Posted by
Andrews on Friday, April 03, 2009 12:28:58 PM
Let us imagine a Hollywood movie. Imagine if you would a group of black ex-slaves during Reconstruction. They have pooled their money and founded a little town where they can live in peace, each with his own small patch of land. Now, let us have those farmers set upon by white Klansmen who once owned the plantation where that town now stands. Though they voluntarily sold the land, they now want it back and attack the black farmers over and over, only to flee at the first resistance to hide among equally racist townsfolk nearby. Now, let us suppose one night, in righteous indignation, those farmers gather and attack the town, chasing out the Klansmen hiding among the racists, perhaps harming some of the racist townsfolk as well, maybe even burning down the town.
Would not the audience applaud? And even if some women and children were dispossessed, even harmed, would not their complicity make the audience willing to forgive our protagonists? Or would they not at least blame the Klansmen who hid among women and children rather than the properly offended black farmers?
Then what on earth causes some segments of the public to so despise Israel? We would never think of accusing those black farmers in my example of "perpetuating the cycle of violence". Nor would we blame them for harm that happened because the Klansmen hid among women and children. Yet, when it comes to Israel, those who attack them, who fire missiles randomly into Israel, they get a pass, while very restrained counterattacks are painted as genocidal madness.
Now I am not saying that in every case Israel has done right, nor am I claiming there has never been an excessive response. However, in recent years, Israel has, if anything, been far too restrained in response, fighting, as does the US, to minimize casualties, constantly aware that the world will forgive her enemies anything while holding her to an absurdly high standard. (The same standard the US military seems to operate under.) Nor is that all, Israel has also been far too ready to give away land, to make insane security concessions in exchange for nothing more than a promise, and even then a promise no one expects to be fulfilled.
And yet Israel is blamed for "the cycle of violence" while the Arabs who attack her are forgiven the worst atrocities. Israel is blamed for accidentally harming women and children among whom terrorists hide, while terrorists are forgiven for intentionally targeting women and children. Israel is blamed for finally retaliating, while Arabs are forgiven scores of random missile attacks, fired into civilian areas. In short, Israel can do nothing without blame, while the Arabs can do no wrong.
It is a situation I can simply not comprehend. It is not as if the Arabs are friends of the US, nor are they exemplars of the values the left holds dear. Homophobic, misogynistic, religious fanatics seem to be the sort that liberals would despise, yet in this case they place them above a modern, fairly secular, left-leaning "progressive" democracy. I just don't get it.
POSTSCRIPT
What makes this all the more bizarre is that Israel is a European-style welfare state. Were it transplanted to Europe and filled with gentiles, it would probably take the place of Sweden as the favorite example of the welfare state "working". But, because of the automatic Israel-bashing the left can't use it to support their favorite cause. Very, very odd.
POSTSCRIPT II
One other interesting aspect of the argument is the "racist" or "cultural bigotry" aspect. The Israelis refuse to allow citizenship to Arabs who once resided in the area but fled before the 1948 war, as well as their descendants. (Please note no other states in the area want to grant them citizenship either, even Jordan which once owned the lands in which they resided.) They do not deny citizenship to Arabs or Moslems who remained in 1948 or otherwise meet citizenship requirements. There is an Arab party in the Knesset and Arabs and Moslems enjoy full citizenship in Israel. However, they are blamed for bigotry. The PA, on the other hand, does not want any Jews (or Christians, though they keep that a bit more quiet) residing within its borders, persecutes those who sell land to Jews and turns a blind eye when individuals are murdered for "collaborating" with Jews. Yet the PA is never once called bigoted. Is it me, or does this seem bizarre?