EXPECTED OF ISRAEL?
by Richard H. Shulman
A philo-Semitic European reader supposed that the EU is critical of Israel because it expects more ethical behavior from it. This common supposition rationalizes discrimination against Israel. I believe that the EU has other motives, that this is an excuse, and that what it wants of Israel is not to be more ethical but more foolish.
Acting in behalf of the Arab terrorists, the EU is promoting the most unethical behavior on the planet. That statement sounds extreme, but the behavior actually is. The EU subsidizes PA education and broadcasting, which it knows indoctrinate in suicide bombing. What is worse than bigoted murdering of innocents! The EU therefore sets low standards for itself, as it helps keep Arab standards low. Hence the EU is in no position to judge the ethical level of Israel.
What is the EU? It is a supra-national government, with a foreign policy. This policy is shaped by individual governments and elected delegates from their countries. The governments are influenced by a media beset with anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. Those phobias are prompted by religious tradition now ingrained in the culture, by prejudiced Arab field reporters and photographers who appease Arab rulers for reasons of access and safety. Local Muslim populations fan European bigotry. Ignorance and prejudice govern. European mercenary motives are notorious. (Some of these and other problems apply to the US, but the US is not our subject.) There also is some affinity for countries Europe used to occupy.
Ignorance about the Arab-Israel conflict leads to peculiar indignation against Israel. Although this indignation is unjust or baseless, it may have an idealistic origin. Much of what Europeans think of Israel derives from false propaganda. What are decent European citizens supposed to think of Israel, whom they are told doesn't let food into the PA, though it does; doesn't let hospital patients out of the PA, when it does; steals Arab land when the Arabs are stealing Jewish land; shoots Arab children down, when it is the Arabs that shoot Jewish children down; and on and on? The picture is cloudy but the misdirection is clear.
Millions of Muslim immigrants have moved into Europe, set up a separatist society within it, and spread a message of hate. Europe had better be careful. It must find ways to hold on to such ethical standards as it still retains. I am not impressed by a European claim to be an upholder of civilization, not in view of its underlying barbarism and centuries of murdering millions of my inoffensive Jewish brethren.
Does the foregoing necessarily mean that Israel has high standards of ethics? No! "A & I" has criticized Israeli ethics severely. However, Israel's abuse of ethics largely is against its nationalistic and religious sector, i.e., against its own interests and traditions. Israel has behaved towards the Arabs not only within the rules of war but with self-defeating appeasement. The Arabs have behaved towards the Jews outside the rules of war, which the Arabs don't recognize except as applied to themselves.
Having a Christian background, the EU ought to know that most key ethics are not relative. Bigotry, aggression, and war crimes are wrong, regardless of which side commits them. It is not fair to allow the Arab side to commit such wrongs, simply because it doesn't know better. Does perpetuating Arab sinning teach the Arabs right from wrong? Is it fair to accuse the Jewish side, which doesn't commit such wrongs, of doing the wrong things? This EU behavior serves to condone wrongdoing and punish right thinking. The EU hardly can be excused on moral grounds, as the rationalization seeks to do.
The rationalization is offered to parry Israeli complaints of being discriminated against. However, the excuse, in effect, admits to discriminating. Indeed, it claims to be discriminating against the more ethical side! How ethical or logical is that? That seems to be one of the only two types of instances when the EU praises Israel, small comfort that is. The other type is when Israel is making concessions to the less ethical side. I see no justification for discrimination and less than none for discriminating against, what for the duration of making the excuse, is the admittedly more ethical side. If the Arabs are substandard, let the EU say so sometimes. If Israel is above standard, let the EU say so sometimes. Why doesn't the EU ever praise Israel's higher standards at other times, cite some examples, and urge the Arabs to follow them? Answer: the EU does not care about ethical standards.
The rationalization has no specifics. Specifics would offer an opportunity for concrete rebuttal. I cited some examples earlier of slander that engenders a visceral dislike for Israel. Those examples are not covered by the rationalization, because the rationalization refers to: (a) Israeli behavior which is acceptable from everyone else but which the EU expects to be higher solely in Israel's case; and (b) Behavior by the Arabs, but which the EU deplores but doesn't expect to become higher.
The kind of Arab behavior that the EU hardly condemns includes, inter alia: (1) Bigotry, such as hating all Jews racially and considering Muslims superior to Christians, Jews, and everyone else; (2) Aggression, such as repeated wars on Israel, to eradicate it; (3) War crimes, such as using ambulances to ferry terrorists and arms and attacking Israeli ambulances, and other forms of terrorism, such as bombing school buses full of children; (4) Deceit, as in proposing phony truces and then violating them, considered a Muslim virtue when used against the infidel; and (5) Theft of land, building houses illegally, and rioting as the primary form of protest. Those are among the most outrageous forms of behavior possible. When perpetrated by the Nazis and Communists, the West severely condemned them. Does that mean that the West expected better behavior of the Nazis and Communists than it does of the Arabs? If so, please tell us! Does anyone maintain that the West hardly condemns such Arab behavior as shooting babies in the head, because it realizes that the Arabs are in a lower stage of civilization, so it cannot expect better of them? How low do they think the Arabs are?
On the other hand, they urge Israel to make sacrifices for peace, anticipating that the "lowly" Arabs will soon come around to seeing the virtues of peaceful coexistence. Doesn't that contradict the rationalization, that one cannot expect high standards from the Arabs?
Is the EU setting a snare for Israel, when it exhorts that victim of repeated aggression to make "sacrifices for peace?" There is no evidence there will be peace; there is evidence that an Israeli sacrifice means a greater chance of losing the war intended by the Arabs. That is not asking Israel to behave on a higher moral plane but to enable the Arabs to fulfill their baser ideology of conquest. Europe is asking Israel to pursue national suicide. Let it say so, not further insult Israel by claiming the EU policy leads Israel to a "higher morality."
The EU condemns Israel for two kinds of behavior: (1) What would be unethical if Israel did it, but Israel doesn't do it; and (2) What Israel does, but is ethical but falls short of the divine that those traditional antisemites in Europe suddenly feel is the Jewish potential. That second kind includes, inter alia: (a) Wanting to preserve more of its traditional and Mandated homeland and terrain strategic for blocking further Arab aggression; (b) Killing a couple of terrorist commanders in the field and bombing a couple of emptied terrorist headquarters as a "disproportionate" "over-reaction" to suicide bombings; (3) Searching Arabs and their vehicles, before letting them into Israeli areas; and (4) Clearing orchards used for conducting ambushes against Jewish drivers.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so I ask: (1) What major European country would cede key parts of its traditional homeland or strategic terrain to Russia? None. I thought so; (2) What is wrong with a disproportionate reaction to terrorism? Terrorism is an absolute wrong, and the international duty is to wipe out terrorism and terrorists. Would the EU prefer that Israel (a) make a full-scale war against all the terrorists and bomb their headquarters when occupied, as I would; or (b) Hope to apprehend the terrorists before they set off their bombs, but understand that more would get through; (3) Is the convenience of Arabs more important than the thwarting of terrorists among them? Let Europe stop searching at its airports, before it asks Israel, on the front lines of terrorism, to do what Europe is unwilling to do. What right does the EU suppose Arabs have to work in Israel, anyway? (4) Keep the trees, kill the Jews?
Why doesn't Europe, that sinkhole of sales of components of non-conventional weaons to rogue states, explain what higher standards for Israel it has in mind? To ask the question is to answer it. To sit still to be murdered, which is what it asks of Israel, is not superior behavior to Israel's lukewarm self-defense. And it is far inferior to Judaism's standard, which Israel unwisely hesitates to adopt. That standard is to slay those who come to slay you. It is a standard suitable for the entire West in this age of terrorism. Europe should decide whether it is on the side of the terrorists. Let Europe not help the terrorists against Israel, lest the bells toll for Europe.