Since the end of the Cold War, writers and political commentators have suggested that we have entered a new war - a war brought on by the “clash of civilizations”. The theory, as told by writers such as Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis, amongst others, suggests that "the west" is at war with Islam and that this global divide will replace the earlier Cold War acrimony. Not for any particular reason or circumstance is this war being waged against us, they suggest, but merely because of its violent nature and hatred of western civilization. It is the very essence of Islam, a religion that does not share core values with ours which is the problem, and the only way to contain its violence is to be merciless in our efforts to do so.
Aside from this rhetoric being advocated as “fact” by news organizations such as FOX cable news, CNN, and most newspapers, this thesis has been regularly used by the powerful to justify wars. The U.S. used it to justify the war with Iraq and Afghanistan; Serbs and Croatians used it to justify ethnic cleansing of Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims; and it is used by Israel to justify their “war” with Palestinians.In keeping in line with the “Clash of civilization” argument, Israel has done nothing wrong to the Palestinians. It is because they are Muslim and Arab that they irrationally hate Jews and seek nothing but to destroy them. This rhetoric is very common in conversations with Israeli Jews and expressed regularly in the news media. Interestingly, this is the most common explanation of the conflict I hear today by Israelis.
Most Palestinians will say that “we are not against Israelis or Jews, but against the policies of the Israeli state and the idea that 'might makes right' should dominate the way the world works”. The consensus among Palestinians regarding this is simply surprising, given the level of violence that is regularly waged by the Israeli military and police against them.
Israelis, on the other hand, always blame the Palestinians, saying things like, “Palestinians are incapable of living in peace with us” or, as one taxi driver put it, “They have suffered because their irrational behavior forces us to be strict with them”. Usually the Israelis, upon being asked why there is a conflict with Palestinians, respond by throwing their hands up into the air and saying “What can we do? Our home is in this dangerous part of the world”. Of course, in keeping with the argument, they never question the fact that they are occupying these people and denying them basic human rights. The Occupation, the longest in current history and in which UN Security resolutions have condemned (and demanded Israel to retreat), is brutal in its use of military force. It is believed that the two facts - Occupation on one hand and violence against Israel on the other - have no connection with one another. What is strange and interesting is that those very people who are the ones with all the power believe that peace is impossible ....... while those without power, who have suffered greatly over a half a century, believe that peace with the other is possible. Beyond the discourse that Israel, because of its proximity to these dangerous “outsiders” - Arabs (and particularly Palestinians) - they are always at risk of being attacked. Worse, Israel is also vulnerable to being attacked from the ‘inside’ as well. Israel, after all, is defined as a jewish state --- and not a society which celebrates or encourages ethnic pluralism. Thus images of the dangerous insider -- either their own Arab population or the Palestinians in the west bank -- are prevelant in popular culture and the media. Like previous colonial empires, Israelis paint the image of the Palestinian as “native”, “other”, “a terrorist”, etc. Further, Palestinians are represented as people who act in packs, in hordes, almost like animals driven by instinct rather than individual will.
The Israeli media almost always refers to palestinian actions as “terrorist” (even if they are nonviolent or simply symbolic). It is common for one to read in the Israeli newspapers of “disturbances”, “turmoil”, “outbreaks”, “riots”, etc in descibing these events. While the IDF responds with brutal force, its actions are presented as “legal”, “showing restraint”, maintaining order”, etc. Israeli media is similar to the U.S. media in the way it respresents conflicts. Israel is constructed and defined by the problems it is said to face, and by the ‘other’ which is the source of its problems. Israeli is at war from within and from without. National security and the public good are the issues at stake. Palestinian terrorism risks the peace of the civilized, law-abiding, Jewish citizens of Israel.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=6988
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
