A TIME TO SPEAK
Volume I:4 (No. 4)
April 2001 - Nissan 5761
DOUBLE, DOUBLE STANDARD
TROUBLE
You shall not have in your pouch alternate
weights, larger and smaller. You shall not have in your house alternate measures,
a larger and a smaller. You must have completely honest weights and completely
honest measures . . . .
– Deuteronomy 25:14-15
Shall I be pure with
wicked balances, and with a bag of deceitful weights?
– Micah 6:11
Material false weights and measures are used to cheat
in commerce. Moral, ethical and intellectual false weights and measures are
used to tilt the scales of justice. Just as there can be two sets of weights
and measures, there can be two standards of judgment – the "double
standard". The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines this term as "A set
of principles that applies differently and usually more vigorously to one group
of people of circumstances than to another".
Since the rebirth of Israel in 1948, there has been a ubiquitous and many-faceted double standard imposed upon it by foreign governments, news media, academics and prominent bodies such as the International Red Cross and Amnesty International. The application of such double standards sometimes requires the invention of doctrines previously unknown in either international law or historic precedent.
1].
Arab states and parties commit virtually every known form of aggression against
Israel and invent some new ones, without incurring any significant disapproval.
When Israel defends itself or responds, it is ruled to be an aggressor.
2]. Arab states and parties launch wars against Israel, with the openly declared intention of annihilating the state and its citizens. After they lose the wars, international society then grants them the right to dictate terms for suspending their hostilities. If Israel demurs at any of the terms, it is ruled to be intransigent.
3].
Arab states or leaders do sometimes make agreements with Israel, written and
signed. But they are not expected to honor the terms of the agreements or abide
by their commitments. This has happened with a series of ceasefire agreements,
the Armistice Agreements of 1949, the peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, and
all agreements with the PLO. Israel is expected to observe all its obligations
unilaterally and without reciprocity from the other party.
4].
In 1948, Trans-Jordan (now Jordan) attacked Israel, seized East Jerusalem, and
banned all Jews of all nationalities from visiting the Western Wall or any
other site of religious or historic meaning to them. It destroyed many of those
sites, and grossly desecrated others. The world was utterly indifferent. In
1967, Jordan again attacked Israel, and thereby Israel regained all of its
ancient capital. The world stirred from its torpor to decide that Jerusalem is
too sacred to be entrusted to those who made it sacred in the first place.
5]. For months past, the Muslim Wakf,
that is permitted to control Temple Mount despite Israeli sovereignty over it,
has been destroying the sites that might yield artifacts and perhaps even
inscriptions and texts from the time of the First and Second Temples whose very
existence they deny.
There was a proper international outcry against the destruction of statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. There is international silence on the archaeological terrorism on Temple Mount, even though it may deprive the world irrevocably of knowledge about both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
6] Even the United States, under whose
flag millions of Jews have lived in liberty, dignity and security unique in the
history of the Diaspora, is not immune to the Double Standard Syndrome. The
United States was created by settlement from Plymouth Rock to Waikiki, by
pioneers who took possession of a vast continent in which they had no historic
roots and from which they disposed the aboriginal inhabitants. This is proudly
termed Manifest Destiny. Yet small Jewish communities in parts of the historic
Land of Israel that have been uninhabited for centuries, within the region
internationally designated as the Jewish National Home, and not under the
jurisdiction of any other sovereignty, are denounced as "obstacles to
peace".
7] Governments of Great Britain brand such communities as "illegal", even though scholars of international law have demonstrated that this charge is false. The British had been entrusted with a Mandate over the Jewish National Home, that was to encourage "close Jewish settlement". They violated that trust by banning Jews. It is now apparently intolerable that Israel should follow the principles of the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate on which the British themselves had reneged.
* *
* * * * * * * * * *
"It
is said that Israel is being provocative, when it is Israel's being that is
provocative."
"From this nation
[Israel] more is demanded."
--
Jean-Paul Sartre
More than a half-century of experience with the international double standard demonstrates that it prevails independently of anything Israel may do or refrain from doing. Therefore, "world opinion" is perceived as so tainted that it is useless and perilous to heed it.
From "What Do They Expect From Israel?", by Evelyn
Gordon, Jerusalem Post, 20 February 2001:
If I could pose one question to a group of senior American and European government officials, it would be the following: Is there any action at all that you would deem legitimate for Israel to take to defend its population against Palestinian attacks – and if so, what?
