Critically thinking about those who criticize Israel

I was recently sent an article written by an obscure writer, writing in the LA Times Opinion page, arguing that Zionism is anachronistic and the two-state solution is dead because of the policies of the Israeli government. While the writer has his right to his opinion, and the LA Times certainly has the right to print this, my interest was piqued when I read the introduction to the forwarded article. It read; “A major news outlet is criticising Zionism. Maybe the cloud of poisonous sympathetic nationalism/transitive manifest destiny is beginning to lift?”

Let’s start with semantics, shall we?

‘Nationalism’ used as a derogatory description of nationalistic aspirations; there are many kinds of nationalism, some practiced by good guys and some by bad guys. Ethnic Nationalism forbids diversity and results in things like ethnic cleansing; cultural nationalism describes the nationalistic sense of community and diversity under a banner of cultural identity and pride in country; socialistic nationalism (or national socialism) is, well, we know what that results in.
Most countries engage in nationalistic activities, from flag waving, to cultural identification, to immigration absorption. Those activities are encouraged and applauded by the world of nations as positive ways to build pride in the population.

Now, let’s take the expression “poisonous sympathetic nationalism/transitive manifest destiny” as a description. There is an implication that the phrase somehow relays a sense of foreboding, of an emergence of evil. Coupling the word poisonous with manifest destiny and including the word nationalism in the expression gives the impression that this a very bad thing for people under that nation’s flag. Territorial expansion is most associated with manifest destiny. Who is really trying to expand and which country’s policies are indeed poisonous? Let’s discuss.

Israel is the only real Democracy in the Middle East. Her leaders are elected by a vote of the citizens. All Israeli citizens are eligible to vote freely, without duress. Israel is comprised of about 75% Jewish and about 23% Arab (Christian and Muslim) citizens. All of these citizens are eligible to vote. Thirteen of the 120 members of Knesset (Israeli Parliament) are Christian or Muslim Arab. There have always been (since the founding of the State) Arab Knesset members.

Women in Israel have equal rights. Those who live alternate lifestyles, have disabilities, or are different are not discriminated against. Health care is afforded to every citizen under a National Health Care system. Education is guaranteed to all, for free, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. There is a free press, freedom to gather, to demonstrate, to march, to disagree with the government. There is a rule of law, a Supreme Court (which, by the way, includes a Justice who is an Arab), where all citizens of Israel may take their grievances.

Israel’s Declaration of independence includes language that expressly reaches out to her neighbors peacefully, with the hope and expectation that those neighboring countries will choose to move forward in peace and prosperity. That declaration, written immediately after the war that created the State of Israel in 1948, could not have more clear. Let me quote the actual document; “We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.”

As a result of that war, Israel comprised a tiny fraction, a sliver, of what used to be the British mandate in the Middle East. The rest belonged to Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The Arab nations surrounding Israel comprised, and still comprise, close to 99.9% of the middle east land mass. Yet, Israel was willing to “do its share” to create a peaceful community of nations.

I challenge the writer of that statement I quoted at the outset to find one Arab nation with a living former leader (they are usually killed). I challenge that person to find one Arab nation that doesn’t’ supress the press, that doesn’t murder its own citizens who practice alternate lifestyles. I challenge my friend to locate one place in the Middle East, save Israel, where minorities have rights. Indeed, diversity is not the word of the day in the Arab world. Gaza has been made Jew-free; most of the Arab villages, towns, and cities in the West Bank are Jew-free. Jews have been expelled from pretty much the entire Arab world. Those who remain live under severe restrictions. How would one define that system of nationalism? One that expels those who are different? One that oppresses those who are different? Or a nation that expressly and under governmental sanctions allows the killing of Jews simply because they are Jewish?

