We called, but no one answered
Counterpoint to:
While the earth is accepted by scientists to be around 4.5 billion years old, various religions and cultures have their own version of creation (Judaism considers the earth to have been created about six thousand years ago). There is a circle of political commentators who accept none of this. For them, the earth was created last March. New York Times columnist Tom Friedman appears to have joined this circle of new creationists, at least in relation to the Middle East. He wants the United States to withdraw its involvement in the Israel-Palestinian peace process (such as it is) because, according to him, the parties are not really interested in peace. I seriously doubt that, at least with regard to Binyamin Netanyahu, despite the fact that he leads a mostly right-wing government. Netanyahu, who is a realist, has declared, albeit reluctantly, his support for an independent Palestinian state and he knows very well what kind of concessions that would require from Israel. But even if Friedman does not give Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt, it remains the case that there was life on this planet before Netanyahu's government took office in March. There were the sweeping post-Annapolis proposals from the Olmert government in 2008, and the unprecedented proposals from Ehud Barak at Camp David and Taba in 2000 and 2001, both of which were offhandedly rejected by the Palestinians. The negotiations have almost consistently been characterized by Israeli concessions to the Palestinians actually widening the gap between the parties, rather than bringing them closer together. What happened to Israel's legendary ingenuity?Whenever Israelis take over ownership of homes in east Jerusalem you can be sure that the Israel-bashing forum will have a field day. Viewers and readers of the international media will hear about alleged ugly and violent actions by Israelis toward helpless Arab inhabitants of the homes; there will be reports of household goods being damaged and carelessly cast into the street, and there will be stories of injuries to evicted children and the elderly. And of course there will be pictures and well-chosen sound bites. No matter how justified the new owners of the homes may be, there is no way that they can take possession of their property without creating an ungodly scene and causing significant damage to Israel's international image. Donald Macintyre, writing in The Independent, has written about the al-Kurd family from Sheikh Jarrah and their recent encounter with a group of Israelis who have apparently established their legal ownership of the al-Kurd home. Macintyre provides his readers with the whole nine yards, straight from the mouth of Mrs. al-Kurd, including her colorful description of violent, vulgar Israeli owners abusing her family, doors being smashed, a television set shattered, a refrigerator, cushions and household furniture thrown out into the rain, and a tear-jerking account of Israeli barbarism. Macintyre even embellishes his story with the unrelated account of a distant al-Kurd family member who died from unspecified causes after a similar encounter last August. I don't know how accurate Macintyre's story is, but one thing is sure. There are two sides to it and he is only telling one. Here's the other side. If the new Israeli owners have a court order establishing their ownership, and if the courts have ordered the eviction of the al-Kurd family, and if the family has not successfully contested the eviction order in court and has refused to vacate the property, then the Israeli owners are within their rights. But from the perspective of Israel's national interests, is this the smart thing to do right now? There is a popular saying in Hebrew, "better to be smart than right." Israel is losing the war - A year of Point/Counterpoint
After a year of scouring the international English-language press and responding in this column to published commentary about Israel, my conclusion is this: Israel is losing too many battles in the press, and is in danger of losing the war. For the past year, I have responded on this blog to opinions published in Britain, Canada, Ireland, The United States and Australia regarding Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, calls for the United States and the European Union to isolate Israel, criticism of Israel's record of human rights and civil liberties, the Israel-Palestinians peace negotiations, and of course the United Nations Human Rights Council and the Goldstone Report. While I occasionally agreed with some of the criticism, much of my response was devoted to the disproportionate condemnation and singling out of Israel which seems to characterize much of the media coverage of Israel today. Without a doubt, criticism of Israel would be substantially more effective if it didn't appear so overwhelmingly biased, hyperbolic and even hypocritical. But in all opinion pieces published in the print media, the topic that has of late commanded the most attention by far has been the calls for war crime tribunals against Israeli leaders and military officers. These calls have particular shock value because of the picture they conjure up in the reader's mind of the Nuremberg war tribunals, thus tacitly equating the victims of the alleged crimes to the most vicious war criminals in recent history. This is media warfare, and this is the field in which Israel has performed so poorly. A letter to Richard Goldstone
Counterpoint to:
Please be aware, Dr. Goldstone, that few in Israel will argue, least of all I, that there is much to criticize in Israel. Israel has never claimed to be a perfect society (which society is?), and in fact, nowhere is there more criticism of Israel than within Israel itself. Self-criticism has been defined here as a national pastime. It was therefore quite interesting to read in The New York Times your explanation of the proceedings that led you to produce and publish such a report. History didn't start with Netanyahu's government
Counterpoint to:
In the 1993 movie Groundhog Day, history stops while the previous day's events are erased, and the day is then relived in a different way. I was reminded of this movie while reading the Hussein Agha and Robert Malley opinion piece in The New York Times. For them, it would appear, history stopped at the end of March and the events of previous Israeli governments were erased. History was then restarted in April with Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister. Here is Agha and Malley's version of the policies of Israel's governments:
But much more than "minor modifications" separate Netanyahu's official position from those of Barak, Sharon and Olmert, the Israeli leaders who preceded him. Richard Goldstone's phony Gaza inquiry
Counterpoint to:
In August 2002, the United States Congress passed a law airily referred to as The Hague Invasion Act. It ostensibly permits the US president to send troops into The Hague in The Netherlands to rescue any US officials or military personnel being held there for prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC). This is not just a remnant of the Bush era; the law, officially named the American Service-Members' Protection Act, was broadly supported in Congress by both Republicans and Democrats. Turbulence ahead for Washington & Jerusalem
Counterpoint to:
Here's a question for you. Who was the previous prime minister of Israel? Before Binyamin Netanyahu. Many, including New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, will tell you that it was Itzhak Shamir. There was no Itzhak Rabin, no Ehud Barak, no Ariel Sharon, and no Ehud Olmert governments. They never happened. How Israel lost a friend
Counterpoint to:
On May 7, Sir Max Hastings, former editor of the Daily Telegraph, went to Oxford University to tell his story of Israel and how he fell out of love with the country and its people. During more than fifty years, it has been my experience that most of those who fell in love with Israel ultimately fell out of love with the Jewish state. Among Israel's friends and foes, I have seen admiration and respect for Israel survive the test of time, and occasionally among its friends even affection, but not love. Lawfare and media warfare
Counterpoint to:
The authors view the 1991 Gulf War, with all its complex political alliances, battle technology, and global media coverage, as a pivotal point in warfare that has fostered new principles and battlefields unfamiliar to today's professional military people. Among these new battlefields the authors list media warfare (manipulating what people see and hear) and international law warfare (using the law as a weapon - later dubbed 'lawfare'). The response 'The Guardian' wouldn't print
Over the past few days, The Guardian has been publishing a torrent of reports, opinion pieces, and video clips condemning Israel for war crimes during the Gaza conflict, and calling for an international inquiry and intervention by the International Criminal Court. I am providing it here because I can find no justifiable reason why the editors of any respectable newspaper would remove it, and because the counter-arguments are well presented. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (11)
