The Shalit Case: One Israeli Prisoner Vs. 10,000 Palestinians
It is horrific to contemplate what Gilad Shalit and his family have been subjected to for over three years. Not only has he been imprisoned but the ups and downs of the prisoner exchange negotiations must be torture for his family (and for Gilad himself if he knows what has been going on).
But most maddening is, in my opinion, the racial implications of the Shalit saga. It does not matter that Israelis and Palestinians are racially indistinguishable. The fact is that the Israelis are "white" in terms of their status in Israel-Palestine and the Palestinians are not.
The Shalit story is reminiscent of the way Americans become obsessed with crimes committed against whites while generally indifferent to identical crimes committed against people of color. The media will devote endless hours and days of coverage to the tragedy of a white woman gone missing while ignoring similar disappearances of black women. The same applies to stories of child kidnappings and other crimes of violence.
We tend only to care if the victim is white.
And Israel is no different (it is, in fact, worse). It cares about "Jewish suffering" but is indifferent, at best, to the suffering it inflicts on the non-Jews with whom it shares the land.
The country is obsessed with Shalit's imprisonment. It is beside itself with rage, sorrow, and fury. It is so upset that the government is on the verge of approving a massive prisoner trade with the hated Hamas to get Shalit released.
At the same time, Israel is perfectly content with holding thousands of Palestinians in their prisons. In the words of Daoud Kuttab in Thursday's New York Times:
"Israel is holding more than 10,000 Palestinians, some without charge or trial. Almost all of these prisoners are being held in contradiction to various international laws and treaties, particularly the Geneva Conventions, which regulate the actions of a prolonged occupying power. These prisoners are routinely denied basic rights, including the right of family visitations because of the inaccessibility of Israeli prisons to more than 90 percent of Palestinians living in the occupied territories. (Only families living in East Jerusalem or those who have managed to get permits through the Red Cross can visit their imprisoned loved ones.)"
Shalit was kidnapped (although "captured" is the usual term applied to soldiers). But in 2006, Israeli authorities kidnapped 46 members of the Palestinian parliament in response to Shalit's abduction. Fifteen are still in prison.
And who cares? Certainly not the Israeli population which seems to believe that any jailed Palestinian must have done "something." No matter that so many are held without being charged, or that so many are adolescents who don't even know what they are accused of doing.
These prisoners will sit and rot in jail until released as part of a deal to free some Israeli who shouldn't have been kidnapped either.
One can take this argument even further. The entire Gaza Strip is an Israeli prison if one uses the most common definition of a prison. It is sealed and its people are locked in. Israel controls all its borders: air, sea, and land.
Its million residents cannot leave. Even youngsters accepted at American or European universities are refused exit permits. Add to that the Israeli blockade that keeps Gazans on what are essentially prison rations, struggling without jobs in a ruined economy and living in a bombed out hell, and the analogy becomes even more apt.
Of course, in one key way, a prison is better. Prisoners are safe from being bombed from the air.
The hypocrisy is almost too much to take.
It speaks well of Israel that it cares so much about one imprisoned soldier.
On the other hand, its sympathy for its own stands in stark contrast with its lack of empathy for Palestinians. It tolerates the killing of kids in Gaza, only becoming exercised when a United Nations committee rightly calls it a war crime. It supports the blockade of Gaza. It continues to throw people out of their homes to make way for religious extremists who insist on living on land where their ancestors may have walked thousands of years ago.
In short, Israelis today -- with the exception of Israel's courageous left -- operates without pity. Except for some of its own.
*******
Crossposted in Palestine Note, the best source for news on Israel/Palestine
IN DECEMBER, MEDIA MATTERS WILL START PUBLISHING MY NEW WEEKLY COLUMN. IF YOU WANT TO RECEIVE IT BY E-MAIL, send an e-mail to mjrosenberg8@gmail.com with the word "subscribe" on subject line.
I find my countrymen amazingly immune to the sufferings of poor non-white people - especially if they are perceived to be shabby and downmarket.
A corollary : in war, with this attitude, Americans cannot feel they are winning even if the ratio of dead 'others' to dead Americans is 50:1 ... the enemy is valued at zero, so killing them brings no satisfaction.
Result : we keep killing the enemy but never get the sense of winning.
This is beyond absurd if you think about it.
November 26, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 26, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are lying as usual. MJ says none of the anti-Israeli things you claim he does.
November 27, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
AnnaA you are a dishonest arguer. I for one take deep offense to your casual use of the term "Jew hater" to describe people who are clearly not. Frankly, I find Israelis far too eager to hid behind non-Israeli jews, and far too unwilling to take responsibility for the actions of their country.
