The Israel-Palestine conflict is striking for the intense emotions that it generates. These encompass not just the people directly involved on both sides but outsiders, especially in the western world - from cyber-activists waging a "virtual' war in the blogosphere and comment-forums to NGOs, civil-society movements and international humanitarian agencies.
Hugo Slim is the author of Killing Civilians: Method, Madness and Morality in War (C Hurst and Columbia University Press, 2007)
This distinguishes the Israel-Palestine conflict from most other wars around the world. The discussion of armed conflicts, famines and repression elsewhere - Darfur, northern Uganda, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Tibet, Burma, Uzbekistan, Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), among other places - seldom rouses such emotions or provokes so many people (including those from the international humanitarian and NGO community) to take to the streets.
This is worth noting because the death-toll in a number of wars around the world since the 1990s alone is much, much higher and the attitude of their belligerents to killing civilians is much, much worse than that in Israel-Palestine. International civil society cares deeply about these other vicious armed conflicts and disasters. It expends enormous effort and resources on trying to publicise them and organise aid for their victims. But the Israel-Palestine conflict, as is evident in the 2008-09 war over Gaza, seems to evoke a disproportionate degree of outrage.
Such impassioned engagement raises the important issue of the relationship between humanitarian and political action, and the question of how it is observed in practice. Many people in the humanitarian world have strong political views on this particular conflict. This can be a problem insofar as impartiality is the guiding star of practical humanitarian work. The principle of impartiality requires that all humanitarian agencies "act in proportion to need alone". They should not "see" race, colour, or politics; nor should they choose what is easiest, closest and most high-profile. They must see and act only on the basis of the greatest need.
Among openDemocracy's articles on the Gaza conflict of 2008-09
:Paul Rogers, "Gaza: hope after attack" (1 January 2009)
Ghassan Khatib, "Gaza: outlines of an endgame" (6 January 2009)
Avi Shlaim, "Israel and Gaza: rhetoric and reality" (7 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the Israel-United States connection" (7 January 2009)
Tarek Osman, "Egypt's dilemma: Gaza and beyond" (12 January 2009)
Mary Robinson, "A crisis of dignity in Gaza" (13 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the wider war" (13 January 2009)
Menachem Kellner, "Israel's Gaza war: five asymmetries" (14 January 2009)
Khaled Hroub, "Hamas after the Gaza war" (15 January 2009)
Prince Hassan of Jordan, "The failure of force: an alternative option" (16 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "After Gaza: Israel's last chance" (17 January 2009)
Martin Shaw, "Israel's politics of war" (19 January 2009)
Conor Gearty, "Israel, Gaza and international law" (21 January 2009)
Paul Rogers, "Gaza: the war after the war" (22 January 2009)
This professional obligation is increasingly compromised by the trend for modern NGOs to bend complex political realities into a classic liberal schema of righteous victim and malevolent oppressor. This satisfying trope can then allow self-mandated civil-society groups to use their aura of humanitarian impartiality to promote a partisan attitude. NGOs tend to do this wherever they are; but some humanitarian workers find it hard to maintain standards of professional independence where the Palestinians in particular are concerned.
Taking sides
This can be illustrated from a couple of my own encounters as a former NGO worker. During the first Palestinian intifada (1987-93), I found myself becoming suspicious of some European NGO workers in East Jerusalem who refused "to go west" into the Israeli part of the city, and made a conspicuous point of boycotting Israeli goods. In a visit during the second intifada which began in 2000, I listened at a private dinner to a number of United Nations people expressing the hope that the state of Israel "would only last another fifty years at most". In other parts of the world, NGO workers often long for the end of a particular regime or dictator; but only in the Israel-Palestine conflict have I heard them longing for the end of a state.
This "taking sides" is one indication of the blindspots that can be at work among those charged with assisting the victims of this conflict. Another is the way that NGO critiques of the conduct of violence in this region can employ a double-standard. People who adopt a pro-Palestinian standpoint, and express particular revulsion at Israeli conduct in Gaza or in earlier military campaigns, frequently overlook Palestinian ideology, choices and behaviour.
