Op-Ed: Israel is not South Africa
California campuses have again become battlefields in efforts to delegitimize Israel under the guise of human rights. Divestment, which has nothing to do with student government, is simply a wedge to force this agenda into the campus dialog. Its proponents foist all blame for the conflict on one side, using accusations spiced by distortions and historical lapses.
In particular, by lumping Israel together with South Africa and Darfur, the May 7 op-ed by Linda Hess stepped way over the rhetorical line. She wrote about teaching Gandhi’s legacy at a Stanford overseas program in India. But the Palestinian movement she supports seems far Gandhian.
Palestinian mujahedin murdered Israeli Olympic athletes. They have hijacked airplanes, an Israeli school bus, and a cruise ship (throwing wheelchair-bound American, Leon Klinghoffer, overboard). Suicide bombers have blown up an Israeli pizzeria, a disco, a university cafeteria, and a hotel dining room during a Passover dinner. Then the perpetrators are called shahids (martyrs), and have soccer tournaments, schools and squares named in their honor. Students at the West Bank’s An-Najah University even recreated the destroyed pizzeria, complete with fake blood and bodies, as an “art project.”
Fatah, the “moderate” party ruling the West Bank, says in English that it wants peace between two states. But in Arabic its charter still states: “Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.” This is not what Gandhi would have said.
Hamas, ruling Gaza since a coup in which Fatah fighters were thrown from rooftops, has a charter blaming Jews for starting both World Wars. Moreover, “renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion.” No two-state solution here. “Peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.” Their long-term plan cites a Hadith (a saying of Muhammad): “The time [of Resurrection] will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!” This is not “I have a dream.”
Compare either charter with Israel’s Declaration of Independence, on May 14, 1948. Israel promised to “ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions…We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness.” Five Arab armies invaded the next day.
No country fully lives up to its ideals; Israel, like America, is a work in progress. As a small democracy beset from day one by neighbors calling for its destruction, Israel has always had to put an emphasis on security. But as soon as the leader of one of those neighbors, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, offered peace in 1977, he got the Sinai, something he failed to achieve with his war in 1973. If the Palestinians had a Gandhi instead of an Arafat, they would have had their state years ago.
Alan Fisher
Physicist, SLAC
Barbara Sommer
Associate Professor, Psychiatry
Loading ...
I have an honest question: why are Israel supporters so obsessed with talking about the idea of israel’s “legitimacy”? Honestly, it’s a little tiring for the vast majority of us who have little or no stake in this foreign conflict to constantly hear “Israel this” and “Palestine that” over and over again in thE Stanford daily. All of you need to stop your perpetual whining and start talking about things that are more relevant to this campus and the average person in this country.
Agreed. I’m sick of all this. There is no “scholarly discussion” on this topic at all, only stubbornness from each side. Daily, stop wasting your editorial space and the time of your readers.
Let me congratulate the two honest American academics and I hope that more moderate and brave academics will join them in order to clarify the dark fog that pro Islamic forces in the American campuses are spreading. It is quite refreshing new attitude which I hope will spread in contract to the Falsetinian ProPALganda efforts made on daily basis.
American: Israel supporters are not “so obsessed with talking about the idea of Israel’s “legitimacy””. The Palestinians and the Arab governments are those who so obsessed not to accept Israel, the national Jewish state, to exist. While the Arabs in Palestine desperately wants Israel accept the right of the Arabs to have their own state in Palestine, I think the Palestinian Jews same demand should be met equally.
You don’t represent the Stanford community. I’m sure that lot of students and professors are very interested in discussing and learning about the various conflicts in the ME, including the Palestinian one. Those many conflicts are influencing the US national and strategic policies.
American,
Here’s an answer to your honest question: the red herring of “legitimacy” is often offered to distract from Israeli policies, which are the real issue. Naturally, apologists for Israeli actions bring it up constantly to stifle genuine discussion of reality.
But I would contest that the Israeli-Palestine issue is not relevant to the average US citizen. On the contrary, US and Israeli polices are intimately linked. Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. The US repeatedly ships Israel weapons. The US covers for Israel in the UN, where it consistently votes to reject any steps towards policies that would work towards peace. Etc.
