What Really Is Behind Anti-Israel Critics?

One of the most visible examples of anti-Israel feeling is the cry to divest from Israel. For example, divestment is in the air again--this time from Scotland:

The Scottish Trades Union Congress [STUC] this week backed boycotts and disinvestment, and called for sanctions against the state of Israel because of the state’s failure to comply with international laws and agreed principles of human rights.

Following extensive debate and deliberation, the Scottish trade unions have endorsed a report recommending the STUC support a boycott and disinvest from Israeli companies, call for sanctions against Israel, and encourage positive investments in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Speaking after the debate at the Congress, STUC General Secretary, Grahame Smith, said: “The STUC is deeply concerned at the daily violations of human rights experienced by Palestinian people. The decision taken by our Congress is not a knee jerk reaction, but arrived at after careful consideration over a two year period. During this time the STUC engaged in discussions with interested groups in Scotland and the UK, and undertook a fact finding delegation to Israel and Palestine”.

Mr Smith added “by taking this decision, the STUC intends to campaign for economic, political and social pressure to be brought upon the Israeli Government, and world powers, to reach a peaceful and just two state solution for Palestine and Israel”.

STUC general-secretary Grahame Smith makes a point to indicate how much effort went into examining the issue:

"On our recent visit to Israel and Palestine, we witnessed the human rights violations experienced by ordinary Palestinians on a daily basis. We saw how restrictions on movement and checkpoints prevent people from going to work, to school and to visit their families even when they are sick and dying," he said.

"We heard powerful arguments from [Palestinian Human Rights Organization] al-Haq, outlining how Israel is in breach of the Geneva Convention and the need for other signatories to international laws to hold Israel to account," he continued.

Smith went on to say the STUC had "carefully considered" the complex issues involved, and concluded, "We believe that we have a moral obligation to show solidarity to Palestinian people. STUC calls for divisive boycott of Israel."

What amazes me is the ease with which people will talk about 'international law' and 'human rights' when they attack the actions of Israel, ignoring the fact that international law operates according to definitions and terms. Since people take a subjective approach to 'human rights' and assume they know what those are, they appear ready to take the next step and assume that international law likewise is subjective--all one has to do is see human suffering and know what to do. And where 2 sides are suffering, all one has to do is count the bodies.

Thus 'disproportionate force' no longer compares the force used with the goal: instead, it measures the force each side uses--and if one side happens to insist on hiding behind its own people while bombing schools, so much the worse for Israel.

Likewise, the accusation of being an 'occupational force' ignores the fact that Israel does not govern over Gaza. 

I suppose one must be thankful that things are going so well in Great Britain that in Scotland they can take time to worry about Palestinian Arabs.

In France, they apparently have some free time on their hands as well:



These heated responses to Israel and the issue of Palestinian Arabs are all the more interesting in light of a study that was done:

As part of the study, participants were asked a series of questions and were instructed to grade their level of sympathy of Israel on a 1-10 scale. Later, participants were presented with several branding videos on Israel, before being asked more questions in order to see whether their opinions changed after watching the clips.

The videos showed many aspects of life in Israel, including the beaches, landscape, culture, food, technology, and religious sites.

After watching the videos, a total of 51% of all respondents said their views on Israel changed for the better. The percentage of respondents who perceived Israel as an aggressive state subsequently dropped from 35% to 21%. Meanwhile, the percentage of respondents who perceived Israel as a creative country rose from 24% to 40% after watching the clips. [emphasis added]

This tends to highlight the fact that those most eager to defend Palestinian Arabs against Israel seem to gloss over the Palestinian vs. Palestinian violence--especially as addressed in the recent Human Rights Watch report. Instead, the protests about defending Palestinian rights are always about Israel vs. the Arab Palestinians, never about the violence and cruelty of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority against their own people.

The possibility has been raised that the fact the defenders for Palestinian rights appear only when Israel is involved indicates that it is not concern for Palestinian Arabs that motivates these people--it is their anti-Israel animus. 

If positive videos about Israel have this great an effect on people's perceptions of Israel--keeping in mind that the videos are not political in nature and do not address the issue of Palestinian Arabs--then what created the negative perceptions of Israel in the first place appears not to have been the Palestinian issue in the first place, or at least not the facts, but rather the impressions about the country as a whole.

I have commented before that the nature of the Palestinian propaganda is such that a 2-word bumper sticker is all that it takes to present their case--and that Israel has nothing in response but a long-winded response of a list of facts and history.

Apparently, I was wrong.

A potent response to "Free Palestine" is "Israel Is For Lovers"

It is simplistic--but apparently so too is what animates much of these anti-Israel protesters. 

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel.