So, Trevor
Noah asks an honest question about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Good for
him. Honesty cannot ever be overrated. Now it’s time to have an honest
conversation about his honest question. A question that wasn’t honest, and
wasn’t a question.
His visual
essay was not meant for me, Obviously. My allegiances are with Israel. It was
meant for the general neutral public. Those of them that stand on the sideline.
Wanting to help; but are unable to do so because it looks so protracted and too
complex to resolve. He pointed out just how pointless it is, because we can indeed
choose every point in time we like, and each time a different side will look
guilty. Every standing on the sidelines neutral will a have lot of empathy for
him over that. A “he is exactly where I am” kind of feeling; a strong one. But if
this is how he sees it, then why did he choose a date for the beginning of the
conflict in the first place? 73 years, he says. That is the how long Israel exists
as a state. For those that do not know.
It is a
strange pick. First, because he later spoke emphatically against doing that
very thing, picking dates. Second, because most people place the beginning of
the conflict at the end of WW1. It could be a case of ignorance on his part.
After all, one of his technique to generate empathy was to state at the very
beginning that he will probably miss a few important details. But he also adds
another, supposedly, historic fact. “The British took the land from the
Palestinians,” he says. So, he does know it begun in WW1. So why choose a later
date, when you know it’s the wrong one? And why phrase it the same way the
Palestinian narrative describes the Balfour declaration?
Avoiding
mentioning specific dates that are also controversial, helps focus on the main
point someone wants to deliver. And Trevor’s main point? “Let’s look at who is
dead and who is alive.” Alright. Let’s look at who is dead, and how they died.
At the time of his piece, around 28 Palestinians were killed. Among them, 10
children. And around 150 wounded. With 2 deaths on the Israeli side. His numbers.
Horrifying and sad, all the more a reason to look into that. So, let’s go back
to these early Palestinian deaths. Were they all killed by Israeli fire? Or
was it, in some cases, by Hamas’ missiles that fall short, and into Palestinian
civilian areas? And those that were killed by Israeli fire. Were they human
shields for Hamas’ weaponry and missiles? Were they warned by Israel to clear
away before the attack? Were they all killed or hurt by Israeli fire? Or was
it secondary explosions, or simple traffic accidents as many people fled? And
what about accessible shelters to the general population? where there any nearby?
Like it or
not, that is what looking at who is dead and who is alive means. It may not necessarily
remove the main blame from Israel. But without mentioning it Hamas becomes
blameless for those. Ignoring that possibility isn’t an accidental omission. It
is an obvious expression of one sidedness. But Trevor is indeed not looking at
that. He is looking away from that. And into technology. “Set aside motives and
intentions and look at technology alone,” he says. He actually said that, set
aside motives and intentions. How are people supposed to resolve a conflict if
they don’t understand it? And how are they supposed to understand it if they
are not looking at motives and intentions? If Trevor does not want to resolve
the conflict, why bring it into focus in the first place?
Instead of
motives and intentions he focuses on technology and the general strength of
Hamas vs the bigger general strength of Israel. It’s the bigger picture, where
individual suffering does not exist. To be clear it is an important subject
that should be discussed. It is related to the other issues. But, like all of
them, it is also separated. So, let’s go alone with it anyways. Trevor’s
argument, Israel is so strong it doesn’t need to response. Iron Dom is so perfect
it can take down anything in the sky. 2 people were already dead, more will die
on the Israeli side later; so, it obviously has limits. And no that isn’t a
surprise. Everybody knows that. This is why Hamas and Hizbullah have been
stockpiling missiles. So, they can overwhelm this defense system. President
Obama pointed to that fact in his Jerusalem speech. You do know who that is
Trevor? You did interview him once, didn’t you?
He explains
his argument with analogs. First, as a conflict among siblings. Him as Israel,
his little brothers as Hamas. Really?
Sibling rivalry has its nastiness. However, when one of them is hurt, let’s say
with a sickness, the other will feel the same fear and anxiety as the rest of
the family. No matter how hard he/she will try to conceal it. Nasty sibling
rivalry among states is a hockey match between Canada and the USA. And Trevor,
has any of your siblings ever came at you with a knife? If that happened, and I
hope it didn’t, I’m sure your mother would have reacted very differently.
