Toban Should be Praised for Printing Lalbiharie's Israel Article
(Variation published in the Manitoban, April 10, 2002)

The Manitoban has seen a flurry of negative letters and opinion pieces regarding Krishna Lalbiharie's article "For Outstanding Achievement in Terrorism, the Winner is Israel" (The Manitoban, March 13). In what has become typical pro-Israel apologetics, the respondents repeated the litany of myths about Israel's origins, its "benign intentions," its "purity of arms," and exaggerated its "democratic" nature, while simultaneously vilifying and homogenizing Palestinians and other Arab peoples.

Two respondents went beyond challenging Lalbiharie's views, to questioning his right to be published at all. David Borzykowski expressed shock, anger and indignation that such an article was even printed, and admonished The Manitoban for printing what he called "biased and inaccurate" opinions. Similarly, Mimi Waldman was "very surprised" that Lalbiharie's views were printed, and suggested that The Manitoban show better judgment in the future.

The Manitoban should be praised for having the courage to print Lalbiharie's article, because criticism of Israeli domestic and foreign policy, however muted, rarely appears in the mainstream media. Media criticism is usually confined to matters of tactics rather than principle, or suggests that Israeli human rights violations are "lamentable," but "understandable" given the burning "hatred" and intransigence of their enemies.

Any challenge to the dominant view of Israel as a beleaguered David, surrounded by a hostile Arab Goliath, still elicits storms of outrage. One can only conclude from the hysteria produced by the article, that defenders of the Israeli state see any and all criticism and debate as anathema, and would prefer to pressure media outlets to censor themselves or silence critics, rather than engage in serious argument.

But honest and informed criticism of Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem could help bring about an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, save countless lives on both sides, and reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks in the future.

Since September 2000, over 1,300 Palestinians have been killed inside the Occupied Territories, overwhelmingly civilians, including over 300 children. More than 300 Israelis have been killed during this same period, many of whom were civilians, including some 50 children. The abhorrent killing of innocent civilians on both sides will not end by justifying every Israeli action as "self-defence," nor by defending Israel's occupation and oppression of the Palestinians.

This is hardly a controversial position. One need only read the statements of a growing movement of Israeli officers (400 and rising) who have refused service in the Occupied Territories, to know that Israel's actions in the West Bank and Gaza are the antithesis of "security" for the Jewish people. (See the soldiers' own "Courage to Resist" website at http://www.seruv.org.il/defaultEng.asp ).

Leaving aside the vacuous and irrelevant accusation of "bias" (one can be both partisan, as well as honest, informed, and accurate at the same time), all three respondents claim that Lalbiharie's opinions are "distorted," "inaccurate," or "ignorant." Not one of them cites a single source to bolster their position –– though Mimi Waldman, sensibly, "was very curious to know" what Lalbiharie's sources were. Apparently, it is enough to assert the dominant view; only challengers require references or evidence, or need to justify their right to speak.

Due to space constraints, I cannot address each and every assumption, myth, and factual error regurgitated by Borzykowski, Waldman, and Brian Kates. Borzykowski claims, for example, that Israel has "never targeted innocent Palestinians," that it is "the only truly democratic state in the Middle East" and that Israeli Arabs have "greater freedom," higher standards of living, and "more rights" than in other Arab states, that Palestinians were adequately represented during the UN partition process, that the Partition Plan was fair and based on actual geographic and demographic realities, that Jews alone made the "unwanted desert" bloom, that the Palestinians "left Israel at the behest of the surrounding Arab countries," and that Palestinian violence alone "started the recent conflicts."

Brian Kates repeats many of the same claims, and asserts some new ones: the Palestinians are "led by a dictator" engaged in "arms smuggling," Israel "does not engage in the 'morally repugnant' acts of intentionally massacring innocent civilians," Palestinians alone try to kill "as many men, women and children as possible," Israel alone is willing to negotiate for peace, and so on.

Finally, Waldman reiterates the myth of Israeli benevolence, cannot conceive of Israeli state terror, repeats the myth of the "empty wilderness" (tamed only by Israeli labour), repeats the myth that Palestinians, who fled their homes in 1948, did so voluntarily, that Israel did not engage in "ethnic cleansing," that Palestinians who remained in Israel "to this day" have "the same rights and privileges" as Jews, that Israeli military actions are "most often in retaliation" for prior Palestinian atrocities, and that Israel does not deliberately target civilians.

