See editorial note
How should one regard a decision having to do with violations of human rights when passed by an organization with member countries such as Iran, Eritrea, Congo and Venezuela? Why is the U.N.’s human rights council so obsessive and overanxious about Israel? In the face of grave violations of human rights in Muslim countries, in Africa, and in European countries such as Turkey and Russia, how on earth is it possible that the council exclusively focuses on Israel, the sole democracy in the Middle East? These are the questions that rise within every sensible Israeli mind when U.N. resolutions which are anti-Israeli in the best cases– and anti-Semitic in the worst cases– are time and again put to a vote.
However, in this battlefield the U.N. is not alone but part of an alliance. Radical left-wing activists such as Gideon Levy and Amira Hass make and seize every opportunity to discredit and to present a falsified picture of Israel, in complete disregard of the proper context, not without at the same time pretending to be acting for the sake of regional peace. The U.N. and the human rights organizations are so fond of the radical Israeli left-wing. Albeit in reality, the Israeli left-wing is perhaps the most harmful factor and an impediment to the peace process. The world easily forgets that Israel is a parliamentary democracy, in which the decisions are taken by a government whose rule is subject to the confidence of the parliament, a parliament which, unlike the other countries of the region, is elected in general elections to 4-years terms. The Israeli government must comply with the will of the general public and cannot act in an independent and arbitrary manner, as is the case with the other countries of the region. Moreover, in most cases and by the very nature of democracy, the government in Israel is a reflection of the public.
A while ago I attended a lecture by Amira Hass given at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She presented her views on the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict while using a seemingly contrived guttural pronunciation of the Hebrew letter “ayin”, reminiscent of the Arabic pronunciation, as if she were trying to adopt a different identity than her own.
Hass mentioned the alleged injustice practiced by Israel and as a side comment, she called a specific clash between IDF forces and Palestinians “a massacre” (a side comment left unnoticed by many). In her lecture, Hass completely disregarded the contexts of things – both the contemporary and the historical ones. No reference was made to the terrorist attacks against Israelis and at the same time typical anti-Israel nomenclature was excessively used.
After the lecture, I made up my mind to ask a question once permitted by the host. My question was: “I would appreciate it if I could hear your response to those people claiming to hold such extreme agendas and making use of such extreme post-Zionist rhetoric which gives rise to a justified public antagonism and is thus harmful to the peace process. As a consequence, those who are supportive of the two-state solution based on the borders of 1967 as the preferred outcome of the peace process, such as myself, prefer to identify with the settlers of the West Bank rather than with you.”
Her response was a bit hasty and insecure. She replied that from her point of view, she would be satisfied to see me participate in certain rallies. In reply, I said that her presence will prevent me from taking part in such rallies, as I cannot identify with such twisted rhetoric. Several people from the audience nodded in a gesture of approval.
I am not on my own. There are very few Israelis who identify with Hass, most of them were in that small university lecture hall. In the general public they do not exist.
A glance at the outcome of the recent general elections is sufficient in order to understand the present political trend in Israel. The prime minister is paralyzed. He cannot live up to the expectations of the international community. The current freezing of the settlement expansion caused him a great deal of anxiety and stress. The reason is clear: the Israeli public made an abrupt right turn and voted for parties who do not exactly consider the peace process to be the most urgent of all issues.
What were the reactions in the West? In the United Kingdom an arrest warrant was issued earlier this month for Tzipi Livni, the leader of Israel’s largest party – and one who urges for a solution which involves far-reaching compromises from the Israeli side. Many Israelis put their trust in Livni, head of opposition to PM Netanyahu’s government and daughter of an “Irgun” combatant, who used a benign and appealing rhetoric rather than an antagonizing one.
I hereby call upon all peace activists, wherever they may be around the globe, who truly crave for a peaceful and just solution for Israel and the Palestinians: Please ask yourselves, could your choice of terminology, attitude, and strategy antagonize the Israeli public, a public whose overwhelming majority yearns for peace, and encourage them to cast their votes in favor of right-wing parties who call for eternal Israeli rule over the occupied territories?
Europe should actively promote peace but at the same time remember that Israel was the one who in 1948 embraced the U.N. partition plan when the Arabs opposed it and initiated Israel’s war of independence, a decision that later proved to be disastrous for their national cause. Although Israel ought to withdraw from the territories, the West should also bear in mind that they were occupied in a war which was imposed on Israel. European peace activists should call for a better life for the inhabitants of Gaza and at the same time recognize Israel’s right of self-defense. Peace activists around the world must use a more balanced rhetoric both for the sake of justice and for making a long-lasting peace something feasible.
Itay Hadad is a senior year student of Political Science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Delicious
Just a brief premise for the author of this article: try to consider my observations in a constructive way – I mean, not as a condemnation but as a discussion. So, let’s begin. The difference between Israel and the Muslim countries is that the latter violate the human rights of their own peoples, while Israel violates human rights of another people in a land which does not belong to Israel. So, maybe you prefer to hear that Israel is not better than the Muslim regimes? Or do you mean that bombing and starving another people is acceptable because there are other (undemocratic) regimes that violate human rights? Is this the superiority of Western culture, or of the Israeli culture? Maybe we shouldn’t care about the U.N.’s human rights council or about any other international organization, but we should care about what is right and what is wrong.
Israel is a parliamentary democracy for the Israelis but is undemocratic with Israeli Arabs and with non-Israelis. Of course this is not a problem concerning only Israel. It regards also many European countries, and many Arab countries. Minorities are always discriminated. And Israel is no exception.
How do you call the killing of 1.400 people, mostly civilians? Well, I call it a massacre. Of course, it’s not the only one in the world, and also Israelis are killed in some cases, but it is a massacre, and unfortunately Tzipi Livni is responsible of that, despite her benign rhetoric. This is not to say that Israel is always wrong, or that Israelis have no reasons, but they should be careful, because if they (and in particular their governments) continue to act this way, their faults will exceed their reasons. The right of self-defense is not the right to massacre; the right to exist is not the right to oppress another people.
In general, we (Israelis, Europeans, or Americans) should be aware of what our governments do. They have done, they do, and keep on doing horrible and awful things, and we don’t know anything of it.
Thank you, and may be peace in Israel and Palestine