Friday, May 24, 2024
Elder of Ziyon
 |
| Dr. Irwin J. Mansdorf |
I asked Dr. Mansdorf about his article.
His responses are lightly edited for brevity and clarity.
Generally, when people talk about Israel and the Arabs, they talk about "the cycle of violence," indicating that both sides are equally responsible and no one side should be blamed. You write about how "the both sides argument" is used when discussing the Gaza War. How is that different? Why do people use "the both sides argument"?
The expression "cycle of violence" is a perfect example of a "both sides" mentality. Instead of assigning responsibility for "violence," it perpetuates a myth of "action-reaction-action-reaction." It is similar to the chicken and egg analogy. Since we are never told what came first, who started, who is persisting, and who refuses to end, it appears "both sides" are to blame.
You write that this argument is "a cognitively inconsistent mantra." How so?
Saying "both sides" are responsible is fine if it is true. Otherwise, it is illogical to contend that the victim is the same as the aggressor. In Palestinian circles, there is no "both sides." Palestinian culture and its Western supporters clearly place responsibility and guilt upon the Israeli side, whom they accuse of being colonialists and hence, automatically in the wrong. When some Westerners use "both sides," they are adopting a philosophy that holds that blame is never black and white. Since that is patently false, and sometimes there is right and wrong, the automatic assumption of a "what seems fair" argument splitting blame does not meet the test of logical consistency.
Another commonly used phrase is "innocent civilians." How is that phrase used and what are the underlying assumptions?
A "civilian" may or may not be "innocent." The tendency in much of the media is to again automatically assign "innocence" to all civilians, regardless of whether or not they actually are innocent. A civilian who harbors terrorists, feeds them, covers for them, and believes in their mission carries responsibility for their actions.
How does "the both sides argument," which assumes "an air of fairness," lead to the contrary claim where Israel particularly is blamed, in this case being accused of genocide? Why is it so difficult for the West to see Israelis as "innocent civilians"
In the eyes of many, Israel is a colonial power and its citizens are thus "settler-colonialists." That makes them responsible for taking land that rightfully belongs to the indigenous people, namely the Palestinians. Those who follow this thinking do not have a "both sides" philosophy but rather come down on the wrong end of the right-wrong formula. This happened because they adopted a false ideology related to a wrongly presumed colonial identity of Israel, which assigns guilt, and blame and thus negates innocence.
What is the problem of defining Gazans as "innocent civilians"?
Some Gazans may be innocent. But those who subscribe to the Hamas philosophy related to Jews cannot be said to be fully "innocent." In many homes in Gaza, ammunition, escape tunnels, along with literature of hate and racism against Jews were found. This does not take away Israel's responsibility under international law and moral behavior to protect these civilians, regardless of their personal identification with the enemy, as long as they do not become active participants in attacks on Israelis or Israeli soldiers. For example, on October 7th, there is video documentation of "ordinary" Gazans storming into Israel along with the Hamas terrorists and looting Israeli communities and homes. Many were also seen taking part in the kidnapping and spiriting of Israeli hostages back into Gaza. These are not the actions of "innocents" even though they wore no uniform.
Is there a difference between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority that would indicate a difference between Gazans and West Bank Arabs as "innocent civilians"?
The Palestinian Authority is no different from Hamas in its goals, although some of their methods may differ. The PA funds terrorism, incentivizes people to carry out terror attacks, rewards them when they do, and teaches--through an educational system that demonizes Jews--that Israel has no place in the region and Jews have no real history in the land.
You mention that after WWII, the Allies instituted a "denazification" program in Germany and the US had the Japanese extensively reform their education program. What would be a possible approach to reforming the Gazans?
Every culture needs to be treated in ways that respect the mores and ways of that particular culture. In developing a program for the Palestinian population, the particular religious, social, and cultural mores that would support leaving terror behind and moving towards coexistence and cooperation would be embellished. A model for this can be found in the Gulf States which entered into the "Abraham Accord" agreements with Israel. They developed model educational systems that promote peace and cooperation and removed all references that negatively are associated with Jews and Israel.
You write "Legal requirements should not be confused with moral standards." Can you elaborate on that?
Despite the questionable "innocence" of many Palestinian civilians, and their clearly immoral behavior, Israel carries a legal responsibility to protect them if they act as noncombatants. Israel's moral code would similarly be consistent with this and at times go further than required under the law to protect civilians (e.g., providing advanced warning of attacks, actively moving civilians out of danger zones, providing more humanitarian aid than required, etc.)
Read “Both Sides” and “Innocent Civilians”: The Psychological Effect of Language in the Gaza War|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
