Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
The following article appeared in the Listener on Aug. 25, 2007:
‘Sitting on a time bomb ’ by Lloyd Geering
In a trip to Israel, Lloyd Geering found a land that has fulfilled none of its promise and offers little hope of a peaceful future ....
Full text on The NZ Listener web site
Following are responses by KBRM, the Honorary Consul of Israel, and eight individual letters to the editor
KBRM RESPONSE
(not published)Dear Pamela Stirling,
Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast was formed to help the news media present a true and balanced picture of the Israeli-Arab conflict. We are not necessarily ‘pro-Israel ’, but we do ask that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth be told.
Unfortunately, ‘Sitting on a time bomb ’ (Lloyd Geering, 25/8/07) does not meet these criteria. In fact, it is extremely unbalanced and contains numerous misunderstandings, half-truths and errors. We ask you to examine carefully the list of errors that we have compiled (below).
We realize that the article is labeled ‘opinion ’, and yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion. The problem is that Prof. Geering's opinon is based on major inaccuracies and distortions that will undoubtedly be accepted as fact by your readers. In other words, even in an opinon article it is important to get the facts straight. We therefore ask you to publish a correction - not just of a few of the major errors, but of all seventeen listed below. (And even at that, we probably missed some.) In fact, you may wish to publish a suitably-edited version of our list. We will be happy to furnish you with documentation for all of our statements.
It is these many errors that led Prof. Geering to conclude that ‘Israeli policy has not manifested ’the moral image and human values‘ of which Ben Gurion spoke‘. We believe that if the true facts are known, the conclusion is just the opposite: that Israel, while not always in the right, has generally acted more morally and humanely than most nations would in similar circumstances, both in regard to its Arab citizens and its Arab neighbours.
However, we believe it is more than just correcting errors. Corrections never get the exposure and attention that the original article does. The accompanying photos alone, which take as much space as the text, convey a strong anti-Israel ‘opinion ’ that, along with the titles and captions, imake a huge impact on readers, especially those who don‘t read the text. Therefore KBRM suggests to you that you consider publishing an article about the many ways that Israel has acted morally and humanely - the opposite of Prof. Geering‘s opinion? Did you know that just recently Israel sent a medical team to Peru to help earthquake victims, a team of firefighters to Greece, and took in 500 refugees from Darfur? I bet most New Zealanders don't know that either. How many Arab nations did anything like that? We think that an article about how Israel indeed ‘manifests moral and humane values ’ would be like a breath of fresh air in New Zealand. As for Palestinians, the problem is that it's hard to manifest those values to people who are trying to kill you. KBRM would be happy to assist you in preparing or finding such an article.
Here is the analysis of some of the errors and misunderstandings in the article:
‘the surrounding Arab nations threatened to drive the Israelis into the sea ’. Threatened? They waged 4-5 wars and launched countless terrorist attacks for that purpose.
‘[Israel's] borders now contain the West Bank and Gaza... ’ Israel withdrew from Gaza two years ago, and the West Bank government has been independent of Israel since 1993. The Israeli military in the West Bank does not interfere in internal affairs and is only there to prevent terrorist attacks.
‘The recent construction of a 360 km wall... ’ There is no 360 km wall; except for a few small sections, it is a fence, still largely unbuilt. The word "wall" is a PR term used by Arabs, along with photos (like the two accompanying this article), to make it seem oppressive.
‘an apartheid policy that makes it impossible to get out of the West Bank. ’ This was a quote, but it should have been refuted. It is not at all impossible. There are crossover points where Arabs with legitimate business in Israel can leave the West Bank. In any case, the West Bank also borders on Jordan, and it is Jordan's business, not Israel‘s, whether Palestinians can enter or not.
‘The wall does not restore to Israel anything like the security of the original armistice line. ’ The 1948 armistice line offered no security; it was crossed numerous times by terrorists and Jordanian armies. In areas where the barrier has been built, suicide bombings have been reduced to virtually zero.