So if you really want to stop hearing about this issue, I would urge you to work for peace. Otherwise, the status quo of US-backed Israeli militarism will continue, and your ears will continue to be troubled by the banter of those who just wish that Palestinians and Israelis would stop needlessly getting killed.
Legitimacy is not a red herring- it is the core issue in this conflict. The Palestinians, indeed the entire Arab world cannot accept the existance of a non-Islamic state on land that is meant to be part of the caliphate- the ultimate Islamic empire. The Hamas charter states this directly- and admits that its ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel and of the Jewish peope. The following are highlights.
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. ”
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
“After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.”
The charter is a rather classical Islamist document, applied to the local issues. It declares that Jihad (in the sense of armed battle) is the only solution. It cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a ludicrous anti-Semitic forgery.
The “Zionists” and the freemasons and others are blamed for what Hamas and radical Islamists see as the major calamities of the world, especially the French Revolution.
One of the most ominous aspects of the Charter however, is this Hadith:
“Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”
The implication is clear: Allah promised that the Jews will be murdered, and the Hamas “aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take.
The reason Israel’s legitimacy is defended is because it is constantly under attack from Muslim countries and their allies since the day the UN granted the Jewish people a state.
Thank you for putting together such a fact-based article. Amen.
This issue has far more relevance than one might think at first. Muslim and Jewish student groups both care deeply about this issue, and as both groups gain influence in colleges and universities nationwide, the Middle East becomes an increasingly important topic on campus. There is also a subtle international effort to frame this conflict using donations. The Saudis, in particular, have been spending obscene amounts of money creating and funding Middle East Studies programs in the US and beyond, often ensuring that the Saudi perspective is the only one taught. As the world gets smaller, it is less possible to remain in a bubble, pretending that foreign conflicts have no bearing on our lives.
but Nelson Mandela said the current status of the conflict is just like the one he helped fight in apartheid South Africa…he compared it to S.A and said its the most important human rights campaign going on right now…I think he has more authority to compare things to SA than most people have to denounce the comparisons
Lin Yu Chun,
The idea that the Palestinians and Arab states refuse to work towards agreement that includes an Israeli state is flatly false. All of these parties agreed to the two-state solution in 1976, but Israel refused to attend the meeting and the United States vetoed the resolution in the security council. In fact, according to Israel’s UN ambassador at the time, the PLO not only supported the document but _prepared_ it! There have been similar efforts since then which have met with similar fates. Source: Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky, p.67-78 and Beyond Chutzpah by Norman Finkelstein p.339-341
I’m not sure what all this religious babble is that you are quoting, but it is very much beside the point. I agree that there are some poisonous parts of various political organizations’ charters in the region that, ideally, should be revised to be less antagonistic. But this is a secondary issue, at best, since the PLO/Arab states’ efforts (attempting to negotiate in good faith) tell a different story.
i only bothered to read the title says,
As did Desmond Tutu, another high-profile South African figure. Obviously two historical situations are exactly identical, but there are many similarities between the Israel and South African apartheids.
Sorry, that should read “Obviously two historical situations are *never* exactly identical…”
Well said! Thank you, thank you, thank you! to the authors of this article and to the Stanford Daily for allowing the debate on this important and relevant issue of our time. And thank you to the posters who took the time to weigh in with facts to counter all the propaganda out there.
As a Cal graduate (‘68) I was pleased to see a well written article by authors from the Physics Department. I remind Christian’s that the birthplace of their religion was in Jerusalem not Boston or Rome. The “indigenous” people of the area were called Jews, and if you doubt it, go to Rome and look at the Arch of Titus. There was no Palestine until the Jews were forcefully “expelled” from Israel by rulers who supported Rome……Since 1948, whether, Jewish or not, whether Labor or Religious party, the Government of Israel has tried to make “peace” with it neighbors. Those who fled Israel in 1948, did so because there “Arab Brothers” told them they were about to annihilate Israel and they needed to get out of the way….fortunately for Israel, the Arab rhetoric was not Arab reality. Non one Palestinian Organization, be it Fatah, Hamas or any other organization has a flag which shows a country called Israel- they don’t recognize Israel, they never have…and it appears the never will. It is an insult to Gandhi to use the his name in conjunction with Hamas, Fatah or any present organization claiming to represent the “people” of Palestine.
