I meant to post this long ago...
On
May 23rd, the FT ran an opinion piece entitled, "Why Israel cannot always rely on America's helping hand." In this piece, Tony Judt discusses Israel's immaturity. I will attempt to point out all the flaws to his argument. He starts out with
By the age of 58 a country - like a man - should have achieved a certain
maturity… But the state of Israel, which has just turned 58, remains
curiously immature.
This first sentence exposes Judt's ignorance to the situation. The following is a list of country's around Israel, type of government they have, and how old they are:
Saudi Arabia: A religious monarchy governed by Sharia law (74 years young and women still can not drive a car)
Jordan: A constitutional monarchy (60 years young)
Syria: An authoritarian, military-dominated dictatorship ruled by one family since 1963 (60 years young)
Egypt: A Republic with the People's Assembly basically appointing the President (84 years young and basically a dictatorship with the same president (Mubarak) since 1981)
Libya: A Military Dictatorship (55 years young with a law system based on Italian law and Islamic Law)
Kuwait: A Consitutional Hereditary Emirate (ruled by an Emir who is a descendant of the last Emir – The Emir appoints the government – political parties are illegal) (45 years young)
Iraq: Chaos
(Source: CIA Factbook)
I need say no more!
Judt goes on to state…
Before 1967 Israel may have been tiny and embattled, but it was not typically
hated: certainly not in the west. Most admirers (Jews and non-Jews) knew little
about the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948.
First, Judt asserts that 1948 was a catastrophe for Palestinians. While I agree, I assume he believes that this "catastrophe" was Israel's fault. However, if the Arabs agreed to the UN mandate and did not go to war against the infant Israel, the Arabs would never have known of any hardships resulting from a "catastrophe."
Michael Bard puts it best with his view of the Palestinian "refugee":
The Palestinians left their homes in 1947-48
for a variety of reasons. Thousands of wealthy Arabs left in anticipation of a
war, thousands more responded to Arab leaders' calls to get out of the way of
the advancing armies, a handful were expelled, but most simply fled to avoid
being caught in the cross fire of a battle. Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN
resolution, not a single Palestinian would have become a refugee
and an independent Arab state would now exist beside Israel.
At this point in Judt's article, he explodes with why Israel is NOW hated:
But today everything is different. We can see, in retrospect, that Israel's
victory in June 1967 and its occupation of the territories it conquered then
have been the Jewish state's very own nakba: a moral and political catastrophe.
Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza have magnified its shortcomings to a
watching world. The routines of occupation and repression were once familiar
only to an informed minority; today, computer terminals and satellite dishes put
Israel's behaviour under daily global scrutiny. The result has been a complete
transformation in the international view of Israel.
Once again, Judt fogets that Israel was attacked and occupies former Arab land because it must protect itself. An analogy is sufficient for explanation. If you neighbor repeatedly bombs your house from a tree sitting between your two houses (but owned by your neighbor), you will be forced to "occupy" that tree and protect it from evil use.
Judt goes on to state that pro-Israeli advocates claims that anti-Israel sentiment is inherently anti-Semitic is self-fulfilling. While I agree that anti-Semitism is on the rise, it is not because of this assertion. This assertion is correct because Israel's justification for defense is sound and claims against this basic fact must be based on ignorance, bigotry, anti-Semitism, or all three.
Judt finishes with his explanation of why Israel is so aragant: US support. He also points to the flawed
Mearsheimer/Walt essay. He continues this essay's questioning of the US support of such a small country that presents only a "strategic burden." However, Israel and the US have much in common: a robust economy, a democratic government, and they are both targets of political Islam and its attempts to destroy liberty and freedom around the world.
Judt's states that the US will not always back up Israel (he underestimates the American people's commitment to freedom and liberty). He also recommends that Israel start to dismantle settlements and open up negotiations with the Palestinians. He bases this recommendation on the fact that Israel is so distrusted that it must give in. I think he should read the history of Yasser Arafat's problems with the truth and currently Hamas's view towards Israel as a state.
Finally, Judt states that "colonies are always doomed unless you are willing to expel or exterminate the indigenous population." I think the public must be exposed to how the anti-Israel lobby views the world. They see the US and Israel as colonizers and apologizes for France, middle-eastern dictatorships, and socialism.
Approaching the rally - a good size crowd!
A little Yentaing before the speeches (Notice the sign thanking President Bush. No matter our party affiliation, I think we should all THANK the president for being the only leader to fully support the Israeli operation. This is in stark contrast to the unfortunate response from Europe.)
Exactly!
A good crowd (there are a lot more people behind me) settles into the 100 degree heat for the speeches to start.
The first politician (Ehrlich) takes the stage to tell the audience that America is behind Israel 100%. This is a nice picture with the Capital in the background and a great sign to the right. Amen my Jewish brother!
The crowd gets bigger!
Ambassador Ayalon with his bodyguard (who I met a couple months ago at the embassy - ONE SCARY DUDE!)
Am Yisrael Chai!
Senator Brownback
Congressman Wexler
Congressman Cardin
A random Rabbi from the back of the crowd!
Big Blue!
Quite a crowd!!!!
