Why is it necessary to vilify? In last week’s Argus, Zach Lazarus made an effort to point out Ariel Sharon’s “real intentions” despite the recent air of hope and productivity that is being felt in Israel and the Territories. This determination to vilify one side is utterly counter-productive; any informed person should easily be able to asses that both sides have had their share of positive and negative contributions to ceasing the violence without being hit over the head with policy imperfections. Whether or not one ultimately agrees with one side or another is a different story altogether.
For example: Why is it helpful to point to Sharon’s cutting ties with Abbas early on when as a result of that move, Abbas deployed police in Northern Gaza, ending the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel? Is it not true that when the police were deployed ties were renewed? Is it not also true that as a result of these steps the two leaders are scheduled to have a summit on Feb. 8? Is it possible that if Sharon hadn’t pressured Abbas, there may have been a considerable amount of time before the police were deployed, which would have led to more civilian deaths in the Israeli town of Sderot?
Further, the Wespeak cites a recent article in the Israeli paper Ha’aretz about a 1950 Israeli land-confiscation law (adopted from the Ottoman law that the British left untouched during the mandate). Perhaps the author stopped reading Ha’aretz, because two days before his Wespeak was published, the headlines told of Israel’s attorney general deciding that JNF land had to be sold equally to Jews and Arabs alike. But hey, why bother talking about Israel’s vibrant democracy? Why mention the fact that it has a separation of powers that keeps its policies in check? Let’s not get bogged down with details about Israeli lawyers like Daniel Saidman, who devote their careers to fighting illegal confiscations such as those mentioned in Lazarus’ Wespeak. Let’s not discuss Israel’s High Court rerouting of the separation fence along much of the Green Line, a fence that was, by the way, largely responsible for 47 percent less terror-related Israeli deaths in 2004 than in 2003.
It appears that the purpose is not to inform, but to vilify Israel. Why certain people feel the need to do this, I’ll never understand, especially at a time when there is finally some real hope for ending four years of violence and destruction. Is the message supposed to be “yes there’s progress and a chance for peace, but Sharon is a real schmuck, and that’s what counts?” Instead, why don’t we take a step back and consider our respective roles in this debate. Let’s not point fingers and place blame, which, trust me, I could sit here and do clear through graduation. Let’s embrace the opportunities before us! Are both sides behaving ideally? No. Do they ever? Sorry! Sharon and Abbas are always going to have their agendas, but let’s focus on the fact that now there’s an opportunity for peace: Israelis and Palestinians have restored diplomatic relations, are cooperating on security, and are building the foundations of a viable Palestinian state. We must examine the history, the ideologies, the rhetoric, the newspapers, the politics, the policies, the massacres, the terrorists, the narratives, the facts, the figures and the arguments on both sides. Who you side with after assessing these factors, however, is not the point. As such, I can at least agree with Lazarus’ closing: inform yourself, join a group, read a newspaper. Just make sure to try and get the whole picture.
Leave a Reply