Monday, April 14, 2008
After reading Josh Anderson’s opinion piece (April 11) about the Arab/Israeli conflict that misconstrued facts, offered little to no evidence and was decidedly one sided, I felt the need to reply.
The policy of apartheid (legalized racial segregation) that occurred in South Africa was a disenfranchisement of its citizens by the minority white government.
This policy was a racist policy which differentiated between white and black.
Israel, however, is a sovereign nation that occupies the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Neither is a country and is not part of Israel. Non-citizens who live there are not given the same rights as citizens. Israel’s policy of checkpoints and its construction of a security barrier are designed to defend its citizens from violence.
The policy of apartheid was not meant for security. The issues underlying the creation a Palestinian state are very complex. One obvious issue is the terrorist groups, recognized as such by both the United States and Europe, that have considerable influence within the occupied territories. Terrorism should not be confused with nationalistic resistance.
Hamas is not dedicated to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state that lives in peace alongside the State of Israel; rather, its charter calls for the destruction and elimination of Israel. Negotiating with Hamas would be like negotiating with Al Qaeda, a group committed to the establishment of a universal caliphate.
Israel is a democracy that represents the myriad views of its citizens. Some are liberal, cosmopolitan and secular. Others are conservative and religious. Some are nationalistic and some Zionistic. Some are Arab. But all have a voice within the Knesset.
The same cannot be said for the autocratic Arab regimes that surround the Democratic, western State of Israel.
Given the complexity of Israeli politics, it is difficult to come to a satisfactory political solution. But it is all the more difficult when the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon, civilians, are subjected to errant missiles that land on their hospitals, schools and kindergartens. The duty of the state is to protect the security of its citizens. This necessitates action on the part of the Israeli army.
Israeli leadership has made poor decisions; but there is a robust, independent media that is there to point out the errors and plenty of social action groups to advocate on behalf of the Palestinians.
Where is the independence in the Arab media? Where are the social action groups decrying the deaths of Israeli civilians and lobbying their leadership for policy changes?
It is precisely this imbalance that Anderson fails to report. He claims that Israel treats every Palestinian as a terrorist, yet he treats every Israeli as a monster complicit in the supposed extermination of the Palestinians.
Failing to explore, in a balanced fashion, the nuances of what is really going on is what makes the column counterproductive to advancing a solution.
The cessation of funds from America to one of its staunchest allies is not going to solve the plight of the Palestinians.
—Daniel B. Moskowitz, University of Kansas School of Law
1 comment
1 comment
1 comment
1 comment
Comments
TJG87 (anonymous) says...
Thank you.
April 14, 2008 at 2:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SimonJester (anonymous) says...
"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightfully regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds." -Mahatma Gandhi
April 14, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
harpua (anonymous) says...
Gandhi's quote was relevant 60+ years ago when the French and British colonial powers occupied Arab countries. It is not relevant today when those countries have independence. And I'm not sure what "overwhelming odds" refers to, but surely it isn't to the 6 million Israelis surrounded by a 100 million Arabs...
April 14, 2008 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hawkhawk (anonymous) says...
Don't forget. 6 million Israelis + nuclear weapons. I'm sorry, but that makes a big difference.
And the conflict is a pretty good example of non-linear warfare, where one side has an extremely well organized army and stable institutions and laws that result on the oppression of another group, which unfortunately has to resort to clumsy and "dirty" tactics.
I'm sorry, I'm not condoning terrorism or any of the sort, but there is only so much you can do with limited resources.
Ghandi's quote is still relevant. French and British colonial powers have been replaced by a new one: Israel. I don't care how much Jews needed a state after WWII, and I won't even debate that, but the problem is that for that to happen people had to be displaced, land had to be taken, oppression had to be ensured. I'd be pretty pissed off too if that happen.
Just because neither the West Bank or Gaza aren't recognized as a country it doesn't mean that their nationalistic impulses aren't valid. If you truly think that way I'm sorry for you, because that makes you no different than the ancient supporters of colonialism. The failure of the person who wrote this letter to recognize the grievances of the Palestinians, and to simply justify oppression by categorizing them as non-citizens is very troubling. That sort of labeling is precisely the sort of attempt to oversimplify the conflict that the author was criticizing in the first place. Not to mention just a way to distract from the real issue.
The policy of apartheid in South Africa was justified in terms of security. Much in the same way that it is now in Israel. It started as "health security" and developed to a "blacks are dangerous, they are not citizens, they can't govern for themselves" mentality. Eerily similar to Israel's attitudes.
And don't forget, "terrorism" went on in South Africa before any change happened.
Your characterization of Israel as a Western state is precisely one of the problems with the issue. It just makes it even clearer how "colonial" this relationship can be described as.
Errant missiles. Why don't you ask the Lebanese about that. Even with Israel's technology it seems that it is unable to hit a valid target. And I'm sorry if I'm a skeptic when it comes to thinking that probably what is going on is a demoralization campaign - and a human rights issue.
Arab states might not be the most democratic regimes on earth. But the presence and attitudes of Israel don't help with that, they only strengthen these authoritarian regimes, they only provide an excuse, and perhaps it would be a good idea for the Israeli leadership to recognize that, and to recognize that it may have to give up more than it is willing, and talk to people it isn't.
April 14, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SimonJester (anonymous) says...
Actually, he was talking precisely about the Israel/ Palestine conflict.
April 14, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
harpua (anonymous) says...
The point of the rebuttal was to illustrate that the issue is more complex than oppressor v. victim. Additionally, the rebuttal highlighted that Israeli politics have resulted in some negative occurrences (settlement expansion, discrimination, etc.) but that at least they have a democratic and just system, as well as open and free media, to address those negatives.
Every criticism of Israel acts as if Israel's actions are any different than those of other nations around the world. Israel's birth occurred in the late 1800's and early 1900's when Jews from Eastern Europe and, later, North Africa moved to a desert wasteland and bought up land. They didn't move to a sovereign country and displace the current residents; they moved to an Ottoman, then a British, controlled area. There were instances of violence between the various (note - various, including Christian, Bedouin, Druze and other, not just Palestinian) groups, as well as instances of peaceful co-existence. This is not to go into the history of the country, just to note that countries and borders are created and destroyed. This still occurs today (see Kosovo). Right now, Israel is a sovereign nation with responsibilities towards its citizens, especially with regards to security.
That the Israelis have "an extremely well organized army and stable institutions and laws" is a testament to the orderly society that they have built. They did this despite enduring 5 wars from the time of their birth through the mid-70s. Though many of us only remember Israel as a vibrant, powerful country, it was not always so. The UN partition plan of 1948 accorded the Israelis less land than the Arabs. That the Arabs rejected that plan and instead waged war, while Israel accepted it is, a historical reality, though not a fault of Israel. Why, in 60 years, the Palestinians have been unable to develop institutions and laws to bolster their own society is another issue.
April 14, 2008 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
harpua (anonymous) says...
The rebuttal also differentiates between nationalistic resistance and terrorism. Hamas cannot be considered a viable negotiating partner if they will not abandon their commitment to the destruction of Israel. Democratically elected or not, they have drawn a line in the sand with their position. A ceasefire that they can use in order to re-arm is different from a negotiated peace - such as the one with Egypt and Jordan. Clumsy tactics may be guerilla warfare - not the detonation of human beings in pizza parlors.
Israeli missiles have killed civilians because the enemy - be they terrorists or resistance fighters - choose to operate from heavily populated civilian centers. This "collateral damage" is much different than Hezbollah and Hamas's policy of deliberately targeted civilian areas to maximize damage and deaths.
Finally, to argue that Israel's presence is a leading factor in the authoritarianism of Arab regimes is to show a remarkable ignorance of history and regional politics. The Middle East wasn't a basket of joy and tribal harmony until those pesky Jews came along; it has always been a hotbed of violence and human rights violations. Paradoxically, Israel's presence is a blessing for the Middle Eastern rulers because they can deflect their own misdeeds by rallying the street against the "true enemy" that is Israel.
Israel has shown a willingness, however slowly, to negotiate and a commitment to a two-state solution. They just opt not to negotiate peacefully with groups committed to their annihilation. That seems like a rational policy to me.
April 14, 2008 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
TJG87 (anonymous) says...
To those who oppose the Israeli State, I ask only this: where are they supposed to go? Where do you want the 6 million Israelis to go? Understand that at this point, a huge percent of those people were born and raised in Israel. If you so ardently deny the right of the Jewish state to exist, where do you propose we send these people?
April 14, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hawkhawk (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry. I just realized i used the wrong term. I meant ASYMMETRIC warfare.
I agree, the issue is more complex than oppressor v. victim, there are many other narratives interwoven with that one. but i do believe that historically, and presently, the oppressor v. victim narrative fits the relationship.
Israel does not have a democratic government. At least not a truly democratic government. Implicit in the foundation of Israel is the idea that it would be a JEWISH state, which meant it would do anything to preserve a JEWISH MAJORITY. This means the exclusion of other religions from the political process, the public sphere, social services, etc. In other words, STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE. The structure built and defended by Israel is inherently violent. I am happy for the free media. I am not aware of how efficient and fair the media in Israel is, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be causing significant effects when it comes to improving conditions in the conflict.