My friend seemed happy that a news outlet was criticizing Zionism, Israel. My friends, the world has been condemning Israel since it was founded. The Arab world has been looking for ways to engage in genocide and exterminate the Jews and Israel since 1948. The manifest destiny quoted is more correctly aimed at the ethnically cleansing Arab world, who has, for the past 60 plus years, been systematically, strategically, and politically, been attempting to rid the world of the Jew and expand into the land that is now called Israel. Pushing the Jews to the sea will allow the Arab nations to claim land that was never theirs.

The world’s press has been complicit to a large degree in this; the United Nations has absolutely been complicit in a much more transparent way.

Now let’s talk about balance. Balanced reporting is a hallmark, or at least it is maintained by the “mainstream press” to be a hallmark of a free press. Let’s throw the United Nations in the mix as well in this discussion of balance. We’ll start with the United Nations.

During the 2006-2007 General Assembly, the UN passed 22 separate resolutions against Israel, which took considerable time and energy. During this same time, not one single utterance in the General Assembly occurred regarding the genocide in Darfur. The World Health Organization passed only one resolution over the past year as part of their UN responsibility; it was against Israel. The UN Commission on Human Rights voted on eight resolutions last year; four of which were condemnations of Israel. China, Sudan, North Korea, and others were ignored.

There are three special UN entities dedicated to the Palestinian cause. The oldest is the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, created in 1968. In 1975, the General Assembly added the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Supporting its work is the Division for Palestinian Rights. Lodged within the UN Secretariat, the Division boasts a sixteen-member staff and a budget of millions, which it devotes to the constant promotion of anti-Israel propaganda throughout the world. This is not balanced. Afghanistan, China, Sudan, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria to name but a few are among the worst human rights violators on the planet and the UN has not seen fit to name any committees or divisions to investigate them (see additional information on the non-partisan highly regarded website - http://www.colorq.org/HumanRights/).

Our world is, unfortunately strife with nations and regimes engaging in horrible acts against their own people. Yet the United Nations, the world wide body charged with monitoring the world’s activities, chooses to focus enormous resources, millions of dollars and vast amounts of time and energy toward resolution after resolution, studies, and investigative bodies, not to mention those three specially designed full committees, against Israel.

Let’s go to the media now. Balanced reporting occurs when news reports highlight both sides of a conflict, bringing to bear the necessary resources to give the reader/listener/observer as much of an objective viewpoint as possible so the citizen can make educated judgments.

The BBC has a long and storied history of presenting one sided news broadcasts from Gaza, Nablus, and Ramallah. Their reporters do not even enter Israel when researching their stories. They have been called out for years on their accuracy by other mainstream media outlets as well as media watch groups. The French TV network ‘France 2” admitted it botched camera work and allowed a doctored film clip to be aired. The admission was buried so not highly visible. The Guardian newspaper in England printed opinions written by Holocaust deniers. The LA Times has printed opinion pieces from people who have a history of inaccuracies in other postings; the newspaper prints their opinions anyway. This is just a few samplings of the ‘balanced’ reporting that goes on when it comes to Israel. The mainstream media, such as it is, has been quoting from biased sources, using doctored materials, and allowing unsubstantiated reports to find their way onto the airways for years. My friend is naïve to think that this one poorly written article is an example of some insightful new beginning. More examples of clear bias can be found at http://www.camera.org/.

I have attempted to respond, briefly, not to the article written by an uneducated author, but to my friend who yearns for a freer world, a safer more ethical world, a world that does not include oppression and violence.

Israel is not a perfect place; neither is anywhere else on earth. Israel is an imperfect nation, struggling to improve and unfortunately, being put in the position of struggling to survive at the same time. So many times the Arab world could have had peace with Israel. So many times the Arab leaders chose instead to miss an opportunity to live in peace and prosperity with Israel. Too many times the Arab leaders listened to their fundamental terrorist advisors and rejected the peaceful advances by Israel and her allies.

Until the Arab world moves away from its tribal customs it will be trapped in is own terrible cycle of rejecting even the concept of an Israeli nation. I am not confident that the Arab nations have the ability, never mind the will, to accomplish this.

Neal Elyakin, Ann Arbor, MI; 3.20.09