Professor Pier

1

Gold

Joseph Gold

Professor Pier

ENG101

Professor Pier

October 279 December, 20086

Final Essay

Working Title

When Israel announced on July 3, 2001 its intention to build a security fence to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, the world shouted its outrage. People called the security fence the "Apartheid Wall" and accused Israel of practicing apartheid. While Israel has been accused of worse, including ethnic cleansing and genocide, this new accusation is just as unfounded as the others, and reeks of a double-standard; one of many directed at Israel throughout its existence.

While a vast majority of Americans believe Israel's security fence should be dismantled, at the same time 56 percent believe that building a 700 mile fence along the Mexican/American border to stop illegal immigrants from entering the United States is the right thing to do. The only difference between the two fences is that the illegal immigrants entering the United States aren't trying to kill Americans while the Palestinian terrorists trying to sneak into Israel are trying to kill Israelis. While Palestinians claim, according to Mark MacKinnon of The Globe & Mail, that the security fence is just a land grab and a way to kick the Palestinians out of Jerusalem (MacKinnon[U1]), the fence is in fact nothing more than a defense against those who would see Israel gone. The statistics speak for themselves. According to a video released by the Israeli government, bombings of Israeli citizens increased dramatically since October of 2000. Within 40 months there had been 20,497 attacks, killing 927 and wounding 6,137. Since the erection of the fence not one bomber has gotten through from Gaza, and in the part of the West Bank where the fence has already been built, terrorist activities have dropped by more than 50 percent.

The fence is not permanent, and can be removed in a matter of days. In the video the Israeli government has stated that "When the terror ends, so will the need for the fence." But many Americans, and most of the Western world, choose to ignore this fact and instead focus only on the Palestinian plight, claiming human right's violations on Israel's part. In reality Israel has gone out of its way to accommodate anyone inconvenienced by the fence, including the creation of 41 gates, 11 crossing points, and five terminals for the transfer of goods. Israel has replanted 63,000 olive trees to compensate the inconvenienced farmers, and anyone can file a complaint and have their case looked at with the possibility of rerouting the fence around their property.

But the issue of the Security Fence is far from the only double -standard when it comes to Israel. Indeed, you need look no further than the United Nations to find it. As Anne Bayefsky put it, "The credibility of the flagship of UN ‘"reform,’" the newly created Human Rights Council, sunk during its very first session..." (Bayefsky, par. 1) In her article she says that, in their very first session the Council did not focus on human -rights violations like the genocide in Sudan, the billion Chinese without any rights, or the state of the 13 million women who can't drive a car or even go out in public unescorted in Saudi Arabia. Nor did they focus on the plight of the 23 million North Koreans without any human -rights, or the situation in Darfur, where three quarters of a million people are beyond humanitarian reach, 2.5 million displaced by violence, 385,000 people at risk of imminent starvation, and over 2 million dead in 22 years of violence. The list goes on and on, but instead of discussing any of these issues, the only country to be singled out was Israel. When they were done they had passed only one resolution condemning human -rights violations by any of the 192 UN members, and directed it at Israel (Bayefsky, par. 4).

This, of course, is not surprising when you know that of the 47 states on the Council, 55 percent are African and Asian regional groups controlled by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and 32 of the 47 are from the Group of 77, a loose coalition of developing nations whose track record when it comes to human -rights could use some polishing. The irony, as Anne Bayefsky put it, is that "The original mission of the UN was rooted in the legacy of the Holocaust, the shield of ‘"never again,’" and the lance of human-rights protection. We are witnesses to the hijacking of the Organization to serve the purveyors of bigotry and hate." (Bayefsky, par. 12).

Another example of double -standard can be found in the boycott of Israeli academics by The National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) in England because of the occupation of Palestinian land. For some reason though, they forgot to boycott Russian academics for its occupation of Chechnya and the atrocities committed there, or Chinese academics for its occupation of Tibet. And what about boycotting the United States academics because of the occupation of Iraq since everybody seems to be against that these days. Did NATFHE just forget about them or do they just find that a boycott of these countries will inconvenience them too much?

Speaking of England, the tragic bombings on July 7, 2005 brought to light another issue of double -standards. During the manhunt for the terrorists responsible for the attempted copycat bombings two weeks later, an innocent man was shot and killed by police because they thought he was a suicide bomber. Aside from a few angry editorials there was virtually no backlash from this unfortunate incident. As Tom Gross points out in the National Post,[U2] if this were to have happened in Israel it would have been "...mercilessly berated by virtually the entire world.... The UN would probably have been sitting in an emergency session by late afternoon to unanimously denounce the Jewish state." But since it happened in England, no universities were boycotted, London Mayor Ken Livingston wasn't facing war crimes charges (as he himself has demanded Israeli political leaders should be), and The Guardian didn't call British policy to shoot suspected suicide bombers "genocide." Instead, The Guardian, the very same newspaper that calls suicide bombers in Israel "fighters" and "activists," called the 7/7 terrorists "deranged," "savage," and "demented killers" who "murder in the name of god." Of this Mr. Gross said that "Many British Journalists evidently have difficulty in admitting that people murdered on buses in Israel are as much victims as those on London buses."