No, Israel is not different than other cases. That is precisely why it is criticized. For the same reason the British where criticized in India, the French in Algeria, etc, etc, etc. Just because there wasn't an official state in the area when the Jews were resettled doesn't mean that the Palestinian grievances are any less valid. Country and borders are created and destroyed, but there is a just way to go through things. Israel's attitudes and policies do resemble apartheid. Before it was Whites protecting themselves from Blacks. Now they are Jews protecting themselves from Palestinians. And no, it isn't the entire Jewish population, but it is the way the Israeli state functions and enacts its policies, and it is essentially the "Othering" of Palestinians.
There is a big difference there, and I thought it needed to be clarified. The consolidation of state power has in most cases been achieved through the use of violence and oppression. Unfortunately that is how most states came to be. However, since we are now aware of this, and new ideas and concepts have surfaced, it means that we have the moral obligation to search for alternatives, and criticize when violence sheds through. Israel did not build itself alone. It had support from the most powerful countries in the world. The partition plan is much less black and white than you describe it to be, and an issue to be discussed in its own.
However, since partition happened, oppression has been the norm toward the Palestinian people. It is hard to develop institutions and laws under that condition. Which is exactly why they engage in asymmetric warfare. It is the only choice they have, and it's been done historically by people who have been occupied by a much powerful enemy. The bombings in Algiers, the American Revolution, Vietnam. All examples of this sort of warfare.
April 14, 2008 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hawkhawk (anonymous) says...
Hamas has the destruction of Israel in its charter, the same way Israel has in its formation the establishment of a JEWISH state. However, throughout the years both sides have had the opportunity, and showed willingness to change their positions. This, of course, in a practical way, but things have to get started somewhere. Remember that Hamas unilaterally declared a ceasefire toward Israel - which Israel chose to simply ignore. And it's naive to assume that Palestine will simply disarm itself and be at mercy of Israel's powerful forces. Also, Hamas is was a relatively fringe group, which defeated Fatah mainly because it appealed to the grievances of the Palestinians in an aggressive way (even though it never advocated the destruction of Israel in its campaigns). Perhaps if Israel's attitudes toward Palestine was less violent, the Palestinians wouldn't have resorted to electing a group that is more radical. Social movements do tend to work that way. They may start peacefully, but as oppression continues they become more violent.
Suicide bombing is often the only way to fight back. It is the only way to damage an enemy who exerts so much control over you. The same is true with civilian lodging - which has been done by most guerilla groups. You assume that there is a clear and distinct Palestine army, but there can't be one if it is occupied and oppressed. Liberation movements tend to be violent in a way that makes their actions morally questionable. The French Resistance killed whoever they though might of been a snitch. Also, because the dynamics function in such a way that a whole group has been displaced by another, the lines on what are civilians become blurry. Do Israeli citizens that actively support Israel's violent policies toward Palestine fall under the category of enemies? And to call the results of Israel's attacks "collateral damage" is naive and misleading. The destruction of Beirut count as collateral damage? The damage inflicted was remarkable, and of absolutely unequal parallel by what Hezbollah or Hamas has done.
Yes, the Middle East has always been an extremely complex place, but Israel has made it even more difficult. And yes, Israel's presence and actions serve to fuel more authoritarianism because that authoritarianism appeals to the people's justified grievances. Perhaps if Israel changed their attitude and tactics, less bloodshed would happen. Oppressed people rarely give in, and plenty of the Middle East leaders strives on the relationship between Israel and Palestine. They complain about Israel's policy and actions, but fail to even recognize Palestinian refugees as citizens. These regimes play a mean game of politicks, and are very much aware of that.
April 14, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hawkhawk (anonymous) says...
The issue is not where to send these people, the issue is to try to figure out a way to ensure that Israel is able to exist, without being an oppressive entity. I do not think transforming Israelis into a brand new breed of "pied noirs" is a good alternative, but the same way Algerians struggled for independence and freedom, the Palestines struggle to develop a nation and society that is free and autonomous. The question is, how far are both sides willing to go to make this effort. And I sincerely believe Israel is not going far enough, and it's policies aren't helping one bit. Jerusalem is a big issue, but not only that, Israel needs to be willing to concede more than it is right now, and change its practices.
April 14, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jihadjim (anonymous) says...
This Josh Anderson fellow has got to be kidding me. How many Jews are allowed to live in Gaza - which is no longer "occupied" - like it ever was. I would like for him to explain why no Jews are allowed to live in Gaza, and then he can write about Apartheid. Does this guy really support a Jihad loving, American hating, genocidal population in which 84% of the population supported the attack on the Jewish school in which 8 students were murdered in cold blood by a Palestinian terrorist. And we are supposed to give these "people" a state??? Just what kind of state would this "Palestine" be???? How would it contribute to the world??? There are already 20-something Muslim states that contribute absolutely 0 to modern society. Enough is enough.... No more!
