Lately I did a post on the question, Why do we single Israel out for indictment in a sea of man's inhumanity to man? It's the Dershowitz question, implying that we do so because we're anti-semitic. Well here is a very smart response to that post from Ilene Cohen, who describes the question as "the ultimate whine":
Perhaps you'd seen this last summer, but in case not, here's UN rapporteur Richard Falk on the subject from the Nation. Falk's response:
"The Human Rights Council is often accused of being overly selective, too critical of Israel, too lenient with respect to a variety of Third World countries. There is no doubt that any political institution will establish priorities based on the concerns of its membership. From this perspective it's not surprising that a focus should be placed on Israel and the Palestinian plight. After all, the UN has a special responsibility for Palestine that goes back to its effort to partition the mandate for the territory in 1947. From the UN perspective this unconsummated effort to address the future of both Palestinians and Israelis is, in a sense, the greatest unresolved issue on the UN agenda. [Weiss emphasis]Beyond this, the prolonged Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is unprecedented in international experience and has produced immense Palestinian suffering. It should also be noted that the HRC has appointed special rapporteurs for other situations of severe human rights concern, including North Korea and Myanmar."I would add the following to the case: Israel bills itself as a Western democracy, so the idea that expectations should be the same as for the Congo or N. Korea or China, for that matter, is absurd. And, of course, were we not paying for Israel to do these things, it couldn't do them.
Weiss: I'd add that Falk's point was echoed last fall by the UN General Assembly president, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, when he said that the failure to deliver on Palestinian statehood was the body's "greatest failure" in 60 years. This is for me the bottom line. And the Israel lobby has always stood in the way. Enough already. History is standing at the door.
Off topic: British MP George Galloway is starting out on an American speaking tour. I understand he'll be in NY at Columbia on Monday, March 23. Phil might enjoy attending. I'm sure there will be a Jewish community presence attempting to silence him.
When I posted the above about Galloway's North American speaking tour, I didn't realize that Canadian Jewish groups had already successfully lobbied to get him banned from Canada.
But don't take my word for it–
Channel 4 News
Didn't exactly answer the question.
Do you have a link to Cohen's commentary? Thx!
Why do we talk about Israel? Oh
2004 Two newly released blue-ribbon reports — one issued in Washington, the other in Jerusalem — are citing Arab and Muslim anger at Israel as a central factor in motivating Islamic terrorists. Forward 2004
Of all these themes, the notion of payback for injustices suffered by the Palestinians is perhaps the most powerfully recurrent in bin Laden's speeches. It has become fashionable to assert that al-Qaeda's attachment to the Palestinian cause is relatively recent, and has been cynical and deliberately manipulative. That is simply not true. As long ago as 1984, witnesses report bin Laden shunning American goods to protest American support of Israel. His fellow traveler Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted of the first assault on the World Trade Center in 1993, testified that his sole motive was US backing of Israel. Berg
Yousef ’s instant notoriety as the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing inspired KSM to become involved in planning attacks against the United States. By his own account, KSM’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel. 9/11 commission p147
The Gaza strike put a strain on US Mid Eastern arab allies and US relations.Or, lets see theres:
I wonder why?
Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has bluntly criticized past actions of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel congressional lobby, saying it had needlessly inflamed U.S.-Israeli relations, informed sources said today.
The sources said [Yitzhak Rabin] complained in a private meeting in Washington last week that AIPAC had steered Israel wrongly toward a confrontation with the Bush administration over U.S.-backed loan guarantees. Rabin declared that he wanted to avoid such confrontations, the sources said.
Rabin's comments came at the end of a U.S. visit in which he secured a commitment from President Bush to seek the $10 billion in loan guarantees from Congress. Bush had refused to grant the loan guarantees to former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir because of continued Jewish settlement in Israeli-occupied Arab territories. The deadlock was broken after Rabin defeated Shamir in elections June 23 and pledged to curb settlement construction without halting it entirely.
Rabin leveled his criticism in a private meeting at the Madison Hotel in Washington with Tom Dine, executive director of AIPAC, David Steiner, the group's president, and three former presidents of the congressional lobbying group: Ed Levy, Abe Pollin and Mayer Mitchell. Five Israeli officials were present.
Rabin's remarks were considered highly unusual, given the traditional clout that AIPAC has wielded in Congress on behalf of Israel.
Officials close to Rabin said he believes that American Jewish organizations should not play a central role in the diplomacy between the United States and Israel. Rabin made this point to the AIPAC leaders at the outset of what became a long session on future legislative strategy, sources said.
Rabin also believes that such contacts should be with the executive branch, regardless of who is in the White House, and that Congress should play a supporting role but not be used as a lever against the administration, officials said. AIPAC had spearheaded an effort by the American Jewish community to win the loan guarantees from Congress despite objections from the administration – an ultimately futile campaign that was the crux of Rabin's complaint, officials said.
