What is it Really About, Israel or Human Rights?

Anti-Israel activists often frame their arguments around phrases such as “the universal application of human rights.” And if you oppose their definition of human rights, then you are obviously not someone who should be tolerated in civil society.

 

But it doesn’t take much scratching below the surface to discover the ugly reality under this patina of progressivism. Take, for example, the current anti-Israel road show called “Never Again for Anyone”. As you could guess from the name, it attempts to conflate the current situation of Hamas-ruled Gaza with that of the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust. They have even found a Jewish survivor of Auschwitz whose anti-Zionism is so deep that he is the headliner for this circus. Reports from Rutgers and DePaul Universities document that this event featured denial of Jewish ties to the land of Israel, praise of Hamas, and opposition to any peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Any reader of this site has seen films of the Holocaust. And while nobody should claim that life in Hamas-stan is peaceful and easy, we also keep hearing from the extremists that Hamas was the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. So perhaps those who voted Hamas have discovered that their choices have consequences. After all, Hamas’ platform is jihad against Israel, now and forever. And Israel has the right to take steps, such as a naval blockade, to prevent Hamas from freely importing long range rockets (and worse) from its Iranian patrons to carry out that jihad. Despite that, I don’t think we saw scenes like this from Auschwitz:

 

 

On campuses, it’s a similar story. Once again, the Hamas position of elimination of Israel is supported as a “human rights” campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel and only Israel. Yet if it was about human rights, then common sense would indicate that those concerned about human rights attack the worst violators first. China's use of forced labor and the abrogation of human rights of its own citizens on a scale measuring into the tens of millions doesn't register for these "human rights activists”. Saudi Arabia's treatment of women as less than second class citizens, not to mention the utter lack of any political or religious freedom, is irrelevant. (US-China trade was 15 times more than US-Israel trade in 2010; US-Saudi trade was 35% more).  And so on, ad nauseum, around the world.

 

Now if you approach the faux “human rights” activists with this, they will immediately claim that you are changing the subject. That depends. Is the subject Israel, or is the subject human rights? If the subject is Israel, and only Israel, and the object is its elimination, then what does that say about “human rights”? If the subject is human rights and only Israel is under scrutiny.... well, it says the same thing. And what it says is quite ugly.

 

You can see this ugliness displayed at colleges when Israeli speakers—and only Israeli speakers-- come to campus. Last year, the Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine orchestrated interruptions of Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren—and the leaders of this now face charges.

Last month, an Israeli who had served in the IDF, speaking as an individual, was subjected to the same treatment at Hampshire College;

 

(Read a full report on this event from Citizen Wald) I should note that in both cases the administrations of these institutions thoroughly condemned this behavior; at Irvine, the MSU was subjected to a penalty as well, though many felt that they should have been banned from campus for much longer than one semester.

 

In Scotland earlier this month, Ishmail Khaldi, an Israeli Arab who is an advisor to Foreign Minister Lieberman and who was formerly Deputy Consul General for the State of Israel in the San Francisco consulate, attempted to speak at Edinburgh University in Scotland; anti-Israel thugs took over the meeting and prevented him from speaking. Can anyone recall similar treatment of Chinese or Saudi speakers on campuses?

 

In the end, though, it comes down to one simple question: do you support peace between a Jewish state of Israel and an Arab state of Palestine? All 3 of those speakers answer yes to that question. Those who prevented them from speaking, and those who put on obscenities such as “Never Again for Anyone”, will answer “no”. They insist that of all the peoples in the world, the only one that is not to be allowed to exercise the right of national self-determination in its indigenous homeland is the Jewish people.

 

Human rights, anyone?

 

 

About the author

Mike Harris
Mike Harris
Mike Harris is one of the founders of San Francisco Voice for Israel, which is now the Bay Area chapter of StandWithUs. As someone who has been out in the public arena in support of Israel, he has witnessed firsthand the activities of anti-Israel groups in what the Reut Institute has labeled one of the “hubs of delegitimization” of Israel. In addition to writing, he also gives public presentations to educate audiences about Israel.
In his spare time, he is a pediatrician.

Trackback

Trackback URL for this blog entry

Comments

Attention people of earth! It is now considered borderline Anti-semitic to attempt to walk and chew gum at the same time. If you need to go somewhere do your walking first and chew gum only after you reach your destination. If chewing gum is what you are into. Put the walking off until the gum loses its entire flavor!

