'Operation
Protective Edge', was the Israeli military incursion into the Gaza Strip during
July and August of 2014. Following that operation the leading human rights
organization 'Human Rights Watch' (HRW for short), published several accounts
accusing Israel of War Crimes and indiscriminate killing of civilians. One of
these accounts covered the alleged attacks on 3 UN run schools, in Beit Hanoun,
Jabalya, and Rafah. Places that served as shelters for hundreds of civilians
seeking refuge from the fighting and enjoyed the protection of international
law. This paper is a critical review of that account. This critic bases itself
on information available online from professional sources regarding
international law, weapons and munitions. However, most of the information
comes from HRW themselves, as published in this account and elsewhere.
Necessary
background
Before
reviewing this account we need to remember two important facts. The first is
that the Israeli military operation followed a month long bombing of Israeli
citizens by Hamas; a bombardment that placed over a million Israeli civilians
in constant danger. The bombardment itself was an assault that followed the
abduction, and murder, of 3 Israeli teens in the West Bank on July 20th
of that year. This was a crime committed by local Hamas activists, supported
and encouraged by the leadership of Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The second
important reminder is that alongside 'Amnesty International' HRW is one of the
two most respected human rights organizations in the world today. Due to this
high statue HRW is trusted by many and its word valued by various segments of
the global society. This includes people of influence in democratic countries;
especially in the media, academia, and judiciary. But a careful reading and
rereading of their allegations suggests that they have violated that trust and
abused the power of their words. A power generated by their reputation and the
high value our democratic civil societies give to the subject of human rights.
The
short comings of this report center around three underline faults. These are,
lack of evidence, holding a controversially strict interpretation of
international law, and creating false expectations.
The
false expectations begins where all writers create expectations, the headlines. 'In-depth
look at Gaza school attacks.' It is not an in-depth look! Whatever the word
'look' supposed to refer to, an investigation, an examination, a general
overview, or a brief skim through, in-depth it is not.
An
In-depth investigation cannot contain a rich presence of expressions that
suggest a lack of clarity. These are words and sentences such as "…could
not identify the exact location of the fighting", "they believed
it was at least a few hundred meters away," "The tanks demonstrate the
presence of Israeli troops in the vicinity who could have been
the source of the mortar rounds." And the general expression, "directly
outside;" which can relate to any scale of a distance, near as well as
far. Headlines and titles that contain the words in-depth create the
expectation of an accurate and clear description of alleged crimes. The
seriousness of the accusations alone, war crimes and crimes against humanity,
which are the most serious accusations in international law, demand an
accurate and clear language. Clearly, that is not the case.
But
this inaccurate language does have a role. It acts as acknowledgement,
evidence. Evidence demonstrating that a condition known as the chaos of
war had existed. The fact that war is chaotic is common knowledge. But
when it comes to reports covering the Israeli Palestinian conflict, made by
human rights investigators from both HRW and Amnesty International, this
inevitable reality of all armed conflicts does not exist. Here however, inadvertently
or not, they acknowledge its existence. Because it is the only factor that
could prevent them and their witnesses from getting and giving accurate
accounts of the incidents reported. And since they are influenced by its
uncertainty and confusion so were the Israeli troops caught in the heat of
battle, battles. The very nature of the chaos of war is an indiscriminate one.
All those caught in a battle are affected by it, soldiers and civilians from
both sides. And once HRW had acknowledged its existence their burden of proof
has changed dramatically. From here on, anyone accusing Israel of war crimes,
unlawful killings, and indiscriminate use of fire power, has to show that in
each of these horrific tragedies the causes of the civilian casualties and
injuries went beyond the inevitable realities of the chaotic nature of the
urban battle field. And when it comes to this reviewed account HRW falls short
by over a mile.
Acknowledging
the existence of the chaos and uncertainty of war is acknowledging that some
civilian deaths are unavoidable. The causes are plenty, bad intelligence,
failures in communication between various units, and all sorts of malfunctions
with the technologies deployed. The slightest computer glitch can bring about
unbearable sights of death and misery. Of course that does not exclude the
belligerent parties from doing their outmost to avoid inflicting such harm on
the civilians caught in between. On the contrary, it imposes on them the duty
to go above and beyond in protecting non-combatants. But the same reality
imposes on any human rights activist critical of a military campaign the need
to accept that some civilian deaths will occur. It is a dreadful thing to do,
especially for a human rights activist, but that is what they are
investigating, a war, a violent chaos. And once they made the accusation of
unlawful killings of civilians they immediately acknowledged the existence of
lawful killings of civilians alongside it. These are death caused by known
factors such as accidents and collateral damage, and lesser known factors, such
as the inability to evacuate injured casualties because of the fighting or its
consequences. Ignoring that runs the risk of developing interpretation of
international law so strict and rigid; they will grant all forms of self-defense
illegal. In an era when civilians are deliberately targeted by terror
organizations this is a violation of the greatest of all human rights, the
right to live and to be safe from harm. It is a right every sovereign country
is committed to protect.
