by David M. Weinberg
Five minutes is all it
took for the world to issue the strongest of condemnations following the
murder on Wednesday of a 16-year old Palestinian boy from east
Jerusalem. Five minutes. Then the fiercest of denunciations swiftly
poured in.
U.S. Secretary of State
John Kerry rushed to "condemn in the strongest possible terms the
despicable and senseless abduction and murder" of Muhammad Hussein Abu
Khdeir. "It is sickening to think of an innocent 17-year-old boy
snatched off the streets and his life stolen from him and his family.
There are no words to convey adequately our condolences to the
Palestinian people."
"Despicable" and "sickening." "Snatched off the streets." "There are no words."
Similarly, Quartet
envoy Tony Blair called the murder "horrendous" and "heinous," and said
that "the perpetrators must be found swiftly and brought to justice."
Blair is so "very worried" about "the unrest in Jerusalem and the West
Bank, including assaults on Palestinians, 'price-tag' attacks and
settler violence that cannot be tolerated."
"Horrendous." "Heinous." "Very worried." "Cannot be tolerated."
For most of the world,
Israel's guilty verdict had already come in. Guilty until proven
innocent. Trigger-happy to convict Israel. All within five minutes.
Even if the Israel
Police investigation were to determine that the Palestinian boy was
killed by Arabs for reasons of "honor" or criminality, no-one would
believe it at this point. The fix is in. Israel is engaging in revenge
killing.
Needless to say, the
murder is terrible, and is even graver if it was carried out by
vigilante Israelis. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't need any
prodding to term it a "reprehensible crime" or to comprehend the
severity of the situation, and to insist that the police make
investigating the murder the highest priority.
But no such swift
damnations were forthcoming for three long weeks during the abduction
ordeal of Naftali Frenkel, Gil-ad Shaer and Eyal Yifrach, and certainly
not with the hyperbolic and demanding language cited above. The
kidnapping saga hardly made the front pages in the world's leading
newspapers.
Even when their bodies
of the three young Israeli boys were found, few of these "very worried"
global actors got worked-up enough to use terms like appalling,
despicable, heinous, and sickening.
Instead, they issued
the de rigeur condemnations of the killings, alongside expressions
sympathy for the families, and softball calls on "both sides" to find
the perpetrators and exercise "restraint." Nor did the Western world's
exalted and stately spokespeople forget to praise the Palestinian
Authority's Mahmoud Abbas for distancing himself from the Hamas-inspired
kidnapping. (Gee, thanks).
U.S. President Barack
Obama couldn't find the internal moral conviction and outrage necessary
to comment on and condemn the kidnapping, in his own voice, even once
throughout our long 18-day nightmare. Even with President Shimon Peres
standing beside him in Washington, Obama couldn't, wouldn't and didn't
do it. Even when Peres asked him to do so. Not a peep from Obama.
He didn't have the time. Five minutes, perhaps?
Until the boys were
discovered dead. Then Obama mustered the courage to extend deepest and
heartfelt condolences to the families, to comment "as a father" on their
"indescribable pain," to "condemn this senseless act of terror against
innocent youth in the strongest possible terms" -- and, of course, "to
urge all parties to refrain from steps that could further destabilize
the situation."
Johnny come lately, methinks. Obama's comments are simply too late, too aloof, too bland, too unaccusing, too evenhanded.
What is missing from
the comments of Obama and his international colleagues is any true anger
about the murders of the three Israeli boys, nor any reference to the
political and moral implications of the terrorist act.
Nobody has the guts to
remark upon the death-glorifying political culture of the Palestinians
that repeatedly chooses violence over negotiations.
Nobody is prepared to
recognize the distinction between singing Palestinian kid-killing
terrorists, and Israeli soldiers conducting anti-terrorist operations in
the West Bank who have to kill combatants and occasionally hit a
bystander too.
Nobody has the guts to
acknowledge that Palestinian society celebrates the kidnapping-murder of
Israeli children, while the Israel Defense Forces does its utmost to
avoid civilian casualties and Israeli society recoils with horror at the
notion of revenge killings.
Why should Obama and
company be willing to appreciate this? It's so much simpler
(diplomatically) and easier (amorally) to demand "restraint from both
sides."
The New York Times
provided us this week with a classic example of such (im)moral
obtuseness. It ran an ugly front-page article comparing Israeli kids
victimized for being Israelis with Palestinian kids hurt while menacing
soldiers. It profiled the noble Racheli Frenkel, mother of the murdered
Naftali, alongside Aida Abdel Aziz Dudeen, mother of the teenage boy,
Muhammad, who was killed while confronting soldiers in Hebron that were
searching for Naftali.
The Times can deny all
it wants that it intended moral equivalence, but any half-intelligent
reader knows better. Of course the paper was plugging symmetry, and in
doing so it presented readers with a distorted snapshot of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict!
Had the paper wanted to
draw an accurate picture of the two societies, it could and should have
profiled Rachel Frenkel alongside the mother of suspected kidnapper
Amer Abu Aisheh, who told Israel's Channel 10 this week that "if (my
son) truly did it, I'll be proud of him till my final day. I raised my
children on the knees of the [Islamic] religion, and their goal is to
bring the victory of Islam."
But that would suggest a
moral distinction in Israel's favor, and doing so is not politically
correct. Instead, the media seems almost hell-bent on presenting Israel
as an unforgiving and violent society, not-all-that different from its
Arab neighbors. It is thrilled to slavishly cover Abu Khdeir story. It
gets the storyline back into the comfort zone; a zone where Jewish
radicals (settlers) and the "occupation" are the root cause of conflict
in the region.
I experienced this
myself in recent days. On behalf of my hometown of Nof Ayalon (where the
Frenkels and I live), I gave half a dozen interviews to foreign
networks. But the network correspondents showed zero interest in the
soft messages I offered of solidarity, faith, and perseverance. What
they wanted to hear was calls for revenge. Over and over again I was
prodded to demand fierce Israeli military action against the
Palestinians. That would have fit the pat prism on the conflict these
journalists purvey.
To us Israelis, the
moral standards of our society are clear: We value life, not death, and
seek conflict resolution, not annihilation of the enemy. Moreover, we
acknowledge and seek to correct our imperfections. The contrasting
viciousness of much of Palestinian society is also clear to us; laid
bare once again these past few weeks.
And the world? Alas, the gap is
growing between Israelis and the world. Behind the hypocrisy and double
standards, we can feel the chill. It doesn't have five minutes time to
truly empathize with Israel, and can't wait five minutes before pushing
the "Condemn Israel" button.
David M. Weinberg
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=8975
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment