Why Israel?

[Black Dog]

I've been mulling over the oft-made argument that Israel is undeserving of the amount of criticism levelled against it, given there are much worse offenders out there.

And the more I think about it, the more ludicrous it gets.

Putting aside for a moment the evidence that Israel does, in fact, rank among he world's worst when it comes to human rights, the argument is still fallacious, simply because it does not address the realities of Israel's human rights record. It's a deflection, a cop-out, and a red-herring designed to shift the attention away from the accussed and onto the accuser.

For instance:

Pundit #1: "Israel's treatment of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is deplorable. The excessive use of force, illegal collective punishment, severe and arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement and other human rights violations should be condemned."

Pundit #2 "But China's worse."

(Note: I left out the inevitable accussation of anti-semitism.)

See how the argument used by #2 does not address any of the salient points made in #1? If #2 were to say "that's wrong. Israel has good reasons for all those things.", we'd have us a debate. But as it is, if you tried this in high school, you'd be booted off the debate team.

So why does it come up so frequently? I can't speculate as to the motives of those who use this line, but the practical result is a diminishment and tacit approval of the crimes Israel is accussed of, simply because someone else might be worse.

Imagine if this argument was applied elsewhere.

Pundit #1: 1 in 10 women will be raped or sexual assaulted in their lifetime. That's unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

Pundit #2: What about those individuals who rape and then murder their victims? Why aren't you condemening them, since they're much worse?"

Think it would stand up?

Something to ponder.

Essential background.

[kimmy]

Putting aside for a moment the evidence that Israel does, in fact, rank among he world's worst when it comes to human rights, the argument is still fallacious, simply because it does not address the realities of Israel's human rights record. It's a deflection, a cop-out, and a red-herring designed to shift the attention away from the accussed and onto the accuser.

For instance:

Pundit #1: "Israel's treatment of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is deplorable. The excessive use of force, illegal collective punishment, severe and arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement and other human rights violations should be condemned."

Pundit #2 "But China's worse."

(Note: I left out the inevitable accussation of anti-semitism.)

See how the argument used by #2 does not address any of the salient points made in #1? If #2 were to say "that's wrong. Israel has good reasons for all those things.", we'd have us a debate. But as it is, if you tried this in high school, you'd be booted off the debate team.

So why does it come up so frequently? I can't speculate as to the motives of those who use this line, but the practical result is a diminishment and tacit approval of the crimes Israel is accussed of, simply because someone else might be worse.

I think the reason some have been pointing out the comparative lack of UN resolutions directed at China relative to Israel is not to downplay Israel's actions, but rather to question the UN's impartiality.

Suppose the police in your community had the authority to stop vehicles completely at random and administer a mandatory breathalyzer test to the drivers. And suppose it came to light that 90% of the drivers given these random breathalyzer tests were Native Canadians. Wouldn't it be fair to question the impartiality of the program without arguing the guilt or innocence of any of the Natives dropped?

-kimmy

[Argus]

The continued attacks on Israel are not justifed by Israel's behaviour. You use improper examples. Here's a better one. In your city is a Hells Angels' house notorious for drug dealing, where women are often raped and strangled, where just for laughs, the Angels use machine guns to shoot at cars driving past.

But the entire police force is busy investigating a man on the other side of town who is suspected of harrassing women by waving and yelling at them from his window.

I posted something about North Korea in another thread, which I believe you read. No one addressed it. Millons are in slave labour camps there for political crimes, often whole families are shipped off if one of them is considered unreliable or disrespectful towards the government. It is said that the camps have a 20% yearly death rate from beatings, torture, malnourishment, hypothermia and executions. The NK government is unquestionably the most brutal on Earth. It will probably emerge that more people died in its slave labour camps than died in the death camps during the Nazi era. North Korea is arguably worse than Nazi Germany. Yet we hear no complaints, no condemnations from those shrilly harping on Israel again and again and again. No one seems to care.