What
is that acceptable death toll of enemy civilian population? Preferably and most
preferably it is the lowest minimum possible. And possible is a key word here,
because circumstances dictate possibilities, and circumstances change from one
situation to the next. They don't always bring about the possibilities that
facilitate our desired outcome. To those of us with a moral conscious,
attempting to find an answer to this horrific question, this is an unbearable
dilemma. This is a dilemma that is slicing us from within, because we do not
want to see any civilian getting hurt; from either side.
Bringing
that question to an open public debate will bring about countless of answers.
Different people, with different backgrounds will give different answers. Human
rights advocates, military experts, international law experts, politicians,
journalists, ideologues, and opportunists. They all represent a wide array of
different points of view, disciplines and expertise, opinions and convictions.
All of which are probably very important in their own right, but are irrelevant
to the issue at hand, since from a mathematical point of view the lowest
minimum will always be one. One attack out of many in the general vicinity of a
UN administrated school that happened to hit it. And one attack is exactly what
HRW is presenting, one attack in Beit Hanoun, one attack in Jabalya, and one
attack in Rafah. In actuality they have much less.
Earlier
this July the internet was abuzz with a new story of an Israeli atrocity in the
West Bank. A 5 years old child was arrested by
the IDF for throwing stones. That was the image been pierced into people’s
mind, the actual story was less dramatic.
A
first sign of manipulation been made, was the gap between the headlines. In Ami Kaufman’s commentary the key word was ‘detention’ (originally it was the more
incriminating word ‘arrest,’ as indicated in the web link and the correction at
the end of his column). But the Hebrew title of the youtube clip was ‘icuv,’ a
word in Hebrew that can be translated in two different ways. The first option
is ‘detention.’ This word raises the association of an arrest because some
forms of detention are acts of an arrest, but not all of them. Another possible
translation is ‘delay’ as in, “He was delayed for a few minutes.” These are two
different situations and two different images rising from the same title. In the
first a child faces the powerful might of military system, which raises the
concern for his rights as well as the frightening possibility of an abuse. In
the second it is just a brief encounter, uncomfortable but brief, and therefore
without the concerns that come out of the first possible translation.
Which
is true?
None
of them!
Because
all the soldiers did, with the help of local civilians, was to take the child
to his mother.
But
since the main block of Ami’s and Mairav’s readership does not read Hebrew,
this double gap, (between the two headlines, and between them and the reality
of what actually happened), is irrelevant. They have all that they dim
necessary in order to launch a scathing righteous rebuke, of Israel, the
IDF, the occupation, and the soldiers themselves. As well as individuals engage
in Israeli advocacy, Hasbarah, people such as myself for example. People Ami
Kaufman does not know, never met, and never talked with about this incident. But
that does not stop him from condemning and insulting all of us as racists. And
that is before anyone of us had said a single word about this incident.
Now,
why do that? Why open a new front before you finished your business with the
first front? Which I suppose is the occupation, or isn’t it Mr. Kaufman? And
why attack those that are not even involved, yet? Don't you have a case to
prove first?
If
we choose to protect whatever it is you are criticizing Mr. Kaufman, then by
all means, fire away. Since we have actually said nothing before you printed
those nasty accusations, it is this nothing that you are accusing of racism. Now,
Mr. Kaufman, what kind of person accuses nothing for being racist? Did nothing also
steal the jellybeans when we weren’t looking?
Superficial
righteousness surpasses logic, and surpasses wisdom. Because Ami Kaufman throws
his insults while engaging in a dialogue with imaginary Hasbarah persons,
created by his own imagination. And since he opened the door to personal
insults I can only step in and merely ponder the possibility that Ami Kaufman
is a mentally unstable individual that talks to imaginary persons. After all,
he only invented this imaginary Hasbarah folks just so he could tell them to
shut up. (Surprise, surprise, 972mag Ami Kaufman is intolerant to other
people’s views, even the ones he invented.)
But
that is not the case. This fantasy dialogue is a literary device. Its purpose
is to fill the gap between the reality on the ground and the severity of the
accusations. In fact all of Ami Kaufman’s commentary is a collection of similar
devices, with the same purpose. It begins with a heads up warning designed to
create an expectation for something serious; thus planting in people’s minds the
idea that something bad had happened. Followed by a battery of heavy accusations
such as sickness, racists, and smug. Apparently for Ami Kaufman these insults
are a substitute for making a case. And of course there is the famous “what if
these were my children” line, aimed to create sympathy in any parent heart.
Indeed what if it was your child? What if your child got into trouble with the
law? (God forbid!) What would you rather have the police do? Arrest him? Lock
him up? Or bring him home back to you? Because this is what the Israeli
soldiers in the video actually did. They brought the stones-throwing child to
HIS MOTHER.
