The Absurdity of the Israel-bashing Crowd

Willful ignorance of not only history but now simple word definitions

This essay appeared in CaliforniaGlobe.com

The war in Israel and Gaza has now entered its fourth month with no apparent end in sight, although those purporting themselves to be supportive of Palestinians have been calling for an end to the Israeli military action almost from its very start. There are those in Israel and Jewish state supporters around the world who are now beginning to question the advisability of continuing the stated mission of rooting out the political and terrorist entity known as Hamas from the region, especially with the lives of more than 100 civilian hostages still being held in Gaza and those of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) at risk as well.

The political and military strategies and goals are no doubt complicated for Israel. The desire to bring home hostages while at the same time ensuring the future security for Israeli citizens are certainly important goals but unfortunately just might stand in the way of each other. No easy answers are in sight.

The rise in antisemitism around the world prior to this latest conflict has been well-documented. The exponential increase in antisemitic attitudes and incidents since Oct 7, 2023 is staggering. It would have been a sure bet to expect this in light of the war as the blame-Israel-first, anti-Zionist, and outright Jew-hatred around the globe was always simmering. It just needed a catalyst to bring it into the open with a seemingly growing acceptance of these vile attitudes and a corresponding lowered risk of suffering any consequences for espousing them. The rhetoric being used by the antisemites is really nothing new, it’s just that the baseless arguments being set forth are gaining greater acceptance at institutions of higher learning, international sovereign governments, global organizations such as the United Nations, and indeed across the political Left/Right spectrum.

The most glaring of the specious narratives being set forth have come in the form of an erroneous view of history. Time after time we have heard and read that Palestinians have historical claim to the entire land (“from the river to the sea”) of what is now accepted as the nation of Israel and that somehow the Jewish State first became an idea in the early twentieth century and then came to be with Independence and recognized statehood in 1948. The argument goes that Palestine and Palestinians were there first and therefore merit sovereignty over the land.

Well, no. This argument is off by only a few thousand years.

Of course, the bond between Jews and the Holy Land can be traced biblically to Abraham, the father of three great religions, who was promised—hence the term Promised Land– by God in the Book of Genesis the land of Canaan which is the geographical area now seen as Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, and the southern portions of Syria and Lebanon. And later in the Book of Exodus, God promised Moses that the Jewish people will be led back to the land from which they were exiled after serving 400 hundred years of slavery in Egypt.

And if you don’t buy into the biblical history, fine. There is ample written history and tangible archeological evidence which ties the Jewish People to sovereignty in Israel back to the times of King David and King Solomon more than three thousand years ago. Palestine as a name and entity wasn’t even a concept until the Romans renamed the area Palaestina in 135 B.C. as an affront to Jews following an uprising against Roman persecution in the area of Judea. And let’s keep in mind that as far as any religious claims to the land go, Islam was not even founded until more than 700 years later.

From a historical perspective, that Jews can claim ancestral ties to this particular region of the world which predates Islam and any entity know as Palestine is indisputable.

Beyond the ignorance—willful or otherwise—of history being promulgated by anti-Israel minions, the latest slight to reasonable intelligence has come in the form of a blatant disregard of long-accepted word definitions.

For several years now, those looking to discredit Israel and its government have labeled the nation’s policies governing its Arab Muslim minority as Apartheid. Ask where to this point in time Apartheid was practiced and the answer would be South Africa. South Africa’s black population was treated miserably and at best as second-class citizens well before the Apartheid policy was codified into law. But Apartheid became official policy of the ruling White South African Afrikaner Government for the latter half of the 20^th century. Coincidentally, Apartheid became official policy of South Africa in 1948, the same year as Israel’s independence and recognized statehood. While in the minority, the white Afrikaners still held the power, forcibly oppressing their black citizens, and were brutal in putting down any who disagreed with the policy.