‘travel from one village to another is restricted by many checkpoints. ’ This is a true statement, but it implies that Israel is at fault for installing the checkpoints. The checkpoints are there for one reason and one reason only: to prevent terrorist attacks. The way to remove the checkpoints is not to have Israel open its doors to terrorists, as Geering suggests, but to abandon the terrorism.
‘Palestinians find themselves divided into a variety of confusing categories... ’ There is nothing confusing or even unusual about it. Arabs who live in Israel are Israeli citizens. Arabs who live in annexed Jerusalem are residents. Arabs who live in the West Bank are Palestinians.
‘Those in the West Bank and Gaza have no right of access to Israel. ’ Not true. Arabs with legitimate business in Israel have always had right of access, although this has been significantly tightened since the second intifada wave of terrorism. There is no country that offers open access through its borders.
‘Deir Yassin, the Arab village whose inhabitants were massacred in the War of Independence. ’ During that war (which was started by the Arabs), Israeli forces captured the village of Deir Yassin as part of their campaign to break the siege of Jerusalem. 109-120 Arabs were killed in the fighting. The Arabs called it a massacre, using the original estimate of 245 deaths, and this charge has reverberated through the decades. However Israel claims that its soldiers were fighting to capture an important military objective against armed resistance and that no civilians were deliberately slaughtered. If Geering wanted to cite a massacre, he could have mentioned the subsequent attack by Arab forces on a medical convoy that killed 77 doctors, nurses and patients, including the director of Hadassah Hospital.
‘As the Nazis expanded their rule over Europe, so Israel, on a minor scale, has expanded its domination of the Holy Land. ’ This is an inversion of truth. The Nazis took over most of Europe with unprovoked attacks on peaceful countries. Israel, which from the beginning wanted to live at peace with its neighbours, took over the West Bank and Gaza in a defensive war after it had been attacked numerous times. Since then Israel has returned Gaza and the West Bank to Palestinian control except for security measures in the West Bank.
‘Just as Nazis placed increasing restrictions on Jews and forced them to flee from the land of their birth as refugees, so Israel has made millions of Palestinians into refugees from their own country. ’ The Nazis did not force Jews to flee, the Nazis killed the Jews. The Jews did not force the Arabs to flee, they urged them to stay. Israel's Declaration of Independence stated, ‘In the midst of wanton aggression, we yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions....We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. ’ The Arabs did not heed this and between 360,000 and 711,000 (UN estimates) fled from the fighting, expecting to return with the victorious Arab armies.
‘Just as the Nazis confiscated Jewish property, so Israel continues to confiscate Palestinian property. ’ Very little Palestinian land has been ‘confiscated ’. In fact, Israel has a governmental agency that has protected abandoned Palestinian land for its owners.
‘Just as Nazis pushed the Jews of Eastern Europe into ghettos, so Israel is now pushing Palestinians into ever more confining spaces in their own land. ’ Israel has pushed no Palestinians into ghettos. The refugee camps in Gaza and the West Bank were a result of the 1948 war started by Arabs, forcing Israel to defend itself and causing some Arabs to flee.
‘Hamas is not the bunch of terrorists it is often made out to be... ’ Prof. Geering is deluded. Hamas has been responsible for almost daily rocket attacks on Israel, particularly the town of Sderot, and the Hamas charter specifically states ‘Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors. ’
‘Israelis want peace but are unwilling to surrender any substantial concessions. ’ In fact, Israel is willing to do almost anything for peace. Israeli spokesmen have expressed a willingness to restore all of the pre-1967 West Bank, with some border adjustments, and even permit Palestinian control over Arab Jerusalem, if that would bring peace. These are substantial concessions. The only thing that Israel will not accept is an absolute ‘right of return ’, which would destroy the Jewish state. Arab insistence on this was what doomed Pres. Carter‘s Camp David peace effort in 1978.