He is
defensive about this analog; fully aware it could be interpreted as infantilizing
the Palestinians. But that does not infantilize them. It’s just a bad analog.
Denying them any agency does that. He moves to another analog; police disarming
a man with a knife. And I am so glad he did that because that is not an analog.
The situation between Israel and Gaza is an extreme version of this supposed
analog. With one major difference. It is not a cop vs a man with a knife
walking in the street. It’s a cop vs a man with a knife that is right now
stabbing someone else. So, what should the policeman do, Trevor? Go and grab
him, risking injury that would prevent the officer from helping? Grab his own
knife, and repeat the same risks? Use his gun but only shoot at the assailer’s
leg? It would keep him safe but won’t necessarily stop the stabbing. Or shoot
to kill? And to be frank, that bullet could also hurt the person he is trying
to save. Complicated, isn’t it? A gun though, has one advantage. It is fast. While
we are contemplating all these alternatives, the victim is been stabbed over
and over again. He/she is bleeding more and more, accumulating injuries that
are more difficult to fix. Assuming we can get him/her to a hospital on time.
And this is the hypocrisy of Trevor’s fair fight argument. This argument,
typical to the anti-Israel narrative, not only wants us to choose between
fairness and the safety of our civilian population. It demands us to choose this
fairness over the safety of our civilians. How fair is that to them?
But of
course, he is not demanding anything. He is just asking an honest question. An extremely
bent honest question. But let’s go alone with it anyways. His last question,
what is the responsibility of the strongest party? Great question. Let’s
explore that. What is that responsibility according to international law? What are
the operational-challenges Israel faces in order to fulfill those requirements?
How do the actions of the IDF meet or fail to meet those requirements; while
taking into account the military situation on the battlefield? Like it or not
that is what you analyze when you examine responsibility.
Complicated,
isn’t it? But we cannot answer that question. It’s the end of the segment. The thing
is, we don’t have to answer that question. Trevor had already suggested the answer
to us by emphasizing every negative thing about Israel. It’s not a fair fight, Israel
is the stronger party, force isn’t necessary because of Iron Dome is perfect.
More casualties on the Palestinian side. Showing Israeli police storming the al
Aqsa mosque, but not the violence they were responding to, a dramatic news
bulletin that begins with Israel’s reaction. Whatever makes Israel look bad,
correctly or incorrectly is front and center. Whatever makes the Palestinian side
looks bad is largely dismissed or ignored.
In Trevor
Noa’s 8.53 minutes piece about honesty in discussing the Israeli Palestinian conflict,
dishonesty is the dominating subtext. He delivers an amazing performance convincing
he is one of the anguishing neutrals. But everything in it is in support of one
side, the Palestinian side. He slides inside the Palestinian narrative about
the Belfour declaration, in a way only someone familiar with it can. He emphasizes
only things that make Israel look bad; be it actual matters, or angles on complex
situations. The entire direction of his video is against Israel. It is not the
conclusion of it, because nothing has been analyzed, so no conclusion can be
made. And it does end with an open question.
To be clear,
he has every right to be on the Palestinian side. To support it, to believe in
its narrative, and to publicize it. But to pretend to be neutral while doing so?
And it
doesn’t end there. He argues against looking into past, (while inserting his
view of the past), because it is too complex. As if the other aspects of the
conflict are not complex. however, every direction he takes has its
complexities. Looking at who is dead, fairness, the responsibility of the
stronger party, land, economy, religion, governments, etc. All have their own
complexities. Discussing anyone of them isn’t much different than discussing
the past. And any person that can understand them can understand the past. But Trevor
isn’t discussing any of them. He is moving from one theme to the next as if
they are one and the same. And using them to paint Israel in a darker light.
One of the complexities
of the conflict is that they are all connected. Including the past. The past is
one of the main reasons why it is ongoing. The past is where we can find what
the Palestinian side did when it was the stronger party. It started with
classical pogroms, and moved to armed death squads, targeting and massacring
civilian populations. And kept on doing it until these very days. Only this
time relaying more on artillery. And yes,
I know, I just put forward a key part of the Israeli narrative. It is a war of
narratives. That is what every decent person that did try to go beyond the
complexities will tell you.
Trevor’s
questions were nothing but a literary tool. Which he used brilliantly. It is
too bad they were waisted on this unequivocal dishonesty.
