God's warriors I
Christiane Amanpour's series on "God's warriors" on CNN is an attempt to describe the religiously motivated extremists in the Middle East who are prepared to use violence in God's name. The first part of the three-part series covering Jewish "warriors" aired tonite Aug 22. While she is not presenting a completely balanced viewpoint, it was an interesting and stimulating program. It is difficult to judge the true impact until the other programs focussing on Muslim and Christian extremists are shown.
Nevertheless I have three main criticisms of the thrust of the first program:
1. In focussing on Jewish terrorists she gives the impression that they are a major factor in Israeli politics and in the Middle East situation, while in fact they were a pitiful few compared to the many thousands of Arab terrorists. Perhaps there were 25 Jewish terrorists, and all of them were captured by the Israeli security forces and most of them were found guilty and sent to jail. Most of them never actually hurt anyone and except for Yigal Amir who assassinated PM Yitzhak Rabin they had no significant effect on the situation. Certainly the settler movement is much larger and more significant, but they officially oppose violence and for all the resistance no one has been killed in any of the disengagements (Gaza, Amonah, Hebron). Neither has this schism so far divided the Jewish people in Israel in any major or violent way.
2. She emphasized that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal under the Geneva Convention that forbids an occupying power from settling its citizens in "occupied land." But, although called "occupied land" the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) are neither "Palestinian territory" as she described it nor is it "occupied." The territories comprising the West Bank were defined by the temporary ceasefire lines of 1948, and Israel has a legitimate claim over them as part of the territory of the Palestine Mandate given to Britain to establish a "Jewish homeland." They were illegally occupied by Jordan (then Transjordan) in 1948-67, an occupation that was recognized by only Britain and Pakistan, not by the UN or US. The fate of those territories can only be decided by mutual negotiations between Israel and a Palestinian partner. However, she failed to point out that no new settlements have been established for about 10 years under existing Israeli Govt. policies.
3. In relation to Hebron, Jews were living there not only before Mohammed, but throughout the Muslim/Arab occupation from the 7th century until 1929, when the remaining Jews were massacred and/or exiled by the Arabs. Jews came back after 1967 and have every right to live there. Also, Kfar Etzion was a Jewish owned kibbutz before 1948 and was one of the few Jewish settlements that were captured by the Arabs in the War of Independence. After its recapture by Israel in 1967 the Jews returned to the land that they owned and there is no law that can deny them the right to do so.
Apart from these points, I found the piece uncomfortable to watch as it focussed on the Jewish religious extremists. As a secular Jew/Israeli I do not identify with them. But, in order to appear balanced, Amanpour had to spend as much time covering Jewish extremists as the Muslim extremists. However as we all know the ratio of Muslim to Jewish extremists is about 1,000,000 to 1. So apart from over-emphasizing their impact the program was little more than a space filler.
Nevertheless I have three main criticisms of the thrust of the first program:
1. In focussing on Jewish terrorists she gives the impression that they are a major factor in Israeli politics and in the Middle East situation, while in fact they were a pitiful few compared to the many thousands of Arab terrorists. Perhaps there were 25 Jewish terrorists, and all of them were captured by the Israeli security forces and most of them were found guilty and sent to jail. Most of them never actually hurt anyone and except for Yigal Amir who assassinated PM Yitzhak Rabin they had no significant effect on the situation. Certainly the settler movement is much larger and more significant, but they officially oppose violence and for all the resistance no one has been killed in any of the disengagements (Gaza, Amonah, Hebron). Neither has this schism so far divided the Jewish people in Israel in any major or violent way.
2. She emphasized that the Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal under the Geneva Convention that forbids an occupying power from settling its citizens in "occupied land." But, although called "occupied land" the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) are neither "Palestinian territory" as she described it nor is it "occupied." The territories comprising the West Bank were defined by the temporary ceasefire lines of 1948, and Israel has a legitimate claim over them as part of the territory of the Palestine Mandate given to Britain to establish a "Jewish homeland." They were illegally occupied by Jordan (then Transjordan) in 1948-67, an occupation that was recognized by only Britain and Pakistan, not by the UN or US. The fate of those territories can only be decided by mutual negotiations between Israel and a Palestinian partner. However, she failed to point out that no new settlements have been established for about 10 years under existing Israeli Govt. policies.
3. In relation to Hebron, Jews were living there not only before Mohammed, but throughout the Muslim/Arab occupation from the 7th century until 1929, when the remaining Jews were massacred and/or exiled by the Arabs. Jews came back after 1967 and have every right to live there. Also, Kfar Etzion was a Jewish owned kibbutz before 1948 and was one of the few Jewish settlements that were captured by the Arabs in the War of Independence. After its recapture by Israel in 1967 the Jews returned to the land that they owned and there is no law that can deny them the right to do so.
Apart from these points, I found the piece uncomfortable to watch as it focussed on the Jewish religious extremists. As a secular Jew/Israeli I do not identify with them. But, in order to appear balanced, Amanpour had to spend as much time covering Jewish extremists as the Muslim extremists. However as we all know the ratio of Muslim to Jewish extremists is about 1,000,000 to 1. So apart from over-emphasizing their impact the program was little more than a space filler.
posted by Jack Cohen at 1:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home