|
Being
in love can be wonderful, but it does tend to make one overlook
the faults of one's beloved. The perils of infatuation couldn't
be clearer than in the case of a couple of articles appearing
recently on WorldNetDaily, Joseph Farah's "Why Israel Must Prevail"
and Ilana Mercer's "Liar, Liar, abaya
on fire." (No, I didn't make up the column title to embarrass
her or anything – I guess love makes a title like that seem "cute.")
Let's
start with Mercer's column. She explains Israel's war crime of
shooting at ambulances in the West Bank as follows: "Israel
regularly intercepts Palestinian ambulances because, very plainly,
some have been rigged with explosive belts, while using the time-honored
Arab decoys: women and children."
Where
is the documentation for Mercer's charge? Well, there is at
least one clear case of an ambulance used for military purposes:
"Until now, only one instance has been proven: this week
Israeli journalists reported proudly that undercover soldiers
used an ambulance in order to approach a house in which a 'wanted
person' was hiding."
And,
of course, when it comes to using civilians as decoys, Israel
does pretty well itself:
"In each of these cases, the IDF routinely coerced civilians
to perform life-endangering acts that assisted IDF military operations.
Eyewitnesses and victims described to Human Rights Watch how friends,
neighbors, and relatives of 'wanted' Palestinians were taken at
gunpoint to knock on doors, open strange packages, and search
houses in which the IDF suspected armed Palestinians were present."
While
on the topic of ambulances, Mercer says, "As the motorcade
of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell sped toward Jerusalem,
Israeli security was in the process of foiling an explosives-laden
ambulance, on a collision course with the Powell entourage."
Whoa!
The Palestinians were trying to assassinate Powell, and, as far
as I can tell, it never made the US news! A search did turn up
some mentions
of an incident with an ambulance while Powell was in Israel:
"Soldiers
at the Maccabim Checkpoint apprehended a PA Red Crescent ambulance
containing explosive belts being smuggled into Green Line
sovereign Israel for use in terror attacks. The initial report
indicates there was also a dead body in the vehicle. Additional
confirmed details will be published as they become available."
Although this report is from a hawkish Israeli news source, we
might note that there is no mention that the ambulance was on
a "collision course with the Powell entourage." (How,
exactly, would one detect that a distant ambulance was on such
a course, anyway? Didn't the ambulance have a steering wheel?)
Mercer
continues: "Hiding in the Bethlehem Church are not 'Christians
seeking sanctuary,' as CNN claimed, but hostage-taking Palestinian
terrorists. The hostages are the Christians…"
But
what do the Christians in the church say?
"The
Israeli government has charged that the gunmen are holding monks
hostage. But monks reached by telephone, as well as Governor Madani,
said they were all there voluntarily. Mr. Madani said there were
35 Franciscan monks and nuns and four Greek and eight Armenian
churchmen. They live separately in their monasteries. Mr. Madani
and Mr. Salman were staying with the Catholics and were not confined
in the squalid conditions of the other men who took refuge."
And
how about the Vatican? Well, it says:
"The Vatican repeatedly announced that all people inside
the church are non-engaged and only seeking a shelter that the
church is willing to provide. The Vatican repeatedly affirmed
that there is no hostage-taking situation."
So,
if we have a case where both a number of monks and the Vatican
are lying, or a state is lying, whom does a libertarian believe?
Why, one's beloved, of course.
Mercer
says: "Another 'oft-repeated Arab claim repudiated by the
facts, and disproved by historical reality' is that the Israeli
1967 'occupation' of the West Bank and Gaza is the cause of Palestinian
terrorism." She goes on to document violence that occurred
before 1967 to make her case.
The
use of quotes around "occupation" suggests an even more
startling Arab lie: apparently Israel is not even occupying the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip! I guess they never conquered them
at all, or turned them over decades ago. Those Arab lies sure
do take hold!
In
any event, in any Arab claims I've seen, the problem of the Palestinians
who lost their homes in 1948 is brought up along with the occupation.
Clearly, even prior to 1967, Palestinians had some "difficulties"
with Israel that might explain their hostility.
She
continues:
"Do
the media ever pause to pose the no-brainer the Edmonton Journal's
Lorne Gunter poses? 'If Palestinians stopped their attacks today,
tomorrow there would be no Israeli attacks. But if Israel stopped
unilaterally, would you trust the Palestinians to follow?'"
Well,
no, I wouldn't. On the other hand, another "no-brainer"
is: If the Palestinians stopped their attacks today, could they
trust Israel to grant them independence – real independence,
not some Swiss-cheese state laced throughout with Israeli territory?