China. Slaughtering Muslims and engaging in ethnic cleansing in its western provinces, destroying the Tibetan culture, crushing religious freedom with excutions and labour camps for Christians, Muslims, and followers of Falun Gong. Nobody cares. We treat them as honoured friends and eagerly seek to make business deals with them. If you deplore human rights why focus on Israel and not China?

India. Everything Israel is accused of doing in Palestine is done ten times over by the Indian security forces in the Kashmir. But there are no boycotts, no furious denunciations in the westenr press. No demands for UN intervention. No resolutions demanding they stop.

What is perhaps most absurd is that the nations who are most responsible for attacking Israel at the UN are all brutal tyrannies who stomp on their own people every bit as badly as Isreal does on its Palestinians, if not worse. But no one thinks to mention that.

So explain again why so many people focus all their anger against Israel? Because they're Jews?

[Scotty]

I've been mulling over the oft-made argument that Israel is undeserving of the amount of criticism levelled against it, given there are much worse offenders out there.

There is no single reason why Israel is targetted for so much abuse despite being much less of a human rights abuser than others.

The main reason has to be media attention. Israel gets much more media attention than any other nation for any other reason. Why? The axium is "if it bleeds, it leads". And you can always count on something bleeding in the Israeli Palestinian mess.

But you can find that all over the world. So why Israel?

Again, there are many reasons. One is that the Israelis, for lack of a better term, are considered "white". Most of the rest of the abuses are being done by people who, for want of a better term, we can call "brown". For whatever reason, it is considered a bigger story if "white" people hurt others, especially non white people. Brown people hurting Brown people just doesn't seem to be as newsworthy. How many brutal attacks in Darfur have you seen on your TV lately? None.

That's one reason. Another is that it's just so much easier for the world press to operate in Israel. The network reporters can stay at 5 star hotels, take a taxi to where they can do their story, then return to upload to a satellite, go to a fine restaurant, go out to a bar, and return to their 5 star hotel. It's all delightfully civilized.

If you want video from North Korea, from China, from Chechnia or Darfur, well, you take your life in your hands. Those governments will not even allow you into areas of disturbance. There is great violence, great discomfort, no easy way in or out, no safety, no 5 star hotels, no fine dining and dancing, no air conditioning, and you can be executed or imprisoned if the government finds you.

So you don't see NBC or CBC or CNN plastic haired reporters breathlessly showing us video of the latest Chinese executions, or the latest village targeted by Indian security forces, or the latest ethnic slaughter in Liberia or Burma. Too hard, too dangerous, too uncomfortable.

So Israel supplies the "bleeds and leads" story day after day, year after year. This can't help having an affect on people who don't really think very much past what they see on their television news. And Israel begins to assume an importance out of all proportion with its real importance. It's a catch 22. The media is there, constantly reporting, because Israel is important. And Israel is important because the media is there, transmitting everything that happens.

The death toll after years of the Intifada is tiny compared to the death tolls in many other areas of civil unrest, guerrila or terrorist wars. But they come to seem like so much more because every little incident gets to the front page of the newspaper, gets on the national news.

The media is full of the 6 Israelis and 3 Palestinians killed yesterday when the Palestinians attacked a gate. How many people died in the Congo? Do you know? Any guesses?

Examine this please

Killings in the Congo

To quote the story in part: "Fighting between ethnic militias in Ituri has claimed some 50,000 lives since July 1999"

Now did you even know that 50,000 people had died in the Congo fighting since 1999? How many TV reports have you seen of the brutality and violence? None? Do you know anything about this ethnic fighting? Why is it not front and centre in the news? Many more people have died there than in Israel or Palestine. Many, many, many more.

No, everything focuses on Israel and Palestine.

Now a second reason, in my opinion. There is a reflex, a tendency among westerners, especially liberals, to be anti-military. And to sympathise with people not in uniforms when they are attacked by people in uniforms. There is also a tendency to sympathise with the underdog. So video of soldiers in tanks attacking, or seeming to attack people who throw rocks, who are much less well armed, who are much weaker, well, it is a reflex to side with the Palestinians. Especially after seeing that sort of thing for years and years.

