Israel-Palestine: Will the real racists & terrorists please stand up?
Published in the Manitoban (March 21, 2001)

On February 9 of this year, UMFM's "political panel" included Michael Kowalson, a member of the UMSU executive, who proceeded to pontificate on the topic of Israel. For those who missed the discussion, Mr. Kowalson began by declaring his emotional attachment to "the state of Israel" as a Jew, and stating that if he had had the opportunity, he "would have voted for [Ariel] Sharon" in the recent Israeli elections. Kowalson suggested that Sharon was a desirable choice because "the soft-peddle approach clearly hasn't worked, and it's time to get tough with the Arabs."

Kowalson went on to make a series of dubious factual claims. He described the piece of land controlled by the State of Israel as "the armpit of the Arab world," and implied that it was relatively undesirable in terms of natural resources. "The only reason this land is in contention," he stated, "is because the Arabs are interested," and they're principally interested in "the annihilation of the Jewish people and the destruction of the State of Israel." Kowalson then asserted, without blinking (or evidence), that children's textbooks and nursery rhymes in Arab schools "consist of killing Jews and Jewish bloodshed."

Citing a ridiculously racist comment by Golda Meir, Kowalson predicted that there will only be peace in the region "when [the Arabs] start loving their children more than they hate us." He repeated the litany of allegations against what he considers to be a generic "Arab" mindset and behaviour. Accordingly, the "terrorists" of the Intifada are "led by children" who are "taught as early as the age of six or seven to shoot submachine guns and weapons that have been outlawed by the United Nations." Arab parents, Kowalson suggested, are so sinister and callous that they deliberately place their own children "on the frontlines" of war, or send them to "summer camp to learn how to fire a submachine gun." Israel, he maintained, has shown "incredible restraint" in dealing with "sick, sick people." He went on to draw a sharp line between "our" civilization and "their" barbarism. "In our society, children are taught to become pillars of the community and to get an education and become professionals. ... In their society, the ultimate is to be a suicide bomber. I think there will be peace in the Middle East," Kowalson mused, "when the Arabs grow up, if I could just put it that bluntly."

Finally, Kowalson repeated the claim that Israel is "the only true democracy in that area of the world" - a fact established, apparently, by the mere presence of elections. As an aside, he reminded us that U.S. President Bush "had to put [Saddam Hussein] on warning" because he has rocket launchers "that can strike Tel Aviv." Kowalson conceded that "Israel may not be blameless," but then went on to negate his own concession by asserting that "99 per cent [of the blame] goes to the Arab world" for its "well-documented purpose of annihilating the Jewish people and destroying the State of Israel."

Where does one begin to address the falsehoods and bigotry of such a pompous, privileged and self-satisfied university student? Apart from the dazzling ignorance of the speaker, there are a number of points that need to be emphasized. First, not once does Kowalson use the word "Palestinian" to describe the indigenous inhabitants of the region. Instead, he adopts the all-encompassing term "Arab," simultaneously homogenizing a quite diverse cultural-linguistic group, as well as erasing any distinct Palestinian history, culture and identity.

Neither does Kowalson refer to a place called "Palestine," or to "the Occupied Territories." For him, there is only "Israel" - history and international law be damned! The illegal occupation of Palestinian land, and the forced dispossession of the original inhabitants (during the 1947-48 war and again in 1967) is simply excised from the record. There is only "Israel"... and the generic "Arabs" and "terrorists" bent on its destruction.

Kowalson does not even know what constitutes an "Arab." (Never mind the fact that he thinks they are all the same, that they can be reduced to some primitive archetype or mindset, and he would justifiably be outraged by a similar depiction of Jews.) Twice he refers to Iran as an Arab state when it is not. Iran's population is mostly Persian, Azerbaijani and Kurdish, and its principal language is Farsi (Persian). Arabic is also spoken, but this hardly makes the country "Arab." Mr. Kowalson clearly does not wish to be constrained by the facts. All he knows is that it's "time to get tough" with these "sick, sick people" (whoever they are and wherever they're from).

