MEDIA MYTHS: The biased vilification of Ariel Sharon

Two days ago an article chronicling the “ruthless” legacy of former Israeli premier Ariel Sharon was published in one of the most prestigious newspapers in India. The author of the opinion piece is a renowned Marxist scholar currently based in Beirut. The author, while showing no mercy towards Sharon, turns a blind eye to the atrocities perpetrated by the Palestinians and also ignores Sharon’s efforts to create an atmosphere of harmony in the region.

The full story can be read here.

Ariel Sharon is a revered leader in Israel and he will go down in the annals of history as a great “warrior” who fought for the protection and survival of his country. While he was loved by millions around the world he was also hated by many and had to face several painful as well as gut-wrenching criticisms and accusations all throughout his military and political career.

It is only common for any illustrious leader to face disapproval or condemnation during his/her lifetime. Mahatma Gandhi was a victim of vitriolic attacks by the erstwhile British Empire. Winston Churchill once called the Mahatma a “half-naked ” and  ”seditious fakir” who was the “greatest enemy of Britain”. While this was a vicious attack on one of India’s greatest leaders, Churchill also acknowledged the fact that Gandhi was a guardian angel for India’s downtrodden classes. Gandhi may have been Britain’s arch foe but for Indians he was the man who gave them their freedom. Just as David Ben Gurion was revered as the “Father of Israel”, Gandhi’s appellation as the “Father of India” is entirely justified.

Coming back to Ariel Sharon, his condemnation in this particular article is unabashedly biased. The author expediently indicts Sharon as directly responsible for the Sabra and Shatila massacre. It is also rather unfortunate that not one word is mentioned about the Phalangist militiamen who were the ones that carried out the grotesque slaughtering of innocent Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in retaliation to the murder of their supremo Bachir Gemayel. The Time magazine had published a story in 1983 alleging that Sharon had encouraged the Gemayels to seek vengeance and murder thousands. For Sharon, this was crossing the limit and he sued the magazine for $50 million. The jury concluded that the article was false and defamatory.

The only stain on an otherwise perfect career was the Qibya incident. In 1953 troops from the elite Unit 101 under Sharon attacked the hamlet of Qibya killing almost 70 innocent villagers. The reckless raid was a tit for tat attack after a Jewish woman and her children were ripped apart by a grenade thrown into their house. While the author has shown an unfeigned lachrymose concern for the plight of the Palestinians he comfortably ignores the miseries that innocent Israeli civilians had to endure during years of conflict.

2002 and 2003 were miserable years for Israeli civilians. The PLFP and Hamas sponsored suicide bombings were a nightmare for Israelis. In the span of two years exactly 70 suicide blasts rocked the country. Two of the deadliest attacks were the Passover massacre and the Tel Aviv central bus station massacre. The former was carried out by a Hamas terrorist who, on the Jewish holiday of Passover, blew up himself killing 30 instantly and severely injuring another 140. The tragedy of this loss was compounded when the perpetrator was honoured and glorified in Palestine. The Tel Aviv bus station massacre was equally horrific. 23 killed and over 100 injured──this attack was one of the many bombings which were a ferocious game between Palestinian terrorist modules in which the one whose murder rate was highest would emerge victors. It was as if Yasser Arafat had given these murderous maniacs carte blanche to choose their next spot for ‘martyrdom’.

While scathingly criticizing the “Bulldozer” for his so-called land grab policy in the West Bank the writer ignores Sharon’s efforts in Gaza. In fact, he sardonically says that the Prime Minister’s “retreat from Gaza being a feint to distract from this more profitable annexation”. Sadly, this is not the truth. It was Sharon’s expeditious measures that finally relieved Gazans from Israeli occupation. He was the driving force during the withdrawal of IDF troops in 2005 and his unilateral disengagement plan was condemned by many settlers. Those settlers who did not comply with the disengagement plan were forcefully evicted. He had deliberately incurred the wrath of the settlers due to the overwhelming hope of achieving peace and also a desire for the cessation of rocket attacks. There was to be no peace and Hamas launched rockets at Israel with redoubled vigour.

In 2006 Sharon became the first Israeli premier to visit India. His visit transformed Indo-Israel ties and there was a renewed relationship between the two countries. But there is a strong objection towards India’s growing bond with Israel, particularly from the leftist coterie. A famous Indian leader with left leanings once said that it was impossible for India to establish a moral relationship with Israel, which according to him was born in sin. The author also quotes Sarah Leah Whitson; the Human Rights Watch cheer-leader of anything anti-Israel. She is acclaimed for her “fund-raiser” report to the Saudis, who are one of the worst human rights violators, condemning Israel for its “brutality” in Gaza. David Bernstein rightly comments that “there is something wrong when a human rights organization goes to one of the worst countries in the world for human rights to raise money to wage lawfare against Israel, and says not a word during the trip about the status of human rights in that country”.

In sum, such a biased vilification of Sharon is morally degrading. Sharon was a great leader who worked round the clock to protect Israel from its enemies. His patriotism was firmly established after his heroic efforts during the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars. He should also be commended for driving out Arafat, Habash and company from Lebanon. His role in the assassinations of Hamas founders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi was vehemently condemned. But imagine the catastrophic damage Hamas would have caused if these leader were still alive to egg on the militia group. He was deeply worried by the incessant suicide bombings during the second Intifada and the only way he could stop the merciless killings of civilians was to kill the two. Rather than portraying him as a pugnacious villain, Ariel Sharon should be remembered as a dedicated leader whose overwhelming goal was to establish peace between Israel and Palestine.

First Published on 18 January in The Times of Israel

Soccer, boycotts, racism and Israel

The United Arab Emirates deems itself as the epitome of modernity among the largely conservative Islamic nations of the Gulf region. It brags about tolerating a cosmopolitan culture and society that is intolerant towards racism and boasts of a fresh industrial revolution which has resulted in an influx of skyscrapers; a ubiquitous sight in the cities of Dubai and Abu Dhabi. This roaring success is largely seen as a welcome change in an otherwise turbulent and chaotic region. But looks can be deceptive and the UAE has been successful in camouflaging its ugly, dark and radical face.

The good-boy image of the UAE was shred to bits last week when Dan Mori, an Israeli footballer playing for Dutch club Vitesse Arnhem, was denied entry to the Gulf state. In fact, the UAE has issued a ban on anyone carrying an Israeli passport. It is as a result of their strong support for a Palestinian state and a venomous hatred towards anything that has a touch of Israel in it. Boycotting a country for a good cause seems reasonable, it is absurd in the case of Israel, but persecuting innocents on the basis of their nationality is deplorable. Last year, Itay Shechter, also an Israeli footballer, was banned from the UAE. He was left out of the Swansea squad which was gearing up for a friendly in the country.

Israeli football has suffered miserably due to a unique brand of racism that exists, even today, in many Arab countries. Israel was a member of the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) from 1954 to 1974 and it was a force to reckon with. Israel won the 1964 Asian championship and was twice finalist. But the watershed moment in Israel’s footballing history was its qualification for 1970 FIFA World Cup. It was pitted against the heavyweights of football, Italy and Uruguay. Israel managed to secure two points after draws with Italy and Sweden. In 1974, Israel was expelled from AFC and spent the next 21 years as a wandering pariah. In 1994, two decades of torpor culminated in the Israel national football team getting full membership in Europe. This also meant that Israeli football would find it difficult to cope with the dominant powers of European football. But Israel has defied logic and has adapted to the ways of European football. It has failed to qualify for this year’s World Cup but its overall performance in the qualifying stage has provided renewed hope.

This feeling of animosity towards Israel is a common feature among many Arab and several other predominantly Islamic nations. While they maintain that they are actually boycotting Israel because of the ‘barbaric’ treatment of the Palestinians; the truth is that an air of antisemitism pervades the very fabric of these states. The worst part is that they tend to ignore the faults of the Palestinians and turn a Nelson’s eye to acts of violence and brutality being perpetrated around many corners of the globe.

The case of India and Pakistan is an interesting one. The two neighbouring countries began their hostilities ever since their independence in 1947. Both the countries claim Kashmir and India was hit by a wave of terrorism some two decades ago which is very much alive today. They have fought four brutal wars and skirmishes between the two neighbors are quite common. Tensions may exist at the diplomatic level but that does not mean that Indians are barred from entering Pakistan and vice-versa. Both the countries frequently battle it out in the cricket field, which evokes a chauvinistic fervor among both sides. Cricket matches are also used as a means of conflict resolution between India and Pakistan.

But even Pakistan harbors a deep-rooted abhorrence of Israel. There are, virtually, no diplomatic relations between Israel and Pakistan. Pakistan has also imposed strict restrictions on Israeli passports. The Pakistani attitude towards Israel underscores its great hypocrisy. The same applies to the case of the UAE and the rest of the racist bandwagon.

This blind hatred of Israel is simply nauseating. It becomes even more outrageous when the United Nations fail to condemn this growing display of antisemitism. The UN is quick to condemn Israel’s retaliatory strikes on terrorist hot-spots but why does the international organization which preaches peace fail to take action against this incessant racism. Serious questions need to be raised about the UN’s indifferent attitude towards Israel.

The ban imposed on Dan Mori is not the first instance of discrimination against Israeli citizens. In 2011, Yossi Benayoun, probably Israel’s greatest footballer, was racially abused in Malaysia. During the 2008 Beijing Olympics, an Iranian athlete withdrew from a Judo match because his opponent was from Israel.

Israel is the only country in the world which faces such widespread discrimination. The Palestinian cause is only an excuse used to justify this hatred but the truth is that this hatred of Jews existed even before Israel was born. Boycotts and racial taunts are only new found methods of expressing their hatred.

