Wednesday, May 16th, 2012

What would it take for pro-Israel fanatics to utter a word of criticism?

By Matt Kennard

Pro-Israel fanatics swear loyalty to their Holy State and will defend her whatever. But what would have to happen for them to utter a word of criticism?

By on Thursday, January 15th, 2009 - 1,318 words.

How far will the devotion go?

How far will the devotion go?

We all know them. Those pro-Israel fanatics (mistakenly called “Zionists”) who will defend anything Israel does, not based on rational debate or argument, but out of some religious fealty to their Holy State. Israel shells a school killing 40? Well, there were militants inside, they say. Israel uses banned white phosphorous? Well, it’s only lighting the way of the soldiers, they say. Israel bombs civilians and murders hundreds of children? Well, Hamas bought it on their own people. Israel bombs the UN aid agency? Well… we’ll wait for this rationalization.

These people aren’t only spokesman for the Israeli government. They are everywhere, all over the media and governments of the West. There seems no cognitive dissonance as they unleash their invective against Hamas, the democratically-elected government of Gaza, while saying nothing about the Inferno being bought on the Gazan people by Israel. But I’ve been wondering recently, as I’ve read these peoples writing and watched the pro-Israel demonstrations: What would have to happen before these people actually criticized their Holy State?

It seems that nothing so far has worked: the use of illegal weaponary, the targeting of civilians, the banning of journalists, the sealing of the borders, the sub-Saharan African levels of malnutrition, the mowing down of civilians. All of these are swatted away by co-opting the big, ever-present boogie man: Hamas.

So, really, what would have to happen? I honestly believe that if Israel started carpet bombing the 1.5 million population of Gaza, the fanatical apologists, including many columnists on mainstream newspapers, would rationalize it by saying something like, “Well, Hamas is the democratically elected government, and it’s a terrorist organization, so that makes the population of Gaza terrorists, by their own voting record.” That sentence doesn’t sound as mad as it should when put next to the Israel apologists. Max Blumenthal, a Jewish-American journalist, went to the pro-Israel demonstration in New York and interviewed people who said things that would make Adolf Hitler blush. “We should wipe out the Palestinians,” one told him, while another said, ““They are not distinguishing between civilians and military, so why should we?”

Then you go to the newspapers in Israel. “This is a just war and we don’t feel guilty when civilians we don’t intend to hurt get hurt, because we feel Hamas uses these civilians as human shields,” Elliot Jager, editorial page editor of The Jerusalem Post, told the New York Times. Just a war? Maybe for him as he sits in his air-conditioned offices in Jerusalem, but for the thousands of people murdered and maimed in Gaza it must seem more than “just a war”. But, of course, those deaths are Hamas’ fault. No need to look in the mirror.

In the same article, Moshe Halbertal, apparently a “left-leaning professor of philosophy at the Hebrew University”, wonders, “Israelis feel like the tiny David faced with an immense Muslim Goliath. The question is: who is the David here?” Maybe we are mad in the outside world, but over a 1,000 Palestinian deaths to 14 Israeli deaths would seem to give a good indication of who was the David and who was the Goliath.

In the New York Times, pro-Israel fanatic Thomas Friedman opines:

“In Gaza, I still can’t tell if Israel is trying to eradicate Hamas or trying to ‘educate’ Hamas, by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population. If it is out to destroy Hamas, casualties will be horrific and the aftermath could be Somalia-like chaos. If it is out to educate Hamas, Israel may have achieved its aims.”

By educating Hamas he means carrying out substantial civilian casualties like in Lebanon in 2006. He lauds that adventure for pummeling “Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large.” He adds, “It was not pretty, but it was logical.” So for Freidman he is not only excusing a high civilian death toll, but actually calling for a higher one. For this fanatic there is obviously no line.

Then there is pro-Israel fanatic par excellence, Alan Dershowitz. Like the good apparatchik he is, Dershowitz will virulently defend the Israeli government’s party line whatever it is. His role as Israeli attack dog in the Western media is one he has embraced with relish. For him the civilian death toll is simply a lie:

“The number of civilians killed by Israel is almost always exaggerated. By any objective account, the number of genuinely innocent civilians killed by the Israeli Air Force is lower than the collateral deaths cause by any nation in a comparable situation.”