I would like to respond briefly to some of Mr. Kowalson's more outrageous claims and implications. He states that Israel has shown remarkable "restraint in dealing with these people," but now it's "time to get tough with the Arabs." I'm not sure if Kowalson has in mind a particular example of Israeli "restraint," but from the standpoint of history, the victims, from the evidence of overwhelming Palestinian casualties, from the fact that massive dispossession and forced "transfer" of the Palestinians has created a diaspora of millions - from this perspective, the idea that it's now time to "get tough" with the Palestinians is perverse. If the Israelis show much more "restraint," the Palestinians will continue to die in staggering numbers, they will continue to be marginalized or forced from their homeland (what in other contexts is called "ethnic cleansing"), and eventually, they will cease to exist as a people.

Kowalson hopes that Ariel Sharon will reverse this alleged restraint, the "soft-peddle approach," and implies that earlier Israeli leaders were perhaps well-meaning, but definitely naive. The implication is that there has been (and remains) a significant difference between Israel's Labour and Likud parties when it comes to "the Arabs" and peace - although Kowalson does not refer to a single substantive issue or policy difference to back up his claim. He shares the popular myth about Israeli politics that there is a meaningful distinction between Israeli "doves" who want peace (and would be willing to "give up" land to achieve it), and the "hawks" who seek only to stem the tide of "hostile" Arabs. Kowalson thinks that "hawks" like Sharon are more "realistic," apparently because "sick people" cannot be reasoned with - they understand only force. He doesn't worry about the fact that Israeli expansionist policies have remained constant in practice (as opposed to rhetoric), regardless of the party in power. Nor does he worry about the fact that neither political current has ever made any substantive concessions on settlements or the status of Jerusalem, which would be preconditions for a meaningful peace with the Palestinians. In essence, Kowalson is calling for more of the same: the policies that have given rise, again and again, to Palestinian resistance and Israeli repression.

Mr. Kowalson asserts the tired claim that Israel is "the only true democracy" in the region, a claim that Israeli scholar Uri Davis demolished in his book Israel: An Apartheid State. Davis was discussing the status of Arabs who became (second-class) citizens of the Israeli State after 1948. He wasn't attempting to address the status of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, who have been herded into reservations or bantustans with some increasingly remarkable similarities to South Africa under apartheid. Mr. Kowalson seems to think that democracy is something you either have or don't have, and for him it's synonymous with elections. He doesn't attempt to reconcile this flowery view of Israeli democracy with the exclusivity of the self-described "Jewish State." He doesn't attempt to reconcile Israeli "democracy" with actual Israeli legislation. Under the Law of Return and the Absentee Property Law (1950), as well as subsequent amendments, every Jew in the world is legally entitled to become a citizen of the State of Israel, while millions of Palestinians, exiled as a consequence of the 1948-49 and 1967 wars, are denied both the right of citizenship and the right to return to their homeland. Mr. Kowalson cannot reconcile such things, because Israel is not a meaningful democracy. It is a vicious, expansionist theocracy, practicing its own brand of racist discrimination and ethnic cleansing.

Mr. Kowalson suggests that the endemic violence and unrest in Israel is "99 per cent" the fault of "the Arab world." It's nice to be able to package blame so neatly. But historical facts support other interpretations. To ignore the role of the early Zionist movement (with its own well-documented history of terrorism against both British and Palestinian targets), the clearly-articulated Israeli goal of "transfering" Palestinians elsewhere, the actual dispossession and slaughter during the so-called "wars of independence," the subsequent wars of 1956, 1967, 1969-70, 1973 and 1982 (which were hardly milhamot ein breira, "wars of no choice"), not to mention the daily discrimination and injustices faced by ordinary Palestinians, is to demonstrate an allegiance to more myth than reality. Does this mean that Arafat, the PLO, the Palestinian Authority (PA), or various Arab States in the region are blameless? Not at all. One of the harshest and most informed critics of Arab leaders and institutions has been Palestinian scholar Edward Said, who has been a consistent proponent of secular, democratic, egalitarian initiatives throughout the Arab world, as described in his various works. But let's get serious about the proportions.

