ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Harry & Helen Highwater are the cranky headmaster and mistress here, between us sharing duties as the site's editor, webmaster, cook, and janitor. Nothing much to say about us. We're the American working poor, two of many millions. Our email is xoxounknown@yahoo.com.
|
Criticizing Israel
by Helen & Harry Highwater Sept. 2, 2003
Israel treats the Palestinians like crap. Some Palestinians respond with terrorism. Israel responds by treating Palestinians like crap. Some Palestinians respond with terrorism. It's a merry-go-round from Hell, and it ain't slowing down, it's speeding up.
| |
Of course, anyone suspected of planning, attempting, or aiding in terrorist acts deserves to be arrested and face charges. Anyone convicted in a fair trial deserves hella punishment. Of course.
When it comes to the hatred and violence between Palestinians and Israelis, though, one side has a big edge: Israel is a nation. Israelis can and do back up their hatred by collecting taxes and spending those funds on guns, troops, tanks, prisons, walls and more. And Israel has been given greater powers than most nations, not by God but by corrupt power-brokers from America, who continually underwrite Israel with billions of dollars from US taxpayers.
Palestinians have no nation, and no multi-billion-dollar checks from the American government. Instead, Palestinians must rely on free-lancers to deal out their share of the hatred — suicide bombs, car bombs, briefcase bombs, etc.
Israel has another edge, an advantage most nations, even other American allies can't claim: Because it's the Jewish state, it's difficult to forcefully criticize Israel without being questioned, scolded, spied upon, or derided as anti-Jewish, even as "Holocaust deniers." Archbishop Desmond Tutu, we are told, is anti-Semitic, and The Rugrats and Saturday Night Live deserve careful scrutiny. Perhaps Marlon Brando and Ben Stein are anti-Semitic. Gandhi could be suspect. Hey, maybe Jesus was anti-Semitic — most of Matthew 23 consists of his extended blasting of Jewish leaders of his time as hypocrites (with an exclation point, at least in the King James Version!).
A recent controversy on our dialogue page was about whether it's right or wrong to use the Star of David (a Jewish religious icon that's also prominently featured on Israel's national flag) in a political cartoon, criticizing Israel for constructing a many-miles long wall to keep people out.
The debate about this left us saying huh? The controversy ought to be about the wall, not about a cartoon.
By constructing that wall, people are being excluded — not for anything they've done, but for what "their people" have done. That's real bigotry, with real victims. A cartoon that criticizes this bigotry, using a national symbol to criticize a nation that's committing a bigoted act may hurt some people's feelings, but so what? Any criticism can always hurt someone's feelings. Some things matter more than others, and real bigotry matters more than the possibility someone's feelings might be hurt.
Of course, a general anti-Jewish attitude is immoral. That's one of the things that really matters.
Is a general anti-Arab attitude somehow less immoral? We think that really matters, too.
Some people bite their tongues because they're Jewish themselves. Well, Jesus was Jewish and he wasn't shy about criticizing Jewish leaders.
|
What's the taboo here?
by Harry & Helen Highwater
Sept. 2, 2003
As we were finishing the first draft of this article, we briefly considered sending it around to a few trusted confidants, to ask if it seemed offensive in any way. And that's a little strange, too. After all, this will be read by a few hundred, a few thousand people at most, and our readers know we're never shy about speaking our minds.
We've fought all our adult lives against exactly the sort of government-sponsored injustice and intolerance that's now Israeli policy — yet something made even grumpy ol' Helen & Harry hesitate.
We wondered what it was that made us pause, even briefly.
When criticizing Burma (where nine out of ten people are Buddhists), we don't worry that it might seem we're criticizing all Buddhists. When we call Saddam Hussein a tyrant, we don't need to carefully explain that we're not slamming all Muslims. When we suggest George W. Bush might be insane or a fascist at heart, nobody assumes we're criticizing all Christians, or all Americans.
Why then is it so seemingly taboo to speak ill of Israel in anything but the gentlest terms?
First and most likely, many people may believe Israel deserves special consideration because Jews were victims of the Holocaust. If that's the subtext, we reply:
Of course, we all know it's wrong to persecute people for their race, religion, or nationality. And we all ought to know that giving preferential treatment to people because of their race, religion, or nationality is the same rotten thing. Putting one group above the others is just another way to say you're treating others as less.
The other possibility is also troubling and reprehensible: Many people may believe Israel deserves extra politeness due to its commingling of religion and government. If that's the subtext, we would say:
We're for the separation of church and state, so if anything, a government deeply intertwined with a religion deserves additional criticism for this — not less because of it.
© 2003, by the author.
Comments? newsuneed@yahoo.com
|
Pausing for politeness, tip-toeing with extra concern when it comes to Israel, and trying to avoid the appearance of anti-Judaism simply mutes the criticism. When criticism is muted — delicate, polite, and soft-spoken — it is weakened. Criticism that says a fraction of what's in your heart, not all of it, is dishonest.
Some people hold back because they have Jewish friends, or because they don't want to be called anti-Jewish bigots.
With all due politeness, to hell with such thinking.
It is an unwarranted insult to Israel to somehow suggest that criticism of Israel requires more concern for good manners than criticisms of France, Canada, America, or any other nation. No sovereign state needs to be coddled with only half-assed criticism.
Israel's tough. Israel can take the criticism it deserves, and it deserves plenty.
Criticism of Israel's wrongheaded policies should be loud, and anything but half-assed. Speak the truth and speak it plainly:
Israel's treatment of Palestinians is repugnant. It is just plain deadbolt-to-rights wrong.
And anyone who can't say that for fear of being perceived as anti-Jewish is part of the problem.
© 2003, by the author.
Comments? newsuneed@yahoo.com
| |
There's much more than this at Unknown News.
|
It is an unwarranted insult to Israel to somehow suggest that criticism of Israel requires more concern for good manners than criticisms of France, Canada, America, or any other nation.
No sovereign state needs to be coddled with only half-assed criticism.
|
| |
We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of money and time.
We couldn't do it without the help of our volunteers. And for those who can't afford the time, giving just a buck or two can make all the difference and keep Unknown News alive.
|
Talk
to Us |
Archives |
| If you have something to say, we'd love to hear from you. |
Click here for archives of recent editions of Unknown News |
|
|
