A conflict in context

Editorial

The tragedy that is unfolding in the Middle East is part of a long, long conflict to which the greatest minds of our generation have dedicated themselves and failed to resolve.

Many Canadians, gratefully spared the sort of trauma that Israelis have faced for six decades, approach this issue from an almost pacifist, yet deeply distorted, position. While the terrorists are assumed to be acting out of an uncontrollable and, according to many critics of Israel, justifiable rage, Israel is depicted as acting out of pure sadism.

Three generations of critics of Israel have maintained that Israel cede what the terrorists demand in order to obtain peace. What the terrorists are demanding, of course, is the end of the Jewish presence in the Middle East. Even otherwise fair-minded Canadians usually refuse to acknowledge the end objective of the terror. And while there are Palestinian, Arab and Muslim activists and thinkers who seek only a Palestinian homeland living co-operatively in peace beside Israel, these are not the people sending Katyusha rockets over the border.

It is becoming a parlor game to compare the casualties on both sides and declare that Israel is the perpetrator of excessive force. Indeed, reading newspapers and watching television news over the last couple of weeks, it is impossible not to lean toward this conclusion. As usual, ignoring historical context can lead people down the wrong path. Successive wars and intifadas have led to a great number of casualties and deaths on both sides in 58 years. But the comparisons are apples and oranges.

The combined Arab states, which have repeatedly attacked Israel explicitly and vicariously for six decades, have as their end goal the destruction of the state of Israel. Israel, for its part, has a similarly simple objective: survival.

It is remarkable that Canadians, among others, who have no difficulty accepting the premise that sustained violence and humiliation can lead to inhuman acts by rogue states and quasi-military terrorist groups, have no such ability to justify when it comes to Israel's defence of its citizens. There is probably no single more obvious example of a double standard in this conflict.

The Arab side has always used excessive casualties as a propaganda tool. Unlike Israel, which does not show the grisly aftermath of terrorist attacks, the Arab side splashes blood across its television screens, which are then beamed around the world instantaneously.

In this conflict, as in every Middle East conflict over the last 58 years, Arab casualties are tragic, unintended consequences of war. Israeli civilian casualties are a terrorist's mission accomplished.

The tragic numbers continue to add up as this fight drags on, but the world should bear one thing in mind. Israel is in a straightforward fight for survival. Israel's enemies, who shield themselves behind the cause of Palestinian nationalism, seek the eradication of Middle Eastern Jewry.

^TOP