May 15th—the day I’m writing this—was Nakba Day in the Palestinian territories. I’ll admit that I had never heard of Nakba Day until sometime last week. It’s an annual holiday celebrated by Palestinians, commemorating their displacement from their land after the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. It’s traditionally marked by speeches and demonstrations in the territories, with solidarity rallies throughout the Arab world. While tensions have always run high on this day, in recent history it has also been marked by violence.
I condemn acts of violence and terror, by both Palestinians and Israelis, and both sides do perpetuate this violence. However, today a Palestinian driver sped into a busy Tel Aviv street killing 1 and wounding 16, yet you can’t find the story on the Palestinian news website Ma’an, and only three short paragraphs within a much longer article about the protests appears on Al Jazeera English.
Yes hundreds of Palestinians were injured, and some killed, protesting in the territories, and illegally crossing the Israeli border from Syria. That’s the top story on Al Jazeera, as well it should be. Only through knowledge can we abolish hatred and bigotry. And to be fair, Israeli newspapers framed the deaths in a different perspective. (The Haaretz headline: Last infiltrators return to Syria after day of bloody clashes on northern border) Also, along with what happened today, Ma’an featured the 16-year-old boy that was killed on Friday after firing rocks at Israeli soldiers.
Did this boy deserve to die? Probably not. Could his death have been prevented? I wasn’t there, but I presume it could have; he was an unarmored teenager apparently shot by a settler in one of the contested Jewish settlements within Palestinian territory. Today reports from the Arab world are of the opinion that Israeli soldiers fired in a controlled and calculated manner at the legs of unarmed, or lightly armed (as in throwing stones) protestors and refugees. It’s easy to sympathize with a group of people armed only with stones fighting against tanks. Yet from the Israeli side there are reports of protestors planting bombs, advancing against warnings, and generally inciting violence. The IDF also admits to an intelligence failure at the Syrian border but claims the deaths and injuries it inflicted prevented more lives from being lost. (It should be noted that Lebanese forces also fired upon the Palestinians at the border.) Admittedly the “true” story in all this is probably a mix of both sides.
I sympathize with any outside observer who takes the side of the oppressed Palestinians—again, Israel is not blameless or infallible—but please also be aware that the Palestinians are winning the media war for the hearts and minds of the Western World. The media talks about the death of Palestinian civilians caught up in Israeli raids in Gaza and the West Bank. What they don’t mention is the incredible amount of training and planning that goes into every raid in an attempt to avoid these deaths. They don’t mention that Israel doesn’t target civilians, they target terrorists living in civilian areas; and they do ground raids instead of air attacks precisely because bombing a building destroys everything and everyone. They don’t mention that the terrorists being hunted often booby trap their own houses, aware that Israeli soldiers come on foot, and that often the difference between life and death for an Israeli soldier is as arbitrary as whether he enters the building first or second. They don’t mention that women and children are sometimes forced to be human shields by their husbands who know that Israeli soldiers won’t intentionally kill innocent civilians. The problem is, in 21st Century urban warfare, it’s hard to tell who’s a civilian and who isn’t.
“Palestinians have the right to resist Israeli occupation and will one day return to property they lost in 1948.”
“We are determined to defend our borders.”
The first quote is from Ismail Haniyeh, the Prime Minister of Hamas, leader of half of the Palestinian government. By occupation he doesn’t mean the occupation of the territories like what probably first came to mind, but the occupation of the entire land of Israel. This is the voice of half of the Palestinian population, and he’s encouraging—even urging—further attacks against other human beings.
The second quote is from Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel. Seeing these two quotes alongside each other makes it seem like the violence will only keep going forever.
Israel kills Palestinians. They maintain an ominous presence in Palestinian cities. They surely violate basic civil rights of innocent people. But Palestinian leaders call for not simply a state of their own, but the destruction of Israel and the Jews. Palestinians are also one of the few ethnic groups that, as a whole, maintained their support for Osama bin Laden over this past decade. Haniyeh publicly mourned bin Laden’s death and praised him as a martyr. Palestinian militants deliberately target busy public places filled with civilians—cafes, buses, etc.—to set off bombs. Wherever you stand on this issue, please understand that this conflict is so much more complicated than Good vs. Evil, Oppressive vs. Oppressed, and/or two sides of an Apartheid state. Israel is not an Apartheid state; there is a Jewish majority living in a country that allows all citizens who want it the right to vote. They are also surrounded on all sides by hostile neighbors. Israel has a right to exist just like any other nation in the world. Hopefully one day, before it’s too late, we can find peace.
(Photo: Alexis Rosenblatt)
Menu
Bradley- this is amazing.
Please submit this to the Star and Tribune as an op/ed piece.
Best Jodi
Hey brad, great piece, really liked it.
I think the more the both sides will hear the truth and be willing to admit that there’s not black and white here the greater the chance for us to see peace, maybe even in our day.
About Benjamin Netanyahu quote saying that we’ll defend our borders, I think that it’s only rational that a sovereign country will defend it’s borders.