Of all the nonsensical explanations of why it is anti-semitic to criticize Israel’s human rights record?

“Yet if it was about human rights, then common sense would indicate that those concerned about human rights attack the worst violators first. China's use of forced labor and the abrogation of human rights of its own citizens on a scale measuring into the tens of millions doesn't register for these "human rights activists”.”

So let me get this straight. In forums like this where Israel is the main topic, it is (to you) politically incorrect to criticize Israel’s human rights record? And this is because there are other countries that are not topics of discussion at this forum which according to you have a worse human rights records? Therefore, it is not ok to bring up Israel’s human rights record until every country with a worse record cleans up their act and Israel does become the worst human rights violator on the planet? Then and only then will it be kosher to criticize Israel’s reprehensible human rights record? This is what you have been reduced to arguing? Are you truly so blinded by your own pro-Israil bias that you can’t see the idiocy of your argument?
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Nate, you bring to mind the quote from Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." To claim that I have tarred anyone who criticizes Israel's human rights record (which compares quite favorably to most countries in the world-- for example, would you rather be an Israeli Arab or a Turkish Kurd?) here or elsewhere as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic is a classic straw-man argument. This deflects attention from their own misuse of "human rights" as a cudgel against Israel.

I pointed out that if the discussion is about Israel and the object is its elimination, then that position goes against the fundamental right of the Jewish people to national self-determination (the same right that is claimed for the Palestinians and all other peoples of the world).

I didn't state that any criticism of Israel's human rights record is out of bounds; but hiding behind the rubric of "human rights" to delegitimize Israel --and only Israel-- shows that human rights really isn't the issue. I don't see those criticizing the execrable human rights record of countries such as China or Iran (or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, or Myanmar, etc) claiming that those countries have forfeited their right to exist.

That's the real issue, Nate. If you want to have a fact-based discussion about Israel's human rights record, go right ahead. If you want to claim that Israel, and only Israel, should cease to exist while far worse offenders are not subject to the same standard-- and the same pressure tactics such as boycotts/divestment/sanctions are not leveled against them-- then you'd better examine your own double standards.
.
Friday, 18 February 2011
Mike,

I appreciate the dialogue and if I sounded a bit sarcastic in my first comment, I apologize. As noted elsewhere, I rarely get responded to which causes me to become intentionally inflammatory.

Nevertheless, I appreciate you clarifying your position…

“I pointed out that if the discussion is about Israel and the object is its elimination, then that position goes against the fundamental right of the Jewish people to national self-determination (the same right that is claimed for the Palestinians and all other peoples of the world).”

Now, allow me now to clarify mine…

As I have explained elsewhere here at TJNP, no one is seeking to “eliminate” Israel (including Ahadinajad) any more than anyone was attempting to eliminate South Africa in the 1980’s.

Therefore, you are in error if you believe that I “...claim that Israel, and only Israel, should cease to exist while far worse offenders are not subject to the same standard-- and the same pressure tactics such as boycotts/divestment/sanctions are not leveled against them.”

So Mike, the straw man argument is now yours.

Just like with South Africa, the divestment and sanction activities are targeted at Israeli policies such as the illegal settlements and occupation as well as the 2nd class citizenship status of all those who aren’t identified as “Jews”. You see, if Israel embraced universal human rights for all its citizens and ended its policies of illegal settlement and occupation as well as the “legal” discrimination against non-“Jews” Israel would no longer be such a pariah and there would be about as much divestment and sanctions targeted at it as there are targeted at South Africa today.

Clearly it is you with the straw man argument with the “elimination” of Israel talk.

Last question when you state: “...hiding behind the rubric of "human rights" to delegitimize Israel --and only Israel-- shows that human rights really isn't the issue.”

Would you be making the same argument for South Africa in the 1980’s?

Hiding behind the rubric of “human rights” to delegitimize South Africa –and only South Africa –shows that human rights really isn’t the issue.

Sounds preposterous doesn’t it? Please explain why the latter statement is preposterous and the former is accurate.
Friday, 18 February 2011
Excellent article Mr. Harris.
Thank you for the knowledgeable, well written, informative piece.
Saturday, 19 February 2011
I concur with John Burk: excellent. Thank you.

As an aside - and pursuant to other comments elsewhere - we all use "Semite" and "anti-Semite" blithely, but technically, "Semitic" is a linguistic, not an ethnic, designation...
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Leave your comment
Guest

Latest Comments

Login Form