|HOME||May-June 2006 Featured Stories||Background Information||News On The Web|
Several different strains contribute to anti-Zionist propaganda. There are Muslims, who wouldn't believe or abide by the truth even if they could recognize it, because they are unscrupulous and vicious. Their religious leaders fabricate outlandish Jewish conspiracies and other crimes by Israelis and other Jews (and other faiths), in order to goad their followers into violence. This is something that modern followers of other religions would be shocked to learn about the Islamic clergymen. The followers of Islam, however, generally believe what they hear. They rarely debunk it. They have a different basis for thinking about such matters and different values about how to deal with them.
There are vulgar, non-Muslim antisemites who are just as slanderous. The Muslims accept their statements as scholarly.
Then there are the Israeli leftists, who falsify Israeli history and try to frame Jewish settlers for non-existent crimes.
Finally, much of the Western media and academia report one-sidedly, often drawing from Arab staffers. That leads to American churches and others condemning Israel without an inkling of Arab wrongdoing and of Israel's benign policy towards the Arabs (not to mention Israel's hostile policy towards religious Jews and settlers).
Two of the common themes of the Muslims and the vulgar antisemites are: (1) Israel is an apartheid state; and (2) The Zionists have a powerful, comprehensive propaganda machine that coordinates with the Israeli government. The Israeli government's shrugging off the notion of Israel being an apartheid state, is, if you think about it, a strong demonstration that a Jewish "propaganda machine" is a figment of Muslim imagination. Many a pro-Zionist has bemoaned the fact that there isn't any effective Israel propaganda. We pull our hair out over Israel's lack of propaganda and its unwillingness to concede that Islam is in a struggle to wipe Israel out. It behaves as if the Muslim world is reasonable and will negotiate peace.
What was apartheid? It was a system by which the Boer-controlled government kept blacks, deemed racially inferior, and mixtures, deemed somewhat inferior, from residing in towns with whites, doing certain kinds of work or getting equal pay for it, mingling with whites in entertainment centers and schools and denied blacks the franchise.
Israel doesn't have such a system. Arabs are Members of Knesset and are not deemed inferior. Arabic is a national language. Arabs get equal pay for equal work, and are not barred from schools of Jews, entertainment centers, or towns. Arabs generally choose their own schools and take exemption from military service, which forfeits veterans' benefits. Veterans' benefits are important in a country constantly fighting for survival. Some private property was bought by the Jewish National Fund for distribution to Jews. But that is not apartheid, any more than the Muslim Waqf holding land for exclusive Muslim usage. One should think of the Jewish people as an endangered species, entitled to special protection. The danger now comes largely from the Muslims, many of whom complain about that protection, as they seek to replace it with extermination.
There is apartheid in the Middle East. Arab states practice apartheid by religion, if they even allow infidels in. Infidels are by law deemed inferior, and Muslims are coming to deem Jews racially as evil. Other religions may not erect or have publicly visible temples in most Islamic countries. Their schools, if allowed at all, must teach Islam, too. Infidels are discriminated against in employment and military service. Islam is in a perpetual state of war against other faiths. If Israel had a proper propaganda service, it would turn the charge of apartheid against the Arabs. Israel merely and sporadically deflects the charge from itself, and fails to draw conclusions about what kind of slanderers make such vile accusations.
"One can almost understand why the Muslims that matter -- the intellectuals and the mullahs, sheiks and chieftains -- act as they do. They are promoting a resurgent Islam, determined not to waste time catching up to Western civilization but to take it over, its technology included, and put it under Muslim control. The misguided Jews are still caught in a dream of perfect harmony as they, the Jewish Marxists, guide the benighted Arabs into the future. Their only enemies are the Jews that prefer authentic Judaism. But why are these groups joined by so much of the media, media that proudly claim they are neutral and who -- in the face of the evidence of their own truth-lite stories -- continue to say they just report the news, they don't slant it?
The New York Times is notorious even among this crew. In the main, they are sympathetic and understanding of the Arab, while they malign Israel by indirection or by omission or by emphasizing what isn't essential. Of late, they seem to wish to return Israel to some mythic peace process, proclaiming that the solution to Mid-East peace is a viable Palestinian state.
The May 25, 2006 New York Times' editorial entitled "A Viable Palestinian State" is an early round in a new campaign for rendering Israel non-viable. The tip-off is in the lead paragraph, itself seemingly innocent, like the high-minded way the editors phrase their ideology: "It's long been clear that getting a workable, feasible Palestinian state out of two geographically separate masses of land in the desert will be an uphill battle." The obstruction explained later, is "Israel in the middle." Thus the seed is planted that the whole project depends on not having Israel in the middle. The next phase would demand, as the Road Map does, that Israel give up one or more corridors across it.
The Road Map was devised by the U.S. State Dept. Editorial synchronization with it is not surprising, for the Times is as traditionally anti-Zionist as the State Dept.
