| Number 153 | April 12, 2002 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, It's an extra-long issue of Nygaard Notes this week. Numbers 144 and 145 were extra-long, too, and before February of this year I hadn't gone overboard like this for more than two years. I broke this issue up into relatively small pieces, though, so you can print it out and read in a little at a time. (Hey, if you think it's so easy, let's see YOU try to condense a summary of the conflict in the Middle East down to 2,000 words!) Anyhow... I always say how much I enjoy hearing from readers, and that is true. But it's also important to Nygaard Notes that readers hold me accountable to the standards I try to set, for myself and for all of us. A great example is an exchange from last week between reader Patrick and me, a part of which I publish this week. In the essay that follows that exchange, "U.S. Power and U.S. Will," I clarify and amplify the point that I sloppily hinted at last week. Generous reader and Nygaard Notes supporter Elizabeth from St. Paul has donated a wonderful notebook computer to Nygaard Notes. This amazing gift will make the weekly task of producing the Notes easier and more efficient. While the average reader may not notice any difference, I certainly shall! Many, many thanks, Elizabeth!! Thanks as well to the readers who have renewed their pledges of support to Nygaard Notes. This project really could not happen without you. Gratefully yours, Nygaard |
|
|
There are a lot of things one could do to help bring peace in the Middle East. Rather than list an overwhelming bunch of them, I'll just give one easy and obvious one. I don't even claim that it is necessarily the best one, but it might be a good place to start. At this point, there is little hope for even a cease-fire in the region unless the United States decides to go along with the idea of an international peacekeeping force to be introduced into the occupied territories. The European Parliament called for just such a force as a part of their "Resolution on the Middle East" passed this week. Numerous Palestinian and other groups around the world have been calling for such a force for months. Write and call your elected representatives, introduce a resolution in your political group, write to your local newspaper, donate money to a group that is promoting the idea, or talk to your neighbors. Do whatever you are comfortable with, and do it now. |
|
It is difficult for many people who otherwise consider themselves "progressive" to speak up in support of the human rights of Palestinians. I think there are a number of reasons for this, and one of them is that criticism of Israel exposes one to the charge of being anti-Semitic. This is logically false, since criticism of Israeli policies is criticism of Israeli policies. But there is a real danger here that gives this charge some power: Some people who criticize Israeli policies are motivated by genuine anti-Jewish prejudice. Solidarity with Jewish people who have suffered centuries of oppression all over the world does not, however, equate to uncritical support for Israel. As always, it is of crucial importance to distinguish between the citizens of a nation and its government. Since September 11th, the logical error in this equation should be easy to see for anyone who has spoken out against the rapidly-growing "national security" apparatus in this country. Who among us has not heard prominent politicians and other officials equate dissent from the Bush agenda with "support for terror?" Similarly, supporters of the government of Israel often accuse those who are critical of the government there of being "anti-Semitic." (by which they mean "anti-Jew," even though Arabs and many other non-Jews are also Semites. "Semitic" is actually a language classification that includes quite a number of languages.) To criticize the government of Israel for their violations of the rights of Palestinians is to ally oneself with the tens of thousands of Jews, inside of Israel and out, who have been courageously raising their voices in support of the human rights of all of the people in the region. Some of these people have been speaking and acting for justice over many years, often at great risk and cost to themselves. It is the responsibility of all people of principle to do the same. But I must reiterate: Some critics of Israeli policies are motivated by nothing noble at all, but simply use this platform to help them carry out their anti-Jewish agenda. These people must be identified, clearly named, and isolated. Solidarity demands that we stand in support of both Jews and Palestinians, and that we refuse to equate support for one with hatred or dehumanization of the other. |
|
Reader Catches Nygaard Being Sloppy; Nygaard Appreciates Reader |
|
I rarely publish the many exchanges I have with readers, but this week is an exception. Conscientious and faithful reader Patrick wrote after the last issue came out and quoted back to me some of my words from Issue #152. I had said,