I always find it ironic how while divestment-supporters are perfectly fine with the monumental differences between Israel and South Africa, but then get all up in arms when their critics use a far more appropriate analogy to describe the divestment-movement itself, that is, the Nazi boycott of Jewish products in the run-up to WW2.
Danny. I believe she was quoting the Hamas charter. Which makes it highly relevant.
SA academic study finds that Israel is practicing apartheid and colonialism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (Please read the whole study and comparison before you reach your conclusion):
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml
http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-3227.phtml
Yes, Palestinian militants have done some disgusting and extreme acts. It is racist to judge all Palestinians and their cause by the acts of a few who have chosen bitterness. Moreover, let us not forget that South African extremists engaged in terrorism as well.
Two quick examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_James_Church_massacre
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/20/newsid_4326000/4326975.stm
Terrorism is in no way justified, but these examples are to indicate that a comparison between South Africa and Israel is are legitimate. In South Africa, people were singing about “killing the other,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4gv7isyXMI .
This conflict needs understanding, it needs a new generation of leaders, and it needs a lot of love.
It does not need uneducated defensiveness and nationalism, as presented in this Op-Ed. These professors should attend the events being put on throughout the quarter to further educate themselves.
Fadi
I am not Jewish. I am not Israeli. Nor am I Palestinian. Nor Muslim. Nor Arab.
But I am a Stanford student deeply concerned about the Israel-Palestine issue – I respect all voices, and I wish for peace.
So I have a request for all involved in the discussion of Israel-Palestine on our campus, including the authors of this article, other Daily articles and those commenting on them.
Let us not vilify each other. As soon as negative generalizations are made, we lose our credibility and ability to actually make positive change with this issue. We should focus on the hope, cooperation and respectful discussion that have the power to push us forward. Please, we need to put down the negativity and hate and instead fuel ourselves with positivity and vision for a better future.
Thank you.
this article is super, enjoyed a lot.
I believe the PLO plan to which you are referring is a one-state solution, also called a binational state (unless I am mistaken, in which case you should correct me). Israel has categorically rejected this proposal for a few reasons. First, it flies in the face of many UN resolutions over the years which call for a two-state solution. Second, the idea of a binational state contradicts the Jews’ need for self-determination, a need that has been proved time and again. Thirdly, any binational state would contain far more Arabs than Jews, and if other Arab countries can serve as any indication, Israeli Jews would suffer greatly.
I find it intriguing that the one Palestinian “peace” proposal is actually another effort to destroy the Jewish character of Israel. I find it equally interesting that you, as a seeming proponent of Palestinian statehood, would support such a deal, as it would negate the existence of a Palestinian state, something that most Palestinians and their supporters claim is their ultimate goal. This failed agreement proves once again that the Palestinians care far more about destroying Israel than about their own independence.
wow, i am so disheartened that these STANFORD PROFESSORS are so blind and prejudiced. This entire article was completely focused on bashing the Palestinians and even bringing in the Prophet Muhammad and criticizing one of his supposed sayings.
Let’s get back to the real issue we at Stanford are trying to address. There are human rights violations in the region…people are dying and suffering. The divestment bill was one proposed solution to shape Stanford’s role in alleviating the situation. If you don’t agree with the divestment bill, please propose and work on other projects that will address the fact that people are dying and suffering in the region. Let’s move away from these senseless, and sometimes hateful, discussions.
to say that I go to a school where such ignorant, narrow-minded people are called educational leaders. You two seem as ignorant to the issue as previous Op-ed writers and refuse to look at the facts before spewing your divisive words. You attack Hess for saying that she helped teach and believes in a Gandhian strategy and you go on to state the atrocities committed by individuals. Well, last time I checked, Fadi, the person leading the current campaign, is NOT a suicide bomber, a hijacker nor any other kid of terrorist. Hess stated that she supports Fadi’s campaign and his methods. Fadi is by no way promoting any kind of violence in what he is doing, rather he is trying to establish open means of dialogue on campus to help educate the students as well as trying to find ways to end human suffering. Hess never said she supports terrorists. She said she supports Fadi. You two are doing a disservice to the student body by trying to link two vastly different things in order to further your own personal beliefs and you should be ashamed of yourselves.