What would a corridor do to Israel? Obviously, it would enable terrorists to pass freely back and forth, perhaps stopping off along the way for terrorism. Less obviously, it is designed to divide Israel. Israel would become at least two "geographically separate masses of land." If that condition makes the P.A. non-viable, what does it do to Israel? By the same logic, it must make Israel non-viable. Thus the Times would be helping the Arab aggressors at Israel's expense.
The Times objects to Olmert's proposed withdrawal, avowedly because it is unilateral. The P.A. would have no say in it. "They would be left to try to cobble together a country out of whatever remained behind." That is not fair. First, Israel is the heir to the Mandate over the Territories, and the P.A. is not entitled to a "say." Second, whenever they had a voice, they abused it. Their goal is not peace. They seek to conquer Israel and perhaps exterminate the Jews. They also wish to war on the West. The NY Times, in case it hasn't noticed, is in the West. So third, why does the Times want another Arab state and why expect Israel to birth the monster?
Note that no good reason has been offered for granting those Arabs a state. There already are many Arabs states, including one in Palestine, the one we now call Jordan. Not being a separate nationality, those particular Arabs do not need a separate state.
Note, too, that no definition of "viable" has been offered. How much land is needed for a state to be viable? What is the relationship between viability and land and other factors? The western Palestinian Arabs aren't interested in viability, for they have rejected many opportunities for it. from using foreign aid honestly, to cooperating with Israel, to setting up fair and effective business law. They have focused on jihad, and if polls and voting patterns are indicators, jihad will remain their priority no matter what Israel concedes.
What a phrase! -- "try to cobble together a country out of whatever remained behind" The Times knows that Olmert is proposing to evacuate about 90% of Judea-Samaria. That is just his starting proposal, and would involve the ruination of at least a hundred thousand Jews. In a later paragraph, the editorial speculates unfairly that a large area would be retained by Israel. The Times begrudges any little bit spared Israel of its own homeland. If the Arabs weren't such extremely bigoted imperialists, there might be some excuse. But the Times would ruin half a million Jews to create Hamastan! Facts, logic, and humanitarianism do not support this goal.
Admitting that the Arabs put themselves in the position of being refused as a negotiating partner because it elected the Hamas Islamists, the editorial then takes them off the hook. First, it recognizes that "the Bush administration is right to refuse to legitimize a government dedicated to the destruction of Israel." Then, in its classic manner of false rationalization, it contradicts itself with a follow-up sentence, starting with But. "But, Mr. Bush should not punish the Palestinian people by endorsing any unilateral proposal -- doing that would punish them for exercising their democratic right to vote."
Why not? Why not hold them accountable for what they did and would do? Why be blind to what they would do, which is to make war from the very territory that the Times is plumping for them to get? Would the Times deny that war and perhaps genocide are the goals of those people? Out of respect for a democratic choice for bigoted imperialism, Israel should relinquish part of its own homeland? That's ridiculous.
How democratic it that the Arabs chose Hamas to lead them? The absence of any significant electoral voice for peace means either that the vote was not representative, perhaps because genuine peace candidates would be shot, so no such candidates arise; or else, as I believe, the vote is representative and the consensus there is for bigoted imperialism. Then they are deadly enemies of the US as they say they are, and President Bush ought to punish them.
Besides, how much respect is due the will of a people brainwashed to violent intolerance, and who know nothing about democracy, have no free press or free private institutions, persecute Christians, rule by murder, and are under the control of Islamist militias?
Before the election, the prior regime (of whom Abbas is a continuation) also made war. For twelve years, those Arabs broke all their peace agreements with Israel. Why take their word about peace, again?
The editorial ends with a warning that there won't be "peace in the Middle East" unless the P.A. has a say in creating a state for itself. Muslims are fighting all over the Mideast. Where they aren't, repressive regimes barely are holding the lid on the rising steam of Islamism. Isn't it melodramatic nonsense to attribute peace in the whole region to this one conflict? As for having a say, the Arabs don't want a say. They want it all.
To anticipate peace from a regime that elected to make war is disingenuous. As an American institution, a major voice in a country under attack from Islamists, it behooves the Times to stop pretending that the Arab-Israel conflict is territorial, as if a small state would satisfy the Arabs. Those Arabs are part of the Islamist alliance to overthrow the US. Those Arabs, whether Hamas or PLO, have a declared ideology and internal propaganda calling all of Israel "occupied." For them, as for all Muslims, it is fundamental truth that if a piece of land has ever been under Muslim control, it must for religious reasons revert to Muslim control. The Arab-Israel conflict is religious, and the Muslim religion believes in fighting to the death. Better to deny those Arabs sovereignty with which to help accomplish their violent goal.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at firstname.lastname@example.org.
|HOME||May-June 2006 Featured Stories||Background Information||News On The Web|