Some Labor Party figures here say also that AIPAC became too closely associated with Shamir's Likud Party. Since Rabin defeated Shamir, there has been intense behind-the-scenes jockeying in American Jewish organizations between those who were close to Likud and those who felt excluded by Shamir's right-wing government.
Asked for comment about the Rabin meeting, Dine, the AIPAC executive director, said in a statement that Rabin "expressed unhappiness with the political tensions that occurred last year among the Jewish community, Congress and the administration over the loan gurantees." But, he added, "most of the meeting was devoted to constructive discussion" of legislative strategy, and Rabin "clearly hopes to have strong support from the Congress as well as the administration."
The Washington Post Company Sep 28, 1992
High-profile staff members from various Washington lobbying firms are actively campaigning for Democratic nominee Bill Clinton. Among them: David Ifshin, adviser to Clinton on U.S.-Israeli relations and general counsel to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the leading pro-Jewish lobby, and Samuel Berger, a foreign affairs adviser to the Clinton campaign and a trade issues lobbyist. Charles Dolan, a senior vice president of Cassidy Associates, a D.C.-based lobby group, is also a Clinton adviser.
Apropos of the thread's title question "why single out Israel" Richard Witty wrote:
"Didn't exactly answer the question."
Which seems to me true, at least insofar as Americans' answering Dershowitz's question that does indeed imply anti-semitism. (The U.N. and Falk have their own good answers.)
So to answer same what I at least would say is that supporters of Israel can't on the one hand say that we should single out Israel for all the incredible benefits we should supposedly continue to confer upon it, but then for some reason pay what it does with those benefits no more attention than what Paraguay might or might not be doing.
Israel is a comparatively rich country, and yet just in direct, non-military aid we give it a simply huge percent of the total money we give to the rest of the world. And Israel isn't a particularly threatened country either, with it also possessing what is far and away the dominant conventional military power in its region not to mention its monopoly on nukes there. And yet the military aid we give to Israel is immense too.
So to me the real answer to those accusing Americans of "singling out" Israel for criticism is to ask the source of their arrogance in believing America should have to devote its blood and treasure to support it, but then for some reason be ball-gagged from talking about how and to what ends it uses that support.
I support Israel's fundamental right to exist, but it can seem that the very stigmata of its most ardent supporters is double standards; always double standards.
Why do they single out jewish colonialism – amongst the many examples of man's inhumanity to man – to actively support?
He probably would like to know why he was singled out over Israel.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, China, Russia are all on The Human Rights Council. Do these paragons of human rights investigate themselves?
No,Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, China, Russia, they don't investigate themselves, and neither do Israel, which places Israel in a really unsavoury company on the issue of human rights.
If the goals are more specific, they will be SEEN as a limited criticism, rather than a blanket condemnation.
Using general language only makes dissent inneffective, except at feeling an ego rush.
If you want change, your comments (and Falk's) have to be specific. ANY generalization will entirely dismiss his relevance and effectiveness (even if true.)
Eve,
Israel DOES investigate itself. Consider the current Haaretz series of interviews on IDF behavior in Gaza, incidents and patterns.
And, that DOES reach sincere review, and IS published and examined.
And, even if only slightly better than lip-service, that is slightly better than nothing. (As you said, the majority of Arab countries, including Palestine, do NOT investigate themeselves, and is not published in the effort to appeal to a compassionate response.)
It STILL is a form of hypocrisy to agitate ONLY relative to Israel/Palestine, at least for a humanist. If one had two foci, then one could say that they weren't fixated.
Say, Israel/Palestine and Mexico, or Israel/Palestine and Native Americans. But, then with that study, it would be more difficult to state that Israel/Palestine is simple.
They would like to know why they were singled out over Israel.
Israel DOES investigate itself.
Btselem routinely shows how Israel fails to investigate crimes against Arabs
Failing to do something perfectly is NOT the same as not doing.
Each of the pictured's comments deserved at least some criticism.
Failing to do something perfectly is NOT the same as not doing.
I suppose the umbrella is now wide enough for everyone to get under now.
The plus of the USA's often praised "special relationship" with Israel shouldn't come with the negatives of same? If there's a right or privilege, that come with no attached duties?
What are the pluses for the USA?
What are the negatives?
Is not one as important as the other to discuss openly, without fear?
Since when would anyone in their right mind give somebody endless boxes of blank checks?
Just asking.
Israel is singled out? Wait. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TuLBa-rgBk
we are jew, ipso facto, we are innocent
we are jew, ipso facto, we are the victim
There are plenty of reasons why Israel is 'singled' out. Not empirically – mind you. Richard Falk wrote a book, critiquing the NY Times on it's coverage on the I-P conflict and included this issue specifically.
He lined up the different hot spots for human rights abuses/etc. and Israel was low on the list of reports in comparison to the Sudan/Congo/etc. (I might be mistaken about the countries but Israel was not on top.)
However, the numbers were in the same range.
Now, if people mean the attention Israel gets in the West/ME? No shit, they'd be a hot-topic.