What happened on Sunday is that Israel’s sovereignty was badly damage.
We’re more worried that terrorists will take advantage of the face that the IDF soldiers don’t shoot and then ask, and that the next time something like that will happen they’ll try to carry out an attack
And the last issue is the terror act in Tel-Aviv.
The driver isn’t Palestinian, he’s an Israeli Arab with Israeli ID from a small village not too far from the city of Petach-Tikva, and the police is still investigating whether it was a terror act or not.
Very fair and insightful thinking. We miss you and look forward to your safe return when you can share your thinking and writing with your congregation.
Shalom,
Rabbi Cohen
Very well written and balanced. I agree with most of what you say. But there are a few topic you mentioned that I disagree with you on, and I would like to share my perspective.
1)Most of the Israeli Apartheid allegations focus on Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, not Arabs citizens living in Israel proper. Israel has maintained control (to varying degrees) over Palestinians in the West Bank for over 40 years, yet prohibited Palestinians from voting in Israeli elections. The question is how long can an occupying power deny its subjects the right to vote before that lack of representation transforms itslef into de facto apartheid? Is it 20 years, 40 years, 100 years? It is a difficult question that is open to multiple interpretations. But I don’t think the claim of apartheid should be so tacitly rejected.
2)There is a familiar refrain in the Jewish community that goes something like this; “The mainstream media is biased in favor of the Palestinians – the average Westerner doesn’t get a fair depiction of what is going on – as a result , Westerners are starting to turn against Israel.” Sometimes there is evidence of this. The vast majority of time there is none.
What this allegation really represents is concern and insecurity. When we (supporters of Israel) read stories about the conflict, we try to imagine how each article would make Israel appear to an average, uninformed reader. So when there are 5 stories in one week about Palestinian civilian deaths and little mention of the IDF’s decision to refrain from more aggressive alternatives, we get angry, because to an average reader, Israel would seem like the bad guy. Or when a story discusses Hamas or Fatah or Hezbollah without mentioning all the dirty little facts we know about those groups, we feel as if the media is giving them a free pass. But is this a realistic way to judge media coverage? I would say no. Articles and video segments are limited in length. Journalists can’t be expected to supply lengthy discussion on the competing narratives on Zionism and IDF tactics every time they discuss Hamas or civilian casualties.
Moreover, we only represent one side of a two-sided conflict. Palestinian supporters could (and do)examine the exact same stories and point out what they claim is pro-Israeli bias. For example, they will claim that a story about Hamas and Islamic Jihad is biased for it doesn’t mention that Israel’s founders, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, planned to annex all of historical Palestine for itself. Or, if there is a story about Palestinian’s use of human shields, they will claim it is biased for not discussing the IDF’s well-documented Neighbor Procdure, which advocates a human shield policy very similar to that of Palestinian militants. Would an average reader know these things? Probably not. But we wouldn’t consider those stories to be biased in favor of Israel simply because, to an average reader, Palestinians appear in a bad light.
What we are really doing is projecting our own biases on to mostly neutral coverage and crying wolf every time there is a discrepancy between what the article says and what we want the audience to know.
Thanks for all the comments, and if you’re just reading this post now please join the discussion.
Igor, I completely agree with you about the Bibi quote. I’m not saying it was wrong of Bibi to say that, or that Israel shouldn’t have defended its borders, just that when Bibi says, “We’re defending our borders,” and Haniyeh says, “You don’t have any borders–” that’s leaders of two countries still clinging to that black and white rhetoric that won’t and can’t lead to peace.
Also, you’re absolutely right about the Israeli Arab. I apologize to the man and to any readers that may have been offended by it. From what I hear he still maintains that he lost control; and his mom has come out and said that he works with and has friendships with Jews in Petach Tikvah so why would he do something like that on purpose? Of course, there’s always the possibility that something in him snapped, and the medics and detectives on the scene have been quoted as saying that damage like that doesn’t happen just by accident. There’s recent history of piguim by large vehicles, but the investigation is still ongoing so who knows. If it really was an accident, it just happened on the worst possible day for the guy.
Ben, I was debating whether to leave the Apartheid reference in there, because your argument did cross my mind, so touche for bringing it up. I left it in because while trying to be as balanced as possible, I wasn’t trying to hide the fact that I had a pro-Israel bias (which is almost an a priori fact anyway being that this is a Jewish blog). To be honest, I am concerned; and when I hear Palestinian officials say things like, “We’ll take the pre-67 borders for now… until the next generation rises up and takes the rest of it,” while at the same time criticizing Israel for not giving them their own state–yes, I’m also a bit insecure about their willingness to make peace.
Maybe it didn’t need doing, because I have educated friends, but my target audience with this post is essentially the friends I have that have clearly held their tongues around me and seem to see the issue as black and white–Palestinians oppressed, Israel oppressive. I wanted to present to them those “dirty little facts” as a way to say, ‘hey, this issue is more complicated than that.’ Israel is definitely in the wrong on specific parts of a very large issue; admitting that, I wanted to point out some places within the broad issue where Palestinians were also clearly in the wrong.