The answer to the first half of the question would probably be yes, because in principle, both America and Europe agree that countries have the right to defend their citizens. But the second half would be a poser because both the Europeans and the Americans have proven over the last four months that when it comes to Israel, they oppose translating this principle into practice. During this period, Israel has tried a wide variety of tactics in response to the war of attrition that has been the Palestinians' answer to unprecedented Israeli concessions at the negotiating table. Yet every one of these tactics has been unequivocally denounced by the US and the European Union.
Initially, Prime Minister Ehud Barak opted for the simplest tactic of all: telling soldiers to just shoot back when fired upon. But since Palestinian gunmen made a practice of stationing themselves in the midst of crowds of civilians, and since even the most sophisticated weapons are rarely perfectly aimed in the heat of battle, this tactic resulted in the deaths of many civilians as well as gunmen. The result was universal excoriation of Israeli brutality, and the implicit message that it would be preferable for IDF soldiers to simply let themselves be used for target practice.
Barak then decided to try targeting property rather than people. In response to Palestinian attacks, he began ordering the IDF to destroy buildings belonging to the organizations responsible, after first warning the people inside to leave and giving them several hours to do so. Highly sophisticated weapons were used to ensure, as far as possible, that no innocent bystanders were hurt. And the result? Israel was again universally condemned, this time for having used heavy weaponry such as combat helicopters - even though the main purpose of this hi-tech weaponry was to prevent civilian casualties.
Israel has also made extensive use of economic pressure. This has included barring Palestinians from working in Israel, in order to keep potential terrorists out, and not transferring money to the Palestinian Authority, to deprive it of cash with which to buy weapons to use against Israel (according to IDF intelligence, the PA has been engaged in massive arms smuggling for the past several months). Keeping enemy aliens out and freezing enemy assets are both completely standard wartime measures . . . . Nevertheless, Israel has been universally assailed for taking these actions.
Then, finally, Barak came up with one tactic that hurts only the guilty: the targeted killing of known terrorists. These killings have produced almost no civilian casualties, because the IDF can choose the time and place of the attack, and it tries to choose times and places when no innocents are nearby. . . . . The rules of warfare permit taking an enemy by surprise; they do not state that you can open fire only when the enemy is actually shooting at you. But again, the normal rules apparently do not apply to Israel: Rather than applauding a tactic that prevents civilian casualties, both America and Europe have objected vociferously to the targeted killings, with the European Union even terming them "executions without trial" and declaring them a violation of international law.
But if all of the above tactics are completely
unacceptable, just what tactics would America and Europe consider legitimate -
other than for Israel to let its citizens be sitting ducks, without lifting a
finger to protect them? If America and Europe want to exert an influence on
Israel's actions, they owe the government a straightforward answer to this question.
There has never been an Israeli government that would not prefer to use tactics
acceptable to the West, if such tactics exist. But the evidence to date seems
to indicate that there are no such tactics - that in practice, Europe and
America are unwilling for Israel to take any measures in its own defense. And
if this is the case, then the government has no choice but to simply ignore
world opinion and do what it thinks best. For no Israeli government - and
indeed, no self-respecting government in any country - could agree to sit by
and do nothing while its citizens are subjected to daily shooting attacks.
A
similar conclusion from Daniel Pipes, Publisher, Middle East Quarterly
and
Director, Middle East Forum:
Don't worry about world opinion. Israel
is so unfairly treated in this regard, it has little left to lose. Any way, a
strong Israel criticized for defending itself is far better off than a weak
Israel no less criticized when it fails to defend its interest.
* * * *
* * * * * * * *
"Excessive
Force" is the current term for any measures that Israel has to take to
protect its civilians and its soldiers when they are targets for gunmen and
homicidal mobs. This is particularly popular at the United Nations and in the
foreign offices of many of its members.
From
"Et Tu, State Department?" Jerusalem Post, 1 March 2001:
The [U.S.] State Department's annual tome "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices", released this week, claims that Israel "often used excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators". Last October, US Ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke blasted a Security Council resolution saying the same thing, calling it "unbalanced, biased, and really a lousy piece of work". The Clinton administration decided to abstain rather than veto that UN resolution . . .
The State Department was not just forced into taking a stance it found unpleasant, but actually agreed with the 'get Israel' crowd. What is particularly galling is that the standard applied to Israel has no relation to that adopted by the UN and the US in a similar situation not long ago . . . . On September 9, 1993 UN soldiers manning a combat bulldozer were attacked by a crowd of Somali militiamen and civilians. The forces of peace and enlightenment quickly responded with Cobra helicopters, which fired anti-tank missiles and 20 mm cannons into the crowd below. Within minutes, almost 100 of the attackers, most of them civilians, were dead. US Army Maj. David Stockwell, acting as spokesman for the UN force, explained the high civilian casualties thus: 'Everyone on the ground in the vicinity was a combatant, because they meant to do us harm'. The silence from the international community was deafening . . . .