Public condemnation of Palestinian violence against Israelis by many NGOs and United Nations workers often has a routine aspect, as if it is something they "have" to do. Many representatives seem deep down to feel that this violence is an inevitable and understandable expression of "desperation". Internecine violence among Palestinians is also mistakenly understood as the tragic consequence of a factionalism produced by occupation.
The narrative, strategy and feuds of Palestinian nationalism too often go unexamined by outside supporters and "solidarists" with the Palestinian cause. But, like all nationalisms, Palestinian nationalism is constructed, contested, enriched by myth and not a little faked. Why not treat it with the same rigorous examination that every other case of nationalism receives?
This failure of scrutiny can extend to the use of violence by Palestinian resistance and liberation movements. A lot of this violence is politically misguided, illegal and narcissistic. But many western supporters (including those in the aid community) more often exculpate or even indulge it. There is a similar lack of critical attention to the abominable articles in the Hamas movement's charter that are clearly racist and exterminatory. Any equivalent sentiments found (for example) in Sudanese government documents or the pronouncements of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda would be eagerly denounced by international NGOs. The attitude to Hamas is different: its words are understood as relics of an earlier phase of the organisation which it has now outgrown, or the forgivable hyperbole of an oppressed resistance movement.
The tragedy of this misguided support is that it does the cause of Palestinian autonomy so little good. Arguably, Palestinian politics is overly dependent on outside solidarity, sympathy and gifts. More "solidarity" is the last thing the Palestinians need because it reinforces a sort of "rentier politics" dominated by small cliques - something that does nothing to cultivate broad-based power and agency.
The interesting thing about the slow emergence of Hamas and its eventual election victory in January 2006 was that the movement dearly wanted to do away with such dependency and its associated corruption. During the first intifada I observed health and education projects run by several Hamas supporters who were profoundly committed to the rights, social improvement and self-sufficiency of their people. Two decades on, many still are. But Hamas's continuous commitment to violence and the annihilation of Israel has made them dependent on a network of outside patrons whose support is too often guided by mixed messages and dubious motives.
A choice of visions
There is now a great need for comfort, repair and reconstruction in the aftermath of the Israeli attacks. But the Palestinian people of Gaza have rich friends such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia (who are already launching a fund that could soon top $2 billion) as well as western backers such as the European Union and the United States Agency for International Development (Usaid).
In this context, and in light of the above, western humanitarian agencies should think hard about whether their presence in Gaza is because they have a real humanitarian role to play there or whether they are there in solidarity. If Arab states are able to provide for Gaza's reconstruction - in stark contrast to their poor record in Darfur - then it is arguable that aid agencies in Britain and other European countries might find that need is greatest at present in DR Congo or Sri Lanka.
Humanitarian agencies need to use all the practical skill and political insight that they apply in many other wars to decide what it is best to do in Gaza. The majority of British NGOs appealing via the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) for funds to help Gaza - such as Oxfam, Care, and Save the Children - are multi-mandate agencies. They serve a wider vision of a just society and so are more than "just" humanitarian agencies. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Medecins Sans Frontières (MSF) alone are solely humanitarian. Theirs is a single, immediate mandate. They are interested in protecting, healing and caring for the wounded and the destitute. Most NGOs have a wider, long-term goal of creating liberal and democratic societies. If this is a part of their goal in Gaza then they should make this clear to the public as they raise funds. They should probably also tell Hamas, which may not entirely share their vision.
Comments
Well, not all are getting fat up like Erdoan in Davos, leaving the scene in protest.
A nicely balanced and relatively objective piece that manages to display the pro-Palestinian bent of NGOs without endorsing the oftentimes brutal policies of the Israeli government.
I agree with much of what you have written. It is a sad reflection on the Charities, and one of the reasons that many people I know no long give to many of them, that they have become very political in their outlook. Israel/Palestine problem is the one place where there is a strong whiff of anti-Semitism in a lot of the comments made and where it seems to be accepted without question. What a sad reflection on Western Society that is.
This is one of the most misleading and mischievous articles I have ever read on Open Democracy. It derives its force, if it has any, by casting generalized, wholly unsubstantiated slurs on NGOs, by attempting to identify Hamas terrorism with the sufferings of Palestinian war victims so as to make the former obfuscate the latter, and from an insidious but no less nasty appeal to readers to ignore calls for aid from the Disasters Emergency Committee.
If Mr Slim thinks that organizations like DEC and other NGOs truly influence the military and political situation in Gaza, one wonders what he's been smoking.
I particularly enjoyed his reference to other conflicts that have resulted in far more deaths yet evoke much less emotion. Really? If I remember correctly, on the streets of London alone there were around 2 million demonstrators against the Iraq war. Many of us remain outraged by that conflict, and by the slaughter perpetrated in our name. I think I detected a fair amount of emotion that day.
And contrary to what Mr Slim suggests, many good citizens of western countries have contributed and continue to contribute funds for victims of war, natural disaster and poverty in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Do we need a better example than the response to Live Aid?
While people like Mr Slim fret about political purity, impoverished people in stricken countries die for lack of basic medicine and fresh water. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether someone in a NGO thinks one side or the other in a conflict are scoundrels. What matters is whether help goes to those who need it.
jf
There is one major factor in regard to this conflict which explains why it arouses such passions.
And that is, Israel is the only country which calls itself a democracy and considers itself to be developed (although that is debateable) and a member of the Western (modern) world.
It is also aided and abetted by America which considers itself the leader of the free world and a defender of all of the principles of democracy and civilization in the world.
The appalling war crimes and human rights abuses committed against the Palestinian people by Israel, with the support of the United States (because it simply could not happen if the US stopped supporting it) are therefore an egregious betrayal of all of the principles upon which the developed, civilized world is founded.
It is a betrayal of rule of law, human rights, international law, the UN, the Geneva Convention, common human decency, democracy and all of those things which are the bedrock of the modern world.
This frightens people and makes them very, very angry.
When non-democratic and non-developed countries do what Israel and the US do it is one thing, when Israel and the US do it is another. Israel is judged, and so is the US, by the standards to which it claims to uphold. therefore, when it runs utterly counter to those standards and acts as badly as the greatest tyrant, the most barbarous and undeveloped State, the world is rightly shocked, horrified, angry, passionate and outraged.
It is in the betrayal of all that keeps us protected that the passions are sourced.
Hypocrisy of the most egregious kind.
Unsubstantiated smear of NGOs working in Gaza. It is difficult enough to understand what crimes are being committed by both sides without the wholesale discrediting of those who work for NGOs and are the only witnesses, give Isreals decision to block journalists from conflict areas. A very poor article.
The behaviour of NGO's is generally always going to be sympathetic to the people with whom they are embedded and who they are seeing suffering on a daily basis. This is not surprising and perhaps it is right to show that there may be bias in their expressed views that results from this. However, it would be also wrong to go to the other extreme of discounting such opinions from people who have first hand experience. Having a bias towards supporting one side in dispute does not mean that they are wrong.
Slim's piece obviously infuriates anti-Israel correspondents such as RosRoss, who states: 'Israel is the only country which calls itself a democracy and considers itself to be developed (although that is debateable) and a member of the Western (modern) world.'
A large number of other countries claim to be developed democracies. Britain does, for instance. In recent conflicts where we have fought, such as Iraq, civilian deaths have numbered in tens of thousands, or more. (Not, of course, in my name; so it's fine to ignore this inconvenient fact and direct my ire solely towards 'Israel and the US'.)
'When non-democratic and non-developed countries do what Israel and the US do it is one thing, when Israel and the US do it is another.'
Millions dead and suffering in Iraq, Darfur, the Congo, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Tibet etc. In defending itself against threats of annihilation, Israel remarkably avoids anything approaching the scale of such countries' devastating behaviour, but it draws unqualified condemnation (and no Israeli will be allowed to say 'not in my name'.) Meanwhile, democratically (yes) elected Hamas' charter for genocide is excused.
To say, then, that Israel 'acts as badly as the greatest tyrant, the most barbarous and undeveloped State' is wrong and indeed, given the clear facts, 'hypocrisy of the most egregious kind'. Of course, unashamedly and unhelpfully partisan feelings will not go away, regardless of - and in view of - the very facts Slim has so clearly presented.
Hugo Slim's piece is one of the best analisis I've ever read in openDemocracy, far from the clichés which fill the media and the "outraged" reactions of some of the comments below. It is very well known that many NGOs, mainly in Palestine and Latin America, are totally under the influence of the most radical organisations: Hamas in Palestine, FARC in Colombia, FSLN in Nicaragua, Chávez in Venezuela, etc.
