Some Thoughts on Israel

The following is a blogpost by Jeremy Vernon on his blog Jeremy Vernon - Geek & Analyst

Let me first make the requisite disclaimer that I am not an expert in this field whatsoever and although I try to be factually accurate in my observations obvious bias and subjectivity will creep in. However, for myself I wanted to put this in writing just to take a snapshot of my thinking on the issue.

It seems in my company, my family and friends, that they are universally opposed and highly critical of Israel and its actions in a large scale. This I find troubling not so much because there is little to be critical of, but the ridiculous distortions or misunderstandings they retain over why they should be critical of Israel and what it is Israel is doing.

Perhaps I’m parroting a certain deputy party leader when I think that Israel is attempting, not always completely successfully to strike a very difficult balance between protection of its people from the greater evil of terrorism through the lesser evil of heavy handed treatment of terrorists and their allies.

The Human Rights Watch, oft-cited as biased AGAINST Israel watches 70 nations and issues reports on them. In 2003, 2004 and 2005, 350 such reports were filed by HRW. A total of 5 dealt with Israel and the Occupied (Disputed) territories whereas 60 reports dealt with the Arab countries and Iran.

Obviously the brunt of criticism against Israel is on its foreign policy, or policy as it relates to what some feel are foreign concerns - Gaza Strip and West Bank. Organizations like the Mossad face heavy criticism by many for their shadowy and allegedly corrupt practices.

When one judges things like this it must be taken in the context of the goals of what they’re doing. Obviously violence is an unpleasant thing and its use must be justified. The Mossad, a relatively tiny intelligence organization is infamous for its espionage in actions such as Wrath of God (made famous in the film Munich). The United States retains the CIA, an organization that although superficially more accountable than the Mossad has been accused of detaining and torturing thousands through out its history. Not to mention attempting or supporting coups in various governments through the use of contras or CIA bankrolled narcotics operations.

The Mossad however, isn’t what gets everyone’s blood roiling when discussing Israel. When people think of Israel they think of jet fighters firing missiles at civilian targets, tanks rolling through villages destroying buildings while women clutching children flee in terror as the IDF occupies and summarily demolishes their homes. People imagine Israeli soldiers arresting civilians indiscriminately in some fascist attempt at rooting out terrorists.

Unfortunately these images are not too far from the truth on occasion. Israel is first and foremost self-interested and self-protective, as any rational nation in this world is - one cannot be the beneficent provider or honest broker if one is not protected. Israel as is plain, is not particularly aggressive, certainly not in the vein of Bush Doctrine large scale preemptive attacks. Israel is unafraid to protect itself through violence, and this is to be expected considering the dire threats it has faced since 1958, threats that far outstretch and overawe those posed by Iraq to the United States.

Here are some questions I’m asking myself, what is a comparable nation to Israel’s situation that has proven to be a better model to have made better decisions given the circumstances around them? What nations who have been continually active in an independent (ie, non-UN) but defensive military action are regarded as respectful of human rights? I wouldn’t know how to answer those questions, so I’m more than welcome to hear some response.

Again, to disclaim, I do not want to seem that I am unequivocally defending Israel’s foreign policy merely that it appears in my experience and with what information I have gathered - however limited. That people’s conception of Israel and the morality and ethicalness of its foreign policy and the factual truth behind it don’t seem to jive. In the sense that there is at least a tacit if not over resentment of Israel’s behaviour and actions that does not take into account the context that Israel fights for existence.

One would think that as Westerners we would be more hopeful and supportive of the only liberal democracy in the middle east, and would spend more time focusing on keeping nations like Saudi Arabia or Syria under the scrutiny of the media and in deliberation of the court of public opinion.

EURABIA: PERSECUTING ITS FRIENDS AND PROTECTING ITS ENEMIES

I read this write-up as a comment posted by Ernesto Ribeiro in one of the blogpost of Right Truth. Makes me wonder how far is it really true. If it is, then it is a very sad testimony of our world's self-righteous attitude in the face of cruel realities that we witness being inflicted on the Jews. Time to ponder.