The point here is not that 'everybody does it' and therefore any atrocity can be justified. The point is that the fundamental responsibility of the aggressor for casualties on both sides that was self-evident to the UN and the US in Somalia is completely absent in the case of the Palestinian attacks against Israel. . . . . Unbalanced broadsides like the State Department report hurt the cause they claim to promote in two ways. First, by ignoring the Palestinians' responsibility for their aggression, the US participates in shifting the blame on Israel, which in turn rewards the attacks and encourages their continuation. Secondly, by refusing to put the conflict in a proper prospective, the US ensures that whatever legitimate criticisms it might have are overwhelmed by the fundamental unfairness of its report.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
In the United States there has never been governmental discrimination against Jews, and the Jews have never been persecuted. Nevertheless, even here foreign policy in the Middle East has from time to time been tilted so that what is permitted to other nations is not permitted to a Jewish one.
For example:
1] A former U.S. president, speaking for a country that "settled" from Plymouth Rock to Waikiki, was outraged that Jews should presume to dwell in their own ancestral lands of Judea and Samaria, within the designed Jewish National Home.
2] Israel is condemned by U.S. spokesmen
when it reacts against murderous terrorist attacks. Yet --
-- A café in Germany, frequented by U.S.
servicemen, was bombed and an American soldier killed. It was determined that
this was the work of Libya's Qaddafi, and so the U.S. air force bombed Tripoli,
making Qaddafi's own residence one of the targets and killing his two-year-old
adopted daughter.
-- United States citizens were
considered to be in danger on the Caribbean island of Grenada, so the U.S.
troops landed in Grenada to protect them.
-- Panama's President Manuel
Noriega was accused of drug-smuggling, so the United States invaded Panama to
arrest him. Hundreds of people were killed in that campaign.
The survival of the United States was not at risk in any of these
instances, but it exercised its right to act in defense of its citizens and its
national interests. Yet when Israel is under assault from enemies openly set on
its destruction, and its people are being slaughtered daily, its best friend
demands "restraint" even at the same time that imposes no restraints
on protecting its own people and interests.
In
the Capital of Mankind Assembled:
In 1951, the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling upon Egypt to cease barring the Suez Canal to Israeli cargo ships and ships of all nations carrying civilian cargoes to or from Israel, since this is a violation of the Treaty of Constantinople and other international law. Egypt ignored the resolution and continued its practice. The subject was dropped. This resolution is unique, for there was no other occasion in 53 years when the United Nations made even a futile effort to fulfill its elementary obligations to Israel as a member state. Israel, in contrast to any other member, is in effect prevented from seeking any redress and from election to any office.
The Security Council, the General
Assembly, the Secretariat and the various special agencies have since 1948
expended an extraordinary amount of time and funds on the Israel-Arab
situation, more than on all other wars, disputes and global problems. None of
the time or funds goes toward inhibiting unprovoked wars against Israel, the
openly flaunted intent of destroying Israel, worldwide terrorist attacks
against Jews and
non-Jews, or unlawful blockades. They go exclusively toward condemning any
Israeli reactions thereto. In UN debates, the ferocious and fantastical
rhetoric of the anti-Israel bloc enjoys the placid acquiescence of educated
gentlemen and ladies representing the democracies of the Western world.
The grotesqueries of the United Nations are covered only in
small part in these excerpts from the report
"The United Nations and Israel", by Mitchell Bard:
Starting in the mid-1970s, an Arab-Soviet-Third World bloc joined to form what amounted to a pro-PLO lobby at the United Nations. This was particularly true in the General Assembly where these countries—nearly all dictatorships or autocracies—frequently voted together to pass resolutions attacking Israel and supporting the PLO.
In 1975 . . . . at the instigation of the Arab states and the Soviet Bloc, the Assembly approved Resolution 3379, which slandered Zionism by branding it a form of racism. U.S. Ambassador Daniel Moynihan called the resolution an “obscene act.” Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog told his fellow delegates the resolution was "based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance." Hitler, he declared, would have felt at home listening to the UN debate on the measure.
Less than a week before repealing the measure [in December 1991] the General Assembly approved four new one-sided resolutions on the Middle East . . . . As Herzog noted, the organization developed an Alice-In-Wonderland perspective on Israel. "In the UN building, she would only have to wear a Star of David in order to hear the imperious Off with her head at every turn." Herzog noted that the PLO had cited a 1974 UN resolution condemning Israel as justification for setting off a bomb in Jerusalem.
Bloc voting also made possible the
establishment of the pro-PLO "Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the
Palestinian People" in 1975. The panel became, in effect, part of the PLO
propaganda apparatus, issuing stamps, organizing meetings, preparing films and
draft resolutions in support of Palestinian "rights". In 1976, the
committee recommended "full implementation of the inalienable rights of
the Palestinian people, including their return to the Israeli part of
Palestine". It also recommended that November 29 — the day the UN
voted to partition Palestine in 1947 — be declared an "International
Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People". Since then, it has been
observed at the UN with anti-Israel speeches, films, and exhibits. Over the
objections of the United States, a special unit on Palestine was established as
part of the UN Secretariat.
The
UN's continuing anti-Israel bias was exemplified by its sponsorship of the
eighth 'North American NGO [Non-governmental organization] Symposium on the
Question of Palestine' in 1991. "The ensuing parade of luminaries
repeated, ad nauseam, virtually every anti-Israel canard imaginable",
wrote an observer who attended the conference. Since the early 1970s, the UN has
become permeated with anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist sentiment.
The
following comments illustrate how ugly the atmosphere has become:
"Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people
and trying to debase them?" Representative of Libya to the United Nations.
"The
Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish
man, he will be damned for eternity." -- Saudi Arabian delegate before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission conference on religious tolerance. A similar
remark was made by the Syrian Ambassador
at a 1991 meeting, who insisted Jews killed Christian children to use their
blood to make matzos.
On March 11, 1997, the Palestinian representative to the UN Human Rights Commission claimed the Israeli government had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. Despite the efforts of Israel, the United States and others, this blood libel remains on the UN record.
[. . . .] Debates on Israel abound, and the Council has repeatedly condemned the Jewish State. But not once has it adopted a resolution critical of the PLO or of Arab attacks on Israel. What takes place in the Security Council "more closely resembles a mugging than either a political debate or an effort at problem-solving," declared former UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick."
"State
of Israel Does Not Appear on a UN Map of the Holy Land", by Yaffa
Goldstein, in the Israeli newspaper HaTzofeh, 27 February 2001:
The UN financed a Palestinian tourist map of the Holy Land that does not name the State of Israel, and the entire center of the country, excepting Gaza and Samaria, is represented as being unsettled. The only Jewish communities that appear on this map are cited with their [names converted into] Arabic . . . .
The map was discovered by a journalist, David Bedein, from the Israel Resource News Agency. The bottom of the map notes that its production was financed by the UN's Development Department, whose offices are located on Yaakobi Street, West Jerusalem. One of the UN officials in the office confirmed to Bedein that the map's production had been financed by his department. But the official and his secretary later denied they had had any knowledge of the project.
Emanuel Nahshon,
a deputy-spokesman in the Foreign Ministry, told Hatzofe yesterday that
this map was part of the Palestinian propaganda that was geared to eradicate
the State of Israel and delegitimize it. He said the Foreign Ministry could
only express regret that the UN had financed a project whose goal it was to
turn the State of Israel into a white blotch on the map.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The Hebrew word Dayenu does
not have an exact English equivalent, but can be rendered as "It would be
enough for us". In the Seder service on Passover, it is used to mean that
any single favor or blessing bestowed on the Children of Israel is enough to
deserve gratitude. Berel Wein uses
it in the sense of "enough already" for some current non-favors, in The
Jerusalem Post, 13 April 2001:
[. . . .] I am compelled to paraphrase the famous Pessah poem/song Dayenu to describe our current situation in Israel and the Jewish world generally. The traditional Dayenu of the Haggada is a song of thanksgiving and praise to the Lord of Israel for His manifold blessings and miracles in the story of the Exodus of Israel from Egyptian bondage and oppression.
My "Dayenu" concerns itself with the sickening hypocrisy and enmity exhibited by the world in its attitude toward Israel and Jews.
Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the UN, attended the recent meeting of the Arab League foreign ministers in Amman. In his speech to the assembled Arab leaders, he chose to join the chorus of vitriol being heaped upon Israel at that meeting. With Arafat sitting there and beaming, good old Kofi found only words of sympathy for the Palestinians and words of condemnation for the Israeli "oppressor." As such, he and the UN have reverted back to its traditional anti-Israel bias and unproductive propaganda.
The shameful
Security Council resolution that the US bravely and correctly vetoed that would
have brought in UN observers to "protect" the Palestinians is only
the beginning of the new UN offensive against Israel. The Palestinians need
protection only from themselves. If they stop shooting, they can be assured
that no one will shoot at them.
But the UN and Kofi Annan choose to ignore the facts that they know to be true and only spew forth their anti-Israel attitude . . . . Well, shame on you, Mr. Annan and the UN. I say Dayenu! -- enough already. How about doing something positive about the Lebanese border where you already operate before tackling new areas of tension?
We also heard from the spokesman for the Norwegian Foreign Office last week. The distinguished Mr. Johansen opined that it was perfectly legal and moral for the Palestinians to throw stones and shoot live ammunition at Israeli soldiers since they were 'battling for freedom from occupiers'. When asked if it was also proper to target civilian Israelis living in the West Bank and Gaza, the noted diplomat and Oslo peacemaker replied that "this is a legal question that is being referred to the legal department of the Foreign Office". When his comments raised a furor, Johansen claimed that his words were taken out of context, though the reporter that published the interview with him stated that the text of the article was sent to Johansen for review before publication.
The Danes object to our minister of tourism. Well, guys, I must say to you as well: Dayenu! Enough of your crocodile tears and hypocritical posturing. If you are truly interested in quieting down the situation, then stop the bias and the hatred and tell Arafat exactly what US President George Bush told him: 'Stop the shooting!'
[According to tradition] many Jews who did not participate in the Exodus from Egypt. They had no faith in Moses and were so brainwashed by the prevalent ideas of Egyptian society that they failed to believe in themselves and their future. There are unfortunately quite a few Jews around today that also cannot give up on their humanistic illusions even though the bitter reality of the facts slaps them in the face. There are a group of Jews who are going to honor that noted fighter for peace and justice, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, at a luncheon in Washington. What they hope to accomplish by this is unknown to me. Mubarak should instead be told to return his ambassador to Israel, to stop supporting the maximalist demands of Arafat and to rein in the continuing bitterly antisemitic propaganda of his government-controlled media. In short, he should be told Dayenu! We have had enough of his hatred and negative influence. Jews should tell him the truth and not fawn disgracefully over this exploiting dictator. [. . . .]
A big fat Dayenu! from us.
[Comment: Some of the individuals cited above have personal links to exemplars of high morality and courage. Kofi Annan is a nephew-by-marriage of Raoul Wallenberg. An officeholder in Denmark speaks for the nation that en masse rescued its Jewish community from the Nazis.]
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Many organizations devoted themselves with great vigor to the human rights of Arabs living under the administration of Israel. Once those same Arabs were turned over to the rule of PLO, there was so sharp a drop in the vigor that the question arises: Where they moved by a genuine concern for those people or by a desire to exploit their situation as a way to cast discredit on Israel?
From
a report by David Bedein, Israel Resource Review, 21 September, 2000:
The themes of human rights, civil liberties and human dignity have been on prominent display in Israel-Arab relations, and earn banner coverage in the media. Advocacy groups for the Palestinian-Arabs made very effective use of these themes in diverting public attention from Arab-PLO terrorism and belligerency as moral issues, to Palestinian Arab-rights as a moral issue. They thereby won wide support from a well-meaning if not always keenly perceptive public.
News coverage of these rights peaked during the first two years of the intifada, The PLO encouraged youngsters to get onto the front lines of riots, knowing full well that they would be most exposed there and presented by the news media as child victims. This was a propaganda device that brought the PLO great dividends in public relations. The Palestinian Human Rights Information Center, based in Jerusalem and in Washington, coordinated a campaign that succeeded in igniting the passions of human rights groups throughout the world and, eventually, throughout Israel.
By 1990, at least sixteen internationally respected human rights organizations were monitoring the human rights policies of the government of Israel. These organizations contributed mightily to shaping a public opinion that pushed Israel into recognizing and dealing with the PLO in the Oslo Accords of 1993. In the spring of 1994, a self-governing Arab-Palestine entity was set up under the rule of Arafat. There was by then a long record of Arafat's autocratic methods and executions of opponents . . . . In August 1994, Arafat closed the Palestinian Human Rights Information Center and put its staff in prison. That was just the beginning of his ongoing campaign to ignore the complaints of human rights organizations, and indeed to crush the organizations entirely.
. . . . Thus, a process
that had been driven by human rights organizations on behalf of the Arab-Palestinians culminated in
depriving those people even of the rights that had been accorded under Israeli
administration. Those organizations that had for years stood so loudly for
Arab-Palestinian rights succeeded in placing them under a rule with no human
rights or civil liberties
* * * * * * *
Israeli television critic Calev Ben-David suggested
subjects for special programs for the Passover season. Among them: "The Ten Plagues – BBC-TV Investigates Israelite
Atrocities Against the Ancient Egyptians".