Terrorist bombs are much less dramatic because by the time the cameras get there all you have are bodies and people screaming. And the western media is notoriously shy of showing too much gore, so such scenes have limited television appeal.

Video of lines of Palestinians waiting to pass checkpoints are dramatic. But Israelis line up for searches before entering any public place. You just rarely see it, and it requires some thought to understand that even though they are being searched by fellow Israelis it is the Palestinians who are behind it all.

Not that there aren't bloody hands in Israel. But really, only a fool would say it is all Israel's fault. The Israeli/Palstinian issue is of little importance to us here, or should be of little importance. People continue to comment on it and attack Israel mainly because of the media attention. Not because Israel is guilty of terrible crimes.

[caesar]

There is no single reason why Israel is targetted for so much abuse despite being much less of a human rights abuser than others.

Because that assumption is not true. Israel is a big human rights abuser. It is targeted for its acts.

[paranoid joe]

There is no single reason why Israel is targetted for so much abuse despite being much less of a human rights abuser than others.

Because that assumption is not true. Israel is a big human rights abuser. It is targeted for its acts.

yes, Israel is a human rights abuser but the point of the opposition is that countries who's abuses are far more deadly, are being ignored, while Israel is being crushed for everything that it does (not that that is bad, but it should be applied thoroughly).

[Argus]

There is no single reason why Israel is targetted for so much abuse despite being much less of a human rights abuser than others.

Because that assumption is not true. Israel is a big human rights abuser. It is targeted for its acts.

There are scores of worse human rights abusers, starting with North Korea, who are NEVER targeted. Please do explain why this is.

[caesar]

Israel is attacking the human rights of Palestinian citizens not her own. I am sure N Korea has many human rights abuses of her own citizens. This is the country that the USA should have turned its attention to; Not Iraq.

However, Israel should take responsibility for her own abuses instead of whining that everyone is picking on her. Clean up their own backyard. There is no hope for peace in the middle east until this happens. Stop the excuses and work for peace.

[PocketRocket]

Pundit #1: "Israel's treatment of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is deplorable. The excessive use of force, illegal collective punishment, severe and arbitrary restrictions on freedom of movement and other human rights violations should be condemned."

Pundit #2 "But China's worse."

(Note: I left out the inevitable accussation of anti-semitism.)

See how the argument used by #2 does not address any of the salient points made in #1? If #2 were to say "that's wrong. Israel has good reasons for all those things.", we'd have us a debate. But as it is, if you tried this in high school, you'd be booted off the debate team.

Imagine if this argument was applied elsewhere.

But this type of argument is indeed applied elsewhere. Every day.

The most immediate example that comes to mind (and has been seen in this very website) is......

Pundit #1 : The abuses in AbuGahraib were a terrible and inexcusable.

Pundit #2 : Yeah, but what the other guys are doing is worse.

Or, another one from several American forum sites.....

#1 : Bush lied about the reasons for going into Iraq

#2 : Yeah, but Clinton lied about getting a blowjob from Monica

Or even....

1# : My thighs are getting fat

2# : Yeah but Betty's are simply HUGE, so you look good by comparison

This tendency is hardly exclusive to the Israeli situation. I don't know if this syndrome even has a name, but it's pretty common in all aspects of life. If you can't justify something based on its own merits, then justify it by comparison with something worse.

[Argus]

Israel is attacking the human rights of Palestinian citizens not her own.

There is no such thing as a "Palestinian citizen". And what rights do you speak of? Remember that the present day "occupied territories" are a part of what constituted Palestine. Syria and Jordan occupy much of the rest. What about the "rights" of "Palestinian citizens" in those countries? They have no rights. The only reason they're not being killed in great numbers is they are apparently content with having no rights. Likewise the Palestinians in "refugee camps" in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc, for generations now, have no rights either. Does that not concern you?