Under South African Apartheid, laws and policies resembled in many ways those of the Jim Crow South in the United States.  People of different races were required to use segregated train cars, buses, elevators, park benches, restrooms, restaurants, hotels, and other facilities. Interracial marriages and interracial sex were outlawed. Athletic teams were segregated and could not play against each other. White children were required to attend school, while black children were not. When they did seek an education, black students were forced to attend inferior schools with poorly trained teachers. Only whites could vote and hold elected office under Apartheid. There were no black judges during Apartheid. 

Contrast the plight of blacks who were in the majority during South African Apartheid with the lives of Palestinian Arab Muslims who live in Israel today as a minority. Arab Muslims hold elected office and judgeships in Israel and are certainly allowed to vote. There is no mandated separation of Jews and Arabs when it comes to public accommodations such as mass transportation, rest rooms, restaurants, hotels, and other facilities. While in some instances there are ethnically segregated public schools—by choice or by the necessity of geography—Arab and Jewish children can attend public schools together. While there are at times restriction of movement for Arab Israeli citizens, it had become necessary to do so for security reasons as terrorist attacks were taking their toll on Israeli society. 

While same-sex marriages cannot be legally performed in the country, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East that recognizes these marriages which have been performed outside the country. Further, it is not unreasonable to state that Palestinian Arab Muslims living within Israel have greater opportunities in education and business, enjoy a much wider range of rights, and live better lives than in any other of the 21 Muslim nations in the Middle East.

Can life for an Arab Muslim in Israel be considered anything resembling the official Apartheid policies like those of 20^th century South Africa? Of course not, but the term Apartheid raises such a visceral revulsion that Israel-bashers use it to great effect with impressionable and less than knowledgeable individuals.

Perhaps the most egregious accusation hurled at Israel is that they are now responsible for a Genocide in Gaza with their military operation there following the terror attack by Palestinians into Israel on October 7 which claimed the lives of more than one thousand civilians and took dozens of hostages—many of whom are still held captive today.

In fact, it is ironically South Africa which has formally made the genocide accusation before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which is a branch of the United Nations, an international organization that has historically been a cesspool for antisemitism and anti-Israel actions. South Africa’s accusations are based upon the Genocide Convention provisions which were established after Word War II in the aftermath of one of the greatest genocides ever perpetrated—the systematic slaughter of 6,000,000 European Jews by the German Nazi regime. This is perhaps the most morally depraved element of the South African accusation—supported by far too many other entities and individuals–as the term Genocide was coined as a direct result of the heinous slaughter of European Jewry. 

The genocide accusation is preposterous on its face, but let’s take a quick look at how the Genocide Convention defines the word:

“acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

Israel launched a retaliatory action in Gaza to root out the prevailing Hamas terrorist regime which was elected to power in 2006 and that governs the area. Hamas codifies in their charter the complete destruction of Israel. Hamas has vowed continued attacks on the Jewish State similar to October 7 in order to effectuate that goal.

Have there been civilian casualties in Gaza by virtue of the Israeli military operation? Of course, and they have been indisputably and unnecessarily magnified by virtue of the Palestinian strategy of integrating their military apparatus in and around civilian residences, hospitals, and schools—a war crime in and of itself. In fact, Israel just might be the only country in the history of warfare that shows unprecedented restraint when it comes to the potential loss of civilian life. Israel often delivers warnings to civilians before targeting specific areas and secures safety corridors for civilians to escape from a military target. They have also paused their military operations in order to allow humanitarian aid to reach civilians.

To accuse Israel of Apartheid and Genocide is at best intellectually lazy. At worst, it is a vicious blood libel.

We now live in a world where the cavalier employment of these labels and others, such as racism, sexism, fascism, homophobia, Islamophobia–and yes, even antisemitism, are commonly used as rhetorical devices to win political arguments. Overuse of the words can become hackneyed over time and have the unfortunate result of minimizing the impact for those actually guilty of these transgressions, and more importantly trivializing the plight of those who are truly their victims. That ought to stop.

For other essays by Martin Marks, see Archive