In response to “Israel, a beacon of humanity or propaganda?”
Dear Editor,
In his recent article, Marshall Watson used Hillel’s Israel Fest last week to expand his personal view on Middle East politics and history in “Israel, a beacon of humanity or propaganda”. Much of the information about the festival, Israel, history and Hillel is false, misleading and distorted.
Watson’s portrayal of Israel Fest as a mechanism used by Hillel to hide what he views as the truth about Israel regarding politics, human rights, treatment of refugees, religious tolerance and even its right to exist. The truth about Hillel is that it is a campus organization that promotes peace, love, understanding and acceptance. The organization has an open relationship with the Muslim Students Association that helps foster friendship though kickball, barbecues and capture the flag, in the name of togetherness and understanding. Hillel engages students in hundreds of programs that educate them, connects them to their heritage and builds leaders of tomorrow. Unfortunately, the column attempts to depict Hillel as a force behind hostility, hatred and deception.
The column makes a leap from assumptions about the purpose of Israel Fest and takes the opportunity to present false history and information about Israel. The historical record needs to be corrected on all fronts. We believe Israel’s true role is of a compassionate and humanitarian democracy amid an increasingly unstable Middle East whose democratic values are threatened. Israel is the only nation in the Middle East where individuals are free and equal under the law and use those protections for the greater good. Israel was established as and is a Jewish state that supports the existence of a diverse population.
Mindful of the disastrous consequences of past and present genocide, war and killing of unarmed citizens in neighboring countries since 1948, Israel has eagerly resettled refugees from worldwide conflicts; thousands of Jews and others fleeing oppression from Yemen, Vietnam, Sudan, Ethiopia and Bosnia. While they have similar struggles as all refugee groups around the world to begin new lives, many are and continue to become proud, contributing members of society.
In 1948 and today Israel is a multi-racial, multi-religious, and multi-culture society which includes Muslim Arabs, Christian Arabs, Druze and others. The Arab minority that constitutes a quarter of the population participates actively in the political process. Arab citizens of Israel take part in the political process of the country, freely join existing political parties, and form their own political parties in the Knesset. They serve as parliamentarians, judges on the Supreme Court, cabinet ministers, diplomats in the Foreign Service and as high-ranking police and army officers. In fact, here in Atlanta, an Arab-Moslem, and a Druze were both selected at different times by Israel to serve as the Israeli Consul General to the Southeast.
Israel is a model democracy that should be emulated by countries around the world. Teams of Israeli first responders are often first to arrive at the scene of major disasters, and it makes no difference whether the tragedy strikes an Israeli ally or a country with which it has no relations. Rescue squads from Israel have responded to earthquakes in Mexico, Haiti, Indonesia and Japan, tsunami victims in Sri Lanka and fire victims in Macedonia. Israeli scientists have developed scores of breakthroughs including innovative techniques to help the desert bloom and increase crop yield, advances in alternative energy and advances in electronics.
Israel takes these actions and maintains these values despite the 64 year-long unrelenting coordinated effort to deny Israel’s right to exist. The portrayal of Hillel, the distortion of our mission, and the use of the vitriolic, distorted and inaccurate history is insulting and inflammatory.
We invite students, faculty and others in the university community to participate with Hillel at KSU to learn more about Israel, participate in social justice programs, Jewish learning and practices, and, work to connect with other cultures. We hope that the university community will ignore the false claims, incorrect history and distortions featured in the article, and instead, appreciate the positive role that Hillel and Israel play in the campus and world.
Perry Birbrager, Alumni, Hillel at KSU Student Board President, 2010
Ariel Kahn, Senior, Communications major, Hillel at KSU Student Board President, 2011-current
Dear Editor,
Before Marshall Watson attacks Israel, maybe he should compare it to its neighbors. I taught at the Technion in Haifa, Israel. There were many Arab students there, Christian, Muslim, Druze. I taught alongside Arab faculty. The previous Israeli consul in Atlanta was a Druze Muslim. There are Arab judges on the Israeli Supreme Court. Of course, there is room for improvement, but compare this to “moderate” Jordan, whose civil laws explicitly preclude Jews from citizenship and residence.
