Many Jews are convinced that there is an anti-Israel bias in the way the media covers events that happen involving Israel, Palestinians, and other Arabs. While I disagree with this sentiment when applied to American journalism (most cover the Mid East just as lazily as they cover elections) what I really cannot stand is many of the arguments advanced in the Jewish community that are meant to be used (I think) to convince media and others to see Israel's actions in a better light.
I will preface this by writing what I have been writing over and over in many places over the past 24 hours - in the short term, Israel is doing the right thing for its citizens by firing back at Gaza. In the long term we have to figure out a better process than the current stagnation that leads to escalation of this level every couple of years; I would even go so far as predicting that the cycle will get shorter each time between escalations.
The only important argument this very moment is that Israel, as a sovereign nation, has an obligation (not right, the word "right" is too weak) to protect the lives of its citizens and to guarantee a certain minimum quality of life for them as well.
The following is based on an item that appeared in my FB feed today shared by a friend and produced by 12Tribe Films Foundation. The source does not matter too much in this case as these are very common statements made within the Jewish community.
1) The US engages in targeted assassinations (most recent = Osama bin Laden).
- OBL was not a targeted assassination; the SEAL team had a number of options that they could choose from. AFAIK their orders were to take him captive if it could be done safely. OBL got shot during an exchange of gunplay between the people protecting him and the SEALs.
-
Ford and Carter each signed
executive orders banning US agencies and the military from engaging and/or facilitating in assassinations. The United States has pretty quietly adopted a policy of assassination as long as someone is branded a "terrorist" by the US government. It is done without fanfare because the jury is still out on whether (a) this is an effective policy and (b) whether it is actually the right thing to do.
2) Israel left Gaza in 2005 -- removing ALL of its citizens (it is actually illegal for an Israeli citizen to enter Gaza) -- in the name of peace. Their reward: rocket fire from Gaza into Israel -- over 850 in 2012 alone!
- Ariel Sharon's reasoning for leaving Gaza was much more practical than leaving in the name of peace. He did the math on how much it was costing in money, lives of Israeli soldiers, and the health of the Tzahal to remain in Gaza to protect the Jews who still lived there and decided that it just was not worth it anymore. Add to that the fact that it was unlikely for any part of Gaza to remain part of Israel in final status negotiations:
"Disengagement from Gaza recognises the demographic reality on the ground specifically, bravely and honestly. It is clear to everyone that Israel will not be in the Gaza strip in the final agreement…." - Sharon, 2005
- The Gaza withdrawal was not the result of any official agreement with Palestinian leadership; it was voted on in June of '05, completed in Sep '05, and there was finally an agreement about governance with the PA in Nov '05.
- I would argue that the more chaotic Gaza gets (if it were a sovereign state it would be a failed one) the more rockets get fired at Israelis. This makes a certain amount of sense; the more desperate a population feels (a) the more susceptible they are to hate mongers like Hamas and (b) the more tolerant they are of terrorist tactics to achieve their goals; the goal being achieved could be as simple as making life miserable for Israelis (which would mean that, in the case of rockets from Gaza, the terrorist tactics employed by the various hate groups has worked).
3) Israel still provides electricity to Gaza (paid for by Israeli citizens/taxes as opposed to -- you know -- the people who USE it!) -- despite the fact that the publicly elected government of the Gazan people REFUSES to acknowledge Israel's right to exist
- We say this all the time in the Jewish community. Someone who objects to Israel's response to missiles from Gaza (in 2008's Cast Lead 100 Palestinians died for each Israeli death) is not going to be swayed to Israel's side by the fact that they supply electricity to Gaza.
- Whether we like it or not Israel is subject to Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule" - you break it, you bought it. Yes, Gaza was already a mess in '67 when Israel captured it. However, for 37 years Israel was the dominant power; by most accepted understandings of what the responsibilities are of a sovereign state like Israel Gaza remains Israel's responsibility until it is indeed an independent state (this is why I am in favor of accelerated Palestinian statehood - once they are independent the Pottery Barn Rule no longer applies).
4) There are (thank G-d) far fewer Israeli casualties than Gazan casualties for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which are: a) we build bomb shelters and USE them, b) we cancel school and non-essential work in the name of protecting our citizens, c) Hamas uses dense population centers from which to launch attacks, thus using their own citizens as shields
- The annual per capita income in Gaza is somewhere between $600 and $800 (really tough to find a good source for this). Gazans do not have the money to build bomb shelters - should Israel build shelters for them? Would shelters even hold up against the type of advanced munitions Israel uses (I suspect not)? Israel also has an early warning system, which Gaza lacks, and the Iron Dome missiles that the US helped pay for (though Iron Dome has not been too useful).
- I believe that Hamas has no interest in protecting the average Gazan. Are we going to blame schoolchildren for their own deaths because they were born under the wrong government?
- The converse to this argument is to say that the citizens of the Negev could at least move somewhere else, something that is not an option for Gazans.
- (c) Is a reason for Israel to be careful (which she may or may not be), not a justification for the loss of human life.
I will also point out that the inclusion of "thank G-d" above implies that Hashem (God) values the lives of Israeli children above the lives of Palestinian children. The God I believe in does not want any child to die violently, period.
The main reason more Palestinians die than Israelis is that Israel's tactic in this situation is to use overwhelming force to stop the missiles from falling while simultaneously minimizing the deaths of Israeli soldiers (who, remember, are conscripts). In the short term it is a successful strategy in achieving both objectives from the Israeli perspective. There is no shame in doing what is necessary to protect your population and your soldiers.
There is, however, shame if there is anything Israel could be doing better in between escalations in order to break the cycle of escalation, retaliation, calm, escalation, retaliation, calm...
5) Multiple Israeli rescue and/or philanthropic organizations consistently send aid (in many forms) to global locations struck by natural or man-made catastrophes. Now compare this to the reaction of the Palestinians on/after 9/11 (the streets of Ramallah and Gaza were filled with people celebrating the attack on teh "Great Satan" -- or have you already forgotten?).
Mafia controlled neighborhoods are some of the safest places to walk at night, as long as you pay the Mafia. Does that mean the murders and other crimes that the Mafia is responsible for should be ignored.
Michael Milken was a prolific giver of charity. Does that mean that his insider trading should have been excused?
On the flip side, as an educator - if I have a kid who bullies others all the time, does that mean that I am supposed to ignore the situation if other kids start bullying the bully?
Number 5 ends with the argument that anything Israel does which is questionable should be ignored because of its good works and because the people who Israel is attacking right now don't like us. This is one of the most childish arguments possible to make in Israel's favor.
Again, I will make what I think is the most important argument because it is not about who hit first, it is not about moral superiority, or about blaming the victim in either direction. It simply recognizes the fact that Israel is a sovereign state and, as a state, its first priority must always be the safety and well being of its citizens.