You
see, this is what real Hasbarah folks do, check the facts. And the facts are
simple, this was not arbitrary, the child was throwing stones, even B’eteselm
does not dispute that. And he was not arrested, since the soldiers TOOK THE
STONES-THROWING CHILD TO HIS MATHER.
Checking
the facts is one of the reasons it takes a long time for the truth to put on its
pants before the lie travels across the world, but at least it is now out
there. And the truth is that taking a child TO HIS MOTHER is not a violation of
the child’s rights, it is not an abuse, and this is not an even arrest. It is
most certainly has nothing to do with racism. IT IS TAKING A CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, where he
belongs. It is as simple as that. Otherwise is to suggest that there is
something fundamentally wrong with the family unit all over the world. That is
the logical outcome of Ami Kaufman’s, and Mairav Zonszein’s assertion.
But
it is too complicated for Ami Kaufman, Mairav Zonszein, and their ideological
clones to understand. Reading their account it is as if they are in two
different universes at the same time. On one hand they give the actual run down
of the events, soldiers, and civilians, taking a stones-throwing child to his
parents’ house. On the other hand, their rebuke of this act by describing an
act of an arrest, something that did not happen, since according to their own
account the soldiers TOOK THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER!
But
the scale of Ami’s and Mairav’s fantasy is even bigger than that. Supposed
their dream fantasy was true, and the child was been arrested by the IDF
soldiers. Even this would not justify their vitriol. For the simple reason that
the underline premise of article 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of theChild acknowledges the right of authorities to arrest children when they break
the law. And throwing stones is breaking the law. There are restrictions
attached, of course, but the right/duty exists. If any of those restrictions
were violated then they would have a case. But the mere act of an arrest is not
considered a violation of the child's rights, therefore it is not an abuse, and
has nothing to do with racism. And since no arrest was made in the first place,
THEY TOOK THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, no restrictions were violated. True, IDF’s
orders forbid the arrest of children under the age of 12, but that only show
that the IDF is stricter and more vigil in protecting children’s rights than
the UNICEF. Surprise, surprise!
Like
I said, this is what real flesh and blood Hasbarah folks do, CHECK THE FACTS!
The
fact is that fantasy is the underline thread of their entire commentary. As the
video shows, the soldiers weren’t smug. They were thorough. They had their
orders, and the orders were in conflict with one another. On one hand, keep
order, on the other hand, do not arrest children under the age of 12. Solution:
TAKE THE STONES-THROWING CHILD TO HIS MOTHER.
And
the local civilians were not indifferent. Indifference suggests passivity. But
these civilians, mostly kids by the way, were very much active. They are engaging
the soldiers, and at some point (around minute 2:03) are the ones that are
actually taking the child TO HIS MOTHER.
And
why wouldn’t they?
He
is a Palestinian, they are Palestinians, and his parents are Palestinians. It
is their obvious collective interest to keep him on the Palestinian side. And
what better way to do this than taking him back to HIS PALESTINIAN MOTHER.
Yes
occupation is bad; everything that has to with war is bad.
Yes
in a state of occupation soldiers and civilians are at odds most of the time.
But sometime mutual interests meet. Call it a rarity, call it surreal, call it
a limited meeting of interests, call it whatever you like. Sometimes there can
be a solution that serves both sides, in the narrowest sense of the word most
likely. But it can happen and it does. It is evident at the climax of the story.
There, after minute 3:20, one of the soldiers asks “Eifo hu gar?” “Where does
he live?” and receives answers from the surrounding teenagers, each pointing to
the direction of the child’s resident. And later those teenagers are the ones
who actually take the child into the army jeep.
Yes,
the child was screaming his lounges out, and our heart goes out to any child
who cries that way, whatever the reason. But if this is to serve as an
indicator of an abuse, then any sibling rivalry would constitute a Breaking
News item for all the global news corporations. What constitute an abuse are
the circumstances, not just the reaction. And putting a child in a jeep in
order to TAKE HIM TO HIS MOTHER is not an abuse, even if it is against his
will. There is no question he was afraid of that jeep that is perfectly
understandable. But what were the soldiers supposed to do? Once they made the
decision to TAKE THE CHILD TO HIS MOTHER, wasn’t their elementary
responsibility to provide a vehicle for that purpose? What would the critics have them do, force him
to walk in a hot summer day? If the soldiers had a Segway with a parasol
attached the child would have undoubtedly reacted completely differently. But
armed forces are using jeeps. This may sound too cynical but it is the sober
reality.
Since
the perpetrators of this article are insinuating a gross child abuse, we should
ask ourselves what is more likely to be considered a child abuse?
A
child who is sitting in a jeep that has air-condition; or, a child walking in a
hot summer day?
He
might be crying in the first example, and cheerful in the second one, but his
health will be compromise in the second example, but not in the first one.
Shocking!
Isn’t it?
Not
only do these Israeli soldiers keep the rights of this stones-throwing child,
they also take care of his health.
So
why is he afraid? Probably because he did something wrong such as throwing stones,
for example.