I think this article makes a couple of good points - it's certainly true that people don't get that upset about conflicts such as those in Africa. But that doesn't make people's concern for the welfare of the people of Gaza 'disproportionate'. Surely the logical conclusion is rather that it would be better if people in developed countries went out on the street more to protest in solidarity with the victims of other conflicts too.
As for your fake surprise that people in NGOs have a strong opinion on the conflict - so what? Do you think people in 'impartial' humanitarian organisations such as ICRC and MSF don't have strong opinions? That's not the point - the point is that their organisations seek to meet urgent humanitarian needs where they arise. That doesn't make the people who work for those organisations robots.
Also your implication that those who protest in solidarity with the Palestinian people have no critical view of Hamas is certainly mischievous. Of course there are extreme elements in Gaza, just as there are extreme Orthodox Jewish groups in Israel who want to settle all of Gaza and the West Bank. It doesn't mean tarring everyone who protests on either side with the same brush.
This article unnecessarily mixes two issues: the emotions stirred by the Israeli invasion and the impartiality of NGO's in such a conflict.
One of the reasons why the emotions elicited from some westerners during the Gaza invasion are so much stronger than those elicited by conflicts in Africa is a sense of responsibility for the invasion. Western leaders have given their unequivocal support to Israel with military and diplomatic support. It is this use of our tax payer dollars that infuriates supporters of Gaza. This is not so obviously true with conflicts elsewhere.
This begs the question whether humanitarian aid is ever impartial, and whether impartiality is ever a prerequsite for being humanitarian. Anyone who provides someone with aid is acknowledging and sympathising with their suffering - they are partial to it. Mark Thompson of the BBC understood this; his mistake was to think that being partial is always a political act.
Aid workers in the Occupied Territories who find themselves sympathising more with Palestinians than with Israelis are no doubt persuaded by the fact that the day-to-day suffering is far greater on the Palestinian side. Their mistake is not in suspending their impartiality, which they can but do as humanitarians. They trip up only when they start alligning themselves with Palestinian political views, especially when those policies wish harm on Israelis. Cross that line and they might cease to be humanitarian. But in the psychology of humanitarianism, impartiality is a shell of a concept.
Some of what truly distinguishes the Israel-Palestinian conflict from other wars around the world are its longevity, the active involvement of the US on the side of Israel and its location in the cradle of the world's three great monotheistic religions. It would be surprising therefore if it did not generate the intense emotions which Hugo Slim refers to.
The latest eruption of hositilities is but a part of a chain reaction that stretches back over the last sixty years or more. No other conflict since World War 2 has been so much written about or discussed. It's something that we have all grown up with. One of the participants is a regular in the Eurovision Song Contest as well as being the largest recipient of overseas aid from the American government for criteria which would not match those Hugo uses to single out the Congo or Sri Lanka for special attention. On the other hand, the population of Gaza is slowly becoming famous for living in the world's largest prison as it's described by a respected Israeli human rights group. Hard not to have an opinion about all this, one way or the other, whether you are working for an NGO or not.
The sad thing about this article is the importance which Hugo Slim attaches to NGO action. Every severe humanitarian situation has a political context which is usually way beyond the scope of the average aid agency to address but which if not addressed will only make matters worse. You can multiply that truth by a million in the case of Palestine as both sides sink deeper into the morass.
Taking sides is what people do from football matches to elections. Supporting the underdog comes normally to most of us whether it's the Chinese police beating the shit out of Tibetan monks or the Israeli army launching a murderous offensive against an enemy in circumstances in which there is no doubt that hundreds of innocent men, women and children will be killed, maimed and left homeless.
There is nothing anti-Semitic about supporting right against wrong. Hugo, wise up, Hamas are about as capable of delivering on their rhetoric as the man-in-the-moon. The Israeli army is more of a threat to its own soldiers than Hamas will ever be (see episodes of friendly fire.) In many ways Hamas is a useful smokescreen for Israel and its supporters to brutalise the Palestinian population further, grab more land and hunker down in a state of apartheid while chasing the impossible dream of killing an entire nation's desire for freedom and statehood. I don't expect any improvement as long as the Quartet countries fail to get a grip on this fundamental reality. Look how long it took Ireland to eliminate those clauses from its constitution claiming jurisdiction over the six counties of Northern Ireland. It was only achieved when there was something worth talking about on the negotiating table. As the settlements expand on the west Bank and Netanyahu prepares to sharpen his big stick, it seems the Israelis are far from putting anything serious on the negotiating table.