But nothing has brought to light the double standard people have when it comes to Israel more than the recent conflict in Lebanon. The conflict started when Hezbollah, copying Hamas, crossed the border from Lebanon into Israel, capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing eight others. At the same time they started firing Katyusha rockets and long-range missiles into Israel, purposely targeting civilian areas. Nobody can dispute that Hezbollah started this conflict, so why are there people marching in protest all over the world, calling for the condemnation of Israel for defending itself?

People were claiming that the Israeli response wasn't measured. What does that mean? When a single gunman takes hostages in a bank, should the police only send in one SWAT team member because sending the whole team in won't be fair and "measured" to the gunman? No, the police send in the whole team because they have a much better chance of taking control of the situation. The same is true for Israel. Should they just dash into Lebanon, grab two Hezbollah members, kill eight others, dash back to the border and call it a day? No, when someone threatens you with a gun, you pull out a bigger gun and pound him with it so that he doesn't try to pull a gun on you again. And with regard to the disproportionate number of Lebanese killed over Israelis killed, the explanation is very simple: Hezbollah purposely hides among civilians because they have learned from Palestinian terrorists that, as Alan Dershowitz points out, "Palestinian casualties play in their favor and Israeli casualties play in their favor." (“Anti-Israel July 11”, par. 2). The Israeli body count was much less for the simple reason that they were hiding in bomb shelters. If they weren't, you can guarantee the count would have been much higher.

And what's Israel supposed to do? Give up, sit on their hands, and let rockets fall on their heads because they can't retaliate for fear of hurting civilians? A country's first priority is to its own citizens' safety, so they must protect Israelis before worrying about the citizens of another country. It may sound cold but there simply was no other alternative. Contrary to what the media would have you believe, Israel has always tried diplomacy first, but as Eli Sherr, a typical Israeli said in the National Post, "We've tried everything and failed. We have left Gaza and Lebanon, but the attacks won't stop... the enemy kept looking for trouble. What else can we do? We have to make them understand that there's a line they can't cross." [U3]This sentiment was echoed throughout Israel after the Hezbollah kidnapping. There comes a time when you just can't turn the other cheek anymore.

Unfortunately the terrorists still hasn't learned their lesson, and likely never will, as they continue to smuggle weapons in from Syria, Iran, and Egypt. The Jerusalem Post writes that just in the last two months "Close to 20 tons of high-grade explosives have been smuggled into the Gaza Strip." (“Egypt must stop”).[U4]Herb Keinon writes in another Jerusalem Post article that "Hamas is smuggling advanced weaponry including anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles into the Gaza Strip." The Israeli Ambassador to the UN has recently sent a letter to the UN Security Council stressing that it will soon have to take defensive action in light of the Kassam rockets that are still constantly falling on Israeli cities and towns.

The most recent double-standard has come to light in the wake of the recent announcements by Iran and North Korea about their nuclear ambitions. HonestReporting.com has reported that, in the wake of the North Korea's nuclear test, Sky News published an article calling Israel "...a member of the nuclear mafia." (“Immoral”, par. 2). For some reason the article forgot to include the United States, UK, Russia, France, China, India, and Pakistan in this so-called mafia (“Immoral”, par. 3). The comparison of Israel to North Korea is lunacy, as one is a repressive communist dictatorship and the other is the only real democracy in the Middle East. As HonestReporting.com points out, North Korea has "...shared missile technology with Syria and Iran [while] the other stands with the West on the frontline of the battle against terrorism..." (“Immoral”, par. 1).

People accuse President Bush of having a double-standard when it comes to Iran's nuclear ambitions. They ask why he worries about Iran but not Israel or India, whom the United States has actually provided information about nuclear technology to. This is, to put it mildly, a very silly question, as Israel's nuclear bombs threaten nobody while Iran's nuclear bombs do. India has shared its nuclear technology with no one while countries like Pakistan have. Nobody worries about Israel and India making the technology available to terrorists, but everyone worries about Iran doing that.