He doesn’t make the point that no journalists are allowed into Israel to take a body count, and there are probably hundreds more stuck under rubble. For Dershowitz, and his ilk all over the US media, it is Hamas’ fault that Israel are murdering Palestinians at a genocidal rate. In this pathology there is nothing that Israel can do that is wrong, because it is always the fault of Hamas. No logic, but its a good way to rationalize mass killing.

For those on “the Left” that support Israel with religious devotion, they turn not to defending the murder of civilians, but sublimate the massacres by saying that anti-Israel voices are collaborating with anti-Semites and Islamic fundamentalists. This changes the subject nicely, and means that this mental barrier of actually looking at Israeli actions rationally doesn’t have to be breached.

David Aaronovitch does exactly this in the Times, when he picks up the completely subjective point about comparing Israel with the Nazis and writes a whole article about it, which his sycophants applaud. He claims, “[T]his ahistorical hyperbole is the product of a kind of binary thinking, the belief that there can only be two kinds of anything, and two possible responses: there’s the good and the bad; there’s the victim and the murderer”.

That might or might not be true, but going off on this rant about semantics does definitely help him avoid the article he could be writing denouncing the major crimes and violations of international law committed by Israel. Now he can just pick on some rhetorical flights by a few individuals. Easy.

Sunny Hundal does the same in the Guardian. Under the subheading, “Israel’s actions are indefensible. But when Hamas are portrayed by the left as brave freedom fighters, it sticks in my craw,” he fulminates about a non-existent leftist association with Hamas. He provides no evidence in the article but plays into the propaganda narrative that all those opposed to Israel’s barbarism automatically sign up to become a member of Hamas, apparently it’s like a two-for-one. It was the same diversion that was used during Iraq which tried to tar all those opposing the invasion as Saddam Hussein sycophants. It’s a good tactic to change the subject, to appear like a principled and decent member of the left, brave enough to speak out against his own tribe etc., but, away from egos, it’s not the issue. The issue is the massive civilian casualties in Gaza and nothing can or should detract from this.

So across the political spectrum many different tactics and rationalizations and sublimations are being used to excuse what are patently crimes against humanity. It keeps people thinking this conflict is complicated, that both sides have valid arguments, that there is some equation. But if Hamas suicide shelled a UN compound in Israel, or bombed a school in Tel Aviv, would you see the mainstream papers inundated with op-ed’s about Israel bought it on themselves by their years of terrorism against the Palestinians? Of course you wouldn’t. No one would defend such barbarism. But for the pro-Israel fanatics their country can do no wrong, and this is a dangerous situation, like a collective madness, that has led to genocides even worse than the one currently going on in Gaza.

14 Comments

  1. Robert says:
    January 15, 2009 at 13:59

    In the Talmud it says, “In the way that a person chooses to walk, he will be led” (makkot 10b).

    Reply
  2. Robert- South Africa says:
    January 15, 2009 at 14:09

    In other words:- If a government choses the warpath, it will have to fight a war. As simple as that !
    And no, I am not a Jew !

    Reply
  3. selsela naweed says:
    January 15, 2009 at 15:55

    you've brilliantly articulated everything that I've been thinking since this horrendous situation began

    Reply
  4. Gizem says:
    January 15, 2009 at 21:33

    Israel always has an excuse. They had an excuse in 1948, in 67, during intifadas, when they built the wall, the settlements, sieged Gaza, expropriated Palestinian land, water, resources, bombed the UN, the building with media members, there's always an excuse for Israel's actions and they're allowed to be forgiven. Israel has a right to defend itself. But when Hamas or other militants fires rockets, an excuse or a right to defense cannot be in question. After all, why would people try to react when they've been under siege, deprived of electricity, fuel, food, medicine, freedom of movement, travel, every basic humanitarian need that we take for granted.

    I am not defending rockets being fired from one side to the other but I'm not going to be a bigot by approving or justifying the other side's actions. If Israel can fire, so can Hamas. That's war.

    And if we go into the details of who started first, I guess anyone with knowledge of the Middle East knows the answer.