As for the refugee issue: there were similar numbers of Jewish and Arab refugees in the aftermath of the failed 1948 Arab invasion of Israel. The Arab world bears primary responsibility for BOTH refugee issues, by starting the wars. Moreover, Israel uplifted all the Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Their descendants form about half of Israel’s population. Almost none have expressed the desire to return to the oppression they suffered under Arab rule.
Compare this to 64 years of cynical Arab manipulation of the Arab refugees. They have been excluded from citizenship in most Arab countries, and their descendants are deemed refugees. In Lebanon, Palestinians cannot live outside certain areas, nor work in most professions. Arab regimes maintain this issue as a propaganda weapon against Israel. It’s instructive to compare this to the much larger population exchange (about 10 times the size) that took place between India and Pakistan following their separation. Neither side has manipulated refugees in the same way there.
Finally, as regards peace. The core issue has not changed in 64 years: namely Arab refusal to accept a permanent Jewish state, no matter what its boundaries. The Palestinian leadership has repeatedly rejected any resolution that allows a permanent Israel, even one consisting of just Tel Aviv. Thus, Arafat rejected President Clinton’s Camp David plan in 2001, and his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, summarily rejected a still more sweeping 2010 plan.
Only a fundamental change in Arab attitudes can bring about peace; one-sided Israeli concessions cannot.
Doron Lubinsky. Georgia Tech Student
The article written by Birbrager and Kahn, while an admirable defense of Hillel, fails to refute the facts are presented in my article. Rather than proclaim I ‘fabricated events, misled and distorted,’ perhaps they could have offered authoritative refutations of the information I published.
I do not deny Hillel attempts to facilitate cross cultural understanding, however ineffective and useless, kickball, barbecues, and capture the flag may be. I do take issue, however, with the organizations complicity in planning and hosting an event that offers a terribly maliced interpretation of reality. Israel Fest, while seemingly benevolent, offered a skewed view of the nation’s humanitarian and refugee resettlement efforts. I, for lack of a better word, marshalled evidence originating both in fact and interpretation from Israeli sources which are offered in the comments section of my previously published article for all to scrutinize. While I have offered serious peer reviewed Israeli scholarly research, the authors of the above articles merely accuse me of lying without refuting my work.
I did not offer a false history and it is incredibly irresponsible to take a position and deny an opposing argument on the grounds that you don’t particularly like it. Rather than oppose my stance on a fundamental basis, offer an authoritative refutation. I will concede provided the sources are credible.
I did not deny altogether that Israel is an ally to some nations in times of humanitarian crisis, but what I do believe is that such a view does not do justice to Israel’s quite terrible human rights record. Assisting in Haitian earthquake relief does not somehow make up for the imposition of military rule over much of the West Bank, nor the routine use of force against peaceful protesters, often times Israeli citizens themselves.
I do not deny Israel allows some measure of political participation to Arab minorities but you would be remiss to assume the role of Arab political parties is secure. In both 2003 and 2009 Israel banned both Ta’al and Balad’s participation in the political process based on trumped up claims that the parties were supporting terror.
One might notice a trend in both of these letters in which the authors choose to deflect the issue, which demonstrates a lack of authoritative knowledge to refute my article. The information offered is based on an ideological inability to see fault in Israel. While admirably patriotic, this is academically abhorrent. The choice to cry foul by pointing a figure at neighbouring states abuses of Palestinian rights does not in any way excuse Israeli abuses. I did not write an article about Jordan or Syria or Lebanon, I wrote about Israel- and to assert that all responsibility lied in the hands of Arab regimes is pathetic at best. The tired accusation of a 60 odd year effort to destroy Israel is also academically irresponsible, as the picture is much more nuanced. For a more accurate understanding of the First Arab-Israeli War and the conflict in general, read a number of publications authored by Simha Flapan, Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, and John Quigley. Each of these authors, while differing in focus, offer a serious and measured approached to the false portrayal of an innocent Israeli David defending itself against the terrible Arab Goliath.