Even
if we, (again), go towards the gang at the 972magazine, and accept their
demented fantasy that every crying child is an indication of an abuse. What of
all the non-crying children around him? The two boys at the beginning of the
clip, patting a dog before, and after the soldiers came, completely unmoved by
their arrival.
The
smaller boy with a similar shirt at the middle of the clip, bewildered at the
hysteric behavior of the stones-throwing child. And what of all the elder teens
around them, non-of them fearing for their own lives, non-of them fearing for
the lives of the stones-throwing child. It seems that the majority of children
view the Israeli soldiers as human beings to be reason with. There is not a lot
of love in that relationship, but also absent is the fear sick racist smug
soldiers supposed to generate. Shouldn’t the majority overrule the minority? Not
really since the circumstances are also important. But the folks at 972magazine
do not touch the circumstances, aka the facts, they’ve written them out. They
are the ones who created the arbitrary criterion that every crying child is an
evident of an abuse. They are the ones that must accept the logical outcome of
their own criterion, that a child that does not cry is an evident for the lack
of an abuse. And when we face one crying child and half a dozen that don’t, then
majority overrides the minority. That is the logical outcome of their criterion.
And surprise, surprise, they do not accept it. Worse than that, they’ve written
out those kids completely. Instead Mairav Zonszein replaced them with
non-existing indifferent adults. In doing so she expanded the fantasy into a
complete fiction. The reality behind her fiction is the opposite; the Israeli
army respects and observes the rights and well-being of Palestinian children.
At least according this evidence provided by Be’tselem and 972magazine.
In the video below Israeli soldiers take a stones-throwing child to his parents' home using an air-conditioned jeep, while aided by local civilians. Later it was the father who actually got arrested. The whole affair was resolved at the offices of the Palestinian Authority.
For
some this undisputable conclusion is a heresy so unacceptable every bone in
their body shakes at 10 on the Richter scale. But these are the facts. This is
what real flesh and blood Hasbara folks do, check the facts. And the fact is
that the perception of reality shared by the pack of writers in the 972magazine
is a complete fantasy; a strange and demented one to be precise.
Now
why would otherwise rational human beings adopt such an irrational fantasy?
The
reason is very simple and very rational, rational from a very ago-centric point
of view. This fantasy serves them in one of the most selfish ways there is.
When
it comes to liberal and progressive causes, (as with any kind of popular causes),
there are various types of champions and advocates that fight for these causes.
The pioneers of the cause and their successors are people who serve their
declared causes. They fight against human rights abuses in order to end them. Or
they fight against the occupation in order to bring peace between Israelis and
Palestinians. However the people behind the 972magazine belong to a sector of
pseudo ideologists where the opposite is taking place. For them the occupation
exists in order to serve them, to help portray them as champions of human
rights and other Liberal causes. Some people wear fancy close as a status
symbol, even if they cannot afford it. Others adopt social causes in order to wear
them as lucrative ornaments. And the more devilish is the abuse they claim to fight
against the more shining their ornaments become.
For
the first group, the existence of situations were Israel and Israeli soldiers
are not child eating monsters patrolling the West Bank, is not a problem. They
have no problem in acknowledging the existence of human rights abuses made by
the Palestinian Authority. They fully acknowledge the existence of incitement
in the PA official activity, such as education, television, and diplomacy. Accordingly
they recognize its destructive effects on the peace process. They also know
that anti-Semitism exits among the loud voices of Israel's critics, and they confront
it.
But
for the later group such realities are a major inconvenience. If Israel
is respecting the rights of children, as this story clearly reveals, then it is
not racist, child abusing monster. That means that the folks at 972magazine
cannot dwell in the splendor that comes with the position of protectors of
abused Palestinian children. This keeps away the most sought of title that of glorious
fighters against apartheid, which is one of the most ravishing and desired jewels
on the shelf today. If, for example, they are to acknowledge the existence of
anti-Semitism among Israel's
critic, then this will taint the image of the integrity of Israel's
critics, and with it their shining new clothes. They can always turn their
attention to places where such atrocities do happen, but that will deny them
the prestigious title of self-criticism. Therefore it is not surprising that
they have turned to fantasy. But is it the only option, or just the lazy
option?
The
fact that even their collective fantasy is insufficient to justify their
accusations, only demonstrates the pathetic state of their dandy liberalism.
This condition however is not a unique one, whenever and wherever dandyism
takes itself seriously, it comes out pathetic. And it does not matter in what
field of life this takes place.
The
main difference between real Liberals and dandy Liberals is in the fury factor.
Real liberals will be upset when the authorities of the state do abuse the
rights and well being of the people under their control, especially children.
Dandy Liberals are upset when these authorities do the opposite, and take care
and safeguard the rights and well being of the people under their control. Because
this denies them the glamorous jewels, luxurious clothes, and smashing stylish hairdos
that comes with the cause they claim to fight for. In their eyes they fight for
all the suffering people on Earth, them being mostly and only the Palestinians.
And like a spoiled rich girl that cannot take her tiara diamond everywhere she
wants, they are furious. The reason they lashed out at the soldiers is not
because they did the wrong thing, but because they did the right thing, TOOK
THE STONES-THREWING CHILD TO HIS MOTHER!
For
these folks the occupation will never end. Even when every Palestinian, every
Arab, and every Muslim on Earth declare the conflict over and all grievances
resolved. The Folks at 972magazine, and others like them, will continue to cry
‘occupation, occupation, occupation.’ Without it they are like Carrie Bradshaw
in a world without shopping for the basic non-necessities.
This
is not a stretch of the cynicism employed in this column. It is an accusation proven
by none other than one of the leaders of the pack, his royal-highness Larry Derfner.
Larry Derfner opposes John Kerry's peace initiative. That in itself is not unusual,
due to past experiences and past tragedies, many people are skeptic, and I,
myself, am no different. For those who want peace, skepticism, and past
experience is insufficient to oppose the John Kerry initiative. There are heavy
issues involved. Such as trust, the integrity of the process, the ability of
each side to deliver, overcoming misunderstandings and different interpretations,
etc. However Larry Derfner’s reason has nothing to do with the peace process. He fears this initiative will terminate the
European boycott of Israelis. His rational is a folly no less than that of his
two compatriots, if not bigger. “Israelis need to be scared out of the
occupation” he says. It is a good thing that he acknowledges that this boycott
is about persecuting Israelis. The settlements are just the excuse. What
Larry's logic has however is amnesia. Israelis do compare the grim economic
prospect of a boycott with their current economic situation. But they also compare
it with the reign of terror they were under during the greater part of the
second intifada. As unattractive as dire economic conditions are, the fear of
living under the constant presence of death, where in each day there is one or
two mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians, is far worse. Like most people Israelis
are not looking forwards to live under stressed economic conditions. But like
most people it is preferable to horrific death. And the last time Israel was
under a massive delegitimation attack, it coincided, not coincidently, with the
wave of mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians known as the Second Intifada.
Larry
lives in a separate universe where terrorism never happened. Likewise the
boycott he supports will not end the occupation and is not meant to bring
peace. It is evident by the hypocrisy that characterizes every aspect of this
boycott. For one thing there is no need
to put Israel
through a financial squeeze in order to get it to make concessions on
settlements and on land it conquered in 1967. Israel
proved that in 1982 when it delivered the Sinai to Egypt and evicted all settlements
there. This was proven again in 2006 with the unilateral withdrawal from the
Gaza Strip, of soldiers and civilians, and with the settlements freeze of
2010. History has shown that if Israel’s
concerns are attended to it will make painful concession for peace, or for even
less. Any peace process must address these concerns, just as it must address
the Palestinians concerns. A boycott washes them aside; hence the boycott is
against the peace process. The second level of hypocrisy is the selectivity of
this measure. We do not see any boycott of Morocco
for its settlements policy in Western Sahara, nor of Turkey
and its settlements policy in Northern Cyprus.
And let's not forget the Chinese massive settlements policy in Tibet and Turkestan.
This is not a universal principal; it is a selective one, aimed at targeting Israel.
Why punish the one country that has cooperated on this issue? Because that cooperation is not something the
EU is interested in. This is a simple act of assault, and Peace Negotiators do
not assault the negotiating parties. They work hard to build trust. And
violence, and this is violence, does not built trust. Nor does it meant to be.
From
the point of view of international law the boycott bases itself on one interpretation
of the international law regarding the legal position of the settlements. One
of the issues peace negotiations are expected to reach is an agreed
interpretation of the international law, and not just over one issue. So, why
does the EU do the opposite if they want peace? Clearly they do not want peace.
For the purpose of peace one does not built machinery aimed at the economical
persecution of each and every Israeli, no matter how trivial their connection
to the settlements might be. For peace to succeed economic opportunities are to
be increased not vanquished. But Larry Drefner would rather have the slightest
chances for peace extinguishes, and the misery of both Israelis and
Palestinians continues so this anti peace measure can be implemented. Totally
irrational from the point of view of peace advocacy, completely rational from
the point of view of someone who treats liberal values the way a fashionista
treats cloth and jewelry. The EU is an important body in the international arena;
therefore it can be treated as some kind of a judge. If it says Israel
is a rough state then automatically it is. End of discussion before it begins. As
demonstrated above, there is plenty to discuss but for Larry Drefner and his
like this is an unnecessary distraction. With the EU as a seal of approval they
can look oh so gorgeous fighters against this rough state whenever they look in
the mirror. The mirror being the fantasies produced by their keyboard and
displayed in their magazine. Someone like that, who wants to look high and
mighty at the expanse of peace, at the expanse of those suffering from the lack
of it, has a well known equivalency in the fashion world: Those that buy huge
numbers of luxury goods and other status symbols that were made by child labor.
This is a moral depravity, pure and simple.
