Registered user login:

Looking for truth among the lies

Benjamin Pogrund

Published 26 February 2007

Trying to find some reality among all the strong emotions that the issues of Israel and Palestine throw up

Israel draws extreme reactions. For a tiny country of only seven million people, it arouses unique passions. It touches deep feelings, some of which are easy to understand, while others are beyond logic.

On one side are those who damn the country. Their motivations vary: anti-Semitism and a visceral hatred of everything Jewish; or objections, based on religious belief, against the presence of a Jewish state on perceived Muslim Waqf land; or Jews on the left who feel driven to distance themselves publicly from Israel for reasons that are not always fathomable but seem to stem from embarrassment at having been born Jewish.

Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its grip on the Gaza Strip are bad enough, but critics distort and exaggerate these with accusations of "genocide". They falsely try to convey a picture of marauding Israeli soldiers, randomly killing as they go, and of artillery shells fired without any care. They ignore the context of the conflict, which has put Israel on the defensive, in an unceasing struggle to survive, from even before its founding as a state nearly 60 years ago.

The Palestinian occupation is described as unprecedented in the world. Never mind China's long occupation of Tibet. The tragedy of the killing of Palestinians is claimed to be without parallel - as though there were no Darfur, no Rwanda, no Bosnia.

The prejudices of these critics are so deep-rooted that they are unwilling or unable to take on board that both sides contribute to the conflict, and that it is as little a matter of Israelis bad and Palestinians good as one of Israelis good and Palestinians bad. They pervert the meaning of Zionism, as if it were a uniquely racist ideology, instead of a national liberation movement comparable with others elsewhere. They condemn the "Jewish state" as though no group of people had the right to decide for itself how it wants to order its society. (And they do not know, or they choose to ignore, that the Jewish state is diluted by the considerable percentage of people who are not Jewish - the Arab 20 per cent and the roughly 7 per cent non-Jewish Russian immigrants. Even children of immigrant workers are now slowly getting citizenship.)

The detractors also accuse Israel of "apartheid", seeking to equate Israel with the old South Africa so as to have it branded an illegitimate state and hence open to international sanctions. But Israel is not an apartheid state. Its Arab minority certainly suffers discrimination, and that is wrong and objectionable, but to compare them with black South Africans under apartheid is laughable.

At the other pole of attitudes towards Israel are those many (perhaps most) Jews around the world who support it unreservedly. To them, Israel can do no wrong. That is understandable: the creation of Israel fulfilled the centuries-old dream of a persecuted people. Israel's existence means that Jews have a champion to protest against anti-Semitism wherever it surfaces. It is the ultimate place of refuge. Jews will no longer go to the slaughterhouse.

Yet one cannot justify denial of criticism. Israel is in occupation in the West Bank, and that leads to cruel and ugly actions. Hundreds of checkpoints control the movement of Palestinians. Israel's hold on the territory is steadily extended by aggressive settlers and the government fails to fulfil its promises to curb them. The Gaza Strip is a prison of misery and despair.

Israelis are morally corrupted by what they do in the cause of survival. The details are known. The information appears daily in Israeli new s papers and is carried in the international media. Those supporters of Israel who refuse to face up to the realities lose credibility. Integrity and justice demand exposure, questioning and action.

Apart from the opposing groups of supporters and critics which react, each in its own way, with knee-jerk predictability, there is a broad cross-section of people around the world whose attitude towards Israel is shaped by what they read in newspapers and see on television: they react with dismay and anger, and sympathise with Palestinian suffering. They have a negative view of Israel as an oppressor. On the other hand, many are repelled by what they see on the Palestinian side of the fence: suicide bombings have seriously shaken the Palestinians' moral high ground and their international support - quite apart from the damage done to peace efforts by driving many Israeli Jews to the right.

These different opinions featured earlier this month on the Guardian's Comment Is Free website when a week was given over to the launch of the Independent Jewish Voices network. The IJV signatories include some of Britain's brightest intellects, whose critical views are aired all the time all over the place; but they explained that they'd had to start the organisation to beat the retribution the Jewish establishment exacts on those who criticise Israel. However implausible that might be, the week did yield well over a thousand posts to the blog, covering the range of possible views about Israel. That is healthy, and long may this free expression continue. It is up to readers to reach informed conclusions by picking their way through the evasions, the distortions, the ignorance, and the lies.

Benjamin Pogrund is co-editor of "Shared Histories: a Palestinian-Israeli dialogue" (Left Coast Press); he will be speaking about it on 4 March during Jewish Book Week

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

5 comments from readers

khalilgibran
25 February 2007 at 11:48

The writer obviously has a poor view of the newly-formed IJV, and has not experienced the organised wrath of the pro-Israel lobby that is well-documented by those daring to criticise it. This article starts from the fallacious premise that there is a 'conflict' with equal adversaries. This is not the case. There is an occupation by predominantly white westerners of Arabs. Seen in this light everything is clear. Apply the filter of Judaism and suddenly it takes on a whole new, messy and controversial hue.

Mick
25 February 2007 at 13:49

Overall this is a sensible article with some commendable objectivity, which makes a welcome change from one of John Pilger's one-sided biased rants.