However, Israel should take responsibility for her own abuses instead of whining that everyone is picking on her.  Clean up their own backyard.

One could say the same of the numerous countries which attack Israel. Their citizens have no rights. Perhaps they should clean up their own back yards first.

[Argus]

This tendency is hardly exclusive to the Israeli situation. I don't know if this syndrome even has a name, but it's pretty common in all aspects of life.

Uh, I think it's called "context".

The whole world must condemn Israel because Israel is violating people's human rights!

uhmmm, but most of the world does that too.

Never mind that! I want us all to condemn Israel's treatment of the poor Palestinians!

But the Palestinians' own government practices torture, extra-judicial executions and terrorism, and the Palestinians support this.

Never mind that! Israel is evil! We must condemn Israel!

Uhm, why?

Because Israel violates people's human rights!!

[Guest eureka]

Does nobody question why there are not so many resolutions against some other nations? They can be brought before the UN. Could it possibly be because Israel is the chief culprit in that it has defied all resolutions so that they continue to have validity?

[Black Dog]

The continued attacks on Israel are not justifed by Israel's behaviour. You use improper examples. Here's a better one. In your city is a Hells Angels' house notorious for drug dealing, where women are often raped and strangled, where just for laughs, the Angels use machine guns to shoot at cars driving past.

But the entire police force is busy investigating a man on the other side of town who is suspected of harrassing women by waving and yelling at them from his window.

I stand by my superior example. Israel is guilty of extrajudicial assassinations, collective punishment, unlawful detentions, restriction of movement, torture, excessive use of force etc etc etc. They are the Hell's Angels.

posted something about North Korea in another thread, which I believe you read.

...

China...

India...

...

No one seems to care.

The difference between Israel and the tyrranical, oppressive regimes it shares some of its more egregious practices with is that no one defends North Korea, China etc., whereas Israel's apologists and defenders will go to any length to defend its inhumane practices.

Why is there no response to discussions of these other places? Because it would be an echo chamber of denunciation, where as denunciation of Israel's actions draws all kinds of ire. The question that raises is: why are Israel's defenders such hypocrites?

It's also worth pointing out that many of the credible non-partisan human rights organizations responsible for raising what little awareness there is of atrocities in Asia, Africa etc are also the same ones documenting Israel's crimes.

[paranoid joe]

The difference between Israel and the tyrranical, oppressive regimes it shares some of its more egregious practices with is that no one defends North Korea, China etc., whereas Israel's apologists and defenders will go to any length to defend its inhumane practices.

i am not defending Israel "inhumane practices", I am merely pointing out that you are not condemning other countries with far worse practices. It is ridiculous to say (as if it was true) that a country that has support, is bad only because it does, because violating human rights is obviously not why, because you are only condemning Israel which is not the only country violating human rights.

[Black Dog]

i am not defending Israel "inhumane practices", I am merely pointing out that you are not condemning other countries with far worse practices.

I'm not? I think common sense here would indicate that torture in China, mass slaughters in Kashmir, etc. are not things anyone would support. So why is there this need to condemn what is patently indefensible? Is it absolutely necessary to spell it out?

(If that's the case, let me state that I condemn everything unless otherwise stated. )

It is ridiculous to say (as if it was true) that a country that has support, is bad only because it does, because violating human rights is obviously not why, because you are only condemning Israel which is not the only country violating human rights.

Any argument where you make assumptions on someone else's motivatyions, and then use those assumptions as the basis of your argument is doomed to die a painful death. In this case, your argument is based on the assumption that Israel is the only target for condemnation. It's fallacious.

In any case, you've misunderstood the argument. Israel is a target for criticism because of its human rights record. It's is a flashpoint for discussion because soem choose to defend that record, despite its incompatability with accepted practices.

[kimmy]

I think common sense here would indicate that torture in China, mass slaughters in Kashmir, etc. are not things anyone would support. So why is there this need to condemn what is patently indefensible? Is it absolutely necessary to spell it out?