The collective punishment of Gaza isn't an act of "the Jews", it's an official policy of Israel. Frankly I find it dishonest and incredibly short sighted to defend the indefensible by screaming "Jew Hater" at anyone who notices what's actually happening. You'd almost think people like you would rather deflect legitimate anger at Israel onto Jews in general. But that would be despicable, wouldn't it.
November 28, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When you say Egypt controls the border, I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that Israel has no troops posted on their side, because that would be patently absurd.
November 28, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say, MJ and Friend :
Here is a holiday question for you two civilized debaters :
What white phosphorus used against civilians in Gaza ?
Have fun with that one - Happy Thanksgiving.
November 26, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Israel is holding more than 10,000 Palestinians, some without charge or trial...." - NYT
FROM 'JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE', 11/24/09:
Palestinian human rights activist Mohammad Othman...is being held by the Israeli government indefinitely and without charges, and he needs international pressure to either call for a fair trial in a court of law where he can defend himself, or to call for his release.
Yesterday, after 61 days in jail without charges, Mohammad Othman received his first administrative detention order for a three month period -- a period in which Mohammad will be held without charge or trial...
...Mohammad Othman was detained on September 22 by Israeli authorities when returning to the West Bank after a human rights advocacy trip to Norway. Since his detention, he has endured long interrogations, solitary confinement, and long periods of time without access to his attorney or even to his own hearings. The charges against him have not been made clear, but there is reason to believe that he is a prisoner of conscience, arrested solely for his human rights work and his peaceful criticism of violations of international law by Israeli authorities. His harassment must stop. He should either be tried in a court of law where he can defend himself or he should be released.
Do not be fooled by the name 'Administrative Detention.' Here's how Btselem describes the procedure:
"Over the years, Israel has held Palestinians in prolonged detention without trying them and without informing them of the suspicions against them. While detainees may appeal the detention, neither they nor their attorneys are allowed to see the evidence. Israel has therefore made a charade out of the entire system of procedural safeguards in both domestic and international law regarding the right to liberty and due process."
SOURCE - http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_1237.shtml
November 26, 2009 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
For right or wrong, I see a population acting predictably.
This is what you'd expect from a people that have been at War (or led to believe they were) since their country was founded. The dehumanization of one's enemy in Wartime is de rigeur, a propaganda tool for the Gov't and a good coping mechanism for the soldiers and the public. And remember, almost all Israelis are soldiers at one point, so they have experience with what it means to look down a barrel and try not to see a person, but an enemy. This may be part of the reason why Israelis feel the pain of the detention of one of their own far more than that of a thousand Palestinians.
This is also a Capulets and Montagues worthy feud. I mean for crying out loud, the Jews and Muslims have been at each other forever. Oh, and the Holocaust? That sort of thing makes a people protective of their own, and not too fond of people that talk about finishing the job Hitler started.
While Americans barely blink at the tens of thousands of civilians killed a World away in Iraq; Israelis' cruel attitudes toward the "enemy" are shaped by the War being basically right around the corner. It's interesting because even though we experience it so differently, we both end up basically at the same place, not really caring too much about the other guys. It's interesting, but I don't think it's surprising.
For the few Israelis that break this cycle, and can see the reality of the madness going on in Gaza, the task is a tough one.
November 27, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose you could say the same is true for those happy few in America, too.
November 27, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on MJ!
Since Israelis only care about their one soldier, as you point out, all Israelis are racists -- they live on Palestinian land and send their kids to a racist army. They breathe Palestinian air, sucking oxygen away from Palestinian babies, and there's not one moment of remorse.
Even the Tel Aviv liberals live on lands captured just 19 years before the 1967 war. What's the difference beteen North Tel Aviv and East Jerusalem?
I'm sure you agree that the best solution is moving all Jews out, except the ultra-Orthodox who embraced Arafat and don't join the army.
Congratulations, by the way, on Stephen Walt's high praise for you today in "Foreign Policy." You keeep great company.
November 27, 2009 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
How much sympathy do you consider appropriate for the 46 members of the Palestinian Parliament 'kidnapped' in response to the abduction of Gilad Shalit?
What role did they have in creating the conditions and policies leading to the abduction of Shalit and what say do they have in deciding under what terms to return him?
Clearly all of them would have been released the minute the Palestinians decided to return Shalit.
So who held the keys to return them?
November 27, 2009 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"We tend only to care if the victim is white."
Which is why the Atlanta child killer drew national attention, right? Another idiotic blog from MJ Rosenberg.
November 27, 2009 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue is not "white" vs "non-white," except in the racialist mind of MJ. It is not about Jew vs non-Jew either. MJ got it right in the last sentences: "Israelis today . . . operate without pity. Except for its (sic) own." Imagine that: a state looking out for its own citizens. Only Israel is condemned for what every state has always done.
November 27, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Countries exist only to the degree they are recognized by other countries. The US should not only cease to aid Israel, it should expel its ambassador and recall the US ambassador. Israel is a criminal enterprise, not a country.
November 27, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about the mistreatment of whites in Zimbabwe? Or of Uighurs and Tibetans in China? Of Tamils in Sri Lanka? Of Jews in Iran? Of Kurds, Copts, and, in fact, all minorities in the Arab world?
And what about you personally? Don't you live in a all-white, even all Jewish neighborhood? Haven't you spent you're entire working life almost exclusively among upper class whites and Jews?
Who are you to complain about racism? And if you do why can't you acknowledge that its universal and that Israel was established precisely to provide a place where Jews where the overlords and the others the underdogs? What is wrong with you?
November 27, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because Rosenberg's particular concern is the question of Palestinian-Israeli peace does not mean that he is indifferent to other human rights abuses.
Your response is analogous to asking a pro-Uighur rights activist why he doesn't spend more time worrying about the Sudanese.
Rosenberg clearly has a vested interest in a just and pluralistic Israel that respects human rights. Your second paragraph could even offer a rationale for the questions you pose in the first. From a purely sectarian perspective Rosenberg is working for what he perceives not only to be good for Israel but also for Jewish people in general.
I also strongly disagree with your third paragraph. Israel was not established to replace a regime in which Jews were the oppressed with a regime in which Jews are the oppressors. Rather it was established to guarantee a nation free from oppression, racism, and religious discrimination. Just because Arab states are dysfunctional and discriminatory does not mean that Israel should resort to similar methods.
November 27, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the context of the discussion Rosenberg's failure to emphasize the faults of Arab societies amounts to gross bias.
Rosenberg is working on a uptopian just and pluralistic Israeli society from the safety of his very protected position in Washington. See Lenny Ben David's "To M.J. Rosenberg", published in Ha'aretz or the Jerusalem Post, for an excellent critique.
I think you should study Israel's ACTUAL history and present condition a little more closely. What was desired and what happened - given the universal human propensity for tribalism and racism and the attitudes of Arab and Muslim societies - are two different things.
November 27, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am quite familiar with Israel's "ACTUAL" history, and I would hope that Israel does not get a pass just because it is more just and pluralistic than Mubarak's Egypt or Bouteflika's Algeria. You don't have to live in the United States to criticize our extra-judicial detentions; you don't have to live in Israel to criticize its policies. Rosenberg's interest is a better Israel. To dismiss his criticisms by complaining ad hominem that he isn't there or incidentally that he is not spending enough time on the abuses of Israel's neighbors completely avoids the substance of his complaints. Perhaps instead of attacking the person or comparing Israel favorably to military/religious dictatorships, supporters of current Israeli policies could spend more time responding to the actual criticisms.
November 27, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a conflict as intractable as this one, abuses are inevitable on both sides, but MJ Rosenberg mischaracterizes this particular issue. The real problem is not that the Israelis care more about one Israeli than they do about a thousand Palestinians. Rather, it is that the Israelis care more about one Israeli than the Palestinians care about a thousand Palestinians.
That is why hostage-taking is so useful to the Palestinian side, and so useless for the Israelis. If the hostage is considered of little value by members of his own society, the hostage takers have little bargaining power to exert in exchange for his release.
November 27, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you claim that Palestinians care little for the Palestinians who are imprisoned?
A simple search yields this website:
http://palestinianprisoners.blogspot.com/
that is an ongoing document of Palestinian activism in re their imprisoned.
You might argue that Palestinian concern over their imprisoned gets far less coverage than does Israeli concern over Shalit.
November 27, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me the evidence is pretty clear. Given multiple opportunities over many years to release Shalit for hundreds of Palestinians, the Palestinian side has condemned those same Palestinians to languish in Israeli jails rather than agree to the exchange. The Israelis, in contrast, were willing to an exchange that was not only disproportionate in numbers, but included some individuals known to be responsible for the killing of innocents, an accusation that can't reasonably be leveled against Shalit, who is in that sense only a symbol.