It might have been better to refer not only to African countries but to Afghanistan where US forces and NATO have bombed civilians in the name of "war on terror" or "self-defense" just like the 2008-09 war over Gaza. Clearly, public and NGOs condemnation against USA and NATO is weaker than that against Israel.
If sympathy is nearly blind, it will sometimes be as harmful to solving problems as malicious propaganda, both of which prevent grasping the facts. It's certain that some supporters condone Hamas who has no vision for future for Palestinian people who hope to live peacefully. They should encourage Palestinian people to create quite a leader.
Resources for humanitarian aid must be used effectively, because they are not enough to help all of the people who need assistance. International civil society should reconsider assistance activities following emergency relief activity from the perspective of assistance for independence.
But realistically, Palestinian people need much stronger and sustained international solidarity in order to overcome apartheid. There is insufficient public concern about every humanitarian crisis rather than excessive public concern about Palestine.
when I read the comments I feel reminded of Einsteins´words who said that the problem with democracy is that the idiot has the same impact on the result of the elections with his vote as mine. The problem with many of the readers´comments is that they are influenced by the so-called media. What - who - is the media? journalists depending on whatever without any morals and certainly without any notion of history - even amnesia.
Talking about Israels´occupation for the so-called Palestinian territories. Palestinia existed under the Romans´empire. Since then there were hundreds of occupiers. at last the Turcs and then the British who hold a mandate. After the expulsion of the Hebrews (Jews) under the Romans as well Arabs as Jews lived in this country since as well in Jerusalem as in Arad or other parts of the Country. By the way probably many of the Arabs were to Islam converted Jews. The land of Palestinia was meant to be parted between the Arabs and the Jews by the UN in 1947 and it was the Arabs who never accepted and since 1948 attacked Israel five times. Why do they complain - they got what they deserve. Instead of building up a country , developping infrastructure - they complain and complain and attack and attack and lose and lose and murder and raise their children with hate instead of love. Have a glimpse into their schoolbooks and childrens´TV program - financed with our taxes. All this is disgusting as well as the hypocrasy of the world (NGOs - media, etc...) and the biased information
Impartiality is all very well, but there are times when the best thing that can be done for the old dear is to slit her throat on the altar of moral choice.
Personally, I am a pacifist, doubtless stemming from a basic cowardice, which I rationalise as a moral choice arising out of a realisation that for a decent society to exist, the basic law must be "do as you would be done by".
I have a pair of eyes, one of ears, and a brain steeped in what I call experience and others cynicism, which I believe allows me to recognise propaganda and special pleading when I see it.
When I see the sequence of inhuman behaviour perpetrated by Israel and its "Defence Force" over the past few years I have little choice to decide which side I am partial to.
I know that the Israeli apologists will now whine on about how Israel feels its existence is threatened and it has the right to defend itself - the reply is simple. If it behaves like that then its existence should be threatened, and the "right to defend" extends to both sides.
It seems more and more people are beginning to feel the same way.
When an organisation as steeped in "impartiality" and which makes a virtually invariable rule of not commenting on the behaviour of protagonists in conflict as the Red Cross starts to come out and say that a particular side's behaviour is unacceptable, then something is clearly out of balance.
The moral choice is clear; the Israelis have picked up the black hats, and it's time for all decent people to start booing them.
Clear skies!
I wonder who this man is. But I am sure in the Middle Ages he would also have belonged to the people who pretended that Jews use Christian Babies´blood when backing their Eastern bread. I prefer to shrug the shoulders than to reply
Oh dear. Suggest that Israel is less than perfectly humane in all its actions, and all the old "anti-semitic" tosh gets trotted out. For your information, I specified "Israel"; I can distinguish between that political entity and the set of human beings who are Jewish, even if you can't. Neither do I subscribe to the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" , nor believe that the world is run by a Jewish-Masonic-Illuminati conspiracy.