For
people who wish to rid their societies from liberal values, Dandy Liberals are
a god sent. They ridicule liberal values more effectively than any right wing incitement.
And alienate the majority of the public, including those inclined to support
liberal causes. They put under a cloud every worthy liberal cause there is, as
if the clouds are not thick enough already. And they make the two-state
solution looks like the property of those insensitive to the concerns of every
day Israelis, if not worse. For those of us wishing to understand and resolve
the problems that incase our global society, among them the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, dandy liberals should be recognized and distinguished from real
liberals.
At
the same time we must also know the differences between dandy liberals and fake
liberals. Fake liberals are those that are advancing certain causes that have
nothing to do with liberal and progressive values but nevertheless modern
society places them under the wider banner of liberalism. These are causes such
as Marxism, Anarchism, plain old anti-Semitism, and in some places even Islamic
Jihadism. The values of these causes are a sharp contrast to liberal values.
Some of their advocates are true believers committed to these causes; others
are more like the dandy liberals. For fake liberals the dandy liberals are also
a god sent, because they are willing to buy everything the fake liberals have
to say. Kind of like before the issuing of a new smartphone, but less useful.
But they are not one and the same. Dandy liberals do not seek to destroy
liberal society, fake liberals most certainly do. However, Just like the peace
process liberal society will benefit from non-of them. They represent lack of
integrity and abundance of ignores. Before human rights were a popular cause,
these were the very thing the human rights movement sought to eradicate. Instead
this strange and demented off spring of our culture of affluence threatens to
reintroduce them into the main stream of liberal society. If we desire to
protect the precious achievements of the progressive movement, dandy liberals,
and fake liberals, should be recognized and marginalized. Starting all over
again is a frightening prospect.
I
have to admit, I had my concerns prior to President Barak Obama speech of March
23rd2013 inJerusalem. Ben Rhods interview to the Israeli press was really frightening; even now I shiver
slightly when I think of it. But after listening and reading President Obamabrilliantly planed speech, I am allowing myself a wider degree of optimism. The
reason is simple, President Obama did everything he could to encourage the
possibility of peace. And that puts the peace process in a far better place.
When
it comes to advancing a peace process first thing, create a desirable image of
peace. Describing Israel's
success in the civilian eras of agriculture and high-tech, with the
opportunities for social and economic prosperity, serve that purpose. Second,
acknowledge the risks involved, it adds credibility, making the idea of peace
look less like a dream and more down – to – earth; especially when
acknowledging that there are threats to peace at the other side. Threats such
as: terrorism, hatred produced by years of propaganda and incitement, and the
very idea of rejecting Israel's
right to exist as a Jewish state.
"Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is
dedicated to its destruction." A line of truth aimed at non-other
than the hard core left. For years Israelis have been hearing "you don't
make peace with your friends, you make peace with your enemies." Israel
implemented that logic with the Mubarak regime. For a while it worked. Egypt wanted the Sinai back and that was more
important to them than the objection to Israel's existence. But the objection
remind, manifesting in the form of incitement encouraged by the Mubarak regime
and by opposition forces. As a result, all segments of Egyptian society are now
hostile to Israel.
And that is undermining the peace treaty. Today, minimal diplomatic exchangesare viewed as scandalous. There is a very simple universal truth behind this
situation. Problems do not go away just because we ignore them. For decades
critics of the settlements policy did just that. Constantly ignoring the
incitement against Israel's
right to exist; incitement that prevails throughout the Arab world, and does
not stop with Israel.
As a result they lost their credibility in the eyes of the Israeli public, and
rightfully so.
Third
step: security, security, security. Security means that the lives of each and every
member of the audience and every Israeli out there are important.
But
before all of that President Obama had to create a platform of trust in order to
connect between him and the Israeli public. Reaffirming Israel's history, identity,
connection to the land and the right of the Jews for self-determination, all did
that. Humor and charisma helped too, a lot. To the annalists this trust is
about getting the Israeli public to pressure the Israeli leadership. But trust
is required for something far more important than this myopia. Trust is what
keeps a peace process moving. Getting the leaders to act is only secondary to
creating a trust between Israelis and Palestinians. The media, not
surprisingly, ignored that, Obama did not, and that is for his credit. The
story about Palestinian youth that want to get a lone just like Israelis do
meant to do just that. Give Israelis a human face of the enemy. Was it naive as
the right wing claim? Absolutely! One does not have to be a right wing to know
that. Yet, it is essential, because peace is about getting each side to see the
other as human beings! Whatever our political convictions may be, only those of
us that are trying to find humanity in the other side want peace.
What
was lost by all the annalists and commentators, left and right, is that all the
merits of Israel
listed by the president simply describe Jews as human being. As people that all
they want is "the ability to make their own
decisions and to get an education, get a good job; to worship God in their own
way; to get married; to raise a family." And like all nations have
the right for self-determination.