Finally, Mr. Kowalson's entire commentary is infused with the belief that Israel is held hostage by "terrorists," who are not constrained by the norms and values of civilization and humanity. He openly states that if the "Arabs" loved their children and valued life, instead of being driven by an irrational, genocidal hatred of the Jews, then there would be peace. Obviously, Kowalson knows little about the motivations behind Palestinian resistance (violent or non-violent) - for him, it's simply inexplicable in human terms. But one of the most basic and recurring themes of human history is the struggle of oppressed people to gain (or regain) control over their own lives, to assert some form of self-determination. Those with privilege like Mr. Kowalson usually regard such struggles as an assault on their rights, "violent" or "irrational" outbursts by "sick people" bent on "our destruction." The struggle for freedom seems inexplicable in other terms - unless it is so far removed in time (or place) that it becomes safe to acknowledge it for what it is: a rational response to oppression, an assertion of dignity, often heroic, always inspiring.

In a subsequent article in the Manitoban, [February 21, "Peace in the Middle East: the Impossible Dream"] Kowalson reiterated (and expanded upon) many of the same points, and produced some further gems: the Jews founded Israel upon an empty wilderness and only their labour "made the desert bloom;" the Arabs were responsible for every one of Israel's wars; the Israelis actually returned the West Bank, but the Palestinians are never satisfied; Palestinian society is based on anti-Semitism; Palestinian snipers killed 12-year old Mohammed al-Dura; and so on. Never mind the fact that the "empty wilderness" thesis has no credibility. Never mind the fact that Israeli leaders themselves acknowledge Israel's imperial pretensions, and the true causes of Israel's various wars have little to do with "defence." Never mind that the West Bank was never returned, and has been in firm Israeli control since 1967. Never mind the fact that Palestinians are themselves Semitic people! Never mind that even mainstream Israeli newspapers like Ha'aretz, and a variety of independent human rights groups in Israel, recognize that Mohammed al-Dura was killed by the IDF. Kowalson does not seem interested in understanding "the other side," offering evidence, assessing sources, or seeking the truth. His favourite source for information about both Israel and the "Arab mind" appears to be the Israel National News - also known as Arutz Sheva, an extreme right-wing settler Web site. Many of the contributors to Arutz Sheva, and affiliated sites like Gamla, seek the "redemption" of Eretz Israel (a vast territory of biblical pretensions that includes all of mandate Palestine, plus sections of southern Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt.)

The remarkable thing about Mr. Kowalson's comments is not the level of bigotry displayed, or the fact that he knows virtually nothing about his subject. It's not that he has the audacity to shout about "legality" or refer to the United Nations in any context which implies Israel is a defender of international law. What surprises me the most is his willingness to appear on a public forum to recite this racist nonsense, and more importantly, the complete lack of opposition or critical comment from either the moderator or fellow panelists. To me, this says far more about the political climate and intellectual culture in Canada than it does about the so-called "Arab" mind.

To be fair, we should not blame Mr. Kowalson alone for his remarks and prejudices. After all, this is what we pay for. Our newspapers, television, movies, politicians, video games, not to mention military-funded political "science" (strategic studies) departments, teach us this kind of crap everyday. In case you haven't noticed, racist and classist bigotry serves the domestic and foreign policy interests of the state-corporate elite. There's big money in dehumanization. It helps ruling elites to "divide and conquer," to separate marginalized communities from their land and resources, to test weapons on relatively powerless nations, to wage wars of any kind. It also helps Canadians keep a positive image of themselves -- even while we close our borders to refugees fleeing persecution or genocide; even while we fill our prisons with an overwhelming proportion of First Nations people; even while we watch sanctions kill hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq, and cheer the ongoing U.S.-led devastation of Iraqi infrastructure. Mr. Kowalson is nothing if not an exemplary student of the Canadian "education system."

Top >> Back