I don't see why this is even worth thinking about. It's common sense. There are so many reasons why Israel will get more attention in the West/ME.
Furthermore, let's say this attention is 'unfair'. How so? And even if there is a legit reason, why does it fucking matter?
So if Israel is a pile of shit, but the Sudan is a pile of elephant shit, Israel is coming out smelling like roses?
No. Still smells like shit.
This is how pathetic Zionism is. As would any other colonial project. You can't defend it. Some bourgeois douchebags like Witty will try impose their narrative on the debate (superficial truths/holier than thou talking points/dishonest rhetoric/no context/no intellectualism, just emotional blubbery and empty soliloquies meant to deflect or divert attention).
Now, if we are pressed to give a reason why then it's still easy.
Israel is SUPPOSED to be a "civilized" "Western" (which evokes the sense of 'modernity' and 'nobility' and 'properness')country.
Now, the question of whether this is a legitimate perception of not only Israel but OURSELVES is another matter. Let's just placate the bourgeois holier-than-thou sanctimonious douchebags like Witty who think there were no Native Americans or Palestinians in the lands that are now the US and Israel respectively. Lets let them think slavery and ethnic cleansing and genocide and broken treaty after broken treaty and racial discrimination and blah blah blah never happened.
Israel was born w/o sin, like Jesus. Ditto for the US.
Everyone else – especially the dark skinned brutes – just can't get their act together!
That's the context. This entire question of whether we give Israel a hard time is profoundly racist/chauvinist/imperialistic and shows quite clearly (moreso in us in terms of meaningfulness since Israel is in a phase of existence where it is by definition a racist/chauvinist/etc. State) that WE, Americans, have not recovered from the colonial mentality. Which is basically a might makes right mentality.
The question was CLEARLY answered by Richard Falk, with additional supporting evidence offered by Ilene Cohen and Phil.
Some people don't want to hear those answers, let alone understand them.
Julian: "Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, China, Russia are all on The Human Rights Council. Do these paragons of human rights investigate themselves?"
No, but none of them calls itself "the only democracy in the Middle East" either. If Israel is going to demand US support on the grounds of shared democratic values then it ought to start acting like a democracy. Israel can't call itself "the Jewish state" with special rights for Jews and then claim to be a western-style democracy too.
Americans single out Israel as part of singling out ourselves. It's better to ask why we don't single out ourselves for many more deaths in Iraq, for example. In fact, the large context of ME U.S. FP has to be addressed in order to address Israel–at least in principle. So the response is–let's single out ourselves, but do it in a way that's effective. Challenging the Lobby is maybe 1% of that work.
Just always tell me, what is your standard? Spell it out, then state your case.
To those who think we pick on Israel here, I am reminded of why Winston Churchill was so concerned about Admiral Jellicoe, commander of Britain's Grand Fleet at the battle of Jutland in WWI. He was, Churchill said, "the only man on either side who could lose the war in an afternoon."
In the same vein, Israel is the only ally who could land the United States (and the world along with it) in a thirties-style depression for the next 20 years in one afternoon. All Netanyahu would have to do is carry out his promise to bomb Iran. The US would instantly enter the battle on Israel's side (with the rest of the world on the other side). American carriers would be attacked in the Persian Gulf. The straits of Hormuz would be closed to shipping. Oil prices would jump to $300 a barrel. Millions of Americans would live an impoverished old age, while their children and grandchildren watched America become a poor weak nation in their own lifetime. And people here have the nerve to ask, "Why do you single out Israel?" What our grandchildren will be asking ten or twenty years from now is, why didn't you single out Israel sooner?
The Holocaust was special, so much that it's spelled with a capital H. The United Nations created Israel in a special way, different than the way most nations have been created: they took 54% of Palestine and gave it to recent Jewish immigrants who did not even own the land. That's how special The Holocaust was, and how special Jews are. The Jews have a special covenant with God; they're his chosen people. He told them that this land belonged to them; do you know anyone else he gave land to? Israel has a "special relationship" with the U.S., in fact, we're joined at the hip. Even when we're going broke and our states are handing out IOU's, we're going to keep funding Israel, that's how special they are.
Now who's complaining about singling out Israel?
Magnificent! It's come together, now.
Excellent comments by Duscany and Ana Sanchez! Ditto Margaret. Witty, ball's in your court–try for once to be responsive to Duscany and Ana.
Possibly relevant: UNWRA and Palestinian suffering.
Ana – The UN partition for a Jewish State was based on a majority population of Jews in that area. Ownership was not fundamentally in question for the partitioned area.
The real question is – why do you think that Jews are so special that you spend your days spouting racist bile against them? Why did the Europeans think Jews were so special that they had to murder the vast majority of European Jews and today slide into that same anti-Semitic morass? And why do the Muslim states think Jews are so special that they are free to persecute them, flay them and ethnically cleanse them from their lands?
The EU is funding Gaza as the EU goes broke. Good luck with a return on your investment.