Archive for June, 2007

Battered leftist syndrome

Sunday, June 3rd, 2007

Recently some commentators have started to use the phrase “battered nation syndrome” to explain the strange responses of some Israelis and Jews to Arab terrorism. The analogy is to an abusive relationship from which a woman (usually) won’t take steps to escape, because the continued violence has led to a loss in self-esteem and a conviction that the violence is somehow her fault.

Battered women often try to placate or conciliate their abusers, even when this behavior appears irrational to outsiders. And they often find that the abuser’s violent tendencies are actually reinforced by the victim’s passivity.

Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now writes

There is no way to avoid admitting the truth and to state clearly that the continued occupation, which this week will mark its 40th year, has inflicted a mortal wound on Israel’s status in the world. The British boycott is just the first harbinger of things to come.

A year ago, former US president Jimmy Carter published his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, which exposed a sad but accurate picture of the reality in the territories under Israeli control…

There is no way to avoid admitting the truth and to understand that the continued Israeli-Palestinian conflict presents Israel as an occupying nation, violent and forceful, which strives to conquer more territory and to expel Palestinian citizens from their land.

Oppenheimer is probably aware of the almost 100-year history of violent Arab rejection of a Jewish presence in the Middle East. Somehow he fails to make the connection between the fact and nature of the occupation and this rejection.

Even further, he fails to see that the occupation can’t possibly be a sufficient explanation for the extreme Israel-hatred that underlies the boycott, nor does he appear to notice that Carter is paid by Saudi Arabia for his work. How does he miss these things?

A reasonable person would conclude that Israel is being ‘presented’ as at fault here because the boycotters and Carter are trying to divert the blame for the conflict from violent Arab rejectionism and place it on Israel. But Oppenheimer doesn’t get it because he is a battered leftist.

He believes that the rejectionists can be placated by withdrawals from occupied territory, despite the fact that the violence started long before there even was a state of Israel, not to mention occupied territory. And he is unable to see that the conciliatory behavior that he favors, such as the withdrawals from South Lebanon and Gaza, have been perceived as weakness and have reinforced the violent tendencies of Israel’s abusers.

We need to see the abusers and their allies as they are, and not as distorted by the psychological defense mechanisms of those like Oppenheimer.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Sue Blackwell’s irrational hatred

Saturday, June 2nd, 2007

Whew. I just spent about 20 minutes on Sue Blackwell’s web site (just Google her). Blackwell, a highly energetic and apparently clever teacher of English and Linguistics at the University of Birmingham in the UK is one of those responsible for the intifada being waged against Israel by British academics. She is ‘disinterested’ in the conflict, being neither Arab nor Jewish, just motivated by her sense of justice.

Much of the material on her site refers to the treatment of Palestinians by Israel. There are links to articles ‘proving’ that Israel is racist, colonialist, etc. Blackwell is very much a socialist, writing that

Other than in self-defence the only war worth fighting is the class war. We live in a world where global capitalism is constantly exploiting the people who produce all the wealth, and wars between countries or peoples are an indirect result of that. For instance, Bush’s war-mongering against Iraq is not a war against terrorism, it’s a war for oil. Israel is a key player in the Middle East because of the oil in surrounding countries and the USA’s dependence on it.

Strange that Israel is a key player because of other nations’ oil, but the importance of Israel in Blackwell’s mindspace is overwhelming. When asked why she targets Israel when there are so many ‘other oppressive states’ in the world, including Arab states, she replies

I would say simply that two wrongs don’t make a right. The fact that there are other dreadful regimes in the world doesn’t make Israel any better. In my view, the sooner the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the rest are overthrown by their own people, the better. If they are, one of the reasons will be because they are seen by their subjects as having collaborated with the USA and Israel. It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the US and British governments are happy to do business with these disgusting regimes while condemning Iraq? But then they were happy to do business with Iraq a decade ago when it was fighting Iran.

Her answer is a massive non-sequitur which avoids the question, that is, why she singles out Israel. Of course she singles it out because she’s obsessed.

A strange section is a list of links to “Palestinian and Arab [women’s rights and] LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] organisations, and also to non-Palestinian LGBT organisations which prominently support Palestinian rights”. Given the fact that women and LGBT people are often arbitrarily subject to murder in the Palestinian areas, the irony is considerable. For example, there’s QUIT (Queers against Israeli Terrorism) who wouldn’t last 10 minutes on the streets of Gaza regardless of their position on Israel. But anyone who will say something negative about Israel is welcome, regardless of the irony.

There is a huge list of hundreds of links to every imaginable accusation, slander and calumny that has ever been thrown at Israel. I’m imagining Blackwell lovingly collecting them, putting together her large website, serving on numerous committees, boards, councils, etc. all concerned with attacking and delegitimizing Israel in one way or another, maintaining the correspondence this entails, etc.

Is it possible that someone of her obvious intelligence and education can fail to notice that Palestinians and other Arabs have been violently trying to expel Jews from the Middle East for almost a century? Can she miss the context of murderous terrorism by Arabs against Jews that is the background of the occupation that she so decries? Apparently it is and she can.

Why? I think that the obsession and the blind spots have a common root, a particular kind of mental illness. Here is what she says about antisemitism:

Anti-semitism means discriminating against people because they are Jewish, which is a question of ethnicity and/or religion – usually, but not always, both. I am not an anti-semite; on the contrary I am an active anti-racist as my colleagues, students and friends will attest. I am an anti-Zionist: Zionism is a political philosophy which some people choose for themselves to adopt, just like Thatcherism, liberalism or Marxism. I think it’s fair game to criticise people for their political beliefs: people criticise mine all the time!

If criticising the Israeli government constitutes anti-semitism, then all I can say is, firstly, there are an awful lot of anti-semitic Jewish people in the world; and secondly, by extension of the same logic any criticism of Robert Mugabe’s atrocious government in Zimbabwe is racist just because it’s a black-led government. Wrong is wrong, whatever the ethnicity or religion of the people doing it. If you are a consistent anti-racist you have to be an anti-Zionist as well as an anti-Nazi.

I don’t think she and I agree about what Zionism is, but that’s another article. For purposes of argument, it’s probably safe to say that the “anti-Zionism” that she advocates would eliminate Israel as a Jewish state, replacing it with an Arab majority entity.

As I’ve said before, while not all criticism of Israel is antisemitism, there is a certain extreme form of ‘criticism’ which is irrational and can only be called antisemitism. And Sue Blackwell’s site meets every one of the conditions:

  • Israel’s actions are seen as more reprehensible than far worse things done by other nations
  • Israel is bashed in all contexts (in this case, academics) even when the connection to politics is tenuous
  • Every imaginable accusation against Israel is given play, no matter how unreasonable (see her list of links)
  • There is a blindness to any possible mitigation (Arab terrorism is ignored, Israeli democracy minimized)
  • Israel’s motives for any given action are always assumed to be the worst possible (the security fence is to steal land)

This is not normal politics. It’s hatred, and there is a name for it.

Update [3 Jun 0802 PDT]: For another discussion of the motivations of the boycotters, see The Real Face of the Boycott Movement, at Simply Jews.

Technorati Tags: ,

Questions about the UCU boycott resolution

Friday, June 1st, 2007

Do you think the British Union of Colleges and Universities (UCU) boycott resolution is about the welfare of Palestinians? Do you think it represents a true grass-roots movement? Do you think the sponsors would like to see a reduction of tensions between Israel and the Palestinians? Do you wonder why they are not calling for a boycott on Iranian academics, who — by the same logic UCU use — support the persecution of progressive elements in their universities?

Do you wonder “what’s the point?”

Boycotts of Israel, called “anti-normalization,” have been endemic to Arab world trade unions for many years, in particular, Jordanian and Egyptian trade unions have used these boycotts to sabotage their country’s peace agreements with Israel, and to terrorize journalists and academicians into breaking off any contact with Israelis. This activity began long before the current Intifada and has nothing to do with the occupation. Aided by British anti-Zionist activists, these trade unions, supported by the most extreme elements in Palestinian society, in Egypt and Jordan, have now succeeded in exporting their racist campaign to other countries. Through the UCU, they have found a way to spread their poisonous approach.

Read the whole article here.

Technorati Tags: ,

A dangerous myth

Friday, June 1st, 2007

On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice made some interesting comments. Apparently she believes that Syrian President Assad should not be rewarded while he is creating chaos in Lebanon, perhaps to deflect attention from consideration of the Rafik Hariri murder:

“My understanding is that it is the view of Israelis, and certainly our view, that the Syrians are engaged in behavior right now that is destabilizing to the region,” Rice said to reporters traveling with her on a European tour that will also include stops in Vienna and Madrid.

The Palestinian issue “is at the core of a lot of problems in the region,” Rice added. She said “there is no substitute for trying to get to the place where the Palestinians finally have their state and the Israelis finally have a neighbor who can live in peace and security with them.”

The “Israeli-Palestinian track is extremely important” because it “unlocks the key” to “further engagement between the Arabs and the Israelis,” Rice said. [my emphasis]

I am quite happy for anything which interferes with the attempt to get Israel to give the Golan Heights back to Syria, since I believe that Syria is presently preparing for war in which the strategic value of the Golan will be paramount. However I find Rice’s comments on the Palestinians disturbing.

She appears to accept the view, promoted by the Saudis and others and often mentioned approvingly by the US State Department, that the “Palestinian problem” is at the root of the Israeli-Arab conflict, or even at some of the broader issues in the Middle East.

The corollary to this is that all we have to do is force Israel to make the needed concessions to give the Palestinians a satisfactory state and to solve the refugee problem, and Israeli-Arab wars will be a thing of the past.

There are many, many things wrong with this. The first is that the Arab nations couldn’t care less about the Palestinians except as a tool to destroy Israel, as has been shown by their treatment of the refugees (and what is going on in Lebanon today is an example). So there is no reason to think that even if the Palestinians could be made happy this would reduce the hostility to Israel’s existence in the wider Arab world.

Another major problem is that the Palestinians themselves — under their present leadership — cannot be given a state that will be ‘satisfactory’ to them, nor can there be a satisfactory ‘solution’ to the refugee problem that will leave the Jewish state in existence. Hamas, for its part, has been quite clear that they will not accept a state in the territories, except as a temporary expedient. And while elements of Fatah have claimed that they would be satisfied by a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders (something which is in itself unreasonable), there is plenty of evidence that Fatah, too, only sees this as a temporary condition. And both factions explicitly demand full right of return for refugees and their descendants.

Unfortunately, it is in part the prevalence of this myth that makes a real two-state solution impossible. This is because it leads the Palestinians to believe that their unreasonable demands will ultimately be granted, because the world will support them in forcing Israel to concede.

The other part of the puzzle is that both the Palestinians and the Arab world now believe that Israel can be defeated militarily. So there is no reason for them to move in the direction of accommodation.

What should Israel do in this situation? Unfortunately, there is probably no way to undo the perception of weakness created by last summer’s war other than by fighting another war and this time winning it. I expect that the Palestinians, Hezbollah, Syria, or some combination thereof will provide the opportunity in the near future. So a high degree of military preparedness is required.

On the diplomatic front, conciliatory behavior is seen as weakness (at least until the perception of military weakness has been dispelled). Israeli offers to meet Palestinian needs will simply open the door to new demands. Therefore the best stance for Israel to take is the most hard-line one possible: there must be no talks with the Palestinians or the Arab nations about anything unless and until all terrorism and incitement stops.

As I’ve said before, Israel is in as much danger today as it has been at any time since 1948, even without considering the Iranian nuclear threat. This is a result of the incompetence of the last few governments, which laid the groundwork for last summer’s defeat.

The nation has overcome huge odds, as in 1967, and has managed to find creative solutions to difficult problems, as in Entebbe in 1974. At this critical point, there’s one overriding need: competent, courageous and dedicated leadership.

Technorati Tags: