Arabs Harm Palestinians, World Yawns
show comments
  • wigwag


  • Thirdsyphon

    Actually, Morsi cracked down on those tunnels himself while he was in power. I remember reading that here, so I’m surprised that nobody here remembers writing it.

    To the extent that Israel has been held to a higher standard of behavior than the various monarchies, theocracies, and petro-dictatorships that they share their neighborhood with, I believe it’s because people in Europe and elsewhere think more highly of Israel than they do of Israel’s neighbors and therefore expect better of them.
    While I have no doubt that there are more than a couple of genuine antisemites in the ranks of Israel’s critics, I think it’s senseless and counterproductive to apply (or, as in this case, insinuate) that charge against everyone who happens to have a disagreement with any given policy of Israel’s current government.

    • Brad_Brzezinski

      “… people in Europe and elsewhere think more
      highly of Israel than they do of Israel’s neighbors and therefore expect better
      of them …”

      That’s an interesting theory. If true, it means that these critics are more interested in criticizing than helping Palestinians because when Arabs maltreat Palestinians, they are silent. They have also given up on helping the Arabs generally, because they simply accept their bad behavior described here. Without criticism and other consequences, these Arab regimes have no incentive to improve.

      Further, this theory should mean that the “critics” have more sympathy for Israel’s viewpoint vis a vis peace deals because the other side is not highly thought
      of. But they don’t. The Israeli viewpoint is completely unheeded. (See the 1973
      War for an example of how highly Europe thought of Israel. I’m afraid I see no

      • Thirdsyphon

        “That’s an interesting theory. If true, it means that these critics are more interested in criticizing than helping Palestinians because when Arabs maltreat Palestinians, they are silent.”

        Your tone is sarcastic, but I think there might just be some truth in that. The world is replete with examples of populations that claim to be maltreated and oppressed. The Chechyns in Russia and the Uighurs in China, among others, have complained loudly and often violently about the injustices that they believe have been visited upon them, but nobody in the West ever seems to take an interest in doing something about it because we expect bad behavior from the likes of Russia and China. What people *did* get worked up about, aside from the Palestineans, was the sectarian strife in Northern Ireland. The common thread, I think, isn’t who’s complaining but who they’re complaining about. As with Israel, people in the West had higher expectations of the U.K. than they did of most places, and so the British were held to the same kind of higher standard until that issue was (more or less) resolved.

        • Brad_Brzezinski

          Sarcasm was not intended. Your viewpoint added a new dimension, but on thinking it through, I felt it failed – as described.

          • Thirdsyphon

            Understood. My mistake. Regarding the 1973 war, I regret that I’m not grasping your argument. To my knowledge, the United States and the USSR intervened heavily and openly to support their respective allies in that war, but the European powers (East and West) took no independent action at all. If the implication is that they failed to stand up for Israel’s right to self-defense, in the context of the Cold War, I don’t think that omission should be held against them. Once the Superpowers became involved, freelance diplomacy by their respective clients (a category which, in 1973, covered all of Europe in fact if not in name) would have been counterproductive and potentially catastrophic.

          • Brad_Brzezinski

            In 1973 Europe refused the US overfly rights to resupply Israel whilst allowing them for Russia to resupply Egypt. Note that there was criticism of Israel for attacking first in 1967, but in 1973 there could be no such doubts. For that matter the US resupply was entirely due to Nixon as there
            was immense pressure from the oil industry and State not to. That reminds me, prior to 1967, France had been Israel’s arms supplier. France dropped Israel afterwards, openly declaring itself in the Arab camp. That began the great Arab immigration wave to France and the rest of Europe. France might think more
            highly of Israel but that’s not much help if it comes with life-endangering

          • Thirdsyphon

            Fair point. The Europeans feared the “oil weapon” that OPEC had threatened to deploy, but I don’t believe that was based on their feelings towards Israel. They also denied the U.S. overflight rights for an attack on Kaddafi’s palace in Syria. If by State you mean then- Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, his opposition to the resupply was based in his belief that Israel would inevitably win the war without U.S. assistance. When it became apparent that this was not the case, Kissinger changed his position.

      • Corlyss

        Nobody, and I mean nobody, likes the Palestinians, period. Nobody give a rat’s posterior about them. They are political fodder only. Wherever they appear in large numbers, they are nothing but violent, disruptive trouble, even for moderately sympathetic hosts. If they were all ethnically cleansed tomorrow, nobody would miss them except as an excuse to beat up the Israelis. What amazes me is that for 60+ years, the Palestinians themselves do not seem to understand their true position in the scheme of the region.

  • wigwag

    “One thing some people in Europe might want to think about: If something fills you with rage when Jews do it, but doesn’t bother you at all when others do it, that’s probably your inner anti-Semite speaking—not your disinterested love of justice. Just a thought.” (Walter Russell Mead)
    I wonder whether this statement tips Adam Garfinkle’s “Jewcentricity” meter at all.

    • Nick Bidler

      Yes and no. Yes, because it is centered on The Jews. No, because it is primarily about whether the same action, taken by different ethnic/religious/national groups, provokes the same or a different reaction.

  • Andrew Allison

    If, as VM suggests, Gaza can survive only on goods (and, let us not forget, arms) smuggled from Egypt, what are the prospects for a Palestinian State? Maybe Egypt should just annex Gaza LOL

    • Kavanna

      Gaza was once part of Egypt, as the West Bank was once part of Jordan. Eventually, the respective governments washed their hands of it. It wasn’t because of Israel; it was the Palestinians who came to be seen as a much bigger threat to Arab governments.

      Ah, but the “Arab-Israeli conflict” — how quaint! How 1970-ish! Nowadays it’s all about Iran.

  • Tom Servo

    Hmm, something about this story reminds me of Chicago. I wonder what.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.