In the early years, one could argue that the Palestinians were simply hoping for a better bargain, but by allowing the prisoners to remain captive for so long, they have demonstrated that the lives of these individuals were not important enough to them in comparison with the value of appearing to be tough negotiators capable of gaining the freedom of some high value prisoners. They have thus sacrificed hundreds or perhaps thousands for the sake of this political goal.
November 27, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Palestinians also might wish to maintain political leverage over the Israelis. Palestinians have very few bargaining chips vis-a-vis Israel, so they hold onto Shalit, even at the expense of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.
The difference in political realities for both sides means that the fact that Hamas holds out on releasing Shalit does not mean that Palestinians at large care less about their imprisoned. Rather, there are a multitude of considerations that change their calculus in comparison to that of the Israelis.
November 27, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has been holding tens of thousands of Palestinians as political prisoners since well before Shalit was captured. How is it that Hamas's holding out a bit to try to get a few hundred more of those thousands released shows a lack of care? I think most of the imprisoned would agree with Hamas that trying to get the maximum number of prisoners their freedom is the right thing to do even if it delays the release of some for a few years.
November 27, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks thou doth protest too much as I don't recall ever seeing you write about a single suffering person in Africa, (an entire continent where there is a lot of suffering to pick from to have some interest in,) but you do seem to care a great deal about the inhabitants of a small area of the Mideast as well as Jewish and Muslim citizens of the U.S. And your interest in the latter seems to have something to do with both your own work history and your ethnic heritage, so like a lot of other people, you seem to care most about what you have personal experience with and can relate to.
November 27, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, he doth.
November 29, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has to survive if it is to be anything at all. That priority places severe constraints on its possibilities.
Rosenberg's conceptions and policy recommendations are unrealistic, even fantastic. You're right that people who live in Israel can be equally deluded but it's much harder since they have to suffer the consequences of their mistakes.
November 27, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It should be obvious, Jonathan E., that the behavior of Israel's neighbors is quite relevant to all its policies...and that only an idiot or a really biased partisan would think otherwise.
You're also dangerously close to an ad-hominem attack on me. I've spent quite a few threads dealing with M.J.'s policies and I don't need a lecture by another ignorant shmuck.
November 27, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spider, I did not say one word against you. You may call me an "ignorant shmuck" if you wish. To do so is thematically consistent with your previous attempt at writing a coherent argument. Excuse me if I do not confer authority to you based on your extensive commenting experience. Your style of rebutting allegations of an ad hominem attack with another ad hominem attack is particularly amusing.
November 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 27, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know the meaning of the word "argument." I referred to your repeat use of ad hominem attacks, both in your first argument and then in your rebuttal. This strategy is thematically consistent.
November 27, 2009 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the article to which you referred, without providing a link. It is an example of arguing against views that Rosenberg does not hold: such as Israel must disarm, or Israel must roll over and surrender to terrorists. It's a very effective strategy to argue against straw men.
November 27, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So now we're talking about me instead of M.J. Rosenberg and his recommendations. How did that happen I wonder?
And you read Ben David's article but didn't notice that he found Rosenberg to be utterly unrealistic and completely hypocritical. Didn't notice that Ben David criticized Rosenberg for failing to consider the real nature of Israel's neighbors.
Oh, well. Fuck you, then.
November 27, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
With respect to the non-ad hominem part of your post (with the exception of "only an idiot or a really biased partisan would think otherwise"), you represent that I hold a view (and on Rosenberg) that I do not hold.
By all means Israel should be cognizant of the repressive policies of its neighbors. However, their political faults and threats against Israel do not excuse Israel's repressive policies. This kind of moral equivocation is the hallmark of the worst kind of political apology.
Such moral equivocation can excuse any kind of abuses by any kind of regime. It legitimizes pre-emptive war, torture, suspension of habeas corpus, massacres of civilians.
For an analogy, look at Algeria's civil war in which the army was complicit in massacring civilians it suspected were sympathetic to the GIA and FIS. Anything goes as long as it's part of the war on terror, right?
November 27, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for bringing the Algeria's civil war.
This is how Arabs treat their enemies including own population. This has nothing to do with how Istael treats its enemies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_Civil_War#Massacres_and_reconciliation
November 27, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, all those Arabs, bunch o' savages, huh, AnnaA? Your arguments represent the kind of base, racist tripe that doesn't merit parsing.
November 27, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This pathetic straw man must mean you have no real answer.