Not
surprisingly a single voice of outrage came from the Arab world. As far as that
outrage was concerned, getting Israeli Jews to see Palestinian as human being
is insignificant. It is more important to deny that from Jews. The logic behind
that outrage is very simple. If you deny one group the right to be human
beings, the right to exist, why would you want them to acknowledge the humanity
of your own group?
And
yes, this proves the naivety in the president's request. Loudly!
But
don't let that loudness hush what comes next:
"One of
the great ironies of what’s happening in the broader region is that so much of
what people are yearning for -- education, entrepreneurship, the ability to
start a business without paying a bribe, the ability to connect to the global
economy -- those are things that can be found here in Israel. This should be a hub for
thriving regional trade, and an engine for opportunity."
There
is a message here to the Arab world. A message to that outrage, "You need Israel."
Only those familiar with the frustrations involved when trying to improve the
standard of living in the Arab world will know that. And there is nothing naïve
about that. For obvious reasons Israelis are not familiar with this experience.
This is criticism of the Arab world and it is long overdue. It is a call for
the Arab world to make an outreach to Israel. And that is new.
Peace
requires an effort by both sides. That effort requires a will. Will cannot be
imposed, but it can be encouraged. That is the role of the international
community. The job of the USA
is to make sure the international community remains in that role and not become
another battlefield between the two sides. When the USA
gives reasons for both sides to want peace, security for Israel, and
prosperity for the Arab World, it does both things. Encourages the formation of
a will in both sides and maintains the integrity of the international
community. Standing beside Israel
blocks attempts to score points against Israel in that battlefield.
Therefore, the framework in which a peace process can take place is there. But
a framework is barely a corner stone. The Israeli applause to the president
speech showed that on the Israeli side the will exist. If there is a will on
the Arab side, the outrage that came from there hides it well.
This summation does not sound very optimistic, but before
that there wasn't even a framework. And in a process that has been a major
source of frustrations, even the possibility of hope is a progress worthy of
our blessing. The only cloud is the apology to Erdogan. Being a possessor of
fascist characteristics he will only use it for his advantage and not for the
benefit of the region. The way he and his foreign minister, Davutoglu, have
been bragging about this suggests they are planning another Mavi Marmara. And
that will only increase the tensions that already exist.
By
the time this will be posted on my blog president Barak Obama will be in Israel, or just
about to. His long awaited, not so long awaited, necessary, not necessary visit
will finally take place.
If
you follow all the discussions in media, from MSNBC to Fox, the visit is not
about advancing the peace process. It is about winning over the Israeli public.
As Jeffrey Goldberg puts it: "Crack the Israeli code".
Why
is that important?
Popularity
never hearts in politics, and without the backing of a popular figure the peace
process cannot gain popular support. So it is about the peace process. It is
just that other US
presidents did not need to do that. They always enjoyed a strong popularity
among the Israeli public; especially George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Obama on
the other hand has the lowest popularity figures any serving US president ever had. Therefore,
if he wants to push the peace process forwards, he need to increase his
popularity among Israelis.
It
is a separated discussion as to why his popularity so low. The more urgent
question is, is it doable?
Yes,
it is doable. Israelis like liking American presidents.
That
does not mean it is going to happen. Judging from the remarks Deputy National Ssecurity
advisor Ben Rhods gave to the Israeli press corps, optimism has little to hold
on to.
All
the damage is in this quote:
Presidant Brack Obama (right), and Deputy National Ssecurity advisor Ben Rhods (left).
"The
US believes that Israel must
show it is serious about its peace efforts. It must convince the general Arab
public, if nothing more to maintain Israel's
peace treaty with Egypt."
This
statement is wrong on several levels. First it is patronizing. Friendly
atmosphere cannot start with telling people they must behave themselves. Even
if the patronizing is correct. The problem with this patronization is that it
is neither. It is not correct it and it is not incorrect. Each side has its own
ideas as to what is serious about peace and what is not serious about peace. In
a peace process the peace broker is not suppose to give the two parties another
reason to bicker.
And
it gets worse, because the way Ben Rhods phrased his advice he already took a side
in a dispute that has not happened yet!
He
took the side of Egypt.
This alienates Israelis because from their point of view they have already made
a series of territorial concessions, with security risks attached. Some may not
consider these concessions serious since the settlements continue to expand. Right
or wrong this is precisely the kind of a debate a peace broker hopes to avoid.
But
in peace making debates like this are nothing more than headaches. Now, these
headaches are not fun, to say the least. Ask James Baker III; ask Madeleine
Albright; ask Henry Kissinger. But broken peace accords are worse.
Right
now Egypt
is ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is a popular political party that
opposed the peace process vehemently. It is reality and American pressure that
prevents them from breaking it. Since Ben Rhods took Egypt's side, he gave them a way
out of the peace accords. With each side having its own ideas as to what
'serious about peace' is, all the Egyptian leadership has to do is to use Ben
Rhods remarks as a go ahead is to constantly claim Israel is not serious about
peace, back it up with mass street demonstration, which they can arrange
easily. Until finally they have an excuse to break the Camp David Peace Accords.
Needless to say, the Camp David Peace Accords are one the most important
achievements of American foreign policy. Something both Democratic and Republican
administrations worked hard to achieve and maintain.
None
of these had happened yet, thankfully. All that is needed is for the most
powerful man on earth to express this logic publicly. The impression from the
discussions in the Israeli media is that is not going to happen. Let hope these
impressions are correct since Ben Rhods is the one writing the president's
speeches for president Barak Obama visit to Israel.
The
picture above is one of the more famous instruments of Palestinian propaganda.
It is found on many Palestinian and pro – Palestinian sites, and had reached
iconic levels even at leftwing circles. It
was taken in 2002 during 'Operation Defensive Shield.' This was Israel's
largest counter-terrorism operation, which ended nearly a year and a half of
mass murder attacks on Israeli civilians.
It's suppose to be an Israeli soldier abusing a Palestinian family. According
to the picture he is doing that from a kneeling position with a snipers rifle
in his hand. Now, just the basics: In order to abuse someone the victims has to
be completely helpless, and under total control of the abuser. And how does an
abuser suppose to achieve that from a kneeling position?
He
cannot – that simple, no one can. Basic anatomy of all assault crimes, the
abuser keeps the victim close to the ground or the wall, never the other way
around. If the soldier intended to abuse someone he would be standing. Instead
he is kneeling with a sniper rifle in his hands. Why?
Because he is a sniper, he is kneeling because that is what snipers do. When
they are in the kneeling position snipers become smaller targets to the snipers
of the other side.
So
why is this soldier kneeling in the middle of a Palestinian street?
Simple,
there are Palestinian snipers on the other side, away from the area captured by
the photo.
And
what do civilians do when a shootout is about to begin?
Get
the hell out!
And
that is exactly what the mother with the two children is doing. Look how she
holds the hand of younger child. She is a responsible person. The rifle isn't
even pointed at her. Look closely, it is pointed away from them.
Yes those two girls are afraid. Or do they?
The
older one looks apprehensive, but also curious, peeping from behind her sister's
back. The younger one is either surprised or was in a middle of a sentence when
the photo was taken. One thing is clear, no one is afraid from the kneeling
soldier, not the girls, not the mother. And one of the reasons they are not
afraid of him is because there are not being abused by him. They simply passed by
this sniper while getting away from a possible fire fight; a fire fight that probably
didn't happen, since at the time most Palestinian gunmen preferred to leave and
avoid confrontation.
Now it seems this photo did not serve the Palestinian
propaganda machine as intended. So it was photoshoped. The mother was removed all together.
And the soldier's rifle was rotated so it can point at the girls. But in the
process it positioned the soldier in an unnatural way. No one can stand like that
and maintain balance, especially with a rifle in the hand and weight on the
back. Maybe an acrobat can, but with an effort.
In an opinion piece published in USA Today, under a title that can be mistaken for satire, Professor Kenneth Waltz of Colombia University suggests we shouldn’t worry about a nuclear Iran. His main argument, “Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of enhancing its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities.”
Professor Kenneth Waltz of Colombia University
As to what those security concerns might be he does not speechifies, however, unlike Israel Iran has a huge strategic depth. Its geography, its huge population, and its level of economic development, all adds up to a formidable deterrence; without any need for nuclear weapons. In short, Iran is a country that doesn’t have to worry about its own security, as long as it does not infringe on the security of others. Once it does that, it gives other countries a good reason to make a special effort in order to infringe on Iran’s security. Unfortunately for Professor Kenneth Waltz’s argument that is precisely the kind of Iran we have today. In Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Egypt, the Gaza Strip, and elsewhere. If Professor Kenneth Waltz wishes to reassure the world about a nuclear Iran he should first reassure the world about a non-nuclear Iran.
At another part of his article he argues that Israel’s nuclear capabilities are responsible for the instability in the Middle East. How does Israel’s, supposed, nuclear capabilities relate to the huge social gaps within the Arab world? How does it affect the total GDP of 22 Arab nations? Without oil this GDP is lower than that of Switzerland. How is that Israel’s fault? And what about illiteracy, high unemployment, the Sunna and Shia split, gross gender inequality, and other recognized internal causes of instability. Are they all because Israel has nuclear weapons? Under this type of reasoning, the moon landing is to blame for all the major airplane crashes that followed.
According to USA Today, Kenneth Waltz’s article is a condensed version of a paper that will be published in the July - August issue of Foreign Affairs, so maybe the answers will be there.
So far, since this so-called Arab Spring had begun only about one person it can be said that his life has changed from winter to spring.
Gilad Shalit at Nokia sport’s stadium in Tel-Aviv
As for the Arab Spring itself – more and more it looks like a fall. Not a fall in the sense of autumn, but in a sense of fall, decline and collapse. The deterioration of the Arab states that so tragically categorized them in the 20th century, simply intensified. And now entire societies are disintegrating.