    Reply
  5. Omri Preiss says:
    January 16, 2009 at 22:11

    No offense, I find this article very amusing. How ironic that someone who calls Hamas "a legitimate democratically elected resistance movement" dismisses any "pro-Israeli" reasoning (ie. Israel does not kill Palestinians for fun) as "propaganda". When are you going to criticize the Palestinians, or the Arab world for anything? You claim Hamas does is a result of "Israeli crimes" and reject the notion that they are driven by a different ideology than yours as "mad".
    Realistically – many of the Israelis who "defend" Israel's actions, in your eyes, are much fiercer critics of it than you are. The difference is – I criticize it for things that are REAL and you invent a storyline for yourself. "Sure, that tank commander who was being shot at intended to kill those 40 people – he likes killing palestinians" – any suggestion to the contrary is "Israeli propaganda".
    The reasons I would not discuss my real criticism of Israel with you, is because you have a false understanding of the conflict – so explaining that to you is a prerequisite to any other discussion on the subject – like you wouldn't explain the big bang theory to someone who thinks the world is flat – and I'm sorry if that seems condescending – I don't mean it to be.
    All this paranoid reference to "Israeli propaganda" – I would suggest you learn hebrew and start following the Israeli media – it is much much much more self-critical and diverse than the British media ever attempts to be, especially on military issues.
    Sorry man – you need to hear these things.

    Reply
  6. MattKennard says:
    January 16, 2009 at 22:20

    How ironic that someone who calls Hamas "a legitimate democratically elected resistance movement"

    Omri you're making up quotes again, I didn't say that.

    "When are you going to criticize the Palestinians, or the Arab world for anything?"

    I have done on these pages, but that's irrelevant, the occupation and war are the fault of Israeli actions.

    "Realistically – many of the Israelis who "defend" Israel's actions, in your eyes, are much fiercer critics of it than you are."

    Not true, read the article.

    "I criticize it for things that are REAL and you invent a storyline for yourself. "Sure, that tank commander who was being shot at intended to kill those 40 people – he likes killing palestinians"

    No you criticize made-up quotes, no-one said this.

    "The reasons I would not discuss my real criticism of Israel with you, is because you have a false understanding of the conflict."

    It's you who just spouts propaganda, look at the comments on your articles. You invent straw men because you are indoctrinated.

    "I'm sorry if that seems condescending – I don't mean it to be."

    Don't worry, you don't appear condescending, you just appear stupid and ignorant.

    "All this paranoid reference to "Israeli propaganda" – I would suggest you learn hebrew and start following the Israeli media"

    Ha'aretz is in English too.

    "it is much much much more self-critical and diverse than the British media ever attempts to be, especially on military issues"

    I know this. Stop arguing with things I never said.

    Omri if you want to take part in grown up discussion, you need to quote people correctly and not just invent their position like you have done with everyone on here. Otherwise you just sound like a little kid. Every quote in your comment wasn't actually written by me,as were the made up quotes in your piece about Chomsky. It's makes you look foolish.

    Reply
  7. Omri says:
    January 16, 2009 at 22:51

    "Hamas he means carrying out substantial civilian casualties like in Lebanon in 2006"
    how substantial are these? 6000 (approx) civilians killed in a month in the invasion of Afghanistan, and 7300 killed in a month in the invasion of Iraq – compared to the 500-600 civilians killed in a month in Lebanon is a lot less substantial. Just pointing that out to you – no "defending".
    And you now who this is "just a war" for? YOU – you're sitting there in london watching the news, and telling the Israeli government what it should do based on what you see on the BBC and Al Jazeera, whereas the editor of the Jerusalem Post has to worry about rockets hitting his house, and his relatives in the army. Nice.

    Reply
  8. MattKennard says:
    January 16, 2009 at 23:45

    Again your logic is all over the place. Substantial civilian casualities is not a term that can only be used in the context of casulties inflicted by the US and Britain in Iraq and Afghanistan, in fact I don't quite know what you are talking about.

    And your comment about the editor of JP is silly also. I'm not cheering on the attack on Gaza, so there's no equivalence between our positions. And finally how many rockets have hit Jerusalem so far? Grow up.

    Reply
  9. chandra says:
    January 17, 2009 at 04:57

    Excellent article by Matt Kennard. The comments by Omri show his lack of reading comprehension, lack of logic, and most importantly, his racism toward Palestinians. Re: the ongoing apologetics for Israeli crimes (what Chomsky has called the 'murder of a nation' in a recent talk), made possible by the US's unflinching support, there is some hope in the fact that there are many more people demonstrating and criticising Israel worldwide, despite the propaganda of the corporate media, than would have been conceivable just ten years ago. That hasn't helped the Palestinians much now, but it bodes well for the future. Ten years ago criticisms of Israel by public figures such as Jimmy Carter would not have been forthcoming. Now, even though Carter has been vilified by mainstream commentators, his book on 'apartheid Israel' was a best-seller. Still, the 'murder of a nation' goes on before the eyes of the world, and it is hard to have much pride in our species.

    Reply
  10. Michael Oliof says:
    January 18, 2009 at 22:04

    Omri is by far the most pathetic apologist for state terrorism I have encountered in a long time. George Orwell was correct when he observed that the nationalists of a country (usually the intellectuals – Omri is an exception) ignore the crimes committed by their state, often not even being able to perceive them.

    Hans Morgenthou, the founder of international relations realism, also noted this.

    Omri, please relieve yourself of myopia. Its disturbing to say the least.

    Reply
    • MattKennard says:
      January 19, 2009 at 00:36

      You're right Michael. That's why I find it just about impossible arguing rationally with any nationalist, because they ignore facts which don't fit the narrative of their Holy State, and just push the same propaganda terms. I actually think reading Omri's work is pretty instructive because it gives quite a revealing expression of what true indoctrination is, and how a nationalist will literally not be able to look at his state on a rational basis. Sad, but revealing.

      Reply
  11. Jojo says:
    January 23, 2009 at 12:31

    I do not agree with what either side is doing, in fact by their recent actions Israel are the harbingers of the next generation of suicide bombers which is very sad indeed. It is a tragedy for all affected. However, I didn't see that the author offered any sort of alternative, and without doing this I don't really see how one can denounce Israel and criticise them as a nation to the extent that the author did. It is more than true that some of Israel's defenders do not articulate themselves as best they could, but what should Israel be doing instead? If France started firing rockets into the UK I very much doubt that the British would just sit there and let them. Obviously we can do without any more fundamentalists and this war is creating more of them; on both sides. Israel has a problem; it is a 'Western' country situated in the Arab world. They have different morals and values to the west and it seems impossible to impose those values on a country that doesn't recognise them. What then is the solution to this war?

    Reply
  12. valiamourtzan says:
    January 26, 2009 at 19:28

    Jojo, first of all you can't compare France to Gaza. France has army, electricity, water…. It is always easier to attack unarmed people.
    But let's also accept what Israel says : Hamas is terrorist, we bomb schools because Hamas is hiding there, the children killed is therefore Hamas fault. because they use them as human shields. Now, if a terrorist would hide in an Israeli school and used the children as human shields, would Israel bomb that school ? In which western country would the government bomb a school and kill the children in order to kill the terrorist ?
    Anyway, the article, as I understand it , is about fanaticism and propaganda. And it indicated how important it is for common people to critisice the information it is receiving using their logic.
    Matt, your article was brilliant. It also reminded me what Gebels said " the more outrageous a lie is, the more belivable it will seem "

    Reply
  13. BOB says:
    June 13, 2009 at 15:04

    What will it take you, Matt Kennard, to utter a word of criticism against Iran or Qatar or Syria. Are you willing to criticize ahmedinijads holocaust denial. The Sharia law imposed in these countries? Israelis are some of the most critical of their government. You on the other hand can never put things into context in your distorted world view.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Matt Kennard
United Kingdom

Matt Kennard graduated from the Journalism School at Columbia University as a Toni Stabile Investigative scholar in 2008. He has written for the Guardian, Salon and the Chicago Tribune, amongst others. In 2006 he won the Guardian Student Feature Writer of the Year Award.

Articles by this author
Search the site
Browse our categories