Israel's hypocrisy
Crossposted from jesselava.com.
Glenn Greenwald is right that if the Israelis are going to accept financial and military aid from the U.S., they shouldn't act indignant when we encourage them to undertake U.S.-friendly policies -- like ceasing the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. But Israel's hypocrisy on this front runs even deeper than that.
Israel has been America's most vocal cheerleader as we've stuck our nose in the Middle East's business repeatedly over the last 20 years. The Israelis were right there with us when we went to war in 1991 to stop Iraq from annexing Kuwait. They were with us when we kept bombing Iraq throughout the 1990s. They were with us when we invaded and conquered Iraq in 2003 -- despite there being no precipitating act of Iraqi aggression. And they're now leading the rah-rah chorus to have us attack Iran. Yet Israel somehow has the stones to cry foul when President Obama gently suggests that it back off of its endless encroachment into Palestinian territory.
The hypocrisy truly boggles the mind.
If Israel wanted to be intellectually and ethically consistent, it would demand that we respond to its violations of international law by bombing Tel Aviv into oblivion. After all, that's been its proposal for how we deal with every other country in the Middle East. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for consistency from Israel. Instead, we should use every bit of (legal) leverage at our disposal to stop Israeli rejectionism and foster a stable Middle East.
Update: Lest there be any misunderstanding, my comment about bombing Tel Aviv into oblivion is a reductio ad absudum argument. Obviously we wouldn't want to do that, which is precisely the point.
Glenn Greenwald is right that if the Israelis are going to accept financial and military aid from the U.S., they shouldn't act indignant when we encourage them to undertake U.S.-friendly policies -- like ceasing the expansion of settlements in the Palestinian West Bank. But Israel's hypocrisy on this front runs even deeper than that.
Israel has been America's most vocal cheerleader as we've stuck our nose in the Middle East's business repeatedly over the last 20 years. The Israelis were right there with us when we went to war in 1991 to stop Iraq from annexing Kuwait. They were with us when we kept bombing Iraq throughout the 1990s. They were with us when we invaded and conquered Iraq in 2003 -- despite there being no precipitating act of Iraqi aggression. And they're now leading the rah-rah chorus to have us attack Iran. Yet Israel somehow has the stones to cry foul when President Obama gently suggests that it back off of its endless encroachment into Palestinian territory.
The hypocrisy truly boggles the mind.
If Israel wanted to be intellectually and ethically consistent, it would demand that we respond to its violations of international law by bombing Tel Aviv into oblivion. After all, that's been its proposal for how we deal with every other country in the Middle East. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for consistency from Israel. Instead, we should use every bit of (legal) leverage at our disposal to stop Israeli rejectionism and foster a stable Middle East.
Update: Lest there be any misunderstanding, my comment about bombing Tel Aviv into oblivion is a reductio ad absudum argument. Obviously we wouldn't want to do that, which is precisely the point.
Advertisement
Jesse has a point.
Israel has one set of standards for itself and a different set for everyone else.
June 4, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well... Israel, at least its lobbies here in America, did more than cheerlead our Mideast incursions; they actively campaigned for them, just as they are pressing for a military assault on Iran that may have already begun. Without their ministry, it's doubtful the "war on terror" would have involved the invasion of a country utterly blameless in the 9/11 attacks. Afterwards, our occupation army in Iraq became part of a growing American military force in that region, a process begun in 1990 by Bush 41. With an American army stationed in the middle of the region, spitting its most dangerous foes - Iran and Syria- the Israelis are free to continue and intesify whatever savage policy comes to mind.
June 4, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Decider-in-Chief had a personal grudge match coming, and then it's hard to figure if the neocons were part of AIPAC or only a closely allied symbiot. Actually, our actions made a lot of Iran's problems go away, possibly some of our co-travellers had mixed allegiance, but if we stick out our noses, not surprising that someone will guide us by them.
June 4, 2009 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Jesse, you have got a lot of courage to post this. Maybe Obama's speech will give us all the green light to say what is so obvious but has been a third rail of conversation for so long.
I am so impressed with our President, and the way he tells uncomfortable truths in ways that are not insulting or jarring. I wish I had one one hundredth of his ability (I know, I know, many here wish the same for me). But the crux is, that he is gently telling Israel that he will be firm with them.
I'll bet that AIPAC is writing the latest letter/email for their sycophants to publish even as I write this!
For a country that gets more money per capita than any other, a little cooperation, if not humility might be nice.
June 4, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, C Ville. Too much has been left unsaid. Hypocrisy has not been confronted.
For a country which has long intervened in our politics, to accuse us of that is ridiculous.
Every nation should live by the same rules. War crimes by any nation, including Israel, including ourselves, are verboten. And no nation can go around claiming territory that's been declared off limits.
I hope more people speak up!
June 5, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
So who hasn't spoken up? The whole world speaks up. . and constantly, about Israel. Durban II made it embarassingly clear. Rightly or wrongly, it is a myth, an ugly myth, to suggest that discussion about Israel is stifled. Indeed, it is one of the oldest and ugliest myths in Western discourse that somehow criticism of Jews and, these days, Israel, is stifled. It's a myth that connotes the kind of extraordinary control that just ain't there.
