Before reading this the final installment of the series, I encourage readers to read the comments in the previous post. Many of the contentions of this series are amply demonstrated by some of the commenters – exemplars of extremism.
Of particular note is a comment by “Michael.” He neglects to provide his full name; however, he admits to being responsible for a style of mass email campaign that is designed to silence debate in the community – including inquiry among Jewish academics – and defends his right to do so because he believes his views represent “mainstream” Jewry. He does not – indeed, can not – provide evidence for this claim.
Disregard for the welfare of the people they purport to represent:
This characteristic is as ironic as it is horrible.
Along from using the suffering of people on their own side for points scoring purposes, there is another insidious component to this black and white discourse of outrage.
When you care deeply for someone, and he/she is doing something that is potentially damaging to him/herself, is it not incumbent on you not to crtiticise those destructive actions?If this is so with individuals, why is it not so with homelands/causes?
Anti-Zionists who defend every extremist Palestinian action encourage behaviour that drives a wedge between Palestine and the rest of the world, and also makes the prospects of achieving peace that much more remote.
More to the point their blind support bolsters corrupt and violent Palestinian leadership. Anti-Zionists seem to care much less for the day-to day welfare of Palestinians than in decrying every Israeli action.
Similarly, when the Israel-Right-or-Wrong brigade defends every Israeli government action, they are not rendering any great assistance to Israel, rather, they encourage a host of policies that do not serve Israelis particularly well.
Israel has a plethora of problems beyond the conflict with the Palestinians that it does not address, either because it cannot or because the conflict provides a convenient excuse to defer dealing with any number of urgent internal issues.
Misuse of historical events that diminish the horrors suffered by those actually involved in those events:
I feel sick to my stomach when either side trots out the Holocaust to augment an argument.
The Jerusalem Post correspondent linked to in the first installment uses the apprehension of Adolf Eichmann to illustrate a point.
The assassinated Hamas operative, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, was certainly a murderer and complicit in the targeting of civilians and, as I have stated before, made himself a target for a assassination.
But he was not a key perpetrator of a genocide.
To drag out the memory of the Holocaust to win an argument for Israel’s current actions is beyond hyperbole – it diminishes the true horror of the Holocaust and who Eichmann really was.
It also serves the purpose of dulling the sensibilities of non-Jews to the scale of the Holocaust’s atrocity. Every time an Israel-Right-or-Wrong advocate invokes the Holocaust – especially in the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict – the genocide is diminished as a benchmark for evil because it is perceived by the reader as nothing more than a debating tactic.
The anti-Zionists similarly do a nice line in exploiting and misusing the language of tragedy.
There is aperceived symmetry that seems to delight the anti-Zionist mind in equating the Holocaust with the occupation of the Palestinians.
There is only one problem: no genocide is being perpetrated against the Palestinians. There are human rights abuses, certainly, and Palestinians live under occupation, but this is simply not the same as methodically rounding up every single Palestinian and exterminating them en masse. To suggest it is betrays either unforgivable ignorance of current events and history, or a profound dishonesty.
Nowadays, the term, “Apartheid” is fashionable to describe the occupation. Apart from being a gross misunderstanding of history, it is also completely inaccurate and unhelpful in understanding the situation.
Firstly, Arab citizens of Israel (comprising one fifth of the population) are full citizens, vote, and have parliamentary representation. The black population in Apartheid South Africa did not have comparable rights.
Secondly, the Palestinians in the occupied territories are UNDER OCCUPATION. This should be enough to protest against without requiring a thoroughly unsuitable superimposition of a completely separate political phenomenon onto the current situation in Israel/Palestine.
Two state deniers are actually advocates for ethnic cleansing:
More subtle anti-Zionists talk gently of the ideal human rights outcome of one state for both peoples. Along with the unicorns and ponies for everyone, do they imagine that there would not be the most horrific civil war in such a place?
Again, only the most profound ignorance of current event and history could lead anyone to suggest in good faith that One State would not mean a Rwanda-style bloody massacre.
Others are more up front and obsess over the “stolen” Palestinian land on which Israelis currently live (including the non-occupied areas) and advocate for ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel.
Then there are those who focus on the Palestinian “refugees;” however, the definition of a Palestinian refugee now extends not only to those who fled or were forced out of their homes, but to their descendents as well.
Many of these refugees live in apalling conditions in camps throughout the Arab world. They have never been integrated into their “host” countries – even those born there, because they serve as a convenient tool for certain leaders in the Arab world. This tool is a method for deflecting domestic anger at corruption and various abuses from the Arab/Muslim leaders onto Israel.
One of the many tragedies for the Palestinians, is how they have been used – and allowed themselves to be used – for propping up vile and venal regimes and as a hope of demographically solving the “Jewish question” of Israel by returning – even if they were born outside the Israeli Green Line – to all of historical Palestine.
Meanwhile, Israel-Right-or-Wrong prefers to avoid the issue of how Israel can remain both Jewish and a democratic while occupying an entire people.
It is irrelevant that other governments in the region behave despicably towards the Palestinians. Since Israel decided to keep the territory it conquered in the Six Day War, it has a responsibility to the people living there. To deny our moral obligation to them is to relinquish our right to call Israel a democracy.
While the folk on both sides refuse to acknowledge these very basic facts, they cannot be expected to be taken seriously by anyone who is fair-minded, be they Zionists, pro-Palestinians, or otherwise disinterested Australians.
More Than Three Opinions: A Map of The Jewish Australian Blogosphere
“Two Jews, three opinions,” is a cliché. It’s also a gross understatement.
The ease with which a blog can be set up combined with my people’s natural tendency to debate anything, means that there is now a cornucopia of Jewish Australian opinion available online.
Left and right, centre and periphery, religious and secular, Zionist and anti-Zionist – the following blogs are a window into our community. Obviously the views on the sites I’m about to recommend are not necessarily a reflection of my own. But looking at them in aggregate is as useful a gage as any to get a feel for our diverse and often fractious community.
This list is not exhaustive. If I’ve missed a site you think is worth mentioning, feel free to let me know in the comments section. Continue reading More Than Three Opinions: A Map of The Jewish Australian Blogosphere →