PDA

View Full Version : Why we're wasting time discussing Israel


Gamblor
10-07-2003, 11:02 AM
The case against Jordan
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

Jordan is the West's favorite Arab nation. And for good reason, since it is the best of a generally bad lot. Most westerners admired King Hussein, adore his best-selling widow Queen Noor, and respect his son, King Abdullah. US President George W. Bush recently, and appropriately, praised King Abdullah for his devotion to peace in the region. No one has to write "The Case for Jordan," as I have had to write The Case for Israel.

But any fair comparison between the Middle East's most reviled and condemned nation, Israel, and its most praised nation, Jordan, starkly reveals the invidious double standard applied to Israel.

A few largely unknown facts about Jordan:


Jordan has a law on its books explicitly prohibiting any Jew from becoming a citizen, or any Jordanian from selling land to a Jew. It has refused to amend this law despite repeated demands.

Jordan has perfected the art of torture and uses it routinely against dissidents, suspected terrorists and perceived opponents of the monarchy. I'm talking about real torture here, not the kind of rough interrogation occasionally employed by the US and Israel. Jordan even threatens to torture and tortures the entirely innocent relatives of suspected terrorists, as it did with Abu Nidal's mother.

The United States is fully aware of Jordan's proficiency in torture, having "subcontracted" some of its own difficult cases to Jordanian "experts" (along with Egyptian and Philippine torture experts). Yet the UN has never condemned Jordan for its use of torture.

Jordan killed more Palestinians in one month September 1970, known as Black September than Israel has killed during the three years of suicide bombings that began in the fall of 2000. The brutality of the Jordanian Army toward Palestinian dissidents and terrorists was far more egregious than anything Israel has ever done.

The Jordanian Army has deliberately bombed civilian areas of Israeli cities in clear violation of international law. In 1967, before Israel fired a single shot at Jordan, the Jordanian Army fired 1,600 missiles into west Jerusalem, targeting apartment buildings, shops and other non-military targets. Israel did not respond by bombing Amman, which it easily could have done. It responded by attacking Jordanian military targets and then offering a cease-fire, which Jordan rejected.
JORDAN IS not a democracy. It is a hereditary monarchy which stifles dissent, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Its democratic facades a legislature, cabinet, judiciary are all subject to control by the Hashemite minority rulers who were placed in charge of the majority Palestinian population by a colonial decision.

Why do Americans not know the case against Jordan? Because it is in no one's interest to make it. Jordan is an ally of the United States (at least some of the time). It is a peace partner with Israel (at least now). It is the best of the Arab states in the Middle East, but "best" is a comparative term with a relatively low basis for comparison.

Why then am I making the case against Jordan? Simply to demonstrate the double standard so widely employed in judging Israel. Nothing justifies this double standard. Yes, Israel receives American aid, but so does Jordan (as well as Egypt, the Palestinian Authority and other Arab states). Indeed Jordan receives, on a per capita basis, more actual aid than Israel, if aid is defined as receiving assistance in return for nothing. Israel earns its aid by giving back an enormous amount especially in the area of military intelligence and technology. The aid given to Jordan is entirely a one-way street that goes primarily into propping up its minority monarchy and preventing its Palestinian majority from taking over. Israel, as a democracy, needs no aid to prevent internal upheaval.

So this case against Jordan is really part of the case for Israel. It invites fair-minded people to ask why Jordan which by any standard of fair judgment is less democratic, more oppressive, and far more racist gets a pass while Israel is subject to so much vilification.

Having made the case against Jordan, let me add that I, too, admired King Hussein, whom I had the pleasure of meeting. I, too, respect his son King Abdullah, who recently met with Bush and restated his commitment to a peaceful two-state solution. But I must insist and the world must insist on a single standard of judgment and criticism with regard to all nations. By any such standard, Israel deserves less criticism and more praise than Jordan.

nicky g
10-07-2003, 11:58 AM
I don't think anyone was in much doubt that we were wasting time discussing Israel.

I've condemned the West many times for propping up corrupt repressive Arab regimes. Nevertheless this article is more than a little absurd. Its defence of many of Israel's heinous practices amount to little more than "well Jordan does this too." I've argued many times why I think Israel generates so much controversy (not just flak; it also gets far more support than any other criticised state would), but at the end of the day, whether it's being unfairly singled out or not, it doesn't make what it does any less wrong or worthy of condemnation.

"Jordan is the West's favorite Arab nation. And for good reason, since it is the best of a generally bad lot. Most westerners admired King Hussein, adore his best-selling widow Queen Noor, and respect his son, King Abdullah. US President George W. Bush recently, and appropriately, praised King Abdullah for his devotion to peace in the region. No one has to write "The Case for Jordan," as I have had to write The Case for Israel.

But any fair comparison between the Middle East's most reviled and condemned nation, Israel, and its most praised nation, Jordan, starkly reveals the invidious double standard applied to Israel. "

This is pure fiction. Most people have no interest or knowledge of Jordan whatsoever. Israel gets far more praise (and aid) than any Arab state in both media and Washington power circles. The idea that anti-Israeli protestors are fulsome in their praise for Jordan's monarchy is ridiculous. Jordan is known for being pro-Western and having a moderate line on Israel; it's royal family occasionally gets into the gossip rags. That;s it; there's no large-scale lavish praise of it or its policies.

"Having made the case against Jordan, let me add that I, too, admired King Hussein, whom I had the pleasure of meeting. I, too, respect his son King Abdullah, who recently met with Bush and restated his commitment to a peaceful two-state solution."

This is my favourite bit. How do you take it seriously? "D'you know the Jordanians are torturers too? They're repressive, corrupt, undemocratic! Of course, I admire them greatly." Well, what fan of the Israeli government actions wouldn't?

Wake up CALL
10-07-2003, 12:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone was in much doubt that we were wasting time discussing Israel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Priceless quote there Nicky! Pretty much sums it all up.

Chris Alger
10-07-2003, 01:16 PM
To summarize: Jordan is a bad country. It receives about $300 million in U.S. aid but tortures people, unfairly discriminates, killed a lot of Palestinians in 1970, and in 1967 "bombed civilian areas ... in clear violation of international law." Israel, on the other hand, is a good country. It receives more than 10 times the amount of US aid than Jordan (probably closer to 20 times), tortures, discriminates to the point of having legalized ethnic cleansing, has killed many multiples of Palestinians, and virtually every week bombs "civilian areas in clear violation of international law."

Therefore, the thunder of anti-Israeli criticism emanating from the White House, Congress, the media and intellectuals represents a "double standard."

However, it might not be a "double standard" if Jordan "earned" its aid like Israel does, "by giving back an enormous amount especially in the area of military intelligence and technology," none of which are specified. Certainly a reasonable claim, as anyone can look around and see all sorts of "technology" and "military intelligence" benefits that only Israel can produce (but only with US aid), which at least justifies the aid, even when we consider all the people Israel has used the aid to torture, killed or make miserable. Standards? By now Dershowitz is so lost in the fog of his fantasies and illogic that talk of such higher concepts is best ignored, and that's just what he does.

Dershowitz might technically be not guilty of plagiarizing Peters (though I don't see how), but he's got her style down pat: wrap a lie into a bad argument, garnish it with irrelevant truisms and then jump to an fantastic conclusion that bears no relation to reality while hiding your real point in subtext (those that criticize Israel really just hate Jews). Why would this proud son of Harvard Law write this crap? Because he rationally presumes that his intended audience (whose bigotry and paranoia he's trying to shore up) is too lazy or dumb to sort it out and those that disagree won't bother.

Gamblor
10-07-2003, 01:50 PM
You are aware that the author is the most well-respected lawyer in the United States, and dare I say it, the world.

Harvard professor at the ripe age of 25.

He co-wrote the Oslo Accords, if I'm not mistaken.

And you are arguing? What more do you know than he?

Chris Alger
10-07-2003, 03:26 PM
Dershowitz is considered a self-promoting joke among his own colleagues and had nothing to do with writing the Oslo Accords or likely anything else worth reading. In fact, while in law school I don't recall anyone recommending any article or textbook he's ever written, a rarity for Harvard Law faculty. If you want insight into how this august dean of Geraldo and Orpah really thinks, read his case for legalizing torture.

brad
10-07-2003, 03:52 PM
'And you are arguing? What more do you know than he? '

i know that torture is wrong, which is more than 'mr. torture warrants would not be against 5th amendment dershowitz' knows.

Gamblor
10-07-2003, 04:04 PM
Is torture more wrong than planning the destruction of, say, you?

brad
10-07-2003, 04:09 PM
you wont live forever whatever you do, the world is inherently unsafe.

as human beings , though, we are not inherently evil.

read an interesting thing about fear of death, its source is not having lived a full life or something like that. so i could see where people who are all afraid would embrace this total safety put off death as long as possible at any price mentality.

Gamblor
10-07-2003, 04:17 PM
Dershowitz is considered a self-promoting joke among his own colleagues and had nothing to do with writing the Oslo Accords or likely anything else worth reading. In fact, while in law school I don't recall anyone recommending any article or textbook he's ever written, a rarity for Harvard Law faculty.

Ah Chris...

Once again you ignore the facts and instead insert your own useless ramblings full of personal attacks and libelous accusations - all presented in a negative wording in a vain attempt to influence the reader to think negatively while dismissing my source. By presenting your false opinion as fact, you hope to influence the masses to follow in your footsteps. Self-promoting indeed.

If you want insight into how this august dean of Geraldo and Orpah really thinks, read his case for legalizing torture.

For information on Dershowitz's position on torture, try this (http://www.spectacle.org/0202/seth.html).

nicky g
10-08-2003, 06:24 AM
"You are aware that the author is the most well-respected lawyer in the United States, and dare I say it, the world. Harvard professor at the ripe age of 25. "

Hey, that's great. It must have been his sincere admiration for torturers and despots that got him there. Now I know better, thanks.