Each and every one of these points is contested terrain. It would be easy to substitute a different set of assumptions and historical claims. I do not expect readers of The Manitoban to take my word over that of Borzykowski, Waldman and Kates. It is critical that people read, and judge, for themselves. We must take into account all the relevant voices, sift through the evidence, interrogate the sources, and make an honest judgment, recognizing that reasonable people will often disagree.

Readers must take into account actual Palestinian voices, the majority of whom have no faith in Arafat's corrupt Palestinian Authority, and oppose the targeting of civilians by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Many of these (such as Member of Knesset Azmi Bishara, Edward Said, Mouin Rabbani, Omar Barghouti, and Muna Hamzeh) are included in a recent anthology edited by Roane Carey entitled The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid. Equally important are dissident Jewish voices (both inside and outside of Israel): Israel Shahak's Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Simha Flapan's The Birth of Israel, Norman Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Noam Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle, Uri Davis' Israel: An Apartheid State, as well as various books and articles by Uri Avnery, Tanya Reinhart, Neve Gordon, and Amira Hass are, collectively, critical to understanding the origins and nature of the conflict.

Furthermore, the entire history of UN resolutions related to Israel-Palestine since 1947 make for enlightening reading, and should at least be acknowledged by those pretending to support principles of international law. And finally, the reports of independent human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and al-Haq, cannot be dismissed.

In closing, I will only address the central objection to Lalbiharie's article. All three respondents insist that Israel is not a terrorist state, that it does not intend to kill "innocent Palestinians," and that it is "the Arabs" who alone engage in terrorism and are to be blamed for the absence of peace. Borzykowski claims that since inception, Israel has "never used terrorist tactics to fight wars," and he dismisses the notion that Menachem Begin and the Irgun were terrorists.

Borzykowski should read Begin's own book The Revolt, in which he admits responsibility for the massacre of 250 Palestinian women and children at Deir Yassin in April 1948. This is terrorism by any dictionary definition of the term, at least to anyone not blinded by patriotism or ethnic allegiance. Unfortunately, Deir Yassin is exceptional only for its infamy and documentation –– as demonstrated by Finkelstein and Flapan, as well as Nur Masalha in Expulsion of the Palestinians and Edward Said in The Question of Palestine.

The claim that Israel has not engaged in terrorism, with the goal of ethnic cleansing ("transfer" in Zionist discourse), since 1948, and that it does not continue to target civilians has no credibility. At the outset of the recent uprising, Human Rights Watch issued a report (October 2000) condemning Israel's "repeated excessive use of lethal force against unarmed Palestinian demonstrators who posed no imminent danger of death or serious injury to security forces or to others."

A more recent Amnesty report entitled "Inaction is Complicity" (March 8, 2002), calls for an immediate "international presence" in the Occupied Territories to halt the escalating cycle of violence, and condemns the Israeli Defense Force for deliberate targeting of ambulances and medical workers, its denial of medical services, illegal demolition of homes, "grave breaches" of Geneva Conventions and "serious violations of human rights standards," and unjustified use of "collective punishment" for specific crimes, all of which amounts to what it calls "disproportionate use of lethal force" endangering the "lives of ordinary people."

None of this excuses Palestinian attacks on Jewish civilians. The deliberate targeting of civilians, including children, is absolutely disgusting, and exceeded only by the greater scale of atrocities and war crimes carried out by Israel against ordinary Palestinians. It should be an elementary truism, however, that condemning one side's atrocities implies nothing about support for the other. Palestinians have the legal and ethical right to resist the occupation of their land by Israel. Some of this resistance is legitimate and some is illegitimate. But regardless of its form, we must understand its roots.

What is uncontested under international law is that the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem is illegal, and UN resolutions calling for Israel's full withdrawal from these territories have been re-affirmed every year since 1967.

No matter what semantic games Israel's apologists wish to play, there is one basic truth which even the most relentless propaganda cannot hide: it is the Palestinians who defend their homeland from external aggression, illegal occupation and settlement, daily degradation, intimidation, and ethnic discrimination, not the other way around. If UN resolutions are indicative of anything, the United States and Israel are virtually alone among the world in denying this fact.

Top >> Back