Again, the answer is "No." Of course that doesn't justify
Palestinian violence. If the Palestinians had taken the high road,
as Ghandi did in India, they probably would have achieved independence
years ago. World opinion would certainly be overwhelmingly on
their side, and even Israel's "amen lobby" would have
trouble convincing the American public that people practicing
non-violent resistance should not be granted statehood. But it's
a bit easier for the conqueror to abjure violence than it is for
the conquered.
Now,
for Farah. He contends: "It's necessary [for militant Islam]
to chase the Jews out of the Middle East first. Next will be the
last vestige of Christians. But the big prize is the Great Satan
– the United States of America."
Um,
why, exactly, if what the Palestinians are really interested in
is the US, is it "necessary" to drive Jews out of the
Middle East "first"? The 9/11 attackers seemed to be
able to bypass the Middle Eastern Jews just fine.
Farah
goes on: "If Israel loses, the Islamic revolution goes worldwide.
The target is no longer Jerusalem. It's Washington."
But
Washington already was targeted! Surprisingly, the existence of
Israel was not a barrier for a 747 traveling from Boston to DC.
Says
Farah, "In other words, when these people are through with
Israel, they will be coming after the U.S."
I
see. After they conquer Israel, with the 6th-most powerful military
in the world, Palestine is going to attempt to conquer the US,
with the most powerful, as well. The Arabs are not only liars,
they are extremely stupid to boot.
Farah
explains why "Israel must prevail" as follows: "While
no nation or no individual in this fallen world is without fault,
one side in this conflict is right more often than it is wrong,
while the other is led by a man who personifies evil."
Let
us grant, for argument's sake, that Israel is "right more
often than it is wrong." Does that mean it can do anything
it wants? It can kill as many innocent Palestinians as it needs
to? It can ethnically cleanse the West Bank, if it so desires?
Would Farah apply his dictum to individuals? If he is in a dispute
with his neighbor, and feels he is "right more often than
he is wrong," is it OK for him to bulldoze his neighbor's
house, with the kids inside?
Farah
posits a truly bizarre interpretation of the Fall. Because all
humans are fallen, anyone who is less sinful than most apparently
has a free pass to sin as much as needed in order to "prevail."
Farah
says: "For 30 years we've tried to just give peace a chance.
Now it's time to give a just war a chance."
Well,
who, exactly, is "we"? The US certainly hasn't been
giving peace a chance. In the 30-year period under consideration,
the US has militarily intervened in Grenada, Lebanon, Panama,
Iraq, Serbia, Somalia, Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan, Columbia, and
possibly a few places I've forgotten. And, over that period, the
US has given Israel billions in military aid.
But,
it seems more likely that by "we" Farah means Israel,
not the US. The US is, after all, only the country Farah lives
in, not the country where his heart resides. Israel might have
tried giving peace a chance by ending its military occupation
of the West Bank. If that made the country feel insecure, it could
follow Martin van Creveld's advice and build a fortified wall
between Israel and Palestine. The cost of such a wall would certainly
be less than the cost of thirty years of occupation. It wouldn't
guarantee that there were no more terrorist attacks, but it can
hardly be said that the occupation has worked in that regard!
Farah
is also quite unclear about whether Arafat does or doesn't control
every action any Palestinian takes. He says, "Though Arafat's
forces invented the airline hijacking, never before Sept. 11 had
they employed suicide attackers."
Well,
here
is a list of some pre-September suicide bombings:
April
6, 1994: Afula suicide bombing
January
22, 1995: Beit Lid suicide bombing
April
9, 1995: Gaza suicide bombings
February
25, 1996: Jerusalem/Ashkelon suicide bombings
March
4, 1996: Tel Aviv suicide bombing
July
30, 1997: Suicide bomb in Jerusalem market
Now,
is Arafat responsible for not ending Palestinian violence, or
isn't he? If he is, then why don't the above bombings count as
being by "Arafat's forces"? If he isn't, then why are
the bombings after 9/11 his responsibility? Or perhaps,
prior to 9/11 Arafat had no control over Palestinian violence,
but now he has complete control.
When
your heart's on fire, the smoke gets in your eyes.
Of
course, it is possible for love to mature. One need not excuse
everything done by one's love in order for love to endure. I'll
close with the words of someone else who
loves Israel, Guy Grossman, a second lieutenant in the Israeli
Defense Forces reserves:
"Our
voice is growing louder every day. In January, 54 reservists signed
the initial officers' letter, and today we number 417. We bring
the message to our fellow citizens and American supporters that
one can love Israel and yet criticize its misguided policies.
We have seen the injustice and futility of the occupation with
our own eyes and refuse to participate any longer.
"We
are articulating a different vision of Israel that draws from
a proud Jewish and Zionist heritage. Refusal is not just saying
No; it is a patriotic way of saying Yes to a secure, just and
prosperous state of Israel."
Gene
Callahan is a writer, computer programmer, and author of the upcoming
book, Economics
For Real People.
|
