Harry’s Place notes the construction of a new Apartheid Wall. I checked the BBC’s website to confirm the story and was astonished to find no mention of it whatsoever. After all, aren’t they world experts in such matters? Odd, how they only notice “apartheid walls” when they’re built in certain countries.
Speaking of Israel, several of her F-16 fighters just turned up at Nellis Air Force Base to take part in the famous Red Flag exercises there, the Air Force version of “Top Gun.” One can only assume Netanyahu managed to slip them in under Obama’s radar, as the Air Force refers to foreign participants in Red Flag as “allied partners.”
On my way to work this morning, I happened to turn on NPR in the middle of a story about the miseries of Bedouins, who were apparently being forced to live near an unsanitary dump. Bedouins exist in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Sudan, Eritrea, much of north Africa, and a host of other countries, but I knew with virtually absolute certainty which country was the scene of these unfortunate events. Surely, you, too, can guess unless you’ve been asleep for the last 40 years. Of course! It was Israel.
NPR, in common with the BBC, its big cousin on the other side of the pond, promotes the “progressive” narrative. At this point in time, one of the slats in this particular dogmatic box happens to be hatred of Israel. As a result, the Bedouin story was “news” because it cast Israel in a negative light. If it had happened in any other country not on the current list of “progressive” bad guys, it would not have been “news.”
If you want to fact check me on this, just follow the “news” at the NPR or BBC websites for a week or so. You’ll see the same pattern repeated over and over. In modern parlance, this is referred to as “objective journalism.”
While Obama was “forging partnership” in Moscow, the real quagmire in the Middle East dragged on. The problem with the Middle East “peace process” is that no “process” is needed, or even possible as things now stand. One thing is necessary and sufficient for peace in the Middle East; recognition of Israel’s right to exist by her enemies. If that right were granted, there would be peace tomorrow. Without it, no magical “process” will bring peace.
Acceptance of Israel’s right to exist is the sine qua non for peace in the region. There is no question of Israel’s willingness to live in peace with her neighbors if they concede her right to exist and stop attacking her. They are not willing to concede her that right. They are determined to wipe her off the face of the earth.
The question is, then, “Does Israel have the right to exist?” Let us examine the question.
Nothing is easier than to use political correctness as a bludgeon against Israel. She is “apartheid”, she “discriminates,” she engages in “ethnic cleansing.” This neatly passes over the fact that, if she deserves these epithets, her enemies deserve them doubly. They accuse her of desiring ethnic cleansing, but in their lands ethnic cleansing is a fact, a fait accompli. In those lands, where Jews lived for centuries, they left, or, if they didn’t leave, were driven out. They would be ill-advised to return if they value their lives. In these lands, Jewish minorities are now virtually nonexistent. This is real apartheid, and real ethnic cleansing. If the Arabs and their Moslem supporters regained control of Israel, the Jews would certainly be victims of gross discrimination and violence. It is highly likely that those not able to flee would be massacred. The result would, again, be real ethnic cleansing and real apartheid. We have already seen it happen in Gaza. How many Jews live there now? How is it that the professionally pious “progressives” who constantly whine about Israeli “apartheid” and “discrimination” have no problem at all with real apartheid and ethnic cleansing if the victims happen to be Jews?
The Jews certainly have a historical claim to the land. By the time they were conquered by the Romans, they had lived there for centuries. The Arab “right” to the country is based on nothing more substantial than a successful military aggression in the seventh century. Notice how those who continually flog the US today for aggression against the Indians, much of which happened before the US existed, do not seem to notice that this earlier aggression ever took place. The seventh century was a long time ago. So was 1492. Is anyone telling the original inhabitants of North America that, if they don’t either leave their reservations or wait to be massacred, they are guilty of “apartheid?” What, exactly, happened between the seventh century and 1492 to account for the difference?
Sometimes political correctness must yield to political realities. The reality is that, if Israel’s enemies and their “progressive” pals had their way, the result would be not only real apartheid and real ethnic cleansing, but probably mass slaughter as well. They refuse to face that reality.
We are told that the Jews can go to the United States, or to some other “friendly” country. This ignores the humiliation, subjugation, and violence they have been subjected to in the other “friendly” countries they have sought refuge in after they were banished from their homes or the violence against them became too great to bear. It also ignores the history of anti-Semitism in the US, and the lack of any guarantees that it won’t raise its ugly head again. In fact, it already has, in the form of “anti-Zionism,” a convenient cloak for bigotry, always recognizable by a double standard that takes the form of an obsession with the sins of Israel, but blindness towards those of her enemies.
Given the history of oppression the Jews have suffered, unequaled for its severity and duration, one certainly can’t blame them for wanting a homeland of their own. In the process of creating that homeland, Palestinians lost their homes. Well, unoffending Jews lost theirs as well at the same time. The difference between them now is that, if the Jews lose their homeland, there will be no refuge for them among others who share their religion and culture. They will, once again, assume the historical role they have already played for many centuries; a hated out-group without a country. It should surprise no one that the Jews have chosen to stand and fight to preserve their homeland under the circumstances. For their enemies, the question is one of regaining control over a small strip of land their ancestors seized in a war of aggression. For the Jews, it is a question of life or death.
