|
www.haaretz.com
Last
update - 03:02 18/07/2004
What would happen if a Palestinian terrorist were to detonate a bomb at the
entrance to an apartment building in Israel and cause the death of an
elderly man in a wheelchair, who would later be found buried under the
rubble of the building? The country would be profoundly shocked. Everyone
would talk about the sickening cruelty of the act and its perpetrators. The
shock would be even greater if it then turned out that the dead man's wife
had tried to dissuade the terrorist from blowing up the house, telling him
that there were people inside, but to no avail. The tabloids would come out
with the usual screaming headline: "Buried alive in his wheelchair." The
terrorists would be branded "animals."
Last Monday, Israel Defense Forces bulldozers in Khan Yunis, in the Gaza
Strip, demolished the home of Ibrahim Halfalla, a 75-year-old disabled man
and father of seven, and buried him alive. Umm-Basel, his wife, says she
tried to stop the driver of the heavy machine by shouting, but he paid her
no heed. The IDF termed the act "a mistake that shouldn't have happened,"
and the incident was noted in passing in Israel. The country's
largest-circulation paper, Yedioth Ahronoth, didn't bother to run the story
at all. The blood libel in France - a woman's tale of being subjected to an
anti-Semitic attack, which later turned out to be fiction - proved a great
deal more upsetting to people. There we thought the assault was aimed
against our people. But when the IDF bulldozes a disabled Palestinian to
death? Not a story. Just like the killing, under the rubble of her home, of
Noha Maqadama, a woman in her ninth month of pregnancy, before the eyes of
her husband and children, in El Boureij refugee camp a few months earlier.
And what would happen if a Palestinian were to shoot an Israeli university
lecturer and his son in front of his wife and their young son? That's what
happened 10 days ago in the case of Dr. Salem Khaled, from Nablus, who
called to the soldiers from the window of his house because he was a man of
peace and the front door had jammed, so he couldn't get out. The soldiers
shot him to death and then killed his 16-year-old son before the eyes of his
mother and his 11-year-old brother. It's not hard to imagine how we would
react to the story if the victims were ours.
But when we're implicated and the victims are Palestinians, we prefer to
avert our eyes, not to know, not to take an interest and certainly not to be
shocked. Palestinian victims - and their numbers, as everyone knows, are far
greater than ours - don't even merit newspaper reports, not even when the
chain of events is particularly brutal, as in the examples above. This is
not an intellectual exercise but an attempt to demonstrate the concealment
of information, the double morality and the hypocrisy. The indifference to
these two very recent incidents proved again that in our eyes there is only
one victim and all the others will never be considered victims.
If a European cabinet minister were to declare, "I don't want these
long-nosed Jews to serve me in restaurants," all of Europe would be up in
arms and this would be the minister's last comment as a minister. Three
years ago, our former labor and social affairs minister, Shlomo Benizri,
from Shas, stated: "I can't understand why slanty-eyed types should be the
ones to serve me in restaurants." Nothing happened. We are allowed to be
racists. And if a European government were to announce that Jews are not
permitted to attend Christian schools? The Jewish world would rise up in
protest. But when our Education Ministry announces that it will not permit
Arabs to attend Jewish schools in Haifa, it's not considered racism. Only in
Israel could this not be labeled racist. The heritage of Golda Meir - it was
she who said that after what the Nazis did to us, we can do whatever we want
- is now having a late and unfortunate revival.
What would happen if a certain country were to enact legislation forbidding
members of a particular nation to become citizens there, no matter what the
circumstances, including mixed couples who married and raised families? No
country anywhere enacts laws like these nowadays. Apart from Israel. If the
cabinet extends the validity of the new Citizenship Law today, Palestinians
will not be able to undergo naturalization here, even if they are married to
Israelis. We have the right, you see. And if the illegal Israeli immigrants
in the United States were hunted down like animals in the dark of night, the
way the Immigration Police do here, would we have a better understanding of
the injustice we are doing to a community that wants nothing other than to
work here?
What would we say if the parents of Israeli emigrants were separated from
their children and deported, without having available any avenue of
naturalization, no matter what the circumstances? And how would we classify
a country that interrogates visitors about their political opinions as soon
as they disembark from the plane at the airport and bars them from entering
it the security authorities look askance at the opinions they express? What
would happen if anti-Semites in France were to poison the drinking water of
a Jewish neighborhood? Last week settlers poisoned a well at Atawana, in the
southern Mount Hebron region, and the police are investigating.
And we still haven't said anything about a country that would imprison
another nation, or about a regime that would prevent access to medical
treatment for some of its subjects, according to its national identity,
about roads that would be open only to the members of one nation or about an
airport that would be closed to the other nation. All this is happening in
Israel and is pulling from under us the moral ground that makes it possible
for us to complain about racism and anti-Semitism abroad, even when they
actually erupt.
|
UPDATE:
July 23, 2004