I freely admit that it is always hard to be absolutely objective in commenting on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, but I am relieved that a debate on the matter is finally picking up. For too long has the pro-Israel camp attempted to hijack discussions when things don’t go their way. The charge of anti-Semite is always in the background, waiting to pounce on anyone who levels an atom of criticism on Israel. The world is expected never to forget the Holocaust of six million Jews. But to recall that at the total expense of the present oppression of Palestinian civilians surely goes beyond all boundaries of morality.
I don’t deny that Jews have historically received the short end of the stick. They’ve spent most of their entire existence at the mercy of other powers who have typically found in Jews a convenient scapegoat. Yet, the creation of Israel was not the result of a religious awakening, but a combination of an inherent Christian hatred of Jews and the rise of a rabid nationalism amongst Jews. The latter took its name from the Biblical Zion, much as modern-day Salafis take their names from the salaf-al-salih (the Pious Predecessors). Both tap into profound religious imagery for legitimacy. And like Salafism, Zionism is also an extremely selective, absolutist and volatile discipline. Contempt for an “other” is almost always a given.
Which is why when the Iraq Study Group (ISG) led by former Secretary of State James Baker directly pointed the finger at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as being one of the causes of violent extremism in the Middle East, the Israeli government emphatically rejected it.
While I also do not believe that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will instantly push back the tide of extremism, a viable Palestinian state will at least alleviate the livelihoods of millions of homeless refugees. It is all too easy to discard the Palestinian issue on the basis of the faulty logic of others, but to also discard the tangible suffering of millions of people is completely perverse.
To Zionism, the “other” isn’t even worth speaking about. The “other” does not and should not exist, yet ammunition must be constantly expended on them. Their women and children must not be regarded as civilians, but cohorts of the militarism that has infected the whole of Palestinian society.
Not surprisingly, Palestinian militants, the real ones who blow up school buses and restaurants, use just the same kind of logic, only with less public-relations savvy and political-correctness.
I might go as far as to say that the positions taken by the ISG are bold, but only in rehashing the obvious steps in resolving the conflict. One of the recommendations, for example, suggests that the elements of a negotiated peace between Israel and Palestinians should include:
- Adherence to UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and to the principle of land for peace, which are the only bases for achieving peace.
- A major effort to move from the current hostilities by consolidating the cease-fire reached between the Palestinians and the Israelis in November 2006.
- Support for a Palestinian national unity government.
All the elements, though unoriginal, merely require a will to back them up. Furthermore, the ISG implies that it is willing to accept Hamas if it operates within the framework of a coalition government representing different Palestinian factions. To date, the Israeli government and the Bush Administration has categorically rejected Hamas, even though it remains a democratically-elected force in Palestinian society. It is hence not too difficult to translate this rejection into a total rejection of the Palestinian people themselves; a fact that no doubt benefits the ultra-nationalists of Israel.
Another heavyweight waded in recently with a book entitled, “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid“. It is striking that Jimmy Carter, the former President of the United States, uses the name Palestine, since the state does not yet exist. His premise is simple:
“Israel does occupy this territory deep within the West Bank, and connects 200-or-so settlements…with a road, and then prohibits the Palestinians from using that road, or in many cases even crossing the road.
This perpetrates even worse instances of apartness, or apartheid, than we witnessed even in South Africa…”
Again, he echoes the ISG’s suggestion that Israel would never have peace until it withdrew from the territories which it has occupied since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. And again, the pro-Israel camp unleashed the most unimaginative weapon in their arsenal, the charge that Jimmy Carter is in reality a closet anti-Semite.
The idiolect is all too familiar. I am reminded that the pro-Israel camp aren’t the only ones wielding this tired club. Dubious institutions propagating a particular brand of Islam have time and again also described attacks on them as being Islamaphobic in nature. By spreading out the criticism amongst the whole community, the intent of such organizations is perhaps to win the sympathy and outrage of a greater number of people than it can realistically muster on its own. A critique on its aims, members and sources of funding, for example, becomes an unprovoked assault on Muslims and Islam itself, even though it never began that way.
From an outsider’s point of view, such organizations are on their way down anyway, and are dragging with them the communities they claim to represent. Because more and more, Islamaphobia is taken to be a totally rational and legitimate response to the actions of those Muslims who claim to kill, maim and speak in the name of God.
It might be cruel to say this, but people are less concerned about anti-Muslim behavior than anti-Semitic behavior.
If you would like to make a comment, please fill out the form below.
I think because the Western media has always labeled Muslims as sword-wielding, gun-totting, and flag-burning religious fanatics, and that’s the sole reason why an anti-Islamic thought is never being judged on. On the other hand, Jews has always being labeled as law-abiding, American-friendly citizens.
Unfortunately, this kind of brainwashing technique has been widely deployed in the West, and it implicitly portrays Muslims as bad people although its the minority of them which are bad.
This is also a bilateral phenomena.