An article in The Economist points out that those who oppose the war in Iraq say that "Israel has violated countless UN resolutions and amassed weapons of mass destruction... Why then is Iraq singled out for yet more punishment while Israel gets off scot-free?" (“Iraq, Israel and the United Nations”)[U5] This question has inspired a new slogan for anti-war demonstrators in America and Europe: "No war against Iraq, Free Palestine." In truth, though, the resolutions against Israel are totally different from those imposed against Iraq. The ones against Israel were all passed under Chapter Six which deal with peaceful resolutions of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. This even includes Resolution 242 of 1967, which is often misquoted by protesters of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land as calling for Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories occupied in 1967. It in truth calls for a negotiated settlement based on the principle of exchanging land for peace, which Israel has tried to do many times.

The resolutions imposed on Iraq, on the other hand, are under Chapter Seven, which gives the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with "threats to the peace, breaches of peace, or acts of aggression," (“Iraq, Israel and the United Nations”) according to The Economist article. In addition, unlike Iraq, Israel has never signed the UN's Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. And while no nuclear weapons have been found in Iraq to date, it is well known that Iraq has tried in the past to use the civilian nuclear help, which the treaty entitles it to, to build a nuclear bomb in secret.

In short, this essay is meant to point out the double standards many people have when it comes to Israel, whether the issue is about the Israel/Palestinian conflict, terror in general, or the nuclear issue. One final thought for those who still see Israel as being just another oppressive state: Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former leader of Iran, is quoted by Alan Dershowitz as threatening Israel with nuclear destruction, boasting that "An Iranian attack would kill as many as fifteen million... a small sacrifice for the billion Muslims in the world." (“Anti-Israel July 11”, par. 8). Former Israeli Prime Minister Begin, on the other hand, when discussing Iraq's nuclear ambitions in 1981, stated that "No Israeli government could contemplate bombing [when] such an attack would have brought about massive radioactive fallout over... Baghdad [in which] tens of thousands of innocent residents would have been hurt." (“Anti-Israel July 11”, par. 9). When comparing the two quotes, which one sounds like the talk of a dictator and which one sounds like the leader of a democratic state?

Bibliography:Works Cited

Bayefsky, Anne. "Discrimination and Double Standards: Anti-Israel Past isn Present at the U.N.'s Human Rights Council." Unknown NewspaperNational Review 5 July, 2006. 9 Dec. 2008 <

Cohen, Richard. "Judicious Double Standards." Washington Post 7 Mar. 2006: A17. 9 Dec. 2008 <

Dershowitz, Alan. "The Anti-Israel Double Standards Watch." The Huffington Post 11 July 2006. 9 Dec. 2008 <antiisrael-double-st_b_24811.html>.

Dershowitz, Alan---. "The Anti-Israel Double Standards Watch." Alan Dershowitz BioThe Huffington Post 1 14 July 2006. 9 Dec. 2008 <

"Egypt Must Stop The Smuggling." The Jerusalem Post 29 Sept. 2006.

Dershowitz, Alan. "The Anti-Israel Double Standards Watch." Alan Dershowitz Bio 14 July 2006

antiisrael-double-st_b_24811.html - 53k -

Honest Reporting. "Immoral Nuclear Relativism." To Joseph Gold. 10 Oct. 2006. 9 Dec. 2008 < Immoral_Nuclear_Relativism.asp>.

Honest Reporting---. "When Cameramen Attack." To Joseph Gold. 18 Oct. 2006. 9 Dec. 2008 <

articles/45884734/critiques/When_Cameramen_Attack.asp>.

“Iraq, Israel and the United Nations: Double Standards.” The Economist 10 Oct. 2002. 9 Dec. 2008 <

Jonas, George. "Damage Not Remotely ‘Collateral.’'" National Post 17 July, 2006.

Keinon, Herb. "Anti-Aircraft Missiles Smuggled Into Gaza." The Jerusalem Post 29 Sept. 2006.

MacKinnon, Mark. "The Other Side of Sharon's Gaza Plan?" The Globe & Mail 29 July, 2005. 9 Dec. 2008 < content/subscribe? user_URL= %2FArticleNews%2FTPStory%2FLAC%2F20050729%2FGAZA29%2FTPInternational%2F%3Fquery%3Dpage%253DA13%2Band%2Bsortdate%253D20050729&ord=6328637&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true.

Rosner, Shmuel. " ‘Restraint’' is not an Option." National Post 17 July, 2006.

The Jerusalem Post "Egypt Must Stop The Smuggling." 29 Sept. 2006

The Economist. "Double Standards." 10 Oct. 2002

Young, Cathy. The Y Files. "The Israeli Academic Boycott: Same Old Double Standard." The Y Files. 27 May 20069 Dec. 2008 <

>. - 25k ->

[U1]No access to this article, so can't add paragraph numbers

[U2]Missing from works cited page

[U3]Can’t confirm which of your National Post sources this came from

[U4]No access to this article, so can't add paragraph numbers

[U5]No access to this article, so can't add paragraph numbers