Vol. XXVI No. 2
October 2010

Israel-Palestine Conflict

A Faculty Member Responds
Yoheved Kaplinsky

As I was reading Benjamin Laude’s article on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I couldn’t help but note that one of the more important tenets the United States shares in its “one sided support for Israel” is the very same doctrine that allowed a music student to voice strong political opinions in a performing-arts school newspaper: that of the right to free speech. Mr. Laude would be hard pressed to find that freedom, or many others associated with a true democracy, in any country in the Middle East other than Israel.

Mr. Laude is obviously a thinking, intelligent man, rightly moved by the suffering of people who have become pawns in an unfortunate, indeed tragic, and prolonged conflict. Their suffering is real and extensively documented by the press. However, to lay the blame totally on Israel’s shoulders, or to attempt to comprehend the immense complexity of the conflict by going back only as far as the intifada, is to fall prey to a well-oiled propaganda machine. To do so is to feel the suffering of a woman whose eye is shot by Israeli fire but to ignore the pain of Israeli parents whose 36 young children were deliberately blown up on a school bus by Palestinian fire. To do so is to feel the frustration of people engaging in repeated and relentless suicide bombings of innocent civilians, but to ignore the fact that the war that led to the Israeli occupation was started after a three-week blockade of the Straights of Tiran in 1967, meant to strangle the Israeli economy, and further entrenched in 1973 by a war, totally unprovoked, by three different Arab countries simultaneously on Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. To do so is to accuse a progressive, democratic, and miraculously productive society of brutality and fascism, and to ignore the fact that the Arabs strategically build their military headquarters adjacent to schools and hospitals, so that every defensive action by Israel would result in innocent casualties that are then paraded in front of the press.

How can Mr. Laude speak of the ratios of casualties without noting the tiny size of Israel compared to the massive Arab territories that surround it? Imagine the State of New Jersey (almost identical to the size of Israel) surrounded by enemy states 70 times its size, which relentlessly pledge to drive it into the sea. Would he call attempts to defend its citizens “imperialism” or would it be self-defense? How can anyone compare Israel’s actions to Napoleon or other fascist regimes, when Israel’s initial objective was to peacefully exist within its rightful borders? If Mr. Laude wants to cite ratios, he should note that since the first intifada, Israel lost more people to Palestinian terror attacks relative to its population than New York did on 9/11.

It’s easy to be cruising on the Hudson and condemn a nation that has risen over the ashes of six million people and has been under siege ever since the U.N. declared the partition of Palestine in 1947, a resolution defied by all the Arab nations at the time. The Palestinian problem would not have developed if not for the calls of the Arab countries for the Palestinian Arabs to leave their homes in 1948 with the promise that Israel would be destroyed and they could then return. The Arabs who chose to stay and become Israeli citizens are enjoying a higher standard of living, better health care, and infinitely better education than those who heeded the call to escape. Jews lived in the region long before 1948, when it was a British Mandate. In fact, there was never a country called Palestine.

Page #