Israel is not the cause of Palestinian suffering. Rather, it is the direct result of the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to conclude a just peace with Israel, despite the golden opportunities presented in 2000 and 2008. However, even if you disagree, no rational person could think that Israel’s sins are remotely like the egregious human rights abuses committed by such nations as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on. Nevertheless, Israel is singled out for censure by many on the left here: academic associations in various disciplines refuse to engage with Israeli scholars, the BDS movement thrives on college campuses, and Israel is disproportionately the focus of criticism in the mass media.
Certain western critics of Israel have forthrightly acknowledged this double standard, but have attempted to justify it on the basis that it is some form of honor that Israel should appreciate For example, Jesper Vahr, Denmark’s Ambassador to Israel, recently stated that, “Israel should insist that we discriminate, that we apply double standards, this is because you are one of us…you have the right to insist that we…put you to the same standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context.”[1]
This is indefensible and appalling on multiple counts. I won’t linger on the question of by what right Europe, which launched two world wars in the last century, and failed to prevent the Holocaust and Holodomor, appoints itself as humanity’s moral arbiter.
Worse than this arrogance, the views expressed by Ambassador Vahr are horribly bigoted. He apparently believes that while Jews (like Europeans) are moral agents, and thus subject to strict ethical standards, the Palestinians are like animals, incapable of telling right from wrong or controlling themselves.[2] If this were true, European nations should certainly not be pressuring Israel to give up vital territory in exchange for the illusion of peace with barbarians.
Of course Vahr’s statement is hideous nonsense. The Palestinians are human beings like everyone else, and many have resisted the oppression of both Hamas and Fatah, while some have even risked their own lives to save wayward Israelis from lynch mobs. On the other hand, the majority are culpable for supporting leaders who will not make a just peace with Israel. Vahr is simply offering a convenient smokescreen for the anti-Semitism of the European left.
Vahr’s logic is indistinguishable from that displayed in the following scenario. Imagine that we live in a small town in the Jim Crow South. Both whites and blacks commit a variety of crimes, but the local authorities only arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate the African-Americans. When the FBI comes calling, the mayor explains that the blacks are “good people,” and will benefit from the examples being set. In contrast, the remainder of the population is just “poor white trash,” and can’t control themselves.
In short, Vahr’s position in just the same old anti-Semitism in a new guise. It is not only morally bankrupt, but will also prove severely counterproductive. Real peace will only occur when the Palestinians come to accept that Israel is here to stay, and that no amount of recalcitrance or terrorism can change this. Accordingly, Vahr and his ilk are sending them precisely the wrong signal, leading them to believe that they may achieve their aims by violent, illegitimate tactics. This will only prolong the conflict, harming both sides.
__________________
[1] There is an equally odious variant of this trope espoused (primarily) by Israel’s Jewish critics, who pretend that their condemnation is done out of love. As two prominent Jewish academics recently wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece, “Israel, of course, is hardly the world’s worst human rights violator. Doesn’t boycotting Israel but not other rights-violating states constitute a double standard? It does. We love Israel, and we are deeply concerned for its survival. We do not feel equally invested in the fate of other states.” In other words, dictators can slaughter millions of innocent persons around the world, and we won’t even raise our voice, but Israel should be punished for its own good.
As Joan Rivers used to say, “please!!” In the Jim Crow example outlined in the text, would the Mayor’s defense be any more plausible if he said that law enforcement only prosecutes blacks because these officials feel such affection for them? Would it matter if the chief of police happened to be black? I think not.
Moreover, this is a perverse “love.” As demonstrated in the CAMERA essay linked to in the text, Israel has negotiated in good faith with the Palestinians, but this commitment has not been reciprocated. Thus, the effect of inflicting economic pain on Israel may be to force it into a deal that will jeopardize its security, leading to massive future bloodshed. If this be love, give me cool indifference.
[2] Caroline Glick, a well-known Israeli journalist, made this point in response to Vahr during the panel discussion in which he offered his remarks.
When I am looking at an article about Dinosaurs from the Triassic era and find the comments section filled with antisemitism, I get the impression that antisemitic people are not really interested in dialogue. Even if we are discussing Dinosaurs that have died and gone to heaven 250 m.y.a. still Jews will be to blame.
I also know a little about the issue in Israel by first hand experience. What is missing in public debate is the issue of numinous. The secular world like to think of human motivations as being economic or political. But that is being willfully blind to what motivates the desire of Muslims to destroy Israel. It goes much deeper than political or economic motivations. It comes from teh very core of their being.
Hi Avraham:
Thanks for the comment, and I generally agree. Anti-Semitism is some sort of intellectual black hole which sucks in many varieties of irrational hatred. Of course, I do not wish to generalize too broadly, but for political Islam, hatred of Israel is primal. The best explanation I have read is this one: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/176673/emotional-nakba.
My learning partner did not think there was much point in me getting interested in defending Israel because most people’s minds are made up before arguments are presented. However U should continue writing and presenting the facts because in the world of Libertarianism many people I think are interested in facts. It has something to do with the world view of Libertarians that causes them to put facts before opinion.
True, most people’s minds are made up. However, I think you give libertarians way too much credit. We are just as doctrinaire, inflexible, and irrational as the next group. How else to explain Murray Rothbard’s great popularity, despite the numerous glaring weaknesses in his philosophical positions. Perhaps at the margin you are right, but I am skeptical. In any event, I feel obliged to do this, but not because I think I can change anything. Perhaps that itself is irrational.
I got one of Dr Huemer’s books about 5 years ago. It might have been the one you mentioned. If his book and essays on his website and Bryan Caplan’s essays are any indication of libertarian world view, I am impressed. Still I am more in the Kant and Kelley Ross school but I still admire the clarity of thought of these people.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe that Ross’s natural law perspective is consistent with Kantian ethics, or do you just separately admire both men?
I see Ross as consistent with Kant. But Ross usually puts a lot into every sentence, so it takes effort to put it all together. But if I have a chance, I will try to show how Ross and Kant are consistent in further note.
To Ross, Kant left out the Good. That is the goal of life. So Ross is a significant modification of Kant. It is somewhat Neo Platonic.
Thanks for the clarification.