‘the root of the problem is very simple. As an Israeli official put it recently, 'No matter what concessions we make to the Palestinians, they still want their land back!' That of course is the nub of the matter. ’ This misunderstanding is the nub of Geering‘s problem. He either doesn't know that the land the Palestinians want back is ISRAEL, or perhaps he even supports that goal. The true nub of the problem is the continued insistence by Hamas and other Palestinian groups to drive the Jews into the sea and capture what they consider to be ‘their land ’.
‘In this day and age, one people cannot dispossess another of their land, restrict into virtual ghettos those who have not fled and then expect to enjoy a peaceful future. ’ The land of Israel never was ‘their land ’; Israel's legal right to its land is as strong as any nation's, including even New Zealand. The charge that Israeli Arabs (‘those who have not fled ’) are restricted to ghettos is also completely false.
RESPONSE BY DAVID ZWARTZ,
Honory Consul of Israel
(Published September 1, 2007)Israel alive and hopeful
After reading Sitting on a time bomb I felt my visit to Israel in July - a study mission with two New Zealand Parliamentarians - had been to a different country from Prof Geering's Israel.
We found a country deeply aware of its strategic precariousness but still prosperous in spite of constant security precautions, with people who are innovative, voluble, humorous, technologically and culturally creative, religiously and socially aware, environmentally concerned, argumentative and politically disputatious.
As well as seeing some of Israel's rich archeological, historical and religious heritage, we spoke to a wide cross-section of Israelis, including Israeli Arabs (one a Cabinet Minister), politicians, businessmen, academics, a Supreme Court judge, journalists, student volunteers (both Arab and Jewish) with Arab youth in the Israeli equivalent of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards, kibbutzniks, and students.
I also visited a military checkpoint near Nablus and a nearby Palestinian village.
These experiences and our impressions contrast markedly with Prof Geering's views, and it is worth looking at the differences.
First, the big picture. Prof Geering opens by saying that his vision of a harmonious Holy Land has been slowly turning into a mirage. Clearly, this is because he saw its future )as he explained in his 2001 booklet, Who owns the Holy Land?( as a religiously neutral single secular state.
This is not so much a vision as a fantasy and suggests (as Professor Paul Morris puts it, in his essay on Geering in last year's festschrift) ‘an inability to grasp the realities or complexities of Jewish or Palestinian identity. ’ A two-state solution has been accepted by both sides as well as by the UN, the ‘Quartet, ’ and the Arab League, and for Prof Geering to hold to the single-state ‘vision ’ is a bit like ‘Everyone is out of step except our Johnny. ’.
Other advocates of a single state for the area are Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood. Look at the 1988 Hamas Covenant on the Internet and you will see the preamble saying that Israel will be obliterated, backed up by Article 11 stating that the land of Palestine is Islamic and no part of it should be given up. A single state, certainly, but an Islamic-only one. No room either for Israel or for Prof Geering's religiously neutral secular state.
Yet this does not impinge on Prof Geering's vision of a harmonious Holy Land, nor does he regard Hamas (which recently took over Gaza violently - including shooting opponents in their hospital beds, and throwing them off tall buildings) as terrorists ‘although it does harbour some extremists, ’ he said. Doing away with the State of Israel, and all Jews (Article 7), Freemasons and Rotary Clubs (Article 17) is extreme enough for the Israelis, if not for Prof Geering.
Second, the detail. There is no 360km wall in existence, as Prof Geering states. This is a fabrication, and a damaging one (supported visually by the photographs accompanying his article). There is a 450km security barrier of which about 5% is wall and the rest a set of fences and vehicle-barrier trenches. When finished the barrier will be about 790km. Its original completion date has been revised to 2010 because of the delays caused by many appeals to the Supreme Court over the route - 109 already heard, 39 pending.
The security barrier has reduced the number of Israelis killed by suicide bomb attacks in Israel from 220 in 2002, when construction started, to 15 in 2006, and to 3 so far in 2007. In other words, it is working.
It also causes considerable hardship and inconvenience to many Palestinians. When this is balanced against Israeli loss of life and lifelong disablement from terrorist attacks, the Israelis go for saving life. They see the equation like this: If there was no terror, there would be no security barrier. If the Palestinians had stuck to their promises to stop terrorism (made by Yasser Arafat as part of the Oslo Accords in 1993, and by Mahmoud Abbas as part of the Road Map in 2003) there would have been no terrorism now and no need for the barrier.