In a word, then, the Middle East “peace process” is an absurdity. There is no “process” that will secure peace, no matter how clever. The only thing that will secure a lasting peace is acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. We must insist on that right, and continue to stand behind her until it is granted.
In a recent article, Charles Krauthammer wrote:
“Obama the Humble declares there will be no more “dictating” to other countries. We should “forge partnerships as opposed to simply dictating solutions,” he told the G-20 summit. In Middle East negotiations, he told al-Arabiya, America will henceforth “start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating.”
“An admirable sentiment. It applies to everyone — Iran, Russia, Cuba, Syria, even Venezuela. Except Israel. Israel is ordered to freeze all settlement activity. As Secretary of State Clinton imperiously explained the diktat: ‘a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions.'”
I couldn’t agree more. This double standard is currently the favorite flavor of anti-Semitism among the international left, with the BBC leading the way. For example, today we read,
Palestinian killed in West Bank protest
“Israeli troops have shot dead a Palestinian man during a protest over the barrier Israel is building through the West Bank, Palestinian sources say.
“…The Israeli army is also replacing the main access road to the village with a tunnel, to be controlled by the military.
“Palestinians and their supporters say the plan will, in effect, turn Nilin into a ‘prison’.”
…and so on. The snide, biting attacks on Israel in such “objective reports” goes on day after day, and the BBC seldom misses a day. Just check it out for yourself. Think any other country in the Middle East is subjected to similar negative scrutiny or relentless negative spin? Guess again! This, my friends, is anti-Semitism, period!
We are told that Israel is guilty of “apartheid” because it wants to add enough living space for families to stay in their homes on the West Bank. However, the demand that the West Bank be ethnically cleansed of Jews is, somehow, not apartheid. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza is, somehow, not apartheid. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from homes in North Africa they had occupied for many centuries is, somehow, not apartheid. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from Iran is, somehow, not apartheid. This not-so-subtle variant of anti-Semitism is fobbed off as a “demand for justice” for the poor, oppressed Palestinians, even as they continue their daily attacks on Israel with impunity.
Not one of our brilliant “foreign policy experts,” with their sage pontifications about the “Middle East peace process” and their assorted “roadmaps to peace” is unaware that there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow if Israel’s enemies conceded her right to exist. Israel’s enemies have made it crystal clear they have no intention of doing so. Why, then, do we keep playing these increasingly abject and ridiculous games?
Here’s a clue for these geniuses. The only way to achieve Middle East peace is to insist that Israel’s Arab enemies, who only occupied the region to begin with by virtue of a successful military aggression, stop attacking her, and recognize her right to exist. When they do that, there will be peace. Until they do it, we should make it clear that we will continue to defend our Israeli ally without reservation.
Connoisseurs of the German media will appreciate the subtle anti-Semitism in the Spiegel Online coverage of the Obama – Netanyahu summit. Of course, for well known historical reasons, the editors limit themselves to short, mincing steps in dealing with Israel, carefully lacing their coverage with even more than the usual dose of pious platitudes. Still, the thinly camouflaged “anti-Zionist” variant of European anti-Semitism that takes the form of holding Israel to a blatantly disproportionate double standard compared to her enemies is easily recognizable. For example, there are dark warnings from unnamed “experts” (Spiegel has an inexhaustible supply to fit any occasion), that the Chosen One is upset with Israel: “According to the analysis of other observers, it is finally evident that Obama no longer considers Netanyahu an ally on the path to peace in the Middle East – but rather an obstacle.” That bizarre alternative universe, in which President Obama and the Arabs are all clamoring for peace, but are constantly thwarted by Israeli intransigence, is alive and well in Der Spiegel: “’First them, then us,’ is the solution as (Netanyahu) sees it. That sounds a lot different than the bold steps Obama proposes… (he) wants to present the outlines of a comprehensive peace plan, including diplomatic approaches to Iran and Syria as well as Near East negotiations, during the state visits of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak and Palestinian President Abbas as well as in his speech to the Muslim world on June 4.”
Never mind that the “bold steps” Obama is proposing amount to suicide for the state of Israel. She has to go along with the “peace process,” which, as in the past, amounts to making real concessions and getting nothing in return.
The editors of Der Spiegel are as well aware as anyone that there would be peace in the Middle East tomorrow if Israel’s enemies accepted her right to exist once and for all, and stopped attacking her. As German’s, they must also be aware that her right to exist is real, and based on an historical imperative that transcends their pious phrase mongering and moralistic posing. Telling it like it is doesn’t sell magazines, though. Hate always does (see my post below on in-groups and out-groups). Yesterday, the preferred flavor of hate in Europe was anti-Americanism. I’ve included some representative excrescences thereof that appeared in the German media from time to time, lifted from David’s Medienkritik, currently an inactive site, but with a great archive documenting anti-Americanism in the German and European media.
Today, it is anti-Semitism. Expect more of the same in Der Spiegel as long as the editors think they are just yapping along with the rest of the dogs.