I think it's also fair to say that the Palestinian Leadership and the Arab World bear some responsibility for the Palestinian plight. The Leadership has missed many opportunities over the years to exploit the diplomatic opportunities on offer for the benefit of its citizens. Instead huge amounts of aid have been diverted into the pockets of the leadership (Arafat's personal bank accounts when he died, contained tens of millions of pounds of world aid money intended for his people). Much of this World aid has also of course been spent on weapons, prolonging the conflict and resulting in the Palestinians continuing to kill each other.

There is also a much bigger picture at work in the ever changing world of the Middle East. The Egyptians and Jordanians are very much against the recent Saudi inspired "Mecca Agreement" intended to result in the formation of a Palestinian unity Government. This is because they are concerned at the increasing Iranian influence in the region, which ultimately threatens their own political stability (Iran is the key force behind Hamas, Hizbullah and indeed Syria).

Not sure what #1 means about "applying the filter of Judaism"?

khalilgibran
26 February 2007 at 17:17

The Palestinian leadership bear responsibility for not getting the Palestinan people out of their plight, not for causing it. Hamas and Hizbullah have got their strength directly from Israel's occupation of both Gaza and Lebanon (Hizbullah was formed in 1982 invasion) so talk of Iranian forces are misleading and distract from the real issue. One only needs to look at the problem from a basic human rights issue to know that it is wrong. Forget the larger politics, it is how people are treated on the ground that matters, and at the moment that is very wrong.

By a Jewish filter I simply mean that if the occupiers of the West Bank were simply Europeans, rather than Jewish Europeans, then sensitivities about criticising Israel would not be so raw. It is a very difficult topic to raise without getting caught up in the whole anti-semitic=anti-Israel obfuscation which gets thrown around. My Jewish friends agree with me on this point, by the way. What I do know that Palestinians on the ground, who suffer the indignity of everyday occupation, feel they are paying the price of the resulting mealy-mouthed statements by European leaders, who need to don velvet gloves whenever they deal with Israel. This can be seen in the punishment of ordinary Palestinians because they excercised their democratic right, one of the few Arab peoples able to do so in the Middle East.

GideonPolya
28 February 2007 at 02:19

I was disappointed by the imprecision of this article and the pejorative spin applied to critics of Israeli actions, which simply had the effect of obfuscating serious issues of Israeli human rights abuses.

Israel has been illegally, abusively and traumatizingly occupying the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) (and the Syrian Golan Heights) for 40 years with the following OPT outcomes quantitated by UN Agencies: traumatizing imprisonment of 3.5 million conquered subjects; post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) total 0.3 million; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total 0.2 million; 6 million Palestinian refugees in total (4 million registered with the UN); 80,000 Palestinians flee each year; 85% of Palestinian Christians have fled; "annual under-5 infant mortality" is 0.47% as compared to 0.1% for the Occupier Israel; over 80% of annual homicides in the Holy Land are carried out by Jewish Israelis (the REAL terrorism). Apartheid Israel is unfortunately a very accurate descriptive.

Israel has been grossly violating the UN Charter, ignoring General Assembly resolutions and violating the Geneva, Rights of the Child, Universal Human Rights and Genocide Conventions.

To my knowledge only about a dozen of my wider family survived the Nazis - for people such as myself it is impossible to ignore, deny, minimize, excuse, obfuscate, support, advocate or otherwise be complicit in gross human rights abuses of the kind being inflicted upon the Indigenous Palestinians by

a clearly violent and racist Apartheid Israel.

This state certainly does not represent decent Jews in any way - it is a blot on humanity, on the sustained humanitarian discourse that is the greatest contribution of Judaism and the Jewish People to humanity and on the memory of 6 million martyrs. Thus, by way of example, outstanding contemporary Jewish intellectuals who have courageously opposed Israeli human rights abuses include Professors Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein and Bertell Ollman (in the US), Professors Tanya Reinhart and Ilan Pappe (Israel) and Professor Steven Rose (UK); other outstanding Jewish intellectuals opposing racist Israeli crimes include, for example, UK Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter, late citizen of the world Yehudi Menuhin, Dr Jennifer Loewenstein (Oxford) and outstanding Australian Jewish writer Antony Loewenstein ("My Israel Question", MUP, 2006). Peace is possible NOW in the Holy Land but zionist racism and commitment to theft, ethnocratic exclusivity, injustice and, in a word, Apartheid, is the stumbling block. Peace with equity, justice and reconciliation can happen NOW but the racism has to go. Palestinians overhwelmingly (about 70%) prefer a one-state solution (a position of the Indigenous People of the Holy Land that should be respected by the world). However cognizant of zionist intransigence I have advocated an interim, cooperative 2 -state plan for immediate Peace with equity, justice and reconcilaition and allowing access by all inhabitants to all of the Holy Land; outstanding Israeli humanitarian writer Deb Reich (Ha'aretz) has suggested a humane and just "2 states in one" plan (for documented detailed analyses of the above see articles by Dr Gideon Polya on, for example, MWC News, Countercurrents and Newsvine).

VeniVidVici
21 August 2008 at 10:25

I may have come across this fine article 18 months too late.

The point I would have made to Benjamin Pogrund (had I been more timely) is that while he has covered well the two extremes (the anti-Israel fanatics and the pro-Israel fanatics), he hasn't mentioned the majority, -- those in the middle.

Most Israelis are on neither of the two political extremes. In fact, if there were an Olympic medal for self-criticism, Israel would have got gold.

It is these, Benjamin, what you should be talking about. This is where the solution to the IP conflict will come from.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Benjamin Pogrund

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?