It's vogue, even now, for many to say that criticism of Israel is stifled. Is it vogue too to scoff at this or that Jew who sees a little pattern over the millenia? Or is that just stifling deflection?
June 5, 2009 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't veiled accusations (or ones explicit) of anti-Semitism exactly how criticism of Israeli policy has been stifled, Bruce, especially in this country? Given our common histories, particulary that of the last century, anti-Semitism is one of the most grave charges that can be leveled at any gentile, yet this accusation has been used to tar baselessly critics of Israel's foreign and domestic policies, and of the activities of Israel's lobbies in this country. There are no legitimate arguments that Israel should be prevented from plying our slatternly politicians as much as any other foreign country, but debate over our country's relationship with Israel should be open and unfettered, since it's so critical to American foreign policy in the world's most volatile region.
June 5, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
But where are the accuasations around these parts Curt, except by the isolated ninnyheads from the radical and irrational Israel right or wrong rightwing? At least in the Cafe, we write in a milieu where the stifling accuasations just ain't so.
I do agree an accuasation of anti-semitism to a gentile is poison. I am aware of it; I've been guilty on occasion in my half-century of unfairly levying it, I see people do it now, people close to me, but I think the notion that the fear of the accuasation has stifled criticism of Israel is unfair, and has the opposite poisonous effect about which I write.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I do appreciate the empathy inherent in your words, and I recognize that and relish it because we often disagree on substance.
Bruce
June 5, 2009 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed you seemed to be guilty of levying this charge -- implicitly -- in your previous comment. Yes, it's wrongheaded, unfair, and obnoxious to cry that arguments against Israeli militarism or the hypocrisy of public officials reflects some historical pattern of anti-semitism.
June 5, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully, baloney. That's what you call levying the charge, even implicitly? I rest.
June 5, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's vogue, even now, for many to say that criticism of Israel is stifled. Is it vogue too to scoff at this or that Jew who sees a little pattern over the millenia? Or is that just stifling deflection?"
Are you saying that you yourself weren't "scoffing at this" (which you explicitly did) or that you don't "see a little pattern over the millenia" pertaining to Jews? You're just genuinely asking whether that's stifling deflection rather than making a rhetorical point?
June 5, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is this "Israel" you speak of? Perhaps you mean the Patriarch Jacob, aka "Israel"? Otherwise, I'm baffled, because you appear to think that a country can speak and act and do things as if it were a living solitary human being. Is that what you're saying?
Now, if you're saying that certain Israelis should behave with more humility and cooperation toward the "United States," then I might agree with you.
June 4, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, certain Israelis.
You know, like the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, and so on.
Those certain Israelis.
June 4, 2009 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to my advanced course in English style and usage. Lesson one: it's customary to attribute an action to a nation as a whole if said action is carried out by those who are acting in an official capacity for said nation.
June 4, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jesse, I'm with you. You communicated my snark better than I did, but I was trying to say the same thing in response to tomfodw.
tomfodw is technically correct that not all Israelis believe this way, but (1) they're not in control of the gummint, and (2) if you break down the party lines of the last election, if they are a majority of Israelis, they ain't votin'.
The "certain Israelis" tomfodw is talking about are people like these folks (h/t Josh). You know, "certain Israelis" like Bibi Netanyahu, who just happens to be running the country right now. (Check out Gershom Gorenberg's piece in the Prospect, also linked from Josh's post, for more descriptions of the rhetoric and actions of "certain Israelis" who just happen to be, you know, gummint ministers, members of Parliament, and arms of the gummint dedicated to subsidizing people who move into West Bank settlements -- oh, excuse me, neighborhoods.)
June 5, 2009 3:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I actually meant to reply to his comment rather than yours and didn't mean to give the impression I was lecturing you. :)
June 5, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing about this whole mess is that the 'Israelis" are fighting among themselves with regard to ME peace.
We need to do whatever we can to do foster a ME peace.
Good Post Jesse.
June 4, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd!
June 4, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why can't the settlements stay, but under Palestinian sovereignty? In Gaza all the Israelis were forcibly evicted as part of the withdrawal. It seems to me that they should have been allowed to stay if they wanted to. Certainly the withdrawal didn't work out very well.
Is the assumption that the Arabs would simply massacre all the Jews? Or would the Arabs end up confiscating all their land anyway?
Since the Israelis are going to have an Arab minority no matter what, what's wrong with the Palestinians having a Jewish minority?
June 4, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I've been saying for years now. Don't dismantle the settlements. Just tell the settlers "Hey, you want to live in Hebron? Ariel? Beit El? Fine. You are now citizens of Palestine. Have fun."
Really, to be fair, some, most, or all of them ought to get in line behind Palestinian families for those nice apartments being built on Palestinian land. (And given how very heavily armed, and extremely violent, some of the settlers are, we'd probably have to do something about their guns as well.)
Jeff Halper, of the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD), actually has a far more serious and thoughtful proposal that I like a lot. I wish more people would work toward something like this.
June 5, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give a madman a gun.
June 5, 2009 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel would never be bombed silly, all of the oil fields are to the east.
June 5, 2009 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whose hypocrisy?
CUT all funding and STOP the export to Israel of CAT bulldozers and
ALL EARTH-MOVING EQUIPMENT
F16 & F15 FIGHTER/ BOMBER AIRCRAFT
CLUSTER BOMBS
BUNKER BUSTING BOMBS
ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES
TANKS & ARMORED VEHICLES
GUNS & ARTILLERY
ELECTRONIC MISSILE SYSTEMS
COVERT LISTENING DEVICES
UNMANNED DRONES
PLUTONIUM FOR NUCLEAR WARHEADS
CHEMICAL & BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL FOR WMD
WHITE PHOSPHORUS & TOXIC GASES
June 5, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesse, rec'd this just for the cohones it takes to put this out there. I do think there is something wrong with this way of looking at the ME situation, and Israel in particular. Hypocrisy on the part of Israel? Who cares. Countries are all to some extent hypocritical when it comes to justifying national security policy. They speak and act for their national interests. Their policy as regards the Palestinians amounts to State Terrorism on a massive scale. So hypocrisy is really the least of their faults. The US is however much more egregiously hypocritical in hand-wringing over settlement expansion while subsidizing the self-same. It will be interesting to see if Obama will stop this hypocrisy. I give it 50/50...
June 5, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, and I actually said as much last night when a friend called me to talk about how he thought this post was below my usual standards. :) Yes you're right: every country is hypocritical, particularly those with enough power to stick their noses in the business of others. Absolutely correct.
June 5, 2009 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jo-Ann Mort's seems to be a potent rebuttal to the central thesis of this post, which as I read this, presumes that the Israeli people are resisting in the aggregage the statements of President Obama about both the expansion of settlements and the creation of new ones. I would read Ms. Mort's posts. Not so "heroic" as thsi one perhaps, but I think more accurate. Israelis are pretty receptive to what it takes to bring peace, and they have factions that will resist the dismantling of settlements indeed (Netanyahu has some tough internal political decisions to make). But the mistake of this post is that it presumes that to be the sentiment of most Israelis. It doesn't appear to be so.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/05/friday_poll_in_israel_shows_majoritysolid_support/
June 5, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is that the central thesis of my post at all? If someone says "the Americans invaded Iraq" that's correct even if the vast majority of Americans did not, in fact, do that. It's customary to refer in that way to those who act in an official capacity for a country.
June 5, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what is the official position of the Israeli government right now? There are whackos in the coalition, and their are more rational ones. They say different things. I don't think it's surprising or even fair to charge the whackos with the official government position. As to Netanyahu, who I am no fan of, he's being close to the vest and in negotiating mode. So, again, I don't understand your thesis I guess.
June 5, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over the years Israel has officially supported tons of military actions to deal with the infractions others, and their officials have wanted the U.S. to apply more military pressure to Iran and Iraq and others. Now that Israel is the one committing an infraction, they say we're meddling in their internal affairs if we even TELL them to stop, let alone try to bomb them into it. They've supported interference with others but reject it for themselves; that's the hypocrisy.
June 5, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your point is that because Israel has, to whatever extent, at times supported American military or other intervention against countries like Iran and Iraq, it is hypocritical for Israel's government to disagree with the United States on any matter concerning the State of Israel?
OK, obviously the fans loved your post; you were right up there on the top of the charts! :) Mazal tov.
Bruce
June 5, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, no. I'm saying they're all for meddling in response to violations of international law -- until it's their turn to be meddled with, in response to their own violations of international law.
June 5, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - I would say that the polls are very misleading on the settlments. If the poll had asked specifically if each of the following settlments should either be dismantled or under Palestinian jurisdiction, my experience tells me the answers would be overwhelmingly no(75%+).
Immanu'el - Almost at the border of Nablus.
Eli and Shilo - Southeast of Ariel
Bet El and Ofra - Northeast of Ramallah
The list could go on and on and doesn't even consider the giant settlements of Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim. The latter for example has municipal coundries larger than Tel Aviv and extend all the way to Jericho city limits. It's large enough by itself to house several hundred thousand Israelis.
I've done this kind of polling by naming dozens of specific settlements on hundreds of Israelis over the past few years and invariably it comes down to favoring dismantling of the settlements except for that one, that one, that one, that one etc etc for as long as my list is. I realize my methodology is anecdotal and unscientific, but if anyone else knows some Israelis you can try this approach yourself.
June 5, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that the polls are incomplete, and not misleading to the extent that there is no distinction drawn between the Ma'ale Adumims and different and more intrusive settlements. Still, you know and I know, and everyone who wants a settlement knows, that MAs of the world aren't going to disappear, and the issue then becomes the quality of land that will be given to the Palestinians as compensation. At this point, President Obama has, for good sound negotiating reasons, drawn no distinctions between occupied territory, even for example Hebrew University right, but it'll all have to be ironed out.
June 5, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
should have been "if not somewhat misleading in 1st sentence..."
June 5, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink