial group, the term 'anti-semitism' was coined in 1879 by the german agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-jewish campaigns in central europe at that time..."
by Ian Torin
mufti2.jpg
A picture taken in 1943 of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini (Yasser Arafat's uncle) reviewing Bosnian-Muslim troops - a unit of the "Hanjar (Saber) Division" of the Waffen SS which he personally recruited for Hitler.
by anon
"- The "occupied territories" have been occupied not since 1967, but since 1948. The occupiers were Egypt and Jordan, both did not bother to create an independent Palestinian state. "

The occupied territories were occupied by the British and Ottomans before that. Whats the point? If the British were still treating Palestine as a mandate I think people would be up in arms over that. Trying to use the bad policies of others to justify the occupation would be like beating up a kid on the playground and then telling the teacher "its ok I saw someone else beating them up first".

"Palestinian authority rejected Barak/Clinton proposals in 2000 without even coming up with a counter offer. Yes, we don't forget this! Instead negotiating the terms of end of "occupation" they started a terrorist war against Israeli people."

Hmm, didn't Sharon's actions at the temple mount help to start the second inifada. Also from what I remember the intifada started as nonviolent demonstrations that Israel responded to with live gunfire. The deal put forward by Barak had major flaws; under the deal there was no right of return and that would have left many people stuck in refugee camps.

"Red Crescent of Palestine ambulances are used to transport palestinian combatants and ammunition"

There were probably people who had political agenda in previous wars who joined the Red Cross or Red Crescent and did not act neutral. But this is the first time in recent memory I've ever heard of a country treating the whole group as the enemy. The IDF even detained and roughed up the regional head of the Red Crescent (someone whose neutrality was guaranteed). Justifying shooting of medics has to be a low point for Israel that few countries have ever sunk beneath.

"Arab attacks on jews in Palestine started years before the 1967 war."

This is the "they started it argument". How far back are you going. The massacre of Palestinian civilians by the Israelis at Deir Yassin was in 1948. And dont forget the actions of the Irgun and Stern gangs.

"Suffering of palestinian civilians is caused by the decision of Palestinian militants to wage war from towns and vilages and use their own civilians as cover"

Well when a people is under seige and they fight back people who fight back tend to emerge from civlian areas. In Colombia rebels and paramilitaries frequently take cover in villages. In Colombia, unlike Palestine, they frequently do not have full support of those in the villages. BUT, in Colombia the government doesnt use that to openly claim that all the civilians are evil and declare war on them. If Israel is engaged in a guerilla war then it is not even living up to the low standards of rest of the world. Colombia's secret support for paramilitary death squads should be condemned but Israel's open assasinations, curfews, and bulldozing of houses is so much worse its horrifying (I cant think of any other country that uses bulldozers to destroy the houses of the relatives of combatants).
by zippo for the palestinians
"to justify the occupation would be like beating up a kid on the playground and then telling the teacher "its ok I saw someone else beating them up first". "

Doesn't even address the issue. No one ever tries to justify an occupation. There's not a land on the face of this Earth that has not been "occupied" by a people. Most lands have been taken away from some and occupied by others. Read the article above. Right or wrong, occupation is a fact of life. It has always been and will always be. If you and I are at war and I beat you and take your land, don't start whining about it 30 years later. Gather an army and formally declare war on me. That is, if you want to risk getting your ass kicked again.

"Hmm, didn't Sharon's actions at the temple mount help to start the second inifada."

Again, doesn't even address the issue. The argument is that the Arafat walked away from the bargaining table.

"The deal put forward by Barak had major flaws; under the deal there was no right of return and that would have left many people stuck in refugee camps."

So that justifies walking from the bargaining table and putting more lives at risk with absolutely no hope of obtaining peace? That makes sense.

Not to mention the fact that nothing was ever put into writing from the summit discussions so nobody really knows exactly what was offered. Who exactly is that convenient for? Well if your objective is to completely remove Jews from Israel it's not exactly convenient to have a written document that shows they offered you 95% of your demands in exchange for permanent and lasting peace, is it?

"There were probably people who had political agenda in previous wars who joined the Red Cross or Red Crescent and did not act neutral."

No kidding? Really? Tell it like it is buddy.

"But this is the first time in recent memory I've ever heard of a country treating the whole group as the enemy."

It's called a war. It has happened many times in history. Read up.

"The IDF even detained and roughed up the regional head of the Red Crescent (someone whose neutrality was guaranteed)."

Guaranteed by what? by whom?? How absurd is that?
If your organization is involved in the transport of artillery during times of war, then nothing is guaranteed.

"Justifying shooting of medics has to be a low point for Israel that few countries have ever sunk beneath."

Show me a medic that the IDF killed and I'll show you a dead terrorist.

"This is the "they started it argument"."

Doesn't refute the truth.





by jeff
Trying to see the current situation in Israel and Palestine in terms of occupation and human rights alone is wrong. This is nothing like a country envading another country's territory and oppressing its population. Two national movements have been struggling for their self determination for close to 100 years. Palestinian narrative of victimization is simply not true. The only way to accomodate aspirations of the Jewish Israeli and and Arab Palestinian national movements is to for the two people to _truly_ recognize legitimicy of each other's rights and draw a border based mainly on demographic lines. Israel would remove most of the settlements, annex the densly populated settlement blocks (not those that prevent continues Palestinian state. The towns in Israel populated by Arabs holding Israeli citizenship will become part of Paletinian state.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$230.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network