Israel's 60-Year Test

Israel's 60-Year Test
May 6, 2008; Page A21

Sixty years after its birth, Israel continues to test the proposition that reality counts for more than perception. The Web site eyeontheun.org1 keeps a running tally of all United Nations resolutions, decisions and reports condemning this or that country for this or that human rights violation (real or alleged). Between January 2003 and March 2008, tiny Israel – its population not half that of metropolitan Cairo's – was condemned no fewer than 635 times. The runners-up were Sudan at 280, the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 209, and Burma at 183. North Korea was cited a mere 60 times, a third as many as the United States.

Is Israel the world's foremost abuser of human rights? A considerable segment of world opinion thinks that it is, while an equally considerable segment of elite opinion thinks that, even if it isn't, its behavior is nonetheless reprehensible by civilized standards. I would argue the opposite: that no other country has been so circumspect in using force against the provocations of its enemies. Nor has any so consistently preserved the civil liberties of its own citizens. That goes double in a country so constantly beset by so many threats to its existence that its government would long ago have been justified in imposing a perpetual state of emergency.

For reasons both telling and mysterious, Israel has become unpopular among that segment of public opinion that calls itself progressive. This is the same progressive segment that believes in women's rights, gay rights, the rights to a fair trial and to appeal, freedom of speech and conscience, judicial checks on parliamentary authority. These are rights that exist in Israel and nowhere else in the Middle East. So why is it that the country that is most sympathetic to progressive values gets the least of progressive sympathies?

The answer, it is said, is that as democratic as Israel may be in its domestic politics, it is nothing but bloody-minded as far as its foes are concerned. In May 2002, at the height of the so-called al-Aqsa Intifada, I reviewed Israeli and Palestinian casualty figures, sticking to Palestinian sources for Palestinian numbers and Israeli sources for Israeli ones. Much was then being made in the Western media of the fact that three times as many Palestinians as Israelis had been killed in the conflict – evidence, supposedly, that despite the suicide bombings, lynchings and roadside ambushes perpetrated daily against Israelis, Palestinians were the ones who really were getting it in the neck.

But drilling down into the data, something interesting turned up. At the time, 1,296 Palestinians had been killed by Israelis – of whom a grand total of 37, or 2.8%, were female. By contrast, of the 496 Israelis killed by Palestinians (including 138 soldiers and policemen), there were 126 female fatalities, or 25%. To be female is a fairly reliable indicator of being a noncombatant. Females are also half the population. If Israel had been guilty of indiscriminate violence against Palestinians, the ratio of male-to-female fatalities would not have been 35-1.

(snip)


URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121003365007069313.html

Armchair quarterbacking is such a popular sport here in the US.

to what he cites? In the Israeli army gays, for example, have been serving for many years.

If you will visit the I/P forum on DU, you will see that many of the articles questioning Israel originate from Israeli publications. I have yet to see a single Arab source challenging any action by an Arab country.

to grant money or arms (dare I say prop up?) to Israel. To say this is to deny all foreign policy doctrine since the beginning of civilization, much less the past 60 years, however, when the need is great policy will change.

Israel is an international political liability and can prop itself up just fine with it's own stockpile of donated nuclear weapons. We can no longer afford as a nation to keep promises made 60 years ago.

By afford, I mean financially, politically, or, as this article points out...morally.

Sure, they are our chief client state. Really, though, can't we find another one? Let's turn the page. How about Columbia? They'd make a dandy client state.

My issue is with how they handle the threats they face.

(And this discussion is likely better suited for the I-P forum or PM, but will make my point and let the mods decide what to do with my little derailment here).

Imagine for a minute if a state the size of New Jersey was under siege and people couldn't take their kids to the Falafel stand or Sbarros for lunch without having to worry about being blown up by people who hated you because of your lineage -- not anything you have ever personally done to them.

Have you ever smelled flesh that was burning out of control? Have you ever tried to help someone who was still alive and screaming for help only to grab their arms and pull -- only to find out that all that came with is the upper torso, arms and head?

That is a brain fuck that you simply can't erase.

Israel announces and then destroys the homes of those who commit these homicides. I support that. The people these monsters target have NOTHING to do with their plight (which I sympathize with) or their cause. They are killing women and children for nothing.

</rant>

and totally the fault of the American and British people/leaders that this occurred, but how do you fix it without transplanting the Israeli people again? Because you sure can't transplant every non-Israeli in the Middle East.

You can't...and you can't let the people that you tried to save be left in bondage...AGAIN, right?

I get it. Sure. But here's real world: we've got nothing left - we're waning.

We may wax again one day and Arthur may reclaim Excalibur and dwell in Camelot with his Queen, but that's not what's happening now.

Mordred is knocking at the gates...and I ain't seen any grails lying around.

.... I found a website that explains this Bret is well-connected and may have been fired from the Jerusalem Post. If you want a laugh, read this. You will realize why he's so angry. :)


http://www.israelnewsagency.com/jerusalempostbretstephenshorovitz674888.html

As a former resident of the country with 18 political parties (coalition government structure), whose national pasttime is to argue endlessly about politics, this must have been a blast when it went down.

:evilgrin:

In Israel? I was under the impression that both men and women were required to serve in the Israeli armed forces for a minimum period of (I think) five years. Of course, this was information provided to me years ago, by a friend of the family who had returned from living in that country. Still, the assumption that females can be assumed to be non-combatants is of questionable validity.

Last week "60 Minutes" mentioned one woman as a helicopter pilot.

Most of the women killed in Israel were victim of terrorist attacks, including suicide bombing.

The term is 2 years.

Women DO serve in forward units, but that is voluntary, not mandatory. Many choose to.

I'm just very skeptical of any assumption that women are, by definition, non-combatants. Something else about this article really bothers me, and that is the implication that the Palestinians killed by Israelis were more likely to have been combatants, merely because more of them were male. Removing the assumptions about gender, the numbers appear differently:

1,296 Palestinians had been killed by Israelis

496 Israelis killed by Palestinians

Now, there may be other information that gives a more direct indication of the nature of the killings (defensive or in combat vs attacks on non-combative civilians) and I'd be more inclined to accept that.

Israelis do not target Palestinians. 99.9% Of Israelis want peace with their neighbors. Kahane and the like notable exceptions.

Palestinians are not of the same mindset. (My experience) 30% want Israelis out. The other 70% want to live in peace with their neighbors.

This is where the rocket attacks, suicide bombings, sniper attacks on Highway 1, etc... come into play.

The big kahuna of a difference here is that on the Israeli side, it is the military that is taking action. On the PA side, it is citizens.

As far as your numbers, I do not have current counts on both sides, but let me introduce you to 15 year old Rachel Thayler. Rachel spent the summer living with me in 2001, visiting the US and her family here. We talked about her staying, but she wanted to go back because although Baltimore raised, Israel was her home. One Saturday night after sabbath, a week after her 16th birthday, she and her brother Lior (14, also was staying at my house that summer) went with a schoolmate to the mall to have pizza. February of 2002.

May she rest in peace.

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Memorial/2002/1/Rachel+Thaler.htm

Edit for spelling

was a US citizen deliberately ran over with a fucking bulldozer by an Israeli. What's your point?

He refers to Palestinians as "animals". Aside from that not so charming characteristic, he's one of the nicest and best people I've ever met - a family man, talented photographer, unassuming heir to a multimillion dollar business concern... but we don't talk about politics.

My sister's best friend in high school was "on the ground". She and her family moved to Israel for a few years, and she spent some time in a kibbutz(sp). Upon return, she also had (true, and frightening) stories about suicide bombings, and she also referred to the Palestinians as "animals". Living in a war zone will do that to a person's attitude - the enemy is always dehumanized or demonized. As this was more than 20 years ago, it's rather sad and horrifying to reflect that nothing has improved in that area.

I also have two sisters who have been "on the ground" - spending time with peace activists in Israel and Palestine - but unlike the other two people, they did not come back to tell me that Palestinians are "rabid animals that should all be put down". They did tell me that the majority of people "on the ground", both Palestinian and Israeli citizens, want peace. What's been holding this process back, though, is a complete disregard for justice. That's their "take" on the situation there.

There is a difference in perspective, so that even people "on the ground" can hold completely different views of the same situation. What I look for, when seeking information about Palestine and Israel, is not proof of which side is "in the right", but for any indication that both justice and peace are being sought by the governments or leadership of both "sides" - because the majority of people on both sides want both, and they want it now. And it's my belief that, much like our government, their leadership is basing decisions on anything but what their people want, or what they need.

listens to Rush Limbaugh, or to O'Reilly and then tells, back home, that Americans are bigoted and narrow minded?

So you met a couple of people who call the Palestinians "animals." Don't extrapolate that the majority of Israelis hold this view.

As a matter of fact, I think that Americans Evangelicals are a lot more militants than most Israelis.

and if you'd read my post, you'd already understand that.

I find it strange, though, that you do agree with the op-ed, even though you were the first to attack it.

Just having to get rid of some anger?