Thirdly, a more personal comment. The parallels Prof Geering makes between the Nazi German genocide against the Jews in 1933 to 1945, and the military and political struggle between Israelis and Arabs, are a shameful repetition of what has become one of the most-used propaganda methods of Israel's adversaries, both non-Jewish and Jewish. Contemporary observers, as Dr Joel Fishman explains in a recent article, have identified this method as an ‘inversion of reality ’, They trace it back through the Hamas Charter and PLO Covenant to the Nazi use of the Big Lie invented by the British in World War 1.
Its most frequent expression is the accusation that the Jewish people, victims of the Nazis, have now become the new Nazis, aggressors and oppressors of the Palestinian Arabs. Prof Geering adopts this with added pungency since he links it to Yad Vashem, Israel's remembrance museum for the nearly six million Jews who died in the Shoah (Holocaust).
Comparing Gaza (which receives hundreds of millions of dollars in external aid each year) with the Warsaw Ghetto, does Prof Geering really envisage trains taking Gazans (wearing a yellow identification badge) for extermination at some Israeli Treblinka death camp? This is an utterly false and insensitive comparison.
Without claiming to speak for every New Zealand Jew - although my reaction is probably similar to many, in that over 200 of my extended Dutch family were killed in the Shoah - I can say that it sickens me to read Prof Geering's accusation.
Can we be optimistic about the future of the Israelis and Palestinians? No one has ever pretended that reaching a negotiated and mutually acceptable peace agreement won't be hard, with painful concessions required on both sides. Israel started the process when it withdrew completely from Gaza in August 2005, and it gets harder from there on.
And that is without allowing for the baleful influence of an Iranian regime whose president has said he wants to ‘wipe Israel off the map ’ and holds a Holocaust denial conference, and which supports Hezbollah and Hamas proxies to harass Israel on two borders.
The deep flaw in Prof Geering's article - and his conclusion, that no solution is in sight - is that he speaks as if faults exist only on the Israeli side, with no changes required by the Palestinians and the Arab states. This view ignores history and is biased and unrealistic.
Veteran soldier and politician and current MK Dr Ephraim Sneh suggested while he was in New Zealand last month, and more recently in a Washington Post op-ed (20 August 2007), that the primary requirement for achieving a permanent-status agreement is that each party gives up one national credo. For the Israelis, it is the exclusive control of a united Jerusalem, making it a shared Israeli-Palestinian capital. For the Palestinians, it is the right of return within the boundaries of the Jewish state. ‘If a respectable end of the conflict can be provided, every public opinion poll will demonstrate just how many Israelis and Palestinians are ready to make these concessions, ’ he wrote.
Letters written in response
(not published)
Sir
Shame on The Listener for publishing such a one-sided and distorted article by Lloyd Geering. How far from the truth can you get? The article is full of inaccuracies and factual errors which the casual reader is led to believe. In peoples' homes and waiting rooms the length and breadth of NZ, the public will pick up this article and believe that it reflects the balanced truth.
Israel has an enemy living beside it, sworn to Israel's destruction, yet people like Lloyd Geering expect Israel to feel sorry for it. Arabs from the West Bank can and do access Israel's world-class medical care, for which Israel is famous. At the Hadassah Hospital Ein Karem Jewish and Arab medical staff toil shoulder to shoulder and where everyone is treated equally, no matter what their beliefs. I personally lay unconcious there for 2 days after an accident so I have first hand experience.
Geering's odious comparison of Israel to the Nazis is not worth comment. Anyone who goes down the Israel/Nazi comparison road is a full blooded dyed-in-the-wool anti-semite, who is blinded by his hatred of Israel and, by extension, of the Jews. As long as the Arabs continue to feed on their mythical dream of one day destroying Israel, there can be no peace. Geering knows that very well, and his denial of that fact alone places him squarely among the Israel bashers. After eight visits to the country it is beyond belief how a man as educated as he fails to grasp the complexities of the situation,
Lloyd Geering's article "Sitting on a Timebomb" is a spiteful commentary concerning Israel. He is either ignorant of the facts or readily aligns himself with the many groups, who, to this day have made an industry in calumniating Israel. Israel has had to fight at great cost to her economy and population 5 wars and countless terror attacks to prevent surrounding Arabs from driving her into the sea. He obviously does not know that the West Bank and Gaza are totally independent from Israel, a Declaration of Principles on self-government for these areas date back to 1993, the military presence is only there to prevent terror attacks.
The 360km wall is mostly a fence and has greatly improved Israel's security from terror attacks. Lloyd Geering is wrong to suggest Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza have no right of access to Israel, Arabs with legitimate requirements have ready access to Israel. Arabs who live in Israel are Israeli citizens and have representation in the Knesset. Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli citizens and cannot expect the same rights and services.
The Deir Yassin so-called "massacre" is used regularly in today's world as propaganda to discredit the Jews. Deir Yassin was a battle not a massacre, fought on the road to Jerusalem. People in Jerusalem were in great need of vital supplies and the Arabs were determined to prevent any supplies getting through. During the attack many Arab civilians were killed, not intentionally by Jews, but because the Arab soldiers had embedded themselves in the civilian villager's homes (a manoeuvre that Arabs use to this day). Consequently civilians were bound to suffer. In today's world it is referred to as ‘collateral damage ’. On his past visits Lloyd Geering was still making his ridiculous suggestions that a similarity between Nazis and Jews existed. Israel only resorts to war when her hard-to-defend borders are repeatedly attacked. At no time were the German borders under attack or threat. Hitler and his henchmen had a "Final Solution" policy to rid Europe of its Jews. Jews of Europe suffered much hostility and blame even before Hitler came to power and conducted his destructive campaigns. No such policy is being conducted by Israel towards the Palestinians.
Israel has always striven for a genuine and lasting peace with her Arab neighbours. Even before 1948, Jews were attacked repeatedly by Arabs who were guilty of conducting massacres. The British who were responsible for implementing the League of Nations' Mandate showed more pro-Arab attitude and failed in their promise to create a Jewish homeland but never missed an opportunity to inflict harsh punishments and policy against the Jews. Any policies that Israel is forced to implement however unpopular, is for the security and protection of its people.
Lloyd Geering's crass comment about Hamas is unbelievable, The Hamas Charter is totally anti-Israel -"Israel will rise and remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessor". Lloyd Geering and others constantly refer to the refugee problem when he and others should look to Israel on how they absorbed, readily when required, all the Jews from Arab/Muslim countries who were expelled by force and under threat of death, forfeiting everything. Israel dealt with this problem superbly, which should be an example to the Arab world who have an abundance of vacant land and wealth to deal with the current Arab refugee problem, but choose to leave them to rot in their camps. Stop mischief-making Mr Geering, and on further visits to Israel speak to the right people.
I am appalled at the vile comparisons made in the article by Lloyd Geering (Sitting on a time bomb, Aug 25-31) of Israel and her situation with those of the Nazis. As far as the Jews of Europe are concerned, the Nazis had one agenda, and that was to kill the Jews, to eliminate a whole people, in a word, genocide. In the process, they didn't just take their houses and land, they took absolutely everything they owned.
As far as the Palestinians are concerned, Israel has only one agenda: to protect Israel and her citizens from a society of people whose govenment (Hamas) has one agenda: a charter which vows to destroy Israel and kill every Israeli Jew. They even ensure their children are reared in that culture of hate and violence - and Geering has the temerity to suggest they aren't terrorists!
Israel has put up a wall (which is mostly a fence, anyway) and allowed settlers in the West Bank to prevent terrorist attacks which Geering appears to have either conveniently forgotten was taking place or is indifferent to the hundreds of innocent Israeli civilians who lost their lives to these murderous attacks.
