his series is about Israel’s policies in Gaza. I think they’re so unconscionable that I can’t believe they’re up for debate even among Jews — and yet they are. Instead of criticising Israel, I invite you to explore the basis and consequences of a pro-Israel’s-policy view. I’m not naive about changing minds but gotta try. This is for you if you: (1) support Israel’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank (2) consider Palestinians and Israelis to be equally human, their lives equally valuable and (3) don’t consider Jews to be a superior race.
Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|Part 9
If you believe that the media (and perhaps the world in general) is biased against Israel, you would have to acknowledge that Israel’s policies have been condemned for decades by pretty much every major organisation dealing with the topics at hand.
Let’s look at just two examples.
Numerous agencies have warned about the completely dire humanitarian situation in Gaza in 2009 and 2013 (ie. not at time of direct conflict) specifically because of Israel’s blockade. This includes Oxfam, the World Health Organisation and Human Rights Watch. The most common response I’ve seen is a complete denial of the blockade or justifications for it being necessary paired with complaints about these agencies being biased, “they just don’t understand” and “why don’t they criticise Hamas?”. That last part is only relevant if you deliberately ignore these agencies’ criticisms of Hamas.
As for Israel’s airstrikes against Gaza, whether this year or the last time around, there have been condemnations and reports highlighting the utter devastation of civilian life. These have been made by respected (oh yes!) international agencies, including UNHCR, UNICEF, the World Organisation Against Torture, Oxfam, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The last two made specific reports of evidence that Israel violated international law, including the deliberate targeting of civilians, health workers etc. Responses have been the same, but with additional delegitimising of these agencies. A lot of pro-Israel people are explicitly anti-UN, because apparently they’re so biased.
If you don’t take all of these statements seriously, I invite you to consider the implications of your position. It would imply that all of these organisations are fundamentally broken. They’re motivated by anti-Semitism and malice, making their entire mission (and the work they do internationally) a sham. Or if you like, they’re hopelessly misguided about the situation in Israel+Gaza. Meaning that (say) the world’s foremost experts on human rights, humanitarian aid and so on aren’t actually all that competent in their fucking core areas of expertise. But a spokesperson for the Netanyahu government? Now there’s someone with proper expertise and credentials.
I’m not saying that this is impossible, just that people should acknowledge the extent to which this is either a conspiracy theory or an extraordinary claim. It suggests that the realms of advocacy, international relations, humanitarianism, diplomacy, sustainable development and so on are a sham, corrupt to the core and not to be trusted.
But of course, unless you’re a moral monster, you do trust these systems. When Amnesty International speaks of human rights abuses in countries like China, Colombia and Chad and Canada (just to stick with C-countries), you probably listen. You don’t place the Chinese Communist Party in the similar realm of “misunderstood countries persecuted by international anti-torture organisations” and therefore discount reports of torture. Similarly when UNICEF says there is a crisis in South Sudan, you wouldn’t say it’s the result of a PR campaign fiendishly orchestrated by Nuer people to gain undeserved sympathy from the international community. So really, there are 3 explanations:
- The international system for warning, diagnosing and assisting with human rights and humanitarian crises is fundamentally broken and duplicitous and should not be trusted.
- The international system for warning, diagnosing and assisting with human rights and humanitarian crises is fundamentally useful and generally works, except this one case that happens to form a strong part of my personal identity.
- My personal identity is having an effect on how I’m perceiving the criticism; I should question myself.
Which one do you think is more likely?
By engaging in denialism about this system, the pro-Israel movement (#notallproisraelis!!1!) are hampering international peacekeeping and relief efforts. This is similar to vaccine denialism hampering widespread coverage and herd immunity. Because if the wider community bought these arguments, why should they donate to alleviate crises in Syria, South Sudan and any of the other places? Why should they campaign against human rights?
I promise you — black and brown people who aren’t Jewish are capable of thinking too.
Part 1|Part 2|Part 3|Part 4|Part 5|Part 6|Part 7|Part 8|More to come
Yep, comments are closed. There are plenty of other venues to respond that don’t involve me paying to host pro-IDF rhetoric. I must be a coward and an enemy of Freeze PeachTM. What am I afraid of???
0 Comments