Amer is a third-year political science student and president of
the United Arab Society. Â Illustration by JASON CHEN/Daily
Bruin Senior Staff
By Fadi Amer
Out of all the attempts presented in defense of the Israeli
right in general and of newly elected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
in particular, Justin Levi’s article (“Though not ideal, Sharon is best choice for
Israel,” Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, Feb. 6) is by far the
most pathetic. Levi’s misconstrued presentation of facts and
deliberate manipulation of events is not only despicable, but is
wickedly condescending on all levels. His twisted reasoning and
arrogant conclusions serve as a prime example of why ignorance, in
this case deliberate, is the true obstacle to peace in the Middle
East.
First, it was very entertaining to see how hard Levi was trying
to take the spotlight off Sharon’s actions in Lebanon by only
blaming him “for not taking necessary steps to avoid such an
atrocity.” Yet this atrocity was the massacre of more than a
thousand Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila in 1982. Levi
was so caught up in his defense that he forgot to mention that it
was the Israeli troops under Sharon who provided direct assistance
in transportation and lighting to the Christian militias who
carried out the actual massacre. Perhaps this fact was not
important enough for Levi to mention, so he simply omitted it.
Levi also decided to omit previous episodes of Sharon’s
past, such as his 1953 raid on Qibya (a village in the West Bank)
where he gave instructions to carry out “destruction and
maximum killing.” The Israeli soldiers shot “every man,
woman, and child they could find.” In that raid they
destroyed 42 homes, a mosque and a school. A bit shocked? Read John
Hopkins University Professor James Ron’s article “Is
Ariel Sharon Israel’s Milosevic?” (Los Angeles Times,
Feb 5).
Also, read about the inquiries published in both the Los Angeles
Times and the New York Times in August 1995 suggesting that Sharon
gave direct orders to chain and kill Egyptian prisoners of war.
Therefore it is no surprise that, in the Los Angeles Times, Ron
concludes that, “under International law, Sharon could be
indicted for crimes against humanity, which include the systematic
and willful killing of civilians during war.”
Things get a lot better when Levi begins to offer his
“reasoning” on why Jerusalem should remain under the
Israeli occupation. It was really striking how he failed to mention
that the Jordanian decision not to allow Jews to enter (for prayer)
Eastern Jerusalem was a direct response to Israel’s refusal
to allow thousands of refugees to return to their homes after the
1948 War of Independence.
Although this is not a defense of the Jordanian decision, it
nevertheless helps us see the fuller picture, and not just the
events that serve our particular argument. Besides, I found it a
bit awkward how Levi fails to mention a single word about the Jews
who lived under Muslim rule for hundreds of years before. And I am
not going to play Levi’s game and present a mythical, rosy
account of how “great and tolerant” my side is or
was.
But as Levi is really into comparisons, I am not going to let
him down; I know for a fact that, although things were not perfect
for the Jews living under Muslim rule, they were treated a hundred
times better than they were by the Christians, and a thousand times
better than they are treating the Palestinians today.
It also seems very ironic how Levi, who appears to be
sympathetic to Christian sentiments, fails to cite a single poll or
a single study on Christian Palestinians. If Levi had done any
research on the Palestinian resistance like the 1987 Intifada, its
roots, or even its staunchest supporters, he would have then known
that the Arab Christians have always been at the forefront of the
Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation. Christians have
consistently shown which state they would rather be under, and it
is not the Israeli one. If you know anything about the Middle East,
this should not be news.
But just when you thought that Levi could not possibly be more
twisted in his logic or absurd in his conclusions, he begins to
give us a lesson in strategic geography. This is critical here,
because it reveals the fundamental flaw in his
“analysis.” For if we take his argument and strip it to
its bare bones, what he (and Sharon) essentially want is peace by
force and under occupation.
Did you notice how Levi systematically refers to the occupied
territories, without any mention of the inhabitants living in them?
(As if these territories are empty tracts of land, with the sole
purpose of either being Jewish religious sites, or Israeli buffer
zones).
It makes absolutely no sense for Levi to talk about the
inhabitants of the occupied territories. Why should he? Because it
is clear that he does not in the slightest bit care about anything
but “Israeli security,” because if he did, he would
have found it worthwhile to elaborate on the “freedom”
that Israel “provides” for the areas under its
control.
This so-called “freedom” denies more than 2 million
Palestinians under siege in the West Bank from engaging in any form
of political activity, be it national, civil, or municipal, in the
land that some call “The Democracy of the Middle East.”
And this is not only in practice, but in law as well.
For the life of me, I can’t even comprehend how the
Israelis wish to turn their back on this glaring injustice, on this
crime, and continue an occupation they know is unjust. Yet they
complain about their national security and not being able to sleep
at night.
If people like Levi are really interested in peace, then the
first step that they will need to take is to begin looking at the
bigger picture and seeing the other side. Because just as you can
respond with how evil or barbaric the Arabs are or have been, I can
begin to address issues that I did not have room to discuss here,
like the illegal political assassinations without trials, the
conditions of the West Bank, or the discrimination faced by the
Arabs living inside of Israel.
But what would that accomplish? After all, what I and those who
disagree with me have done has only contributed to what Rabbi Chaim
Seidler-Feller would call “garbage” to the discourse of
Middle East politics.
The Israelis and the Palestinians will be able to sleep better
at night only if they are ready to accept harsh truths about
themselves and to rid themselves of uncompromising fantasies and
myths about how righteous their side is.