Anti-Israel articles are a dime-a-dozen lately, although usually they don't appear in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal. But today George Bisharat, a law professor in San Francisco -- big surprise there -- has an amazingly intellectually dishonest column entitled "Israel Is Committing War Crimes." Bisharat begins by making an obviously false assertion, writing
Israel's current assault on the Gaza Strip cannot be justified by self-defense.What about the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel? They don't count as attacks. No, really. According to Bisharat, firing rockets at Israel aren't "serious violations of the peace." It's just a "border skirmish," and therefore no big deal. Since being attacked by rockets is nothing serious, Israel's response is totally unjustified. That's actually the entire basis of his argument.
He extends this line of "thinking" to the truce between Hamas and Israel. Although he admits to violations on both sides, he writes that
Israel then broke the truce on Nov. 4, raiding the Gaza Strip and killing a Palestinian.But why did Israel do that? Well, Bisharat notes that prior to that action "Hamas permitted sporadic rocket fire."
Now to normal rational people who don't hate Israel, the Israeli action on November 4 might have had just a tiny bit to do with that rocket fire, and one might think that the truce had already been broken. But no, remember that Bisharat doesn't think rocket fire into Israel qualifies as anything significant. The Israelis should have just accepted it and done nothing. Therefore Israel broke the truce by responding to attacks that aren't really attacks, according to this lawyer. Since they had no justification for their actions, everything they've done since qualifies as a war crime in an illegal war. See how neat it is?
Bisharat goes on to make more ridiculous arguments about Israel targeting civilians in Gaza, conveniently ignoring everything about the way Hamas operates, the fact that civilian buildings often contain military targets, the fact that if Israel wanted to target civilians, there'd already be tens of thousands dead, and military reality in general. He concludes with a one-sided picture with poor oppressed Palestinians on one side, and the evil war criminals of Israel on the other.
The entire article is based on the completely irrational premise that rocket attacks on a country don't justify a military response. I'm not sure why the Wall Street Journal decided to give this clueless anti-Israel propagandist a forum. Maybe they just wanted to illustrate the intellectual dishonesty and inability to reason that characterize many who hate Israel.
I'm not sure why the Wall Street Journal decided to give this clueless anti-Israel propagandist a forum.
ReplyDeleteIt's called balance. They give a forum to clueless anti-Arab propagandists, who without having spoken to a single Palestinian are convinced Arabs really do want to destroy Israel; why not also give a forum to people like this guy, who's convinced that Israel is secretly committing genocide?
"It's called balance."
ReplyDeleteNo, balance would be giving a reasonable view from the other side. And lest you think that I don't believe there are any reasonable arguments on the other side... A case can be made that Israel created the conditions that a) led to Hamas gaining power in Gaza, and b) brought things to such a state that conflict was inevitable. I disagree with those arguments, but they are not inherently unreasonable. Arguing that rocket attacks aren't a serious type of attack is clearly unreasonable, and either illogical or intellectually dishonest.
"They give a forum to clueless anti-Arab propagandists"
Show me one that has written in the WSJ.
"who without having spoken to a single Palestinian are convinced Arabs really do want to destroy Israel"
Oh please. We have numerous Palestinian statements on record saying just that. It's part of Hamas' charter. Here's a press release from Hillary Clinton & Chuck Schumer, not exactly right-wingers, listing just a few statements to that effect back in 2001.
I don't speak Chinese, haven't spoken to any Chinese citizens and have never visited China. But somehow I know that China regards Taiwan as a breakaway Chinese province. You seem to be making some sort of personal experience argument that applies only to the Arab/Israeli situation. Personal experience arguments apply only to observations that are directly affected by personal experience. For example, if I were to give a description of life in Gaza, it would be reasonable to question whether or not I had ever been there, ever talked to the residents, etc.
Most other things can be effectively analyzed from afar, and in some cases more effectively because of emotional detachment and distance.
Here's a press release from Hillary Clinton & Chuck Schumer
ReplyDeleteBoth of whom are very pro-Israeli, and serve a pro-Israeli constituency. It's impossible for someone who's pro-Palestinian to be elected in New York, just like it used to be impossible for someone who supported British anti-IRA efforts to get elected in Boston.
You seem to be making some sort of personal experience argument that applies only to the Arab/Israeli situation.
It's not exactly an issue of personal experience. The relevant pieces of knowledge that are true personal experience are pretty minor. The biggest one I can think of is my great-aunt's statement that in her kibbutz, right near the Gaza Strip, the people regard the rocket attacks as a nuisance, but are concerned every time Israel bombs Gaza because the bombs cause tremors in their houses. What I'm saying about personal experience boils down to two things, really:
1. Analysts have no clue what they're talking about, unless they have journalistic or academic experience with the region. This is empirical, not a priori: I can pick apart facts in almost everything written by armchair analysts. I can also attack their arguments pretty easily, not because they're inherently bad, but because they're repetitive, and identical to the ones any Israeli recites. A good analyst should be able to tell me something I don't know. The pundits on Haaretz do: they talk about the way the war is impacting Fatah's legitimacy, the reason Egypt is trying to mediate, and other geopolitical issues. Thomas Friedman does the same, but he's hemmed by low word limits. Everyone else is just boring.
2. Because the I/P issue is complex as well as heavily politicized on all sides, with world sympathy an important component of everything, it helps to be familiar with the local discourse. It's not necessary, but it's hard to not have it and still avoid making mistakes or omitting important facts. (It's part of why I don't make too much commentary about the Palestinians, and why when I did, I devoured Palestinian opinion polls more religiously than a Muslim prays).
This isn't the same as the Taiwan issue. First, China's never given any indication that it's willing to accept a two-state solution. Hamas has: as early as 1999, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin promised a five-year truce in return for an end to the occupation and a right of return, a proposal that enjoyed some publicity in Israeli media if not in government. Several similar proposals have been aired in the years since, and on at least one occasion there were reports that the Hamas leadership was willing to recognize Israel; Israel has never even bothered replying to the proposals. If I heard from Chinese people that Mainland media had reported the PRC was considering recognizing Taiwanese independence, I'd pay a lot more attention to local media on the Taiwan issue, too.
"Both of whom are very pro-Israeli, and serve a pro-Israeli constituency."
ReplyDeleteYes, that's true. But they didn't make up those Palestinian statements that they referenced.
"The biggest one I can think of is my great-aunt's statement"
That's one person's opinion. I'd be willing to bet that many Israelis feel a lot different.
"Analysts have no clue what they're talking about, unless they have journalistic or academic experience with the region."
That depends what they are analyzing. You don't need specialized knowledge to make good observations about many topics.
"but because they're repetitive, and identical to the ones any Israeli recites"
So what? That has no bearing on their validity.
"A good analyst should be able to tell me something I don't know."
That's not an analyst. That's an educator. You don't have to present new information to make an effective analysis. Most analysis does not present new information. It analyzes the information that is already available.
"This isn't the same as the Taiwan issue"
Yes, I know, but that wasn't my point. My point was that I don't need to have any personal experience or specialized knowledge of the Taiwan situation to know how China views Taiwan. And no one needs personal experience to know how Palestinians view Israel.