In an op-ed published in the Daily Beast Nawaz is scathing about the consistent UN treatment of Israel. The number of resolutions passed against Israel and perhaps most importantly against the thinking that led to this situation in the first place.
Opposing Israel is The One Ring that binds us all. It is the sacred god that must not be questioned. So deep runs this bias against Israeli transgressions, that to call it out is to arouse immediately incredulity and ad hominem abuse.
So entrenched is it, that few noticed how on the very morning of Resolution 2334 a motion seeking to stem the flow of weapons going to what the UN itself fears are genocidal killers in South Sudan failed.
For Nawaz’s past in Hizb ut Tahrir and his time spent in an Egyptian prison ensures that his voice has greater volume when talking about Islamism. Here I really find him to be on top form.
Having said that some of what he says is essentially a misunderstanding of the ideology behind settlement in the West Bank;
Any Jewish settlers who remain in Palestine after a peace deal is struck should be expected to adopt Palestinian citizenship and become Jewish-Palestinians, like the many Christian and Muslim Palestinians. If this prospect is too much for them to accept, they will always have the option of aliyah, to voluntarily repatriate back to Israel. Add land swaps to the mix, and the two-state solution is not dead. It remains very much possible, except in minds that are clouded by the UN’s obsession with condemning Israel and that harbor the bigotry of low expectations towards Palestinians.
Settler ideology calls for expanding the borders of the state of Israel to encompass areas that are steeped in Judaism and ultimately for annexing the West Bank the idea that many people for whom such ideology is such a part of their lives would simply cede defeat and agree to live in a state of Palestine is fantasy. They would neither accept Palestinian law nor move into Israel proper. At Migron recently hundreds of people assembled to thwart government attempts to remove them. In the end they were offered a face saving compromise whereby they relocate to the hill next door.
Nevertheless his more wholistic perspective encompassing the wider Middle East and insisting on paying attention to the absurdity of paying such close attention to Israel at a time when the Middle East is on fire and ruled by the worst tyrants in the world is prescient.
When Israel was bombing Gaza in Operation Protective Edge in 2014, reacting to Hamas terror attacks, our demand was for Israel to respond proportionately. Back then, we didn’t allow Israel to dismiss our concerns for proportionality by claiming we were engaged in a whatabouttery distraction from Hamas terror attacks.
With that said, there is not a single crime that Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stand accused of that an Arab totalitarian despot or absolute monarch has not committed manifold times and on a daily basis. From torture and occupation, to proxy wars in foreign countries, to treating non-citizens—including Palestinians—as second class, to a lack of democracy, Arab despots top it all.
If proportionality can work against Israel, it must be allowed to work for it too. Yes, we can condemn two things at once, hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time, but those two thoughts must be in proportion to each other.
And certainly there are enough echo chambers to go around when it comes to Israel Palestine.
For the better part of 23 years I have been deeply engaged in this debate. Like most left-leaning teenage politics enthusiasts, my starting point was hostile to Israel. Like too many Muslims and all Islamists, I once rejected Israel’s right to exist. I am familiar with all sides of the argument, and have written from both perspectives on this debate. I eventually realized just how ossified my thoughts had become.
Our unwillingness to hear outside our own echo chambers has severely limited our ability to innovate solutions. A critical mass of Arabs, Muslims, and leftists still struggle with Israel’s historic legitimacy, leading us to constantly overplay our hand at such venues as the UN. Like a broken record, we are guilty of repetitive sloganeering, lazy thinking, emotional decision-making, and a dogmatic approach to what should be the art of politics. We have allowed our political, religious, and ideological tribalism to shape our emotional response to the point of developing an unhealthy obsession with Israel. It is post-truth.
An excellent article worth reading in full.