As for my accounts of Arab Refugees and their relationship with Israel, the readers and authors of these articles may want to delve into the works of Ella Shohat, Aviva Halamish, Aziza Khazzoum, Yehouda Shenhav, and Michael Fischbach before accusing me of fabricating what is actually their well respected historical analysis of Mizrahi history.
Finally, the assertion that a resolution of the conflict is also in the hands of the Arabs rests in a biased view that the Palestinians have continuously refused ‘generous offers’ from Israeli leaders. Even former Defense Minister Shlomo Ben Ami’s Scar’s of War, Wounds of Peace: the Arab-Israeli Tragedy unwittingly recognizes the failure of peace talks cannot attributed to the Palestinians.
Fast forward to the recent past, the Arab states came together to offer a peace proposal in the Arab Peace Initiative, adopted in 2003 and re-adopted in 2007, which the Israeli government categorically rejected.
This is not to say, from my point of view, that Israel deserves all the blame; but implying that we must look to the Arab world instead of criticize Israel is unacceptable. Both Israel and the Arab world deserve much scrutiny for their behaviour, but in a nation that has historically given unequivocal support for Israel, we must not let the relationship go unquestioned.
But as Doron Lubinsky, the authoritative voice of Georgia Tech suggests, peace is surely up to the Arabs, not the ever-conciliatory Israelis. As the Palestine paper revealed when they were released, the Palestinian leadership was willing to concede quite serious issues to the Israelis against the wishes of most Palestinians, but of course the blinders we wear prevent us from acknowledging such facts, don’t they Doron?
Again, the entire point of my article was to offer a perspective often ignored in America because it is important to see the point of view of the other, unfortunately many tend to only see what the want to see and deny the facts that don’t support their argument.
If anything here is found to be ‘fabricated,’ please refute it and offer your source.
Marshall is a funny, dapper young man. Or not.
Marshall,
From your arrogance, you probably perceive yourself as an excellent researcher.
-Israeli officials were reluctant to accept the Arab Peace initiative because of the 2nd intifada shortly before and the violent toll it took on Israel and her citizens.
-Jerusalem is a symbol of the Jewish People’s survival (source: myself, fuck off)
– As a Jew I will never accept the division of Jerusalem. That is OUR CAPITAL.
-This is another reason Israeli officials were reluctant to sign off.
-By the title you are demonizing the whole State of Israel. Israel has a political spectrum, with different views on how to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Don’t bash an entire country because of a certain politician or leader who doesn’t promote peace.
-Israel Fest is an event celebrating/highlighting the diverse culture the Jewish State has to offer. I’m sure there is a Chinese student group celebrating the historical, cultural value Chinese society has to offer. You could write a book on China’s human rights violations. Every single country has a form of “human rights violation” Why single out the Jewish State? Please answer that question.
Marshall, by 6 am tomorrow I want a 2-3 page article on Chinese and Russian human rights violations. You’re an expert researcher. It shouldn’t take that long,.
Joe is one of those fomaus for being fomaus people and is trying to cash in before his 15 minutes are over. He’s one of many I wish would simply go away: Joe the Plumber, Paris Hilton, Miley Cyrus need I go on?
If you are looking for a refutation of the information that you provided in your original article Mr. Watson, I will refer you back to the comments section, where I gave a definitive account of the situations that you so seamlessly gloss over. But Here I will take issue with the current screed where you find yourself congratulating yourself for your mastery of the “nuanced” cultural and political situation of the Middle-east. First, a point of argumentative clarity must be assayed.
