To make sure that she gets to be 25

By Toufic El Rassi
April 20, 2009

Roger Cohen is one of many pugnacious liberal American Zionists that I tend to ignore but his op-ed piece in yesterday’s New York Times bothered me so much that I wanted to respond. In “Israel, Iran and Fear,” Cohen, who has been advocating a softer line on Iran in his columns received a letter from Eran Lerman, the director of the Israel/Middle East office of the American Jewish Committee who, of course, sees the Iranian threat as imminent and existential. By the way, how come every threat to Israel is “existential” but any threat to Lebanon, or Palestine, or any other country isn’t?

In the letter to Cohen Lerman explains that his17 year old daughter, who lives with fear from Iran, “has often demanded to know what I have done, and what Israeli and American leaders have done recently, to make sure that she gets to be 25.” First off, could you imagine a Palestinian father writing a letter to an American Op-Ed writer “demanding” to know what is being done to ensure his child’s right to a 25th birthday?

Of course every 17 year old deserves basic human rights and I actually think that 17 year olds are more like children than adults and should have a chance to live, unlike the Israeli government which killed over 300 children in its recent assault on Gaza

As much fear and dread that 17 year old Israeli girl has over the prospect of reaching the age of 25, the fact is that she is much safer and has a much better chance at reaching 25, and not just reaching 25, but having a living standard, education, and a life that is generally much better than the average Palestinian. The image of a hapless, innocent Israeli 17 year old awake at night thinking about Mahmoud Ahmadenejad and Iran and the specter of the holocaust and annihilation of Israel is a masterstroke of propaganda especially when compared to the reality of Palestinian children not imagining annihilation but actually experiencing it.

To the children of Gaza this is not a fear in the abstract, it is their daily lives, living with cluster bombs and white phosphorous blowing their brothers, and sisters to pieces is an actuality. Let me try to put it another way:

Palestinian children are actually facing annihilation today, right now. But Cohen won’t write about that. In America, Israelis feelings of fear and anxiety are more appropriate topics than the actual death and destruction of Arab children

The question that never arises or is even considered, or will ever be considered is this: Why is the Palestinian and Arab fear and psychological disorders arising from Israeli bombs and occupation less important than Israeli anxiety?

So we in America hear the voice and feel the angst of this young girl who worries about her destruction and feel sympathy and anger at the source of this angst. While the Palestinian boy or girl who goes deaf because of the constant and deliberate sonic booms caused by American made jets flying low over Gaza would never be able to “demand” or even ask in The New York Times if he will reach the age of 25.

Sources:

http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=849241&ct=6903267

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/opinion/20iht-edcohen.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/dickinson11032005.html

Thomas Friedman Endorses Terrorism

By Toufic El Rassi
January 14, 2009

Thomas Friedman, influential American writer and commentator, op-ed contributor to The New York Times, and author of best sellers like From Beirut to Jerusalem and The World is Flat, considered to be an expert on the Middle East, openly endorses the use of terrorism in today's New York Times. Friedman is a strong supporter of Israel so it is no surprise that his opinion on the war on Gaza would reflect this but today's article is just so over the top that I think it needs to be addressed.

First I think most would agree (regardless of political persuasion) that there is a rough definition of terrorism: using violence against noncombatants (namely, women and children) to achieve a political goal constitutes terrorism. I realize not everyone would agree with that definition but I would venture to guess that most reasonable people (again, right or left leaning) would tend to favor it as a relatively objective definition.

So Friedman essentially admits that Israel was (and is) engaged in terrorism when he writes that Israel's goals in the 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon were "to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. " And this infliction of "substantial property damage and collateral casualties" was done to reach a political goal; the only way to achieve a "long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future."

Friedman goes on to say that this is potentially the same policy being pursued by Israel in Gaza today. Indeed Israeli Major-General Gadi Eisenkot has clearly stated with regard to the Gaza campaign: "we will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. From our perspective these [the villages] are military bases," and went on to say, "this isn't a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized." I suppose it is somewhat superfluous to point out that targeting entire villages constitutes a war crime.

Here is the essential hypocrisy of people like Thomas Friedman and others like him - that it is justified even "logical" for Israel to kill civilians in order to achieve a political goal but it is "terrorism" if Bin Laden or any other sub national group does it. Imagine if a supporter of Bin Laden wrote an op-ed in the New York Times justifying the 9/11 attacks saying:

The goal of the 9/11 attacks were "to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on [the United States] at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical " and the only way to create a "long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the [political leaders] — to restrain [the United States] in the future."

The question must be asked and answered honestly: why is there no widespread outrage when the American media justifies the killing of innocent Palestinians and other Arabs? This is a simple question - in any other context, with regards to any other ethnic or religious group, Friedman would be (rightly) accused of aiding and justifying war crimes. But there is no outrage, there will be no retractions or apologies, instead ordinary Americans will read Friedman's article and find another justification for Palestinian women and children to be blown up by U.S. made weaponry. And we will never get an honest answer to the question: Why is it OK to kill Arab civilians?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14friedman.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/2009110112723260741.html