April 15, 2008 at 12:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JHawk (anonymous) says...
JihadJim - you are wrong about Muslim societies contributing nothing to the world. They contribute Sharia law in which women can be stoned to death for being raped and theives can have their hands cut off. Oh and don't forget 99.999% of terrorism today around the world. That comes straight from the Muslim world. What would Muslim "Palestine" contribute to the world? C'mon, that's a rhetorical question...
April 15, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
harpua (anonymous) says...
HawkHawk,
The problem with your argument is that you want it both ways: you want to allow for resistance of any kind for the "oppressed" peoples but you also want Israel to cease its "structural" violence against the Palestinians. To begin first with the resistance. You justify suicide bombings and other forms of terror as the last resort of the weak and the oppressed. You then compare these struggles to those of the Americans during the revolution or the fighters in Algiers against the French. There is a difference here, though. The Gaza Strip and West Bank were wards of Egypt and Jordan prior to 1967. In the 6-day war, and again in 1973, when Israel was attacked from the south by Egypt, the east by Jordan, the north by Syria, and all with the help of Iraqi and other foreign fighters, its army secured victory by routing the opposition and seizing its land. In exchange for peace, Israel returned the Sinai desert and has considered in the past returning all or part of the Golan heights. With regard to Gaza and the West Bank, the Jordanians and the Egyptians no longer wanted to be in control of that stretch of land. Without a group to negotiate with and make peace with, Israel was forced into the awkward arrangement of occupying the territories in order to secure its own citizens.
This is different than colonization as per the British and the French in America, Africa or the Middle East. Yes, there was settlement building as a policy, and this has done much to exacerbate the difficult of disengagement. But it is easy 40 years later to look back at 1967 and say the Israelis should have immediately returned the land they had secured. Rather, due to the imminent threat surrounding their borders, they held on to the land.
So the cycle begins of resistance or terrorism, depending on who you support, where the PLO attacks Israeli targets, and Israel responds by clamping down on the territories. What bothers me about your post is that you insist that the Palestinians are not complicit in their own behavior - that they have been forced by a cruel and oppressive regime. This absolves the negligence of their own leaders, leaders who choose to use hateful rhetoric and brainwash their children rather than engage in meaningful and peaceful diplomacy. If Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the other fringe groups would cease the bombings and the rockets and the kidnappings, then real moral pressure would be placed on Israel to find a solution. But until that happens, or until the leadership can sideline the fringe elements and tone down their rhetoric, the situation will remain intractable
April 15, 2008 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
harpua (anonymous) says...
To go back to you wanting both ways, can you really expect the Israelis not to respond? To ignore the rockets and the bombings? Would you want your own government to ignore that? You say that liberation movements function in such a way that makes their actions morally questionable. Yet in a previous paragraph you contend that in light of our advancement as human beings, states need not come into being through oppression. So which is it? Should the Israeli state secure itself and its citizens through peaceful actions, while the Palestians give up their nefarious "resistance"? Or can Israel continue to use force defending itself whiel the Palestinians are justified their guerilla tactics and suicide bombings? I support Israel, but I am not inhumane. I recognize the short comings of Israeli policy and also hope for a situation where the Palestinians can be free of the intrusive Israeli army throughout their territories. But I am realist and I hold the Palestinians reponsible for their actions. If they choose the path of "morally questionable resistance" then they will suffer against a more powerful and organized force.
You talk about diproportionate response, but again I ask, what is considered proportional? Is Israel only allowed to kill one Hezbollah fighter for every Israeli soldier that is killed? Or should they endeavor to dismantle their enemies supply lines in order to win the war? Clearly this is something the Americans have failed to answer in Iraq and Afghanistan or the Russians in Chechnya or the Chinese in Tibet or the Sri Lankan government or the Turkish army in the Kurd region or anywhere else there is unrest.
The PLO and then Fatah party proved to be hopelessly corrupt and inefficient. You blame this on Israel, but that is passing the buck. Should Robert Mugabe hide behind colonialism as an excuse for the bankruptcy of Zimbabwe? Fatah was corrupt and Hamas is autocratic and bent on reclaiming all of Israel. Neither of these group sound like they have the recipe for instituion building and peaceful co-existence. You can continue to blame Israel for all the wrongs of the world and continue to absolve the Palestinians for any shortcomings. You can continue to sympathize with the suicide bombers and continue to ignore the pain and mental anguish of residents of Sderot or northern Israel. But none of this will change the reality that Israel will continue to remain strong and remain committed to the safety of its citizens. And if its neighbors will abandon violence and terror, Israel will be there at the table ready to negotiate.
April 15, 2008 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
coreyo (anonymous) says...
Oh my. That was a great LTE.
April 15, 2008 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )