Moral equivalence from the Economist

I know, it’s a shock. But the Economist is talking about religion, and I’ve seen several moral-equivalence raps at Israel. This is the most egregious so far:

Many of the most ardent fanatics live far away from the Holy Land. For Muslims the indignities heaped on the Palestinians are part of a systematic attack on Islam that must be fought to the bitter end. On the other side, many American Jewish groups will not tolerate the sort of criticism of Israel that is routine in the Jewish state itself. And now there are America’s Christian Zionists to deal with: some have rallied instinctively to a tiny democracy battling terrorism, but many think the creation of Biblical Israel is crucial for Armageddon and redemption.

Ignorance rules on all sides. Most Muslims seem totally unaware that Arabs can vote in Israel. Many Jews, even in Israel, are separated from the routine miseries of Palestinian life. American evangelicals are shocked to discover that some Palestinians are Christians.

There you go. It’s the Walt-Mearsheimer line of bullshit: Jewish groups don’t allow criticism of Israel. And this is equated with the Muslim world going crazy because Muslims are being “oppressed” in a Muslim waqf by “colonizers” and Jews. Yup. It’s almost just like the Muslim world freaking out every time a Palestinian child stubs his toe in front of the IDF. Except, of course, it’s not. But wait until you get the Economist’s conclusion:

Whatever the reason, when suicide-bombers strike Israeli towns, too few imams condemn the violence; and when Israeli rockets or shells fall on Palestinian civilians, not enough rabbis speak out. Until that changes, the various children of Abraham will find peace elusive.

What a load of crap. Every single time an IDF shell goes astray—every single time civilians are killed—Israelis publicly regret the action. Investigations have been launched. If soldiers are found to have mistreated Palestinians, they are stripped of their office and punished. But let us be perfectly clear: There are no imams condemning suicide attacks on Israeli civilians. None. The Economist is simply making shit up. The best thing the Muslims and Palestinians have been able to come up with is that killing Israeli civilians “harms the Palestinian cause.”

In point of fact, you will find Palestinian imams preaching sermons that insist suicide bombing is legitimate “resistance.” You will find imams pushing Palestinians to fight Israelis. You will not find rabbis doing the same, with a few minor exceptions from the fringe. But, as always, the Economist and others like it use the fringe to tar all Israelis with the same brush. And we have the same excuse-making for the Palestinians that has been around for over forty years:

The picture is not all bleak. Most of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas did so out of despair over Fatah’s corruption rather than out of religious fervour.

And yet, Hamas’ support is still strong, and they are still recruiting Palestinians regularly, and building an army. But the picture isn’t all bleak, because they’re doing this out of despair, you see.

The Economist special is about religion. So you get thoughts like this:

One sad irony of this dispute in the Holy Land is how few holy people are trying to make peace. Rabbi David Rosen argues that the Oslo process collapsed in part because no religious people were involved. It was not until 2002 that a small group of leading rabbis, Muslim clerics and bishops signed the Alexandria Declaration, which condemned violence and insisted that the holy places should be kept open. There have been subsequent meetings (including some recently with Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice) but progress is beset by practical problems, such as the inability of Palestinian clerics to get through Israel’s West Bank barrier.

This, from the same magazine that slams Israeli “ultra-Orthodox settlers” for ruining the peace process. In another article, the Economist actually credits the settler movement with being partly responsible for the birth of Hamas, completely ignoring the religious aspect of Hamas’ birth. That’s a pretty big error to make in an a special devoted to religion.

But why has religion’s power seemed to keep on increasing? The first reason is a series of reactions and counter-reactions. Fundamentalist Islam, for instance, has helped spur radical Judaism and Hinduism, which in turn have reinforced the mullahs’ fervour. Hamas owes much to Israel’s settlers. Without Falwell, Messrs Hitchens and Dawkins would have smaller royalties.

So in the Economist’s eyes, it’s Israel’s fault that Hamas exists. It’s “fundamentalist Islam” that sparked “radical Judaism” (what, exactly, is radical Judaism to the Economist?), which then caused suicide bombers to explode in downtown Tel Aviv.

What crap. What utter, utter crap. Radical Islam developed before Israel existed. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ parent organization, was started in 1928—twenty years before Israel was created. The Hebron Massacre occurred in 1929. The Economist doesn’t seem to think that these events have any relation to the problems of Israel today. The hatred was already there, chaps. You just like to pretend it all started in 1948.

The moral equivalence of the Economist is simply outrageous. But then, there’s no way the Economist would mention honestly that the problems of the Middle East are mostly due to the refusal of Muslims to treat their own people with any sort of dignity, equality, and respect (see: Number of dictatorships in Arab and Muslim world; women’s lack of rights in Islamic nations, etc., etc.). Not when they can blame it on the Jews—who were in Israel more than a millennium before Islam was created. Israel. Not “Palestine.” The nation of “Palestine” never really existed. If I had my druthers, it never would.