Your original article advanced unsubstantiated and puerile rhetoric—you did not even name the Knesset bill that you then claimed was racist—that the likes of even the revisionist historians that you above cite, without quotes, would find duplicitous at best. I have never read any of Avi Shlaim’s or Benny Morris’s tracts and thought that one could argue the positions that you so emphatically argue. Being so thoroughly libertine with the facts, even the revisionist historians would laugh you out of the lecture hall. You are correct about their analysis of the situation circa 1948, but your analysis comes nothing close to that of the measured and real “nuance” that is required to carry this scholarly banter to the general public. Instead, your proclamations about “horrendous human rights record(s)” are buttressed by cracking columns and dramatic incantations to the gods of racial harmony. Your original essay was not cited properly and is, in fact, an intellectual disaster, thus rendering Mr. Birbrager and the KSU Hillel’s annunciations of human rights advances in the state of Israel real and unchallenged. It is a point of elementary logic that the positive proposition be supplied with evidence, KSU Hillel did so, despite your attempts to refute them with your rather pathetic interpretation of the events from 1948 onward, the remain as they are, facts. Thus what you require of Perry and Kahn here should also, and even more so, be required of your original essay, a detailed and cited refutation. This is all tangential logical dicing though, as we wouldn’t want correct reasoning to get in the way of you attempting to save yourself from your own disastrous positions.
I am not sure what “a terribly maliced interpretation of reality” is, as the use of noun to modify a noun is not generally accepted as good grammar, revealing that your writing skills are as advanced as your historical acuity. In your response to the responses you cite, of all sources, HRW, which was just as biased an interpretation of the law as you advance, surly that “facts” have met the man.
Further, your conjuring of the history of the Yemenite Jews, and the associated citations provided are interesting, as in one it cheerfully proclaims that “it was not just the Arabs” that stole property. This is not an analytical severity of mind that constitutes supportive documentation of your original blanket claim. Also, to further the field of argument, I refer you here to the status of supposed Demolitions of Arab towns accounted of in the HRW report: http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=16455, apparently a pro-Palestinian source is more balanced than its western counterpart in giving the fact that Israel has a Judicial system that rules in favor of Arabs in a great number of cases. The facts that you present are not facts, they are ongoing issues. You would have us believe that it has all been settled and accounted for. Nice try.
The revelation that you find it problematic that Israel is a Jewish state is telling, as it reveals your incandescent hatred of the idea that a culture is allowed a right to self-determination, which you so emphatically support in the case of the Palestinians, but deny to the Jews. This is disgusting. Your eroticism with Palestinian rights is only expressed when it denies rights to a Jewish state.
The suggestion that my critique of your “majority Arab” declaration is duplicitous is, again, an example of your lack of analytical refinement. I will cede that the region was a majority Arab Muslim before the partition plan, but this does not mitigate the fact that that Israel, when declared independent, was a majority Jewish. You can blame this on the British or the Ottomans; take your pick, but not the Israelis. And the fact that it is now a majority Jewish is because Israel happened to win wars that sought their total elimination. Regardless of any historical grievances and prayers to the gods of diversity, what was once a majority Arab is now a majority Jewish because the Arabs lost three xenophobic wars of annihilation. Doron stands strong.
The Koch party was a radical Jewish party that was also banned from the Knesset, so we could just as easily say that Jewish representation is not as secure as we thought, couldn’t we Marshal?
The Arab peace initiative was a delayed counter proposal to the Camp David proposal which would have implemented a Palestinian state on 95% of the West bank and all of Gaza. Arafat walked away from the talks, as it did not provide a “right of return.” Which means it didn’t provide for Israel to commit national suicide, one Saudi official calling Arafat’s actions “a crime against the Palestinian people.” The Arab peace initiative called for the same thing. You point out with great vigor that it is irrelevant to mention the fact that the Arab states treat the Palestinian “refugees” as not even citizens, but this fact is at the heart of the debate, since those refugees are banned by law to integrate into the wider Arab society, and as refugee status is a biological marker that only Palestinians are granted, the numbers of them keep growing and the conflict is continued.