I do not ascribe acts or speech to others that clearly never happened.
What I do is comment on my perception of the morality of what people clearly have done, and point out the probable consequences.
There is a difference between "Do as you would be done by" and "Do unto others what you fear they may do to you".
If you can't see the difference, then there is nothing more to be said.
Clear skies!
Some easy facts regarding the DEC: I looked through the list titled History of Appeals on the DEC site. The only mention of Palestinians in particular is way back in 1967. Between 1967 and 2008, the DEC hasn't appealed for aid for Palestinians - but that's not because there's been 41 years of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows :(
The DEC has a current appeal for the Congo until May 2009, they've raised 9.7 million to date. It was broadcast by the BBC in November 2008: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HzJhbIkWH_o - fortunately the Congo has not been neglected or overlooked as a result of the bombing of Gaza.
is this article supposed to be some kind of joke? open democracy? this website's name needs to be changed ASAP! The author goes as far to say that Israel is innocent? in what sense exactly? that Palestine has all these rich and powerful friends like the US and Europe and Saudi etc...Ohhh is that the reason why they're struggling to fight for THEIR OWN land, rights and freedoms against Israel who realistically shouldn't be able to withstand their forces for more than a month BUT due to much outside help has been able to keep Palestine at a stalemate for years?? OMG..I'd read and been disgusted by Hugo Slim's "scholarly" articles before, that go to suggest that the west introduced Humanity to the rest of the world haha...but this...THIS is by far the worst piece of trash written to date by this non-author
Dear zlady,
I've just seen your comment on my blog on Open Democracy. Thanks for responding.
Just for the record. I have never claimed that the West introduced humanity to the rest of the world.
Good luck with your struggle.
Best wishes,
Hugo Slim
Whoever asked, "is this article a joke?" I would say, "Yes and a bad one."
The author's article is part of a right-wing discourse that emerged during Israel's war on Gaza perpetrated by Israel. It has been taken up by the U.S. Congress in its attacks on UNRWA. This piece is part of that discourse aimed at NGOs, charities, and UNRWA in which the "rebuilding of Gaza" is the latest political football in which the U.S. and Israel keep trying to delegitimize Hamas. Sanctions didn't work, a U.S. backed coup didn't work, and finally the escalating violence on Gaza in Jan. didn't work. So, now through "rebuilding" Gaza, the hope is that somehow Fatah can be propped up and brought back into Gaza on the back of an Israeli tank.
THIS is from where the sudden charges that UNRWA is aiding and abetting terrorism and attacks on European aid humanitarian agencies are coming. Gaza will be allowed to turn into Somalia, so that the U.S. and Israel can decide who can represent the Palestinian people. And Open Democracy will host articles like this one which profess to neutrality while clearly being part of this overall effort to use aid as a political tool to oust Hamas.
As for why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict provokes so much "emotion," as the author puts it, that's really a no-brainer. Israel professes to be part of a select club of democracies. Democracies are held to higher standards regarding "the rule of law," which is why the U.S. has also come under strong political criticism from international civil society. Those govts. who proclaim that they are democracies SHOULD and will be held to higher standards than other countries who routinely violate human rights.
As for those who claim that the Palestinians haven't built a state, let's at least be honest here. In most colonial situations, national liberation comes before state building. Since the 1970s, Israel has searched for a Palestinian leadership with which to negotiate "autonomy." It even helped create Hamas by using members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza to try and counter the PLO in the West Bank and Gaza. It tried municipal elections in the 1970s and Palestinians elected people who became part of the PLO. Then it tried the "village leagues" in the 1980s without elections and by appointing Palestinians who it hoped would do things like issue marriage licenses.
Racist demonization of the Palestinians doesn't change the fact that if Israel doesn't want to allow an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders to come into existence (and as anyone with eyes who has ever worked for any aid agency in the O.T. will tell you, Israel keeps planting itself deeper into the West Bank and "Judaizing" East Jerusalem) it will then face a Palestinian leadership that will ask for equality instead of freedom. Duh.
Those who feel so appalled by criticism of Israeli policies should really turn on their brains and stop and think whether they want to see a two state solution or a one state solution. Or do they think that the current apartheid system in place is sustainable?
Post new comment