Geering has also conveniently forgotten or is ignorant of the fact that most of the Palestinians fled because their leaders promised them they could return once the State of Israel state was destroyed in the wars. They were offered a state by the United Nations and refused it, preferring instead to devote their lives to the destruction of Israel, a sovereign state and are still at it today, despite the many peace overtures from Israel.
Geering went to visit Israel apparently for the eighth time- has he ever bothered to notice the vibrant, productive, dynamic state that Israel has become? Every day, the news somewhere in the world announces a technology, a sporting or artistic achievement, a medical breakthrough, a business innovation, from Israel. Israel has a strong thriving economy and is bustling. Israel wants peace and will do anything to get it but not at the expense of her security and in the meantime, is moving on. The Palestinians want to get a life - accept Israel, destroy their charter of war and destruction and move on. They too could be enjoying the progressive, free thinking and productive society the Israelis have - and that wall will surely come down.
The article ‘Sitting on a time bomb ’ (August 11) by Lloyd Goering - I mean Geering - is so full of lies and distortions that it is little more than Palestinian propaganda. If Prof. Geering really thinks that "Hamas is not the bunch of terrorists it is often made out to be," he should talk to residents of Sderot, who suffer rocket attacks by Hamas on an almost daily basis, or he should read the Hamas charter. His likening of Israel's occupation of the West Bank in 1967, which occurred after Israel was invaded by Jordan, to the Nazi occupation of Europe is ludicrous beyond words. A more apt comparison would be with the Allied occupation of Germany after WWII.
But Geering's fundamental mistake is to misunderstand what is meant by ‘[the Palestinians] still want their land back ’. The land they "want back" is not Gaza and the West Bank as he thinks - they already have it (although the exact borders need to be resolved), it is Israel itself. Even if all Palestinians don't feel that way, enough do to have killed thousands of Israelis and wounded countless more over the past 59 years. It is this intent to drive Israel into the sea that is the nub of the problem, not the "wall" (that, by the way, is mostly a fence, despite the two photos that dominate the article) or the check points, which would disappear if the Palestinians only accepted Israel's existence and allowed it to live in peace.
With his total misunderstanding of facts, it is no wonder Geering concludes that ‘Israel has not manifested the moral image and human values of which Ben Gurion spoke ’. Those who know the real story, however, understand that while Israel is not always right, it has behaved more morally and humanely, both to its Arab citizens and its Arab neighbours, than most other nations would in similar circumstances. Israel, a tiny country, recently sent a medical team to Peru to help earthquake victims, a team of firefighters to Greece, and took in 500 refugees from Darfur. It would treat its Arab neighbours with the same morality and humanity if only they would stop trying to kill Israelis.
In "Sitting on a time bomb" (August 25), Lloyd Geering blames Israel for the Palestinian situation. However, this ‘opinion piece ’ is factually incorrect in most of its content; it distorts both history and the present situation. The Listener is equally culpable for misinforming the public and for including a huge photo of the 'wall' that dominates the text. Walls have been built since time immemorial for protection and I don't think they will go away.
It is the Islamic culture, not walls or even land, which is at the heart of the problem.
Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-born psychiatrist living in the US was raised in Islamic beliefs, including hatred of Jews. Last year she was listed in Time magazine's 100 most influential people, after being featured on Al Jazeera TV. Wafa dares to speak out against the Islamist mentality which is at the base of the growing world conflict between Islamic and a free and open culture. Israel, the only Jewish State, is bearing the brunt of this, as Jews have since they refused to convert in Mohammed's era.
While visiting Australia recently she was interviewed by Janet Albrechtsen (The Australian, August 21, 2007), who reported, "Her message is clear. The West must be more confident about espousing its own values". Wafa spoke of cracking the wall around the Islamic prison. A 16-year-old Palestinian boy in Ramallah said (translated by her); ’Without you, I would have been a suicide bomber. They taught me how to bomb, instead of teaching me to listen to music, or to enjoy looking at a beautiful painting. I don't believe you're human, you're a god.” Courageous women like Wafa and other moderate Muslims are speaking out about the real reason Israel has to build walls.