The occupation of the west bank is as justified as things can be. Israeli civilians were directly targeted by terrorists emanating from the region during the intifada and military reprisals should be expected, the fact that Israel is stronger should not be taken as evidence that Israel is wrong. Jordan controlled the area that is now called the west bank pre-1967, and did, in fact, engage in ethnic cleansing of Jews from the territory; Israel has not, and gave them a chance at Statehood in 2001, as referenced above. Many times the Palestinian authorities can be quoted as desiring a state Judenrein, as what happened at Gush Katif in Gaza, they demand all Jews out. A minority of Jews living in ancient Jewish cities in the west bank is as much an impediment to peace as the minority of Arabs, a significantly greater minority, living in Israel proper. The problem is that any final status of a Palestinian state will require evictions of Jews from their homes because their safety, absent military forces, is certainly in danger. They would be subjected to horrible treatment at the hands of a radical Islamized Palestinian majority, as is the case of the Egyptian Copts, the Iraqi Christians, the list is endless.
That Israel is not perfect I will concede. That Israel has a “horrendous human rights record” I will debate with great vigor. Considering the circumstances, the term “problematic” might have been a more judicious description. “Horrendous human rights records” are those of Israel neighbors. This is fact that no amount of continued chants from the likes of you and others will mitigate. Given the totality of references that you provide, I am curios if you have ever heard of Ephraim Karsh, and his analysis of things; or Michael Oren, or Alan Dershowitz, or Paul Eidelburg. Also, given the range of sources provided, I cannot account of your bias against Israel in any intellectual terms. Something more percolates to the surface here, do you notice it?
Additionally, here are a few articles about your cherished Human Rights watch:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html?_r=2&em
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3793041,00.html
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1629
Here is a quote from benny morris about the events circa 1948 in Dershowitz book The case for Israel. Page77.
Indeed, by the end of the war , according to morris, the “Arab war planned changed …into a multinational land grab focusing on the arab areas of the country. The evolving Arab ‘plans’ failed to assign any of these whatsoever to the Palestinians or to consider their political aspiration.”
Dershowitz continues: “A key pat of the Arab plan was the complete “marginalization”(morris) of the Palestinians. The Jordanians wanted the west bank and Egypt the Gaza strip. Neither wanted an independent Palestinian state. Nobody can blame Israel for the Egyptian and Jordanian decisions to occupy the lands allocated to the Palestinians for a state and for denying the Palestinians the right to self determination. in those lands. These are incontrovertible historical facts not subject to reasonable dispute but omitted from pro-Palestinian psuedohistories of the period.”
Page 79: The agressive war waged against Israel in 1947 and 1948 by the Palestinian and Arab armies not only took land from the Palestinians but also created the first refugee problem. While Arab armies tried to kill Jewish civilians and did in fact massacre many who tried to escape, the Israeli army allowed Arab citizens to flee to Arab controlled areas.–(me: I will concede that in some instances they were forced out, 70,000 in lyod). For example, when the arab legions sixth battalion conquered kfar etzion, they left no Jewish refugees. The villagers surrendered and walked, hands in air, into the center of the compound. Morris reports that the Arab soldiers simply “proceeded to mow them down.” The soldiers massacred 120 Jews; 21 of them were women. This was part of a general Arab policy: (morris)”Jews taken prisoner during convoy battles were generally put to death and often mutilated by their captors.” It is precisely becausethe Israeli army, unlike Arab armies, did not deliberately kill civilians that the refugee problem arose.
And the Quod Erat Demonstratum: Page 82: Some Palestinian Leaders actually circulated false rumors that women had been raped(me: at the mythic Deir yassin massacre). When confronted with the reality that no rapes had taken place, Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian leader said, ” We have to say this, so that Arab armies will come liberate us from the Jews.” Quote from Morris: the(refugees) would be utilized during the following years by the Arab states as a powerful political and propaganda campaign against Israel. The memory or vicarious memories and the subsequent decades of humiliation and deprivation in the (Arab) refugee camps would ultimately turn generations of Palestinians into potential or active terrorists and the “Palestinian problem into one of the worlds most intractable.”
So, Marshall, Doren’s assessment stands tall and thrives under the perspicacity of the very historian that you tried to use to legitimize your tirade against him. Read up.
