ODT publishes KBRM article
June 30, 2008
In the meeting at the Otago Daily Times on June 13, the editor promised to consider a KBRM article rebutting an editorial in which he called the Mideast conflict a ‘chicken-and-egg impasse ‘ (see May 22 post). The article, by Rodney Brooks and David Schwarz, was accepted and published under the headline ‘End to Gaza conflict in Palestinian hands’. However the message that Arab militarism is behind the conflict was undercut by the accompanying photo of an Israeli tank and Israeli soldiers. Even though the caption read ‘Right to defence... An Israeli soldier directs a tank in an army base near the Kissufin border crossing just outside the Gaza Strip’, the message would have been much clearer if a Qassam rocket had been shown, perhaps like this one:
The full text of the article, as published, follows:
The conflict in Gaza and elsewhere in Israel can be ended if the nations of the world say to the Palestinians, as was said to the IRA, enough is enough, argue Rodney Brooks and David Zwartz.
In America, there is a legend about the Hatfields and McCoys, two West Virginian families who had feuded so long that they no longer remembered what they were fighting about.
Many Kiwis look at the conflict in Gaza this way - as a ‘chicken-or-egg’ impasse, or a ‘cycle of violence’.
Either Israel is beating up the Palestinians out of some deep-lying hatred, or vice versa.
This is not the case. The motives of Israel and of the Palestinians are not obscure or buried in the distant past. They are clear and immediate.
The militant Palestinian groups, including Hamas, are trying to destroy Israel. They call it ‘ending the occupation’ because to them, the word ‘occupation’ means the existence of Israel.
Israel, on the other hand, is trying to defend itself against attack and destruction.
The creation of Israel in 1948, a source of joy to Jews, was considered a catastrophe (nakba) by many Arabs.
The instant the state was announced, Jews came under fire from the Arabs, and these attacks have continued to the present day.
The Hamas government in Gaza, in particular, has made it abundantly clear that, ceasefire or no ceasefire, its ultimate goal is to drive out the Jews.
Going along with the difference in motives is a corresponding difference in teaching.
Arab children are taught to hate Jews and to idolise the Arab ‘martyrs’ who attack them.
Israeli children are taught to accept Arabs as neighbours and to live in peace alongside them.
There is also a fundamental difference in modus operandi.
Israel's actions are, almost without exception, directed at military targets.
Civilian casualties result because the militants deliberately and cynically locate themselves and operate within civilian areas.
Conversely, Hamas regularly targets Israeli civilians — a war crime about which, for some reason, there has been little outcry.
The town of Sderot has been hit by over 2000 rockets and mortar shells in the last two years alone.
The term ‘cycle of violence’ evokes two incorrect implications. The first is that there is moral equivalence between Palestinian violence and Israeli retaliation.
Obviously, there is not. Every state has the legal and moral right to defend itself against attack.
The second is that the cycle is endless and cannot be broken.
It can be. Consider Northern Ireland, which has often been cited (particularly for study in our schools) as similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In a recent article, * Nobel Peace co-laureate David Trimble stated that the British pre-condition — a cessation of violence and weapons decommissioning — was crucial to reaching a final agreement.
If a similar condition were accepted by the Palestinians, the so-called ‘cycle’ would end and peace negotiations could begin.
Unfortunately, the Hamas government in Gaza continues to believe in the elimination of Israel, as expressed in its charter and in many subsequent statements.
As long as the Palestinians refuse to recognise Israel as a Jewish state, and believe that through violence they can replace it with a Palestinian state, Israel will and must defend itself — and as Israel is prosperous and militarily strong, even after 60 years of continuous attack, the retaliation will often be tougher than the initial Palestinian strike.
Nor will unifying the two nations under a single government work, as has been advocated by some, because each side wants (and deserves) to preserve its own unique identity.
The way to end the conflict, of course, is for the two nations to accept each other.
Israel is ready to do that, and has been for 60 years. (Note — and it is a major point — that there is no longer conflict between Israel and Egypt or Israel and Jordan, though these two countries were among the Arab nations which attacked Israel when it declared its statehood in 1948.) If the Palestinians could be similarly persuaded to lay down their arms and abandon their warfare, the building of a Palestinian state could begin and the economic plight of Palestinians turned around.
There is no limit to what miracles of growth and development could occur.
Even Israel's hated security barrier could come down.
It was begun in 2002 after heavy loss of Jewish life from Palestinian sniping and suicide bombers (and has succeeded in reducing Israeli deaths by 95%).
In short, the conflict is no ‘chicken-or-egg’ impasse.
It can be ended if the nations of the world say to the Palestinians, as was said to the IRA, enough is enough.
Stop focusing on past perceived injustices (which differ on each side), accept the right of Israel to exist, and let us work together to build a better tomorrow where Palestinians and Jews can live side by side in peace and prosperity. *http://www.davidtrimble.org/publications-misunderstanding.pdf
Rodney Brooks is chairman of Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Mideast.
David Zwartz is the former honorary consul of Israel.
Unfortunately, the article was accompanied by a photo of an Israeli tank, rather than a photo showing the Qassam rockets that Israel is defending against, such as