|
October 25, 2004
Barry Cohen, a former Minister in the Hawke/Keating Labor Government, says that anti-semitism is rife in Australia and in the ALP. He also says that he is sick of the calumny heaped on Israel - most of which is a pack of lies--that is put out by people who march behind banners equating Israel with Nazism.
The background context to this situation in the US can be found here. The background context to the debate in Australia can be found here and here. The current political situation in Israel.
The case Cohen makes is this.
He says that the handful of pro-Palestinian supporters in the ALP "has grown steadily as the party has become dominated by the education mafia; former public servants and party union apparatchiks. There are Labor MPs who are vigorous supporters of Israel but their numbers are diminishing and they are being drowned out by the more vociferous members of Labor's hard Left."
He says that when "Australian Jews respond to the grotesque exaggeration about Israel, we are accused of being part of the "Jewish lobby....Israel's opponents in Australia now include those who support the Palestinians not for ideological reasons but because of the increased number of Arab voters in their electorates."
He then describes the mentality of the hard left as one that says the cause of September 11 was America's Middle East policies and their failure to rein in the Israelis. This is repeated ad nauseam by one left/liberal commentator after another.
Cohen says that the (left-liberal crowd in the) Labor Party can "support the Palestinians providing the case they put is not based on the lies spouted by the Palestinian propaganda machine." He adds that "silence on these issues isn't good enough for me. If people want to criticise Israel, fine - plenty of Israelis do. But let it be reasoned criticism, and if they want even-handedness let them also berate the Arab world for its denial of basic human rights for any of its citizens."
That is Cohen's case.
I notice that nowhere in the article does Cohen acknowledge that the Palestinians have a case. Cohen does not even mention the Israeli settlements in Palestinan territory of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Those territories are occupied by the settlers who are supported by the Israeli state. Cohen says nothing about the fundamentalist, xenophobic and anti-democratic settlers opposing Israel's withdrawal from the occupied territories. Cohen assumes a unified Israel not a deeply divided one.
Nor does he mention that the Israeli right's policies are aimed at preventing the emergence of a Palestinian state. They are designed to make the West Bank Palestinians stateless persons, who have no civil rights and no recognition as persons in the law. So their lives are spent petitioning for things other people take for granted. Their property and lives can be taken at will.
The failure to acknowledge this case --Palestinian national self-determination and citizenship via a two state solution---means that Cohen is equating criticism of Israel under the Sharon government with anti-semitism--- the standard ploy of the (neo-con?) Israeli right. The right (religious settler movement) is not equivalent to Israel as a Jewish nation.
Their argument is that the Israeli people have the right to defend themselves; they should defend themselves; and they also have an obligation to prevent Israeli children being killed by suicide bombers, from being killed by Palestinian terrorists.
Granted.
But what is not said, or acknowledged, even in times when Israel launches bloody incursions into the occupied territories, is that the Palestinian people have similar rights and obligations. They also have the right and an obligation to defend themselves and their children from being killed by the Israeli military. And they should do so.
Would Cohen accept that? Would he accept that as a legitimate response to his case?
I have my doubts. Cohen says that he doesn't "want even-handedness when it ought to be obvious to all but the blind that there is no moral equivalence between a country that seeks to defend its citizens from thousands of terrorist attacks, and the terrorists themselves." Fine. But his language implies that he aims that criticism just at the Palestinians.
If you change 'terrorist' to 'military', then you can aim the statement back at Israel. The sentence would read: it ought to be obvious to all but the blind that there is no moral equivalence between a country that seeks to defend its citizens from thousands of military attacks, and the military themselves.
Is that reworking of moral equivalence acceptable? If not why not?
Note that my left liberal hard left argument does not equate Israel with Nazism. It is an argument based on a colonial (Israel) colonized (Palestine) relationship. Maybe that relationship is not the right one to make sense of this conflict. If it is not, then an argument has to be shown for why the self-determination of the Palestinian people is inappropriate claim re a two state solution.
Cohen fails to persuade. He fails to acknowledge that both sides are responsible for the violence, the sense of drift towards chaos, and the deep foreboding.
|
I'm sorry Gary. I'm a reasonably regular reader of your blog since I discovered it in the lead-up to the election and I find what you say often entertaining and sometimes enlightening but the hard left has a problem when it comes to the current situation between Israel and the Palestinians and unfortunately you've followed the position to the letter.
You split hairs by stating that nowhere does Cohen state that Palestinians have a case. Whilst he does not, he does say that "Nowhere is Israel subjected to more criticism than in Israel." Now he isn't talking about criticism regarding the public transport system, the environment, the weather, health funding or any of the myriad issues that occupy vast amounts of time, energy, newsprint and electrons in this country. It is quite clear that the criticism pertains to the conflict with the Palestinians.
Your comments that Palestinians have a right to defend themselves are right out of the moral equivalency playbook that the SL wing of the ALP love trotting out. No, killing innocent civilians is not defending oneself or one's family. No, killing politicians no matter how obnoxious is not defending one's home. I could go on and on but a comments section is not the venue for this argument. Yes, before you ask I am Jewish, my mother is Israeli and whilst I have qualms about Israeli policies and actions towards the Palestinians engaging in hand-wringing, breast-beating and passing racist resolutions in the UN is not going to bring a genuine peace any closer.
If you want to focus on tragedies the world is not short of them. How about campaigning for UN intervention in Darfur. Woops I forgot that the conflict is between two ethnically different Islamic groups. Apparently a little too difficult for the SL wing to get its head around.