It is all well and good that Hess professes to believe in a Gandhian strategy, but that is not what a divestment bill would support. The proposal, which was thankfully not submitted, would have singled out an Israeli company – the other companies mentioned in the bill, including one Palestinian company, are not publicly traded, and so Stanford could not have invested in them in the first place.
Fadi is not a suicide bomber, nor is he a terrorist, but he did bring up a divisive issue that has never once led to peace, healing, or constructive dialogue. Rather, the specter of divestment always raises tensions and alienates students and faculty alike.
Drs. Fisher and Sommer have their facts absolutely right. Both Hamas, the terrorist organization, and Fatah, the supposedly moderate PLO faction with whom Israel is supposed to negotiate, support policies that seek Israel’s demonization and ultimately its destruction. Fadi’s divestment proposal would prop up these groups while doing disservice to the peace process. His plan and Hess’ endorsement of it both deserve criticism.
To To “Danny Colligan”,
The relevant resolution (vetoed by the United States so it never was adopted), S/11940, is here: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/696D540FD7821BCE0525651C00736250 Quoting from it:
“[T]he Palestinian people should be enabled to exercise its inalienable national right of self-determination, including the right to establish an independent state in Palestine in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations…”
This is a two-state solution, much in line with what is called the “international consensus”: a two-state solution, along the pre-1967 war borders. And it is something I definitely support because I want peace in the region, this is the best hope for it, and has been for around 30 years. If you want more background, you can read the transcript of the proceedings that day, S/PV.1879 which occurred on 26 January 1976. I’m not sure how anyone could misinterpret this resolution as an effort to destroy Israel — that conclusion is not warranted by the facts.
My comment is awaiting moderation again, so I’ll post it without the link…
The relevant resolution (vetoed by the United States so it never was adopted), S/11940, is here: [link removed] Quoting from it:
“[T]he Palestinian people should be enabled to exercise its inalienable national right of self-determination, including the right to establish an independent state in Palestine in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations…”
This is a two-state solution, much in line with what is called the “international consensus”: a two-state solution, along the pre-1967 war borders. And it is something I definitely support because I want peace in the region, this is the best hope for it, and has been for around 30 years. If you want more background, you can read the transcript of the proceedings that day, S/PV.1879 which occurred on 26 January 1976. I’m not sure how anyone could misinterpret this resolution as an effort to destroy Israel — that conclusion is not warranted by the facts.
Hmm… I’m not sure I agree with conjecture that if Gandhi was in Palestine, he Palestinians would have had a state no questions asked. It seems a little more complicated than that.
who held banners reading “Kill the Jews” at the ironically-named Durban Conference “against racism” in 2001? I grant the South Africans had painful experiences, but in terms of sensitivity and overall connectivity to the realities of the Arab-Israeli conflict, I wouldn’t give anything they say much credence.
As a long time supporter of Israel, I am a little disturbed by the content of this article: this is less a case for Israel and more an ad hominem attack against the Palestinians and Islam. And from Faculty members? You know there is more to making a case for Israel than merely bashing your opponent. That’s how lawyers work, not academics.
Thank you to the authors of this article! It takes guts to stand up for Israel!
“I am ebmarassed” and “disillusioned” – you should both be embarassed for defending a regime that glorifies murder of civilians, celebrates dancing on the streets when children are killed, and calls murderers its heroes. What a shame. Then again, you may find it fashionable and safe to attack Israel – and it certainly doesn’t require much brains. Mob anti-semitism has always been like that.
Read up on some history of the conflict and get some moral clarity. Are you sure you want to support a society that murders gays, uses their own children as human shields, and isn’t big on women’s rights or freedom of speech and religion? What a shame.