November 27, 2009 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 27, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy to sit around Washington and talk about "moral equivocation", "disproportionate response", "land for peace", etc., etc., ad nauseum, but when your life and the lives of your family are on the line the world looks quite different.
That was Lenny Ben David's message...and it got to me.
I don't have answers to the questions you raise. Neither does anyone else. All attempts to prevent wars and limit their destructiveness, their cruelties, their savageries, have been tentative at best. So one either fights for what one believes in and accepts all the above...or one doesn't and lives the life of a coward or a traitor.
I tell you that I despise Rosenberg personally because I think he's chosen the latter course. Because I think everything he does is designed to protect his privileged position. I think he's willing to sell out the entire state of Israel rather than risk the spread of Islamic violence to Washington D.C. and Chevy Chase, Maryland.
That's a terrible thing to say about anyone. I'm sorry that I have to say it.
November 27, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Einstein
on what level of consciousness is the I-P conflict created? it is created on the basis of consciousness narrowly recognizing itself as a self-identity based on ethnic-racial-religious lines: i'm a muslim; i'm a christian; i'm a jew. these self-identities create the "other" which is seen as less worthy. prejudice, bigotry, and racism are based on the perception of illusionary hierarchical differences between human beings.
no one can point to a jew, christian, or muslim. these identity based differences are mental construct-images and have no reference in reality. what you point to when you point to what you think is a "muslim" is a human body, nothing more. those who see christians, muslims, or jews or who see themselves as such are just pointing to their own mental constructs. because people agree on the same mental construct does not make a it real. when behavior becomes based on mental constructs that create duality the result is conflict. the I-P conflict is two illusions, like two mirages, fighting with each other.
the true solution is the transcendence of these religious self-identities where they lose their importance in ultimately defining who we are. a human being is more than a belief system. when being a human becomes more important than being a jew, muslim, or christian the solution is there.
confucious said that there are three ways to attain wisdom. the inferior way is through experience. this is the way that jews and the arabs are trying right now. this involves the shedding of blood on both sides until such time that it is seen as a non-productive. the second way of attaining wisdom is via imitation. the jews and arabs can see that in other countries, such as the United States, different nationalities-ethnicities can live relatively in peace with each other. the jews and arabs can seek to imitate such behavior. the superior way of attaining wisdom is through contemplation where a higher level of consciusness sees the solution. when there is wisdom, not one drop of blood, not one tear need to be shed to resolve the I-P conflict.
November 27, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Muslims are not going to transcend their religious self-identities for another hundred years. They don't even transcend their religious self-identities in London. What's your plan B?
November 27, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop talking as if there is any moral equivalency. If there were, we would have millions of Jewish refugees living in misery and taught to hate for generations. Almost as many Jews as Arabs were forced from their homes (across the Arab world) in 48. The difference between their fate (citizens of Israel) and the fate of the Arabs who have been ghettoized by their own people (held in camps for generations by their own people) sums up the moral non-equivalence of the situation. The Palestinian refugees' misery serves the purposes of corrupt Arab rulers who find security in the anti-Jewish and anti-Western hate they are able to perpetuate.
November 27, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if Gilad Shalit is Semitic or not, but if he is, then there is literally no ethnic difference between him and Palestinian prisoners.
November 28, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, Arabs including Palestinian Arabs speak Arabic and mostly Muslims, Jews in Israel speak Hebrew and they are Jews. Other then that they are really the same.
November 28, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Israel cares more about it's citizens than it's enemies. Rosenberg seems to find something wrong in that. Every nation cares more about itself than it's enemies. Especially about it's own soldiers.
Rosenberg thinks this is racism. It's nationalism.
The Arabs held by Israel have mostly had trials or tribunals. The kidnapped soldier got nothing, Hamas acknowledges that he's just a hostage.
November 28, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strong words but true. I am a pro-Israel Jew who wants to see Israel prosper. But pointing out this hypocrisy will only drive people to attack me. As an American, I protested the Iraq war and was quickly called un-American. As a Jew, I protest this hypocrisy you so eloquently pointed out and other members of my community falsely accuse me of being anti-Israel. It is frustrating for us Jews who support the Jewish state see it going in this direction, with the right wing taking over and committing chillul HaShem in our name.
November 30, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I thought Elmer Berger and Afred Lilienthal were dead, but the spirits of these anti-Israel, once Jewish propagandists live on in Mr. Rosenberg. Now the annual Christmas party Rosenberg throws makes sense.
BTW, one of Israel's recent exchanges was for the body of an Arab Israeli soldier. So much for Rosenberg's "white" theory.
December 9, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink