Although today is a holiday, as Jews we believe in always learning. Consequently, before we overindulge and doze off, I believe it is a good opportunity to brush up on some currently much-used – or, really, much mis-used – terms.
One of the most-commonly uttered words these days is apartheid. Interestingly, the vast majority of those hurling this term at Israel were not even alive when apartheid existed. And for those of us who are growing long in the tooth, let me take this opportunity to remind everyone what apartheid was. Apartheid was a uniquely South African system, which ensured that South Africa was dominated politically, socially, and economically by the nation’s dominant minority white population. Of course, in Israel, this is far from the case. Every individual, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. is afforded the same legal rights. And, yes, that certainly includes Israeli Arabs. The only difference legally between Israeli Arabs and other Israelis is that the former are not obligated to serve in the military. I doubt they are complaining about that.
Perhaps what many anti-Israel voices are seemingly attacking (if we assume they know what they are talking about, which is a rather dubious assumption) is the manner in which the West Bank is ruled. Although most of the Palestinians living in the West Bank are living under Palestinian Authority rule, Israel does of course maintain a substantial security/military presence. And there is a distinction between how Israel treats Israelis living in the West Bank and the Palestinians also residing there. But it is essential to note that there is apartheid in the West Bank – apartheid imposed by the Palestinian Authority. The PA does not recognize freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation or a myriad of other values that those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state actually does guarantee. And, of course, none of this would be Israel’s issue but for the fact that the Palestinians have, as we know all too well, repeatedly rejected every offer to have their own state. Yet, almost certainly, and rather ironically if not tragically, the West Bank would continue to be an “apartheid” state if Israel were out of the picture.
As previously discussed, many Israel-bashers love to accuse Israel of genocide. But as we covered in that earlier discussion (https://www.sechel.info/post/genocide), at a minimum the required intent element – which is crucial to any type of criminal conduct – is blatantly non-existent (which may be an oxymoron but one worth stating nonetheless). Given that there is no legal basis for claiming that Israel is guilty of genocide, those determined to defame Israel have decided to try and change the definition. To that end, some Israel-haters speak of “social genocide.” What is that? Who knows. It is a simple exercise of moving the goal posts to accommodate the narrative these anti-Israel types employ. Since Israel’s actions do not fit the well-reasoned and stringent requirements of genocide, which of course should be the case when accusing a party of such horrific acts, they merely change the definition. Imagine if we just did that any time we wanted to convict someone of a crime they did not commit.
Another term that is bandied about incessantly is that of “war crime.” Interestingly, the discussion of purported war crimes is almost exclusively levelled at Israel. Leaving that issue aside momentarily, what war crime is it exactly that Israel is alleged to have committed? As a matter of criminal law, one has to allege with specificity the crime supposedly perpetrated. A war crime can be almost anything if one goes by the United Nations’ definition (which one should not). Yet, unfortunately again for the Susan Sarandons and Rashida Tlaibs of the world, the frustrating need to establish intent is essential. Self-defense is not a war crime.
Yet another chic term is “ethnic cleansing.” If Israel had the intention of forcing the Palestinians out of Gaza or part of Gaza and then reclaiming it solely for Israel, that might be ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately for the anti-Israel crowd, no one in Israel really wants anything to do with that mess. That’s why they left in the first place. So while Israel is not engaged in ethnic cleansing, guess who is? Well, for starters, an easy one: Hamas, whose stated goal is to wipe the Jews out of Israel and apparently from the entire planet. (I wonder how Jewish Voices for Peace will react when Hamas comes knocking at their door in Canada or Manhattan.) Guess who else is guilty of ethnic cleansing? Every single Arab nation. Recall that the Jews living in the Arab nations were unceremoniously (to put it euphemistically) kicked out of every Arab nation in which they had been living for generations after Israel was formed. That is clearly ethnic cleansing. But the Arab nations have also largely “cleansed” themselves of the Palestinians as the Palestinian population has grown in the West Bank and Gaza but diminished in the Arab countries. Lastly, and perhaps most critically, the Palestinian Authority would like to cleanse the Holy Land of Jews. As the so-called moderate leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas, stated during peace talks in 2013, “in a final resolution, we would not see the presence of a single Israeli – civilian or soldier – on our lands.” Sure seems like ethnic cleansing to me.
The most preposterous part of all of this, however, is that every single one of the actions that Israel is accused of perpetrating – and which it does not – is in fact being done by Hamas. And it was of course Hamas who broke the cease fire and started the current crisis. Yet where is the outrage or even just dispassionate condemnation of Hamas? The other day, the Pope decried both sides as engaging in terrorism. Given the Vatican’s record on Jews – and Muslims – I am not sure he has much room to talk. But that is as close as most have come to even acknowledging the war crimes, genocide (no issue of intent here as Hamas has avowed to wipe out the Jews), ethnic cleansing (see the immediately preceding parenthetical) and rules an apartheid state where only Muslim men have any real rights.
It is fair to criticize Israel for a number of things. But fabricating allegations that are neither supported by law nor fact nor common sense is just pathetic. If these people are serious about improving the lives of Palestinians, they need to stop the lies and get (i) serious about how to move forward and (ii) a good dictionary.
Comments