You may be a long time supporter of Israel but if you are disturbed by this article, it’s because the truth is disturbing, not because 2 Stanford professors are delivering it to you. Perhaps its because not all Palestinians and not every aspect of Islam ist really what you have been told they were all along, that you find disturbing. Why don’t you do a little homework yourself and see if what these professors are saying here are true. It’s very easy to google ‘Hamas Charter’ and ‘PLO Charter’ and read them for yourself. Start there and check out everything they are telling you here. You shouldn’t believe everything you hear and read anyways without a thorough study.
Thank you for explaining your previous remark.
While it is enlightening to see that the countries mentioned in the above link supported a two-state solution, I notice that the PLO did not sponsor this resolution, nor did the link indicate any support from the Arab League for a two-state solution. At the time, Israel was still attempting to give the West Bank back to Jordan and Gaza back to Egypt in exchange for peace. You will recall that both countries had annexed those respective territories and then lost them in their aggressive war in 1967.
I would also like to point out that Israel had affirmed its commitment to the two-state solution many times before the Arab League declared war on her, and that each time Israel made a statement supporting a peaceful solution, the Arab League (which included a Palestinian representative) rejected it. I maintain that it has always been the Arabs and not the Zionists who have prevented the implementation of a two-state solution.
This article is right on target.
At first when someone stated their embarassment at being at an institution with professors like the have at Stanford, I assumed they meant Joel Beinin and others who present cartoon like and one sided distortions of history. Or perhaps the religious studies professor who latches on to the “nonterrorist” who attacks Israel but who is a “decent fellow.” Instead, someone is embarassed at being at the same school as the good guys. Huh? Stanford liberals have stretched truth beyond recognition. They are all wrong.
Another thing they are wrong about: it is not racist to characterize Palestinians as terrorists when their charters are anti-Semitic (as in case of Hamas) or when their governments continue to support terror (as in the case of Abu Abbas and Fatah and the Palestinian Authority). To try to whitewash their actions would be hypocritical.
Did anyone go to Santa Clara’s “Palestinian cultural Day” in San Jose yesterday)? Did anyone see the art exhibit of “palestinian culture”? It featured a photo of a child with a gun. If thats what they consider art and culture, there will never be peace inthe Middle east- the idea that they are teaching their children to hate and to kill is so abhorrent to Christain values.
To “Danny Colligan”,
The PLO did sponsor the resolution. Please see the minutes of the security council meeting, which I referenced (S/PV.1879). In it, the PLO representative (Mr. Khaddoumi) condemns the “tyranny of the veto” that the United States chose to invoke.
I’m not sure who else would need to support such a solution besides the PLO, Jordan, Syria and Egypt (in 1976) for Israel (or yourself, for that matter) to believe that at the time the relevant Arab states and organizations truly did want peace. You have things backwards — Israel and the United States continually obstruct the peace process, not the other way around.
As further evidence of this, Israel also rejected the Saudi Arabian Fahd eight-point peace plan in 1981, which was a similar proposal. (According to Israel’s UN Ambassador Chaim Herzog, the PLO also was the real author of this plan.) Israel also abruptly pulled out of the Taba negotiations, which, if completed, could have led to peace.
Every year, the UN votes on a resolution titled “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Israel and Palestine” which calls for a two-state solution. In 2009, the votes were 164 for, 4 abstaining and Israel, United Sates, Australia, and four Pacific Island states voting against. Let me emphasize this bill is voted on every year, with similar results each year.
This is just a sample, but the pattern is clear: US/Israeli rejectionism of frequent Arab/international community proposals for peace. Not the other way around, as it is commonly alleged.
And I have to seriously question that Israel was earnestly trying to give back the Gaza to Egypt. I say this because Egypt offered Israel a peace treaty in 1971 on the pre-June 1967 borders (that is, giving Gaza back to Egypt). Israel, of course, rejected it. This proposal was similar to the Rogers Plan that Egypt accepted which (surprise) Israel also rejected.
But I do thank you for your willingness to at least look at the evidence I provide. Objective analysis is not a quality shared by many on this issue.