What an Awful Argument I
Glenn Reynolds links to an ALT.MUSLIM article condemning the Palestinian desecration and destruction of the synagogues in Gaza. The existence of this article would be a somewhat more hopeful sign if the article didn't blame Israel for the destruction:
Of course, as the New York Times reported today, this was a set up orchestrated by the Israeli government. Originally the synagogues were to be bulldozed with the rest of the illegal settlements constructed by Israeli settlers during their withdrawal from the 38-year occupation of Palestinian land. However, prominent rabbis argued that Jews can't destroy synagogues, and Ariel Sharon "was left with two bad choices: tearing them down, or leaving them standing with the knowledge that they might be desecrated." Yeah, right. More likely Sharon rejoiced at the opportunity. He knew that the Palestinian Authority would not act to prevent the destruction.
This argument - that the Israelis left the synagogues standing just so the Palestinians would look bad when they rushed in to desecrate and destroy them - makes sense only if you think that it's perfectly natural for Palestinians to act like primitives and show the superiority of their deities by destroying others' houses of worship. Question: why should Jews have to destroy synagogues? Answer: because otherwise Muslims won't be able to stop themselves from destroying synagogues. It's a repugnant, infantilizing, and transparently stupid argument. And it has been parroted by: the Sunday Times, AP, the Baltimore Sun (which actually described the outrage as " inevitable" and blamed "rabbis and other Israeli extremists" for Palestinian behavior), the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times.
And not that it would mitigate the absurdity of blaming Israel for Palestinian barbarism one iota even if it wasn't the case - but those prominent rabbis really did believe that Jews shouldn't order Jews to destroy Jewish houses of worship, and they really did sway a majority of Cabinet members to their position. Everyone knew that Palestinian mobs would burn the synagogues to the ground, but it seemed like a better option than forcing Jews to desecrate their own holy places. Of course, it would be better for everyone if the Palestinians could just tolerate other people's religions. But to hear ALT.MUSLIM tell it, quoting the New York Times and joined by the Bush administration, actually expecting the Palestinians to follow international law and not destroy holy places simply wasn't an option:
In Washington, US State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said the decision "puts the Palestinian Authority into a situation where it may be criticised for whatever it does".
Unless the Palestinians didn't destroy the synagogues. Then they wouldn't get criticized. How come that never entered anyone's mind? The Jerusalem Post put it particularly well:
In this case, the uncontroversial notion is evidently that the problem is not Palestinian savagery but Israel's refusal to spare the world images of it. Regardless of how Israeli decision makers expected the Palestinians to behave, Israel's decision not to destroy the synagogues gave the Palestinians the opportunity to exceed rock-bottom expectations.
Would the Palestinian Authority be "criticized" if it had decided to spare a single former synagogue from the raging mobs, perhaps for use as a library, or for some international aid agency? Is the idea of sparing a former place of worship of another religion so foreign that it cannot even be asked for, let alone expected?
The unwritten script here is that nothing more can be expected from the Palestinians because, after all, they are enraged by 38 years of Israeli presence in Gaza. This ignores both the questions of why Israel was there in the first place, and why Israel was targeted for destruction before it set foot in Gaza. But it also papers over the real source of Muslim rage: the reigning intolerant interpretation of Islam.
Of course, as the New York Times reported today, this was a set up orchestrated by the Israeli government. Originally the synagogues were to be bulldozed with the rest of the illegal settlements constructed by Israeli settlers during their withdrawal from the 38-year occupation of Palestinian land. However, prominent rabbis argued that Jews can't destroy synagogues, and Ariel Sharon "was left with two bad choices: tearing them down, or leaving them standing with the knowledge that they might be desecrated." Yeah, right. More likely Sharon rejoiced at the opportunity. He knew that the Palestinian Authority would not act to prevent the destruction.
This argument - that the Israelis left the synagogues standing just so the Palestinians would look bad when they rushed in to desecrate and destroy them - makes sense only if you think that it's perfectly natural for Palestinians to act like primitives and show the superiority of their deities by destroying others' houses of worship. Question: why should Jews have to destroy synagogues? Answer: because otherwise Muslims won't be able to stop themselves from destroying synagogues. It's a repugnant, infantilizing, and transparently stupid argument. And it has been parroted by: the Sunday Times, AP, the Baltimore Sun (which actually described the outrage as " inevitable" and blamed "rabbis and other Israeli extremists" for Palestinian behavior), the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times.
And not that it would mitigate the absurdity of blaming Israel for Palestinian barbarism one iota even if it wasn't the case - but those prominent rabbis really did believe that Jews shouldn't order Jews to destroy Jewish houses of worship, and they really did sway a majority of Cabinet members to their position. Everyone knew that Palestinian mobs would burn the synagogues to the ground, but it seemed like a better option than forcing Jews to desecrate their own holy places. Of course, it would be better for everyone if the Palestinians could just tolerate other people's religions. But to hear ALT.MUSLIM tell it, quoting the New York Times and joined by the Bush administration, actually expecting the Palestinians to follow international law and not destroy holy places simply wasn't an option:
In Washington, US State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack said the decision "puts the Palestinian Authority into a situation where it may be criticised for whatever it does".
Unless the Palestinians didn't destroy the synagogues. Then they wouldn't get criticized. How come that never entered anyone's mind? The Jerusalem Post put it particularly well:
In this case, the uncontroversial notion is evidently that the problem is not Palestinian savagery but Israel's refusal to spare the world images of it. Regardless of how Israeli decision makers expected the Palestinians to behave, Israel's decision not to destroy the synagogues gave the Palestinians the opportunity to exceed rock-bottom expectations.
Would the Palestinian Authority be "criticized" if it had decided to spare a single former synagogue from the raging mobs, perhaps for use as a library, or for some international aid agency? Is the idea of sparing a former place of worship of another religion so foreign that it cannot even be asked for, let alone expected?
The unwritten script here is that nothing more can be expected from the Palestinians because, after all, they are enraged by 38 years of Israeli presence in Gaza. This ignores both the questions of why Israel was there in the first place, and why Israel was targeted for destruction before it set foot in Gaza. But it also papers over the real source of Muslim rage: the reigning intolerant interpretation of Islam.