Hey Marshall, you sad bro? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEaKX9YYHiQ I’m just going to start interpreting things they way you do. ex: The sky is blue, but I hate that the sky is blue and I’m calling it green. IF YOU CALL IT BLUE YOU ARE WRONG. Is that ok with you?
I don’t have a ton of time to continue this, but I did not assert that Israel’s new historians would agree with all of my assertions, rather you chose to read my comments with an intent to immediately discredit them by assuming such.
And I am familiar with most all the prominent historians of Israel and Karsh much like Oren display a clear political bias in their writings.
I don’t question you with vague assertions that your character is deficient, and quite frankly I think it is despicable of you to say “Something more percolates to the surface here, do you notice it?” I think if you wish to accuse me of something you shouldn’t hint at it like a coward, be blunt.
To continue…
The use of Dershowitz’s book is laughable if you want a measured view of the conflict. He is intolerably pro-Israel to the point that he would probably argue every negative development in the conflict is the fault of Palestinians. In all honestly, Dershowitz can’t even write a book without plagiarizing. So I would never trust his view.
Don’t selectively quote from a book quoting from another source…thats terribly convenient to read in the manner you wish it to support your arguments, rather read Morris’ book. The reason the Arabs war effort devolved to a land grab was because they knew there was no hope of winning the war, therefore they sought to secure something for their efforts. Jordan had an agreement with Israel to proceed no further than the approximate border of the present West Bank and the idea was to let Jordan have it for the time being, and obviously this changed after the 67 war.
Seeing as how you wish to continue a circlejerk here without acknowledging nary a single fact I have offered and are close to calling me an anti-Semite I will resign myself from the discussion as I wished to have an intelligent discussion in the beginning, not a tit-for-tat character attack.
I am dumbfounded that plepoe take the words of JTP seriously as if he is a subject matter expert. Though I have never been a fan of Hilton, I did enjoy her mocking of John McCain during the whole Obama is a celebrity’ garbage.
I have given facts and cited quotes, by Dershowitz and Benny, and all you have is a rant about the credibility of the quotes. Also, I have read Morris work and found some of it distorted as Ephraim Karsh points out, don’t presume that your guy is coming from a completely balanced viewpoint. Your pathetic man. I wouldn’t trust Benny Morris either, as he comes from a left wing Meretz point of view, we need to weight the arguments, which you seem unwilling to do. And yes, I will say it: considering your use of language, “horrendous”, and your attack on hillel, you are an anti-Semitic and biased individual. For if you maintain that some of the language and editorializing employed would not be particularly well received even by critics of Israel, then where are we to suppose such derogatory and inflammatory language comes from? Quoting you: “rather you chose to read my comments with an intent to immediately discredit them by assuming such.” You listed a string of scholars and proceeded to lecture us that your original article was “well-informed.” And now you deny that the views that you expressed can be gleaned from the pages of Morris et. al? Get your head on man. I have called you on your BS. And you can’t seem to present a shred of reason why we shouldn’t think that your hatred of the Jewish state emanates from something deeper in your soul.
Sean,
I think it is pretty plain that one can be a critic (A harsh-critic) of Israel without being an Anti-semite. If I wrote an article on human rights violations of China, North Korea, etc. I would hope I would not be bombarded by Asian-Americans labeling me as racist for stating facts. I think you calling Marshall an anti-semite is crossing a line and it does nothing, but discredit your argument. Religion personally makes no difference to me, and have had several Jewish friends over the years, some very vocally supportive of Israel, some indifferent, and some critics of the country. I think the reason Israel gets more attention for human rights violations than China sometimes is that no one acts like China isn’t violating human rights constantly. Almost anyone you speak with knows that China is not a great country to live in, and that it is an oppressive nation. This goes for North Korea, Russia, Iraq, etc.
The difference is, in the U.S. many people are either Unaware of Israel’s H-R violations, They know but defend Israel because “Israel has always had our backs!”, Or they support Israel because of their religion .
Marshall, I’d like you to know everyone that read the article is not in disagreement.