Patrick said, "Are you sure you mean this? I think this is a dangerous notion for many reasons and underlying the essence of what I think is untrue about it is the notion that our "superpower" is the only kind of power that can make things happen." "You're right, Patrick! When I said this I was speaking in the narrow sense of the U.S. being the only individual nation-state with the political/economic/military power to force an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories in the short term. And, had I felt like I had the room, I would have added that even this reality is only true in an environment where United Statesians are not so ignorant and/or passive as to allow our nation to ignore international law and morality. The way I phrased it in #152 made it seem much too broad. If Nygaard Notes doesn't stand for anything else, it certainly stands for the idea that moral force is more powerful than any "superpower's" guns could ever be! So, thanks for being correct and catching my sloppy shorthand." |
|
People of conscience the world over are calling for Israel to pull out of the occupied territories. Speaking of the U.S. responsibility for "reining in" the Israeli military, Mohammed Benaissa, foreign minister of Morocco, said last week, "People are getting desperate. If America doesn't do it, nobody else can do it." French President Jacques Chirac has stated that "America [is] indispensable to any agreement." To state that "nobody else" but the United States can force Israel to pull out of the illegally-occupied territories is not to speak at all of justice or morality. It is simply to acknowledge that the United States is the world's sole superpower, and the chief sponsor and backer of the state of Israel. "Power" in this sense means economic and military power, and the diplomatic power which flows from them. Enhanced by the fact that the U.S. funds a large part of the Israeli government's operations—including those specifically condemned by the international community, such as the current expansion of the 35-year-old occupation of the West Bank and Gaza—the United States bears a unique responsibility for the horrendous crimes currently being committed. U.S. Involvement: How "President Bush reversed course today and thrust his administration into a central role in the Middle East crisis," the NY Times reported when "President" Bush decided last week to send Colin Powell to the region. This comment reflects the absurd, but apparently commonly-held, belief that the United States had not been "actively engaged" in the conflict up until then. The U.S. Congressional Research Service, in a report issued last month, points out that "Israel is not economically self-sufficient, and relies on foreign assistance and borrowing to maintain its economy," not to mention its military. A large part of that maintenance is supplied by the United States, which has given Israel more than $80 billion in various forms of aid since its founding in 1947, upwards of $19 billion of that in the past 5 years alone. Bush's request for the current fiscal year comes to more than $2.8 billion dollars, 72% of which he would like to be in the form of military assistance. The infamous Merkava tank that is being used so brutally by Israel in the re-occupation of the West Bank, for example, is paid for by U.S. tax dollars, as are Israel's Apache helicopters and F-16s. It is a remarkable, even startling, propaganda feat that anyone would refer to the United States as an "honest broker" seeking "peace," yet this remains a widely-shared perception in this country. U.S. Involvement: Why As Stephen Shalom put it in a recent essay, "The basic problem in the Israel-Palestine conflict today remains what it's been for decades: the denial of self-determination to the Palestinian people." Unfortunately, while the U.S. does have a unique responsibility in the region, the likelihood of the U.S. government acting in the interest of Palestinian self-determination is remote, at best. It is an axiom of the U.S. political culture that the security of U.S. citizens and institutions is the very definition of "peace," as evidenced by the fact that this country has been considered to be at "peace" for most of the past twenty years (Iraq, Bosnia, and Afghanistan being the exceptions), despite direct U.S. military actions in Panama, Grenada, Haiti, and the Sudan, plus U.S-run proxy wars in Nicaragua and Colombia. The same definition of "peace" has been extended to Israel, as the "President" obliquely stated in explaining to the British ITV network on April 5th the reasons for his decision to get "more involved" in the current conflict:
According to the "President" of the United States, after 35 years of illegal military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel, only now are the foundations of peace "becoming eroded." A hint as to the real reason that the Bush administration has decided to get "more involved" appeared in the New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print") of April 5th, when that paper reported that, "in seeking support in the Arab world for an eventual attempt to topple Saddam Hussein in Iraq, [Mr. Bush] has been obliged to try to shore up his position among Arab friends of Mr. Arafat." At the moment, that involves a trip by the Secretary of State, whose first stop included "frank pleas to two Arab leaders for more help in stopping Palestinian violence," according to the Times. |
|
Following a trend kicked into high gear during the 1991 U.S. attack on Iraq, U.S. journalists were essentially barred from any theaters of action in Afghanistan, as part of a wider propaganda campaign carried out by the Bush administration during our war there. The Israeli military has carried the effort to new heights during its re-occupation of the West Bank, in a largely-unsuccessful attempt to evade world censure.
Those comments, from an April 7th report filed by the Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders, adds that they are seeing an "unprecedented deterioration in press freedom" due to the behavior of the Israeli military. An April 9th report from the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists tells the same story, adding that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has declared most of the major cities that they are attacking "closed military areas" and therefore off-limits to the press, including Ramallah, Jenin, and Bethlehem. Journalists trying to do their jobs report being detained by the military, having their tapes and press credentials confiscated, and being shot at. On March 13 an Italian journalist was killed by Israeli tank fire. The International Federation of Journalists in Belgium has protested several times in recent months over Israeli targeting of Palestinian broadcasting buildings and actions to "derecognise the status of Palestinian journalists." There are reports of cameramen, photographers, and reporters being attacked and detained, and press offices have been raided. Clearly-marked official press vehicles have been fired upon, and Pacifica Radio's "Democracy Now!" program reported this week that the IDF has, on at least one occasion, actively censored a news report filed by the Associated Press and distributed on their wire. Few in this country have heard about this, although it would no doubt be front page news were it being done by a country designated as an "enemy" of the U.S. As is true in the U.S., the Israeli media plays a role in helping the government minimize domestic dissent by sanitizing or withholding news. Gideon Levy, writing in the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, points out that the Israeli media "is not supplying the public with concrete information about what is going on an hour away," with the result that "the majority of Israelis don't have the slightest idea of what their [Palestinian] neighbors are going through." |
|
The United States has set the terms quite clearly for acceptable behavior in the War Against Terrorism (the WAT?!). After the United States was attacked in September, our government declared—with the apparent support of a majority of United Statesians—that the attack gave us the right to do anything we want, anywhere we want, to anyone we want, forever. It should be no surprise, then, when supporters of the Israeli government justify the current military campaign by pointing out that "We are just doing what the United States is doing." When asked back on March 31 whether Israel's seizure of the Arafat compound was justified, the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) reported that "President" Bush said: "Israel is a democratically elected government, and the government is responding to the will of the people for there to be more security." I'm not sure if Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's actions are really the "will of the people," as he and his "shoot, don't talk" stance are not universally loved in Israel. But, let's suppose it is. What we know is that it is quite possible for a majority in one country to give a mandate to its leaders to commit all sorts of crimes against other people. That happens all the time, and is one of the reasons to push for an global order in which respect for international law is a priority, a system that has been seriously eroded by U.S. actions since September 11th (and before). Indeed, the naked abuse of power that has come to characterize the WAT?! is directly cited by many supporters of Israel's current offensive by way of justification. Gazing down at the Anskar refugee camp outside of the illegal Israeli settlement of Elon Moreh in the West Bank, Israeli Maj. Avi Picard, an officer in Unit 576 of the IDF, said this week, "I can tell you, if we were Americans, we would just bomb the place." Speaking of the Bush administration's statements calling on Israel to pull out of the West Bank entirely, General Ben-Goya of the IDF stated, "If the United States had this problem, they wouldn't ask anyone. They would just go do their job, as they did in Afghanistan." The General is doubtless correct. Here in the U.S., meanwhile, the former head of the Jewish Federation in Columbia, South Carolina reflected on the Israeli invasion as follows: "In this case, considering that our country is trying to clear out terrorism from its hellhole in Afghanistan, I don't see why there should be a problem when Israel tries to do the same." There you have the U.S. as role model for the armies of the world. |
|
I have condemned the attacks against the U.S. on September 11th in the strongest terms I can manage, calling them "shameful," "a crime against humanity," "tragic and senseless," "outrages," and more. I condemn the suicide bombings against innocent Israeli civilians with the same vehemence. I also affirm the right of all nations, including the United States and Israel, to defend themselves against attack. I reject, on both moral and practical grounds, the military response of the United States to the terrorist attacks of September 11. Our attack on Afghanistan has caused massive violations of human rights among the targets, victimizing untold numbers of innocent civilians. By making these arguments I am in no way "justifying" or excusing the attacks of September 11th, nor am I expressing some sort of latent hate for United Statesians. These same arguments apply to the government of Israel, and the making of such arguments in no way "justifies" or excuses the Palestinian attacks on innocent Israelis, nor am I expressing hate for Israelis, let alone Jews. I have discussed the U.S. response to September 11th at length in previous issues (and will continue in future issues!), so here I will focus on Israel's response to the current intifada that began in September of 2000. The Israeli human rights group Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR) condemns in the strongest terms the terrorist acts against Israeli civilians. In the same statement, the rabbis "feel compelled to speak out, along with other Israeli human rights organizations, to call on our government to cease violations of Palestinian human rights, even in times of war." RHR notes that they are "aware that human rights violations are taking place" in the current Israeli military occupation, some due to "the aberrant behavior of individuals," and others as "a matter of official policy." The rabbis, who describe themselves as "the rabbinic voice of conscience in Israel," stated that they are "aware of or have good reason to believe that the human rights violations and forms of collective punishment [on the part of the Israeli military] include: denial of access to medical care for the injured, the seriously ill, and women in labor; demolition of homes; disruption of the supply of water, food, and medicines from large portions of the civilian population; looting and wanton destruction of property; torture of detainees; shooting and, in some cases, killing innocent civilians and medical workers (sometimes simply for violating a 24 hour curfew)." The rabbis regret that "the limitations placed on human rights workers by Israeli security forces limit our ability to provide our usual standards of documentation," a subject I address in my essay on media elsewhere in this issue. The practical reason to oppose the current Israeli government's actions in the West Bank are the same as the practical reasons to oppose the military facet of the WAT?! in the U.S., and that is that there is not and cannot be a military solution to the problem of suicide bombings, nor the more general phenomenon of terror. Although Israel's government, like that of the U.S., refuses to acknowledge it, terror is not a simple matter of an "evil" that can be "rooted out." Terror comes from somewhere, and that soil in which terror grows will only get deeper and more fertile in proportion to the ferocity and injustice of the military attempt to suppress it. The routine humiliation of Palestinians by the Israeli Defense Force, like the humiliation by the United States of its much weaker enemies, is particularly likely to breed terror. We now know that the overuse of antibiotics in medicine eventually gives rise to highly-resistant and more dangerous strains of disease. Similarly, the overuse of military force and the insistence on humiliating entire populations of weaker enemies will inevitably give rise to highly-resistant and more dangerous forms terror. While many people in the United States and Israel may think that their military can protect them against "terror," the real answer to terror is a more just world order. A few years back I used to see bumper stickers that said "If you want peace, work for justice." The updated version should read, "If you want to end terror, work for justice." |
|
It is an elementary point of morality that one is most responsible for actions over which one has the most control, and least responsible for those events that are out of one's control. For example, while I may feel badly about the suffering caused by an earthquake, and may wish to take some action to help the victims, I am not morally responsible for the fact of the earthquake. With this in mind, let's look at the current suffering in Israel/Palestine. The current suffering in the so-called Middle East is not like an earthquake. There are human choices and material realities at the root of all that we see happening. Every U.S. citizen bears a moral responsibility to the people of the region for three simple reasons:
There are many heroic Jewish voices being raised—inside of Israel and out—in opposition to the current outrages being committed by the Israeli government. Jews who criticize the government of Israel often do so at great personal risk, as they can be and are accused of being traitors or of being "self-hating Jews." Many of them have been doing this good work for years and years, and they really need support from the non-Jewish among us right now. I listed a few of them last week. An excellent list of links to all sorts of these groups—many of them with primarily Israeli membership—can be found on the Internet at http://www.cactus48.com/conclusionII.html. (The links appear toward the bottom of the page.) |