You might think
that the human rights argument would long ago have settled the debate
about the occupation. The occupation is a human rights violation, a
human rights violation is a grave injustice, and therefore Israel must
leave the territories immediately, with or without an agreement, to put
an end to this injustice. What could be simpler?
...[but] ending the occupation cannot be expected to lead to any improvement in the area of human rights. Just the opposite. The probable alternative – Hamas, or even the Palestinian Authority – would evidently be even worse for the Palestinians than Israeli military rule. So whoever wishes to make the case solely on the basis of human rights could easily end up substantiating the idea of perpetuating the occupation rather than ending it.
...I’m familiar with the next step in the debate. But, they say to me, what the Palestinians do to the Palestinians is their business. If others end up committing even greater injustices, that doesn’t sanction the injustices we’re committing. We are responsible for our own actions, not for the actions of others, they say.
That’s all well and good. But if that’s their real motive, those who profess to care so much about human rights ought to stop selling us the lie that they care about the Palestinians, and cease propagating descriptions of suffering dripping with piety. They ought to just tell the truth straight out: They could care less how much the Palestinians suffer, and they have no qualms about letting Arabs be brutalized...The cleanliness of our hands and our consciences is all that matters, not what happens to the Palestinians...the concerns of these people are limited to themselves and their consciences. For them, politics is basically a form of therapy. It’s all about the self and not others, about the self-portrait reflected in the mirror, not about responsibility toward other human beings, not about reality. It’s a decorative ornament bestowed by a “clear” conscience...
...People who seek to cleanse their consciences at the expense of others’ suffering do not inspire respect. Especially when they adopt a pose of feeling sorry for those whom they’re quite prepared to sacrifice.
...[but] ending the occupation cannot be expected to lead to any improvement in the area of human rights. Just the opposite. The probable alternative – Hamas, or even the Palestinian Authority – would evidently be even worse for the Palestinians than Israeli military rule. So whoever wishes to make the case solely on the basis of human rights could easily end up substantiating the idea of perpetuating the occupation rather than ending it.
...I’m familiar with the next step in the debate. But, they say to me, what the Palestinians do to the Palestinians is their business. If others end up committing even greater injustices, that doesn’t sanction the injustices we’re committing. We are responsible for our own actions, not for the actions of others, they say.
That’s all well and good. But if that’s their real motive, those who profess to care so much about human rights ought to stop selling us the lie that they care about the Palestinians, and cease propagating descriptions of suffering dripping with piety. They ought to just tell the truth straight out: They could care less how much the Palestinians suffer, and they have no qualms about letting Arabs be brutalized...The cleanliness of our hands and our consciences is all that matters, not what happens to the Palestinians...the concerns of these people are limited to themselves and their consciences. For them, politics is basically a form of therapy. It’s all about the self and not others, about the self-portrait reflected in the mirror, not about responsibility toward other human beings, not about reality. It’s a decorative ornament bestowed by a “clear” conscience...
...People who seek to cleanse their consciences at the expense of others’ suffering do not inspire respect. Especially when they adopt a pose of feeling sorry for those whom they’re quite prepared to sacrifice.
No comments:
Post a Comment