If we are talking about internet people on internet message boards, then I would say no, it is not necessary to spell it out.

If we are talking about the UN, or international human rights organizations, then yes, it's absolutely necessary to spell it out.

We who just write messages about stuff have no particular obligations to uphold. However, organizations that wish to maintain an appearance of objectivity, credibility, and integrity can't overlook some offenses while targetting others.

In any case, you've misunderstood the argument. Israel is a target for criticism because of its human rights record. It's is a flashpoint for discussion because soem choose to defend that record, despite its incompatability with accepted practices.

Israel is a target of criticism because of its human rights record, but I think quite obviously that's not the only factor.

Israel is a target of criticism because with Islamist violence very much in the spotlight here in the west, Israel's role in Middle-East affairs is very prominent, which can not be said for oppressed people in China or North Korea or most other places where human rights are violated. I think it is fair to speculate that if Falun Gongists (?) were targetting westerners in terror attacks to bring attention to China's oppression of their beliefs, China's human rights would be much more widely discussed.

Israel is a target of criticism because they're aligned with the United States. People who oppose the US role in the Middle East point to Israel as a factor. I think it's fair to speculate that if the US were closely aligned with India and had a large military force in northern India to "stabilize the region", India's human rights record would receive far more attention than it does.

-kimmy

[Black Dog]

If we are talking about internet people on internet message boards, then I would say no, it is not necessary to spell it out.

If we are talking about the UN, or international human rights organizations, then yes, it's absolutely necessary to spell it out.

Fair point. There's no denying certain elements within the world community are less than exemplary global citizens. Many of these same nations have also been vocal critics of Israel (whether this is because, as some would argue, some cultural predisposition towards Jew hatred or the result of 60 plus years of history is another debate).

But, by the same token, many other nations, nations that claim to be pro-democracy and human rights, defend antidemocratic and inhumane practices in places like Israel and elsewhere (for example, the United States is Israel's most ardent defender, a self-described champion of democray, but also has close ties with repressive regimes like Egypt.) So really, no one has their hands clean. That's why it's important to look at it from a more absolutist viewpoint. Does Israel do bad things? Unquestionably. Are their worse offenders? Certainly. But rather than excuse and make allowances for some crimes, we should be condemning them all. Israel's defenders only see the speck in other's eyes.

Israel is a target of criticism because they're aligned with the United States. People who oppose the US role in the Middle East point to Israel as a factor. I think it's fair to speculate that if the US were closely aligned with India and had a large military force in northern India to "stabilize the region", India's human rights record would receive far more attention than it does.

Another good point: how many other human rights abusers play a key role in determining the regional policy of the world's main power?

[paranoid joe]

bd by "you" I meant the UN as they are the ones I am aiming my criticism. I apoligise if I was vague.

[Guest eureka]

The problem with your criticism, PJ, is that it is not merited. At the UN, there are nearly two hundred nations. They are able to bring motions to condemn human rights abusers anywhere.

The question is why Israel is condemned by the UN so often and others are not.

I repeat my view that it is because Israel and the US ignore Resolutions and therefore they must be enforced by sanctions or repeated.

Sanctions against those two nations would, in my opinion, do a great amount of good and raise the UN's credibility throughout the world as well as its ability to act against abusers everywhere.

[Digby]

What would you do if you was running Isreal?

Surrounded by millions that want you gone (drive them in the ocean) , liveing with people that strap bombs on and target whom ever they can get (children,ladys ,what ever ).

Knowing that the forces of evil in history wanted to erase you from the earth.

How would you run things?

wonder what it would be like if Isreal only had sticks to fight with?

Good post Scotty!

[losiguy]

n

[Black Dog]

Surrounded by millions that want you gone (drive them in the ocean) , liveing with people that strap bombs on and target whom ever they can get (children,ladys ,what ever ).

Can you people even attempt to try a reasoned argument for a change?

