|
|
| up a level post search archive articles admin main |
 Posted by aron on March 09 2008 (Sunday) : 02:15 PMAlthough I am an optimist by nature, the depth of ugliness to which human beings can go, never surprises me. Humans often try to distinguish ourselves from animals. I would say that the only distinction between humans and animals, is that we are the only species that is intentionally cruel. Given the bi-polar nature of the Israel/Palestine dispute it doesn't surprise me when I get called nasty names or get added to lists of "self-hating" Jews. I don't feel a need to respond. I also don't feel I need to be apologetic in how I write, balancing my criticism of the Israeli government with criticism of the Palestinian leadership. And I don't expect anyone who comments on this (or any other topic) to have to constantly pander to critics, imagined or real. Whatever I write here, I write to please myself. With that out of the way, I turn again to recent events in Israel. My opinions about the fanatical Orthodox settlers are well-documented through out this site. I have written extensively about my personal grievances against them and why I don't much care for them. Even in their moment of grief, their leadership continues to preach their genocidal ideology. Rabbi Shapira, the Yeshiva's chief Rabbi said: “The murderers are the Amalek of our day, coming to remind us that Amalek has not disappeared, just changed its appearance.” As I have written elsewhere there is a biblical commandment to commit genocide against the Amalekites. Israeli settlers often equate the Palestinians with Amalek, as Rabbi Shapira did. The meaning of this equation should be obvious. I am not a pacifist. If I had been in the Yeshiva and seen the gunmen, I would have acted precisely like the army officer on the scene who shot him dead. I would have no qualms about it afterwords either. The rabbis explain the moral basis to the right to self defense as follows: "Is his blood redder than mine?" Killing another human being to save oneself and those around you is moral and just. However, anyone who has spent more than five minutes on this blog knows I unequivocally oppose the use of violence against civilians as a political act. There is no moral justification of any sort for such violence, no matter what the provocation, no matter what the goal. Just because I don't care much for the settlers or their ideology, doesn't mean they deserve to be murdered. Killing civilians never fits into an act of self-defense, no matter how people try to argue it so. Particularly starting with WWII, making civilians the main target of war has become routine across the world. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, London to name a few targets of military terror. The practical argument goes like this: if we terrorize the civilian population then eventually they will rise up against their leadership and shorten the war. The moral justification is that ultimately this will save more lives. Unfortunately, it always seems to have the opposite effect - stirring up feelings of nationalism and strengthening the support for the government who stands up against the enemy. Even if one might argue that Hiroshima/Nagasaki did end the war with japan, that doesn't prove alternatives couldn't have been just as effective and lest costly. And opening the nuclear war Pandora's box, is another price that has to be added to the cost of that horrific act. Another spurious argument for attacks on civilians is often used in the Israel conflict: the Hamas (or Hezbollah) are hiding behind civilians and therefore civilian deaths caused by air bombing of infrastructure is unfortunate, but justified. While in the 1967 war Israel proved the effectiveness of air superiority in destroying military infrastructure, all its air incursions against Lebanon and Gaza have had zero impact on guerilla infrastructures and only serve to kill civilians. Attacking civilians isn't limited to bombing campaigns. The embargo against Iraq and Cuba are just two examples of other types of attacks. Just like in the case of bombings, embargoes cause huge suffering to civilians but have absolutely no impact on weakening the regime. I often wonder about how Cuban refugees in the US justify in their own mind the criminal embargo that caused so much suffering to their families and compatriots, without weakening Castro one little jot. So unlike killing a gunman during a murderous rampage, using violence against a civilian population, directly or indirectly, does not fall in the category of self defense. Ali Abunimah is an extremely thoughtful and insightful analyst and a passionate spokesman for the Palestinian cause. We have corresponded over the years from time to time and he interviewed me for his book One Country. I found his commentary on the attack on Mercaz ha'Rav insightful as always. But there is some parts in it that bother me. He states: "Let me be clear that the killing of civilians, Israeli or Palestinian, is wrong, repugnant, and cannot bring this one-hundred-year war caused by the Zionist colonization of Palestine to an end. There will be an Israeli propaganda effort -- as always -- to present Palestinian violence as being simply motivated by hatred, and divorced from the context of brutal occupation that Palestinians live under. What greater proof could you need than an attack on religious students, devoting their life to the study of the Torah?" I understand his need to state the obvious. If he didn't say it (and even after having said it) he will be accused of being a "terrorist-lover" an ad hominem attack used to silence intelligent criticism. It is not in the first part of the sentence where he is being overly defensive. It is in the second part. Let's start with the issue of press coverage. Palestinians are frustrated because they believe attacks on Israeli civilians get wide coverage in the press, while attacks on Palestinians are marginalized. Somewhat ironically, Jewish supporters of Israel believe the exact