All European life Died in Auschwitz
By Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez

I walked down the street in Barcelona, and suddenly discovered a terrible truth: Europe died in Auschwitz! We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity and talent. We destroyed the chosen people, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world. These are the people we burned.

And under the pretence of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism and lack of tolerance, crime and poverty due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naïve hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition. We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for hoping for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

MUHAMMED AND JESUS CHRIST: A COMPARISON

Mohammed's disciples killed for the faith; Christ's disciples were killed for their faith (Acts 12:2; 2 Timothy 4:7).

Mohammed's method: COMPULSIVE conversion; Christ's method: VOLUNTARY conversion (Acts 3:19).

Mohammed’s method: Preacher can KILL to convert; Christ’s method: Preacher may have to DIE to convert.

Mohammed was a WARRIOR; Christ is a DELIVERER (Col. 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:10).

Mohammed preached "Death to the infidels!"; Christ prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34).

Some Muslims are peacemakers and peace-loving because they do not strictly follow the teachings of their founder; Some Christians are peacemakers and peace-loving only because they strictly follow the teachings of their Founder (Romans 12:17-21).

Muhammad said the Koran is authoritative only in Arabic, and only in His dialect; The Bible is authoritative in many languages around the world, for God knows all things and can inspire His Word in more than one language.

Islam does not challenge a Mullah, Imam, or Mufti of Islam for being a terrorist; The Bible requires that a leader in the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ must be above reproach, and when this is not true, Christians demand such a fallen leader be removed from leadership. (1Timothy 3:1-7, 5:19-20)

Mohammed called upon his servants to fight; Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world; if My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight . . . but now is My kingdom not from here" (John 18:36)

The Koran says, "Fight in the cause of Allah" (Qu'ran 2.244); The Bible says, "We wrestle not against flesh and blood" and "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal" (Ephesians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4).

Mohammed claimed that there was but one God, Allah; Christ claimed that He was God (John 10:30-31; John 8:58-59; John 5:18; John 14:9).

Islam must be received, or you can be killed for rejecting it: The Faith offered by Jesus Christ is for "whosoever will" to receive, and all men are permitted to reject it. (Revelation 22:17, John 3:16)

Those who leave Islam are killed in most Islamic nations; those who leave the true Church of Jesus Christ are allowed to do so with no revenge.

Victors... Who?

There is intense debate about who is the victor in the month long war between Israel and Hezbollah. Even though Israeli government itself is not claimimg any victory rather doing an introspection as to why they couldn't defeat Hezbollah decisively, there are a lot of people claiming victory for them.

Unlike Israel, Hezbollah claims victory. So are a lot of its supporters that includes the Iranian President.

I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-hezbollah on this subject, but I want to comment on my understanding of how I determine any victory, whether in a boxing/wrestling ring or in a war.

To me the Victor is always the one who stands his ground, not the one who runs away or retreats from the ring or the warfront.

The day and moment Hezbollah ran away from the battle ground and hid among the civilians, they had lost the war, (of course they have not lost the fight), irrespective of who killed how many and who brought about more damage & destruction.

A war, in the real sense of WAR, is always fought on the warfront, the battle ground. And the victor is the one who stays his ground in the warfront till the end, not the one who goes into hiding.

If anybody`s definition of victory is different, it is a pathetic understanding of war and victory.

Are The Terror Outfits Getting Legitimacy?

If the recently concluded war between Israel and the outfit Hezbollah is anything to go by, it looks like the terror outfits are getting legitimized. By mediating between a nation state on the one hand and an independent outfit on the other which is not accountable or responsible to any international body, isn't the UN indirectly legitimizing the outfit?

The very fact that the Lebanese military was missing in action throughout the 34 day war is a proof that this fight had nothing to do with any Lebanese cause, something for which the Lebanese government stood. Otherwise how can a national military stand mute witness to another nation invading its territory, leave alone bombing its towns and cities?

It was alright for Lebanese military to fight this war because national governments can be expected to comply with the UN mandates. And if a government doesn't, it can be subjected to various sanctions and embargoes. However, an organization that does not even recognize the international community can never be reined. There is nothing official in it that can be reined in.

Has Hezbollah proved itself to be a responsible outfit that UN thought of mediating and asking for a dialogue? Can UN bring about a real truce with conditions binding an independent outfit? Ironically the UN is mediating for an outfit which has over the last two years blatantly disregarded its Security Council resolution 1559 of September 2004. Weapons, let alone war, in the hands of any such outfit can be very dangerous because they act unilaterally at their whims and fancies.

Tomorrow will the UNSC have the same approach towards Al-Qaeda, a Sunni Islamist organization. The most prominent members of the group are adherents of Salafism, a fundamentalist sect of Sunni Islam, just as Hezbollaz is a Shi’ite one. As Al-Qaeda is prominent in Afghanistan, will it be allowed to procure weapons and fight a war? Haven't they proved themselves to be a terror outfit than a responsible organization.

Whether UN puts condition on them or not, these outfits will go ahead and procure and amass weapons, but by mediating and asking for a dialogue isn’t UN legitimizing them?

Who's A Loser In A Proxy War?

Obviously, the one which is an elected government, one who is signatory to a whole lot of treaties, one who is accountable to world bodies like the U.N. and is usually the one who is reined in through any resolution, one who has a possiblity of embargo against it, one who has a lot at stake if it doesn't pay heed to the call of other nations.

Isn't an outfit which is not accountable to the international community, or to any world body or to any state, always the winner; especially when it demands an ethical, moral and (paradoxically) a diplomatically lawful treatment that the nations in the world usually offer to a legitimate state? There's nothing official in it that can be reined in. Win-Win. Eat your cake, and keep it too.

Who is Guilty of Killing Civilians, Israel or Hezbollah?

From day one of the recent war, Israeli missiles have been killing more civilians than Hezbollah's, and there's no doubt about it. But, just because Hezbollah’s attacks got less victims does not mean they are morally on a higher ground. In fact it is Hezbollah which has been firing much more rockets at Israeli civilians than the number of missiles Israel was firing.

Do the rules of engagement not apply to Hezbollah at all? Hezbollah rockets fired at Israel do not even make a pretence of targeting anyone else but civilians. The Hezbollah has been doing this for some time, as its rockets are too inaccurate to do anything else.

“Discussions around the world about the conflict have taken on an abstract air — even that of a sporting battle in which it has become de rigeur to cheer the underdog for the simple reason that it is the underdog. As in all other conflicts, distinction between who is wrong and who is more wrong blurs as violence continues...” (HT Delhi Editorial on August 9, 2006)

None of us can condone Israeli policy of targeting civilians, nor am I. But its wrong to expect a morally right/correct response from Israelis alone. All that Israelis were doing, is to ‘get down to the level of their enemies’ and not worse. Israelis are NOT MORE bothered than Hezbollah (or only as much bothered as Hezbollah is) regarding civilian casualties. On what basis can one tell Israelis that do not do more damage/civilian casualties than what Hezbollah does. As if Hezbollah is the scale/standard to measure Israeli retaliation.

Hence we must not fault Israelis alone, especially when they are the ones at the receiving end. One must not expect Israelis alone to display a higher degree of morality than the Hezbollah, given the fact that they are usually the ones targeted first. Israel is not a willing — or for that matter, the only — sinner.

Does Victim-hood gives the outfit the moral high ground of retaliation... Hezbollah, backed by sensibilities championing the ‘underdog’, cannot be made exempt from the immorality of killing civilians- on either side of the border; on one side targeting them, on the other side using them as shields.