Honestly, you would think these things exist in a vaccumn. That Israel just magically sprung out of the (if you belive the Zionist narrative) unoccupied desert and was beset by evil Ay-rabs.

It's a decidely ahistorical argument, and it's really not worth spending any more time on.

If I was living in Isreal with suicide bombers attacking almost daily, I would be more concerned with my own life and the lives of friends and family than the rights and treatment of palestinians.

Suicide bombings are not nearly as common as armed Israeli incursions into the Occupied Territories.

If the palestinians just behaved themselves Isreal wouldn't have to use its heavy handed tactics.

Right. Because if a bunch of foreigners came in with tanks and bulldozers to kick you off the land you and your forefather's inhabited for generations to build armed enclosures for another set of foreigners, seperated you from your neighbours and kin with walls and checkpoints, denied you your very livliehood so that your children suffered from hunger and disease, you'd "behave yourself", I'm sure....

[moderateamericain]

i think a little history lesson must apply here. after world war 2 the british annexed the terrorty over to the jews, the day after, it was attacked by 4 differnet nations. The Jews in Israel are merely clingin to survival, do you realize what would happen if they did not have are backing? syria egypt jordan lebanon and any extremist from anywhere in the middle east would have slaughtered them wholesale. im sympathique to the jews for the simple reason that EVERY SINGLE DAY there country is under attack. and another thing, nobody is MAKING the palestines stay in those camps, they could pack up and move back in israel if they were going to live peacefully.

[Black Dog]

i think a little history lesson must apply here

Agreed. You really need one.

after world war 2 the british annexed the terrorty over to the jews, the day after, it was attacked by 4 differnet nations.

In the aftermath of World War I, Great Britain was granted a mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations. By 1947, however, the violence directed at British officers by Jews and Arabs, and the financial drain on the declining imperial power after World War II, moved Great Britain to turn to the United Nations for help. In April 1947, the Arab nations proposed at the United Nations that Palestine be declared an independent state, but that measure was defeated a UN commission was set up to study the issue. In November 1947, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to recommend partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. The two states were to be joined in an economic union, and Jerusalem would be administered by the United Nations. The Arabs would get 43 percent of the land, the Jews 57 percent.

On November 29, the General Assembly recommended the partition plan by a vote of 33 to 13. The Zionists accepted the partition reluctantly, hoping to someday expand the Jewish state to the whole of Palestine, but the Arabs did not. Violence between Jews and Arabs escalated and the new state of Israel was invaded by its Arab neighbours It is no exaggeration to say that our relations with the entire Arab world have never recovered from the events of 1947-48 when we sided with the Jews against the Arabs and advocated a solution in Palestine which went contrary to self-determination as far as the majority population of the country was concerned.

The Jews in Israel are merely clingin to survival, do you realize what would happen if they did not have are backing?

Yeah, the fourth largest military in the world, the most advanced in the region and the only one with nuclear weapons is in imminent danger of being destroyed by an impovrished nation of refugees weilding crude homemade bombs and stones.

im sympathique to the jews for the simple reason that EVERY SINGLE DAY there country is under attack.

What about the Palestinians who are under attack every single day?

nobody is MAKING the palestines stay in those camps, they could pack up and move back in israel if they were going to live peacefully.

Actually, no, they cannot. The "right of return" has been rejected by Israel every single time it has come up in negotiations.

[The Terrible Sweal]

There is no single reason why Israel is targetted for so much abuse despite being much less of a human rights abuser than others.

Because that assumption is not true. Israel is a big human rights abuser. It is targeted for its acts.

yes, Israel is a human rights abuser but the point of the opposition is that countries who's abuses are far more deadly, are being ignored, while Israel is being crushed for everything that it does (not that that is bad, but it should be applied thoroughly).

I wonder.

It seems to me that those parties who defend Israel with the 'Yes-but-look-who's-worse' angle could equally be asked why they themselves are only vocal about China's abuse record when it serves the purpose of diverting criticism.