Editorial Article
Avishai Margalit looks at Israel only through a glass
darkly
By Lee Kaplan
www.isracampus.org.il
Rarely does the mainstream media present both
sides of an issue in historical depth to a western audience with
enough information to clarify things about Israel's struggle with
the Arab world. A sound bite is one of the best weapons for the
anti-Israel activists' side, especially by those who practice hit
and run propaganda against the Jewish state.
A case in point of this tactic is Israeli
academic Avishai Margalit, formerly a professor at Hebrew
University, now employed as the George F. Kennan Professor in the
School of Historical Studies (even though his field is Philosophy)
at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University.
Princeton is already known to have a Middle
East Studies department that is virulently anti-Israel that numbered
among its academics some anti-Israel Jews. Richard Falk, a former
Princeton faculty member who is Jewish will be heading the new UN
Human Rights Commission led by that icon of human rights, Mohammar
Qadaffi. Falk has compared using sound bites that Jews living in
Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) with Nazis and even praised
suicide bombings against Israelis. In that sense, Margalit is in
good company at Princeton.
The plethora of Israeli academics that
continually damn the Jewish state with statements and information
that are not scholastically sound or free of personal financial and
political motivations is growing because of the Internet and
availability of Arab oil and EU money to fund this phenomenon.
The Internet and mainstream media via such
sound bites also allow Princeton on its website to declare to a wide
audience that Margalit "is highly regarded for his profound and
cogent observations of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the
broader struggle between Islam and the West."
Of course, given the number of European and
Arab financed academic institutions worldwide who want Israel
boycotted, divested from and destroyed, any Israeli like Margalit
who will use his background to lend credence to their anti-Israel
rants will automatically be considered "cogent" in his observations
as long as he toes the party line.
It's easy to see in reading just a few articles
written by Margalit pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle
how his own observations display that Margalit is an emperor with no
clothes, just another conveyor of such sound bites or half-truths in
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
College professors and professional academics
like Margalit enjoy a working atmosphere that most of us in the
outside world community, particularly the majority of 4 million
Israelis faced with the mostly 225 million Arabs, Persians and
Pakistanis calling for Israel's annihilation cannot relate to. In
the cloistered atmosphere of the University, academics (and their
student acolytes) can reduce everything down to abstract ideas and
then postulate about the causes of problems between Jews and Arabs
without really experiencing or having thorough knowledge of what is
happening on the ground.
For example, a professor like Margalit, in his
secure office at Princeton, doesn't experience the stress of a
Jewish mother like the mother of Danielle Shefi, killed at age 5.
Danielle's mother was preparing her toddler to attend synagogue when
an Arab terrorist broke into her bedroom and spilled her child's
brains all over the floor with an AK-47. Danielle's infant sister
was also wounded. Margalit also has the luxury of leaving out
"cogent" details that might present a truer picture of what Jews in
the territories face in such situations due to his presentation as a
"highly regarded scholar," from Princeton no less.
The reason I cite this particular attack on a 5
year-old is because the Shefis reside in Adora, an area in Judea and
Samaria, much like a southern California city, but one that the
irredentist Arabs and western media still call "a settlement."
Avishai Margalit would doubtless agree with Arabs that somehow it's
the Jews in the settlements that are the cause for no peace
happening between Israel with the Arab world. Margalit considers
the settlers as demented zealots who, if they simply gave in to the
Arab claims that all land in the West Bank belonging to them, would
willingly contribute to an end of the conflict. But this
philosopher-cum-professor-of-history seems to ignore how the removal
of 8,000 settlers in Gaza, making that area Jew-free, only netted
4,000 missiles fired on Israeli civilian communities such as Sderot.
This was apparent in Margalit's writings before the Disengagement
also, but certainly should have changed Margalit's attitudes about
the settlements after the removal of Jews from Gaza.
But apparently it hasn't.
In a book review for the New York Review of
Books, Margalit shows the major faults of academics like himself: a
failure to verify his facts and merely repeat the untruths conveyed
by the Israeli radical left on behalf of the Arabs, along with false
claims of a Gandhi-like movement for nonviolence against the
"occupation," as being laudable in opposition to the real Arab
goals: the removal of Jewish control over all Israeli territory and
the murdering of Jews as a scared Islamic or communist revolutionary
duty. This includes all the communities that have many more Danielle
Shefis. Margalit acknowledges at least most of the Arabs don't want
a "nonviolent" movement because it's not macho enough to gain via
nonviolence, but clearly delineates that Israel is at fault no
matter what happens in this conflict.
But Margalit fails to define "nonviolent" as
much as he ignores proper research, as we shall see. Better still,
he seems to prefer the Arab definition of nonviolence-not being the
one who holds the gun or bomb no matter how much support is given to
the killers, financial or logistic, is considered "nonviolent."
Margalit in his review agrees with the book's
author that Israel has a sizeable number of "sociopaths" and more
closely defines these people as the settlers in the West Bank and
those who support them. At the same time, he offers praise for an
"Israeli/Arab peace group" called Ta'ayush, that is composed of an
inter-Arab and Jewish membership, who all of whom are communists and
support the international communist party platform that considers
Israel as a proxy of the West and as a part of capitalist
colonialism and imperialist conspiracy, no matter how ridiculous the
concept (Israel, established by the UN is no more a colony than any
of the Arab states seeking to destroy her, and has ceded 50% of its
territory to its enemies only to try and make peace.)
In one sense, Margalit and his allies may be
right in declaring Israel as being full of sociopaths-only against
Jews though, not Arabs. Margalit defines Jews who legally bought
their homes on former Jordanian state land after 1967, legally
according to international law, who have a sense of loyalty to the
Jewish nation against Arabs who clearly want the Jewish homeland
destroyed by even denying Jews ever lived there in biblical times,
as "demented" and extremists. Meanwhile, the Arabs are always
dispossessed and reacting to the unreasonable Jews, no matter what
how non-credible the Arab claims are, they are always right, to be
written about as truth.
Margalit would seem to only want to see what he
wants to see in arriving at any type of academic conclusion about
the conflict and attacks on Jews. For example, he praises Sari
Nusseibeh, the current president of Al Quds University and coos
about the man because he is a fellow "academic intellectual" from
the other side who also eschews violence but relentlessly pushes the
Arab narrative of dispossession.
There's just one small problem.
While Nusseibeh is considered a welcomed ally
by Margalit for suggesting nonviolence as being workable and making
comparisons to Gandhi for the Palestinian movement against the Jews,
few people know that Nusseibeh was arrested and deported during the
first Gulf War because he was telephoning information to the Iraqis
on where to fire their S.C.U.D.s against Israeli civilians. The sad
thing is the only real "sociopaths" in Israel are the ones who let
Nusseibeh return to live in Jerusalem, the same one who release
thousands of convicted terrorists, many who go on to kill Israelis
again, not the settlers, both religious and non-religious who set up
communities in legal areas per legal procedures. Nusseibeh is an
example of Palestinian nonviolence that Margalit would no doubt
agree with: you don't shoot the gun with your own hands, you let
someone else do it then declare you are nonviolent even though you
helped them.
Margalit also cites a passage in his book
review and explains to readers about Arab Bedouins who reside in
caves near the Jewish community of Chavat Maon. Lately, the PA's
propaganda ministries have hit on a formula for deflecting Arab
terrorism against Jews in the West Bank, by trying to claim the
Jewish settlers there are attacking Arabs just for fun. Margalit
tells a tale of some Arabs who live in caves on property that is
just as logically belonging to the Jewish settlement, yet Margalit
calls whatever land in the area the Arabs want to say is theirs as
being theirs and stolen by the settlement. The Arabs in question
don't live in those caves all year long, just part of the year, but
they also misappropriate property that is not theirs when they
arrive.
There have actually been cases in the West Bank
of Arabs who filed lawsuits in Israeli courts and got control of
Israeli settlement lands by arguing the agriculture they planted on
as yet unused property made the property theirs, for example, the
community of Efrat lost valuable land because they allowed Arabs to
raise vineyards on them for years only to have the court declare the
land in the Arabs favor due to adverse possession. Margalit negates
any scholarly responsibility by reporting the land as belonging to
the cave dwellers who misuse the settlement's property for herding
their flocks that eat agricultural plantings. To anti-Israel
activists and to Arab irredentists all the land of Israel belongs to
the Arabs, even legally purchased land, so even Jews living in Tel
Aviv are ultimately "settlers" or "colonialists." Margalit accuses
the Jews in the settlement of poisoning the flocks of the cave
dwellers also without any proof. There are plenty of tales of Arabs
attacking other Arabs in blood feuds then blaming the Israelis to
cover it up. Margalit mentions the settlers tend to be very pious,
and then suggests that the religiously pious are more apt to attack
others than the atheists, something that also has no scholarly
foundation.
The same lack of scholarly objectiveness exists
is his writings about the Second Intifada. Margalit insists the Arab
narrative that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was what started
the problem despite claims by the PA leadership that the Intifada
was planned in advance. Margalit mentions that Barak's offer was
not generous in Arab eyes yet the percentages of land offered in his
writings are incorrect, not matching those of Dennis Ross who
actually negotiated the deal. At best, this is sloppy research.
Avishai Margalit also has tried to reduce
Israel's desperate wars of survival as being mere "theatrical
productions." He should tell that to the thousands of Jews who died
after the Holocaust and in Israel's last five defensive wars against
an Arab enemy that insists on no peace, no negotiation, no more
Israel since 1967 in Khartoum. Margalit has stated that photos of
the young Israeli paratroopers weeping at the Western Wall
immediately after their battle to liberate the Old City of Jerusalem
n 1967 were particularly offensive to him as staged theatrics.
Apparently, the constant handing out of candy in praise of "martyrs"
when Arab terrorists kill Jews doesn't classify as real theatrics to
Avishai Margalit.
Whether all this is based on narcissism, a
chance to make money or simply developing a way for a philosopher to
teach his own faulty history to the delight of anti-Semitic world,
it's still not sound academics, and Avishai Margalit is just another
example of the anti-Israel ex-pat Israeli academic crowd that is
making this appear more and more in our mainstream media.
========================================
Op-Ed articles appearing on IsraCampus.org are those of the writer and
do not necessarily represent the opinion of IsraCampus.org
|