The claims made in the Monday's op−ed "A film for Israel's real allies" can be divided into two groups: the factually misleading, and the egregiously offensive. The former belies both an understandable, albeit regrettable, misinterpretation of the facts, and bias in reporting those said facts. The latter reflects much deeper prejudices toward Israel and its armed forces. Let us first deal with the falsities.
One particularly misrepresented issue is that of Hamas' war crimes during the Gaza war. The author's remark, "Furthermore, claims regarding the use of civilian infrastructure as bases for rocket attack are largely unfounded" is a perfect example of a widely disputed opinion being passed off as fact. The Jan. 10, 2009 New York Times article, "A Gaza War Full of Traps and Trickery," describes how, during the war, Hamas militants were instructed to take off their uniforms and disguise themselves in civilian clothing, and it reports incidents of traps Hamas set up inside residential buildings. The article references a series of maps confiscated from Hamas militants describing military positions set up in civilian areas, and details Israel's various military tactics aimed at addressing Hamas' strategy of sending civilians onto the rooftops of military installments in order to dissuade the Israel Defense Forces from attacking. Clearly, the claims that the author dismisses as "unfounded" deserve a little more credit than he affords them, considering that he does not mention them at all.
The author claims that the Gaza war "could easily have been rendered unnecessary by a diplomatic solution." The author's naive optimism about the effectiveness of diplomatic relations with a group whose charter refuses to recognize the State of Israel cannot be used as a stepping stone for broader claims. He uses his own opinion to make the claim that Operation Cast Lead was an act of aggressive war, his logic being that since the war could have been "easily avoided," the war must reflect Israeli aggression, rather than a desire for security and peace. Unfortunately, the author's hopes about that probability of the negotiations' success are not necessarily indicative of the realities of the situation and therefore cannot be leveraged in order to make claims about Israel's intentions.
Many of the claims made in the article can be directly traced to the Goldstone Report, which was cited by the author himself. This controversial report has been endorsed and condemned by various states and organizations. The U.S. House of Representatives went as far as to declare that the report is "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy."
As Alan Dershowitz states in his articles on the report, the Goldstone Report relied heavily on eyewitness accounts given by Palestinian civilians under fear of retribution if they spoke out against Hamas. The report also willfully ignored statements made by both sides of the conflict that alluded to the presence of Hamas militant activity in civilian areas. With regard to the claim that Hamas was using medical facilities as stages for their operations, the report states, "On the basis of the investigations it has conducted, the Mission did not find any evidence to support the allegations that hospital facilities were used by the Gaza authorities or by Palestinian armed groups to shield military activities and that ambulances were used to transport combatants or for other military purposes."
This, however, ignores claims made by the Palestinian Authority itself. As Alan Dershowitz writes, "Even the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Health accused Hamas of ‘[using] the medical centers, especially in a number of hospitals, [and] converting them into centers for interrogation, torture, and imprisonment.'" The articles' citation of the Goldstone Report, and the arguments made therein, can only be seen as willfully ignoring the facts on the ground.
But these misrepresentations of the context of the Gaza war are not nearly as troublesome as the author's demonization of the Israeli armed forces. In a statement regarding the war crimes that occurred during the Gaza War, the author notes, "With regard to widespread claims about ‘human shields,' reports by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch found that Israel, not Hamas, had made a systematic policy of consistent use of civilians — often children — as human shields in the occupied territories, a fact later confirmed by the May 4, 2010, conviction by a military court of two Israeli soldiers of carrying out that very act."
The author has the audacity to cite the claim that the acts of two Israeli soldiers who were indicted and convicted of war crimes by an Israeli military court, confirms a widespread "systematic policy" to use human shields. This blatant logical error, that the acts of two soldiers can represent an entire military force, is akin to the equally offensive and audacious claim that the acts of Islamic terrorists are endemic of the entire Islamic population. Yet while the latter claim can be immediately dismissed as patently intolerant, it has become commonplace to make broad reaching criticisms on the policies of the Israeli government based on accidents and isolated incidents. But as David Mamet states in his work "The Wicked Son," modern anti−Semitism entails "the inability to assign to Israelis a basic humanity … the happy assignment of wicked motives to the Israeli soldier."
The author speaks of disproportionate response, but perhaps he should use the lens of proportionality to view his own work. The acts of the Israeli army and administration are given the colorful adjective "aggressive," and the construction of the security wall is described as a "land−grab," while the acts of Hamas, an internationally recognized terrorist organization, are reduced to a mere sentence and a half in the piece. As Mamet states, "The outright denunciation of Israel as ‘acquisitionist, blood−thirsty, colonial, etc.' is to me simply a modern instance of the blood libel — that Jews delight in the blood of others."
Throughout the piece, the author makes sure to denote himself as "an American Jew." Why did he feel the need to qualify himself as an American Jew? What other piece opens with an assertion of nationality and faith? It is as though he believed that by announcing his religion in the introduction of the article, he could be forgiven for any offenses in the body. He attempts to hide his prejudices behind his Judaism, as if to say, "I cannot be biased against Israel, as I am Jewish, too." But the author's status as an American Jew does not give him carte blanche to one−sidedly cite sources to defame the Israeli government and armed forces. It does not legitimize his opinions, nor does it authorize him to use bigoted logic. The author, no matter what his religion, must be held accountable for his words.
Condemnation of Israel is not an act of anti−Semitism — many of Israel's greatest supporters are able to recognize the state's faults. But once you begin to apply the golden rule of discrimination, that the acts of few represent the whole, it is a slippery slope from there.
No, the author is not one of Israel's "real allies"; he is just like many others — too quick to see red in the eyes of Israeli soldiers.
--
Itai Thaler is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