The article ‘Sitting on a time bomb ’ by Lloyd Geering published in the Listener of August 26 is so full of glaring factual errors that I am surprised that it was accepted for publication. Even someone with only a superficial understanding of Israeli history should be able to find a historical error in almost every paragraph. If a high-school teacher is looking for a way to entertain her students, maybe she could run a class competition to see who can spot the most errors in the article.
The most glaring error is Professor Geering's discussion on the Holocaust. As your readers are no-doubt aware, the Holocaust was an attempt by the Nazis to murder the entire Jewish population of Europe, and after six years on Nazi rule, the two thirds of Europe's Jewish population had been systematically murdered.
In contrast, after 40 years of Israeli rule, the Palestinian population has increased by almost 250 percent. They now have a longer life-expectancy, better health care, and higher education than any other country in the Middle East.
For Professor Geering to refer to the Holocaust as no more than an exercise in wall-building and defining territory shows that maybe he should have spent more time in the Yad Vashem Holocaust Education Centre, and less time trying to make outrageous comparisons.
As a secondary school student who has also recently returned from a trip to Israel I was very surprised by Lloyd Geering's (Sitting on a time bomb 25th August&$41; views on the Israeli-Palestinian situation and what Israel has achieved as a state.
Geering asked how Israel measures up 60 years after the Declaration of Independence. As a young Jewish student I believe it measures up very well. That it has lasted 60 years is an achievement in itself when we consider the numerous attacks since it was first declared a state. Israel has been under constant attack since Ben Gurion declared it as a state and every neighbouring Arab country attacked.
Geering is also quick to point out the problems with the way Israel deals with the 'Occupied Territories'. I would like to point out Hamas' founding charter which commits the group to the destruction of Israel. Geering states ‘Israelis want peace but are unwilling to surrender any substantial concessions ’ - it is important to note that at least the Israeli government is in favour of peace unlike Hamas who believe that they must resist the Israelis through jihad (holy war) and drive them into the sea.
I am also disgusted at Geerings' comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany as I have not only just visited Israel but also Poland and many of the Nazi death camps, and think that it is an insult to those who perished in the holocaust to even start to compare the situations. Firstly Israel does not want to exterminate the whole Palestinian race. I am not denying that life in the occupied territories must be hard but it is not comparable to ghettos in Nazi Germany. However, I am also fairly certain that if the Palestinians were in charge the Israelis wouldn't be welcomed with open arms. In my opinion a two state solution is the only viable option for peace going forward but progress can't be made until all Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist.
The article ‘Sitting on a Time Bomb ’ written by Lloyd Geering that appeared in the Listener (Aug 25-31), was so riddled with bias and inaccuracy regarding Israel that I am surprised it was published at all. Of all the erroneous and misleading statements that appear in the article, the ones that I took most exception to were those comparing the modern State of Israel to Nazi Germany.
Geering contends that Israel has expanded its borders in the Middle East in the same way that Nazi Germany expanded theirs through World War Two Europe. This is so ridiculous it is almost laughable. The Nazis took over most of Europe with unprovoked attacks on peaceful neighbours. Israel, who states in its Declaration of Independence ‘We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states, ’ took over the West Bank and Gaza as part of a defensive war following numerous attacks by countries whose sworn intention was to ‘push Israel into the sea ’. The West Bank was returned to Palestinian control in 1993 except for security measures, and Gaza in 2005, hardly the actions of a ‘Nazi state ’. I am in fact forced to wonder why the comparison between Hamas and Nazism has not been made: the Hamas charter specifically states ‘Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors ’. This is far more fitting to the image of genocidal maniacs conjured by the term Nazis than by both Israel's words (above) and actions. The tactic of comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are employed by cunning anti-Semites worldwide, who feel that an anti-'Jews-of-Israel' attitude is more socially acceptable than blatant anti-Semitism, and I am disappointed that a periodical such as the Listener would be willing to support it.