First Published, The Times of Israel on 11/01/2014

A Recipe for Stalling Peace Talks

It has been only a year after Operation Pillar of Defense and war clouds have already started to gather over Israel and the West Bank. There is growing chatter of another upheaval - a potential third Intifada. The spine-tingling accounts of violence and bloodshed that were manifest in the previous two uprisings are scattered throughout the internet for all to read. No one in their right senses would want to see another disaster yet recent events in the region compel us to envisage otherwise.

Last November, Israel launched Operation Pillar of Defense in retaliation to the ceaseless rocket attacks from Gaza. Hamas and the notorious al-Qassam brigade were mainly held responsible for initiating the conflict. After over 100 rockets were launched at Israel the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) responded by killing Ahmed Jabari, chief of Gaza military wing of Hamas in a precision airstrike on his vehicle. The clashes continued for a month and there were civilian casualties on both sides. The Gazans took a heavy toll with more than a 100 civilian deaths. The damage incurred by Israel was not substantial but that was because of the IDF's stunning ability to thwart terror attacks and partly due to the Iron Dome air defense system that had a 90% success rate in stopping rockets.

But Israel cannot expect to escape lightly if there is to be an outpouring of violence. The US Secretary of State John Kerry has warned Israel of a third Intifada if the peace talks fail. There were rumblings of resentment in the West Bank, especially in the refugee camps of the Nablus, over Binyamin Netanyahu's announcement that Israel will continue to build new settlements. The refugee camps are extremely volatile regions and were the rallying points for the last two Intifadas. The rising ferment in the region is as a result of a widespread phobia that the peace talks are a US-Israeli conspiracy aimed at annihilating the Palestinians and protracting Israel's imperialist ambitions. Even though this a completely deranged notion the Palestinian people cannot be entirely blamed for this.

Their leaders play a huge role in instigating such fears. They give unwanted and unnecessary importance to Israeli settlement plans and perpetuate horrible lies about Israel's so called 'sinister designs'. During the late 1990s, Suha Arafat (wife of the late Yasser Arafat) made dubious claims that Israel was poisoning Palestinian wells and spreading cancer and AIDS by dumping truckloads of chemicals. It has been almost 15 years since she made those accusations and the world has still not heard of, god forbid, an AIDS or cancer pandemic that gripped the West Bank or Gaza.

While there is a lot of kerfuffle over Israeli settlements not one word of appreciation has been uttered, in the Palestinian territories, about Israel's intention of releasing a third and probably a fourth round of Palestinian convicts. Of course, the revered 'freedom fighters' will receive a grand welcome and many of them will look forward to reenact their violent pasts, but not one word of praise will be said about Israel. Neither will anything be said about the menacing rocket attacks or the recent deaths of two members of the IDF who were killed by Palestinian snipers or for that matter the horrific bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv. Rather, all these events were met with cheer. These events have already soured the prospects of achieving a major peace deal and yet it will be Israel that has to face the ire of the world if a peace deal is not reached.

The settlement plans are not an immediate necessity and they will surely hamper the peace process but the fact is that these plans are not the only obstacles to peace. To a large extent many outside forces are also responsible for initiating regional tensions. As seen last month, when the supreme leader of Iran viciously called Israel "the rabid dog of the region" and bullishly said that, "Israel was doomed to destruction". Such provocative statements from a person widely respected among the Palestinian people is bound to create trouble. Iranian leaders have also labelled the current peace dialogue as a "farce" and a ploy by the US and Israel to perpetuate their dominance of the region.

Israel is also under great pressure from the US to release the next round of prisoners and put a halt to their settlement plans. But where is the pressure on Mahmoud Abbas and company? The Palestinian Authority (PA) is on a rejecting spree. Almost everything the US and Israel put forward are spurned outright by the Palestinian leadership. There is a need for compromise on both sides. After all, we do not want the Camp David disaster of 2000 to be repeated.

The Americans are doing everything possible in order to achieve a lasting peace deal. John Kerry has made nine trips to the Middle East in 2013 and is all set to make a tenth one. He is determined to ink a deal between the two adversaries. He has also promised to free Jonathan Pollard if Israel agrees to release Israeli Arab prisoners. The Kerry plan includes a clause which provides for a US peace-force to monitor the region for specified number of years if a deal is reached.

But all the efforts could come to absolutely nothing if the PA and other regional actors continue with their blame game. This is a great opportunity for both sides to put aside all their differences and aim for a final deal. A Palestinian state is the need of the hour. All other differences could be sorted out after the Palestinians achieve statehood. This might be quite an obnoxious statement to make but there is no harm in giving it a try. Failure to achieve a deal will most certainly light the touchpaper and revert the region back to its darkest days. The region looks ripe for another bout of violence and one act of stupidity from either side will be enough to engulf the region in flames. A third Intifada would mean an end to any hopes of peace for a long time to come.

First published in The Times of Israel on 31 December, 2013.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-recipe-for-stalling-peace-talks/