Nobody is going to be surprised that today’s article in The
New York Times, “A Champion for the Displaced in Israel”, is not about hundreds of thousands of Jews who were “displaced” (expelled and murdered) by Arab
pogrom mobs throughout the Middle East, ethnically cleansing it of the ancient population
that preceded Arab invaders by many centuries. These Jews and their descendants constitute half of the Israeli Jewish population, and have never been compensated for their losses. No, in the inverted world of the Times, the “displaced” in Israel are Arabs, the descendants of those invaders.
It is unclear what exactly makes them to qualify for that status: the only people
mentioned there who are displaced and whose homes are demolished are the Jews,
Israelis, the Natives of the Land of Israel, who are given the preposterous
misnomer of “settlers”. And the “champion” of those Arabs, whose only geopolitical dream is
to displace the Jews from any piece of land, is a Jewish lawyer, Michael Sfard.
Usually, when a person raised in the Jewish culture (or a
culture based on the Jewish values) takes an enemy’s side, it requires
inversion of values and shedding of morality. When a lawyer in a democracy
defends a murderer, he does not need to be on the murderer’s side to perform
his duties. The murderer represents only himself even if he is a gang member.
It is different when a lawyer takes upon himself the defense of a group against another group and does
that consistently, especially when the group – in its overwhelming majority –
is an enemy of the group to which the lawyer himself belongs. And not just any
enemy. With some enemies, compromise can be and has been reached, but the Palestinian
Arabs have given no sign of that possibility. They are self-proclaimed enemies
of Israel. Their goal, at best, is Israel’s eradication, and at worst, the world-wide
genocide of the Jews. It is symbolic that the name for the country they want to
replace Israel is “Palestine”, the very same name that was invented by Hadrian
the Roman emperor to eradicate the notion of Judea and the Jews from the same
land. His wish has in part been fulfilled already, as the historic name of
Judea has been virtually replaced by the nonsensical “West Bank”, an invention
of Jordan that illegally occupied the land until 1967. Whereas the occupation
ended, and the Jordanian annexation of the land had never been recognized by the
world (with the notable exceptions of the UK and Pakistan), the name has stuck
to the degree that somebody’s use of the original and true names, Judea and
Samaria, is now viewed as a tell-tale sign of “right-wing” extremism. According
to the article, those are just the “Biblical names” – and who cares about the
Bible in our enlightened times. Obviously, since “right” is associated with
fascism, it is easy to make the next step and accuse the Jews of nazism, a
calumny that is so popular nowadays among antisemites in general and in the
Muslim world in particular.
Sfard pathetically juxtaposes himself with the Soviet
dissidents, expressing his satisfaction that he does his subversive work unmolested in a
democracy. Soviet dissidents, which now have to defend the right of the Jews to
live on the Land of Israel against him, have risked their lives for the Jews to
be able to live in Eretz Israel, while he abuses Israel's legal system to
ethnically cleanse it of the Jews. He is not "an enemy of the right" –
he is an enemy of those who stand for what is right. He is the enemy's
collaborationist. Along with other deluded or immoral people whom he defends,
like the draft dodgers in Israel, he is adored by the likes of the NY Times and BBC, well
known for their anti-Israel bias, and despised by the Israelis. Don’t expect
this “defender of human rights” to defend the rights of the “settlers” – in his
book, they are not listed as humans. Morally displaced, he is indeed a champion
– of the displacement of Jews. No wonder that he has Gandhi's portrait on the
wall - the "likeness" of a man who advised the Jews to comply with Hitler's
plans.
___________________________
April 2013. - A follow-up to this entry, in response to Sfard's talk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, is at "Antisemitism By Other Means: Lecturing Against The Jewish State", and, a shorter version, in The Jewish Chronicle, "Michael Sfard: 'I Don't Care About History'".
___________________________
April 2013. - A follow-up to this entry, in response to Sfard's talk at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, is at "Antisemitism By Other Means: Lecturing Against The Jewish State", and, a shorter version, in The Jewish Chronicle, "Michael Sfard: 'I Don't Care About History'".
Excellent discussion and absolutly right point of view! THANK YOU for expressing your opinion for many of us!
ReplyDeleteMRS