opposite. Objectively, it depends where you are. I would say in the US press its "Israel good Pals bad" where in Europe its "Palestinians good Zionists bad" with undertones of xenophobia on all sides. But as noted above, its the use of violence against civilians that is bad, bad, bad, no matter which side is attacked. Because Israel is the more militarily powerful party, it wreaks more havoc on Palestinians than vice versa. But I don't feel more sorry for Palestinians than I do for Israelis. Nor do I blame israelis more than Palestinians for the impasse. Both sides are equally to blame and equally guilty of immoral behavior. Yes Israel has more military power, but the Palestinians have other sources of power that they have failed to use effectively. Palestinians blaming Israel (and more specifically the Jews) for all their problems is just playing the "victim" card, not something I care for very much. I am not trying to pick on Abunimah, because he is the least guilty of Palestinian commentators when it comes to blaming the Jews or playing the victim card. But there are undertones even in this article. Let's look at his comment about the hundred-year war caused by Zionist colonization. Yes it is true, that the Zionist project had a colonialist taint to it and the Jews came into a country not theirs. But the Zionist project also had a huge humanitarian aspect to it as well, viz. saving the Jews from extinction in Eastern Europe. Jabotinsky articulated in a most eloquent fashion both sides of this duality. Unfortunately, Palestinians see only the colonialist side and the Jews only see the humanitarian side of Zionism. But whatever the origins of Zionism, the facts on the ground today is that there are as many Jews as Palestinian Arabs living in Israel/Palestine. Saying "he started it" isn't going to end the hundred year war either. Only when both sides stop rallying around nationalistic and xenophobic slogans, and seek true co-existence will the war end. Abunimah says: "what happened in Jerusalem is a direct consequence of what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for decades." I agree. But there is a flip side to it. What happens in Gaza is a direct consequence of what happens in Jerusalem. Putting aside the moral repugnancy of the act, let's focus for a minute on the practical consequence of the attack. Right before the terrorist attack in Mercaz HaRav, Condi Rice was in the region. She may have pressured Abbas to return to "negotiations," but Israel's actions in Gaza also forced her, for the first time, to begin real negotiations with Hamas (albeit via Egypt). The Israeli public by overwhelming majorities support such negotiations. Then came the attack. The settlers are not well-loved by most secular Israelis. However, there is no need for a "propaganda effort" to convince most Israelis that the Arabs act out of pure hate. Unfortunately this is just human nature. What Israeli wouldn't be moved by the tragic loss of young people by senseless murder? Consequently, most Israeli Jew will strongly empathize with the call for revenge by the settlers. It will be an exceptional Israeli Jew that is going to care about Palestinians being killed in Gaza, when Jews are being killed in Jerusalem. Whatever tentative step had been taken forward before the attack, we have now moved two steps back. When I met Ghassen Andoni he told me that the purpose of resistance is to make the price of occupation not worthwhile. In fact, the Palestinians proved in the first intifada that non-violent resistance is an effective tool to "raise the price" of occupation. Before the first intifada Israelis thought they will hold on to the West Bank and Gaza forever. After the first intifada, Israel recognized the PLO and committed itself to a two state solution. The path of violent resistance particularly against Israeli civilians, first espoused by Hamas but then taken up by other Palestinian factions, has left the Palestinians far worse off. The attacks against Jews hardened Israeli hearts. True independence seems even more remote. The wall has been built and will not be easily torn down. Whatever the faults of Israel (and I often list them here in detail) the Palestinians have themselves as much, if not more, to blame for their current situation. The gains, however limited and qualified, of the first intifada were squandered by violence against Israeli civilians. Even putting aside terror against Israel for a moment, the violent internecine warfare going on between Hamas and Fatah plays another huge role in holding Palestinians back. In the article I brought a few days ago from Vanity Fair, it is clear that Israel is just a side player in these violent rivalries. It's so easy to justify "the occupation" for the brutalization of Palestinian life and for this internal warfare. But the victim card is a pathetic one. Ultimately all of us are responsible for our own actions. You may have had lousy parents, but that doesn't justify, explain or mitigate your beating your own children. Whatever Israel did or does, doesn't justify Fatah's corruption and Hamas' brutality. Before the attack on Mercaz ha'Rav, Israel was under international pressure to let up in Gaza and in fact had stepped back from the brink. Hamas, whether it was behind the attack or merely justified it, just gave Israel a great excuse to go back in. Don't blame the Jews. Blame Hamas. < How to Justify Murder | The Gaza Bombshell >
|
|
  Cost of the War in Iraq
|
"Entre los individuos, como entre las naciones, el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz -- Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace" -Benito Jurez
"It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it." -Eleanor Roosevelt "Let them call me a rebel and welcome. I feel no concern from it. But should I suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul" -Thomas Paine | |
| Copyrights for all postings on this page are owned by Aron Trauring, except where otherwise noted ©2002-2008 Aron Trauring. |
||
Don't Blame the Jews
