This is a superb book about the threat to human rights from anti-Zionism.
The title, "Aftershock," refers to the attack on Israel following the earthquake of the Holocaust.
As the author says, minorities must bow to the will of majorities. Minorities can be protected by the "bulwark" of human rights. But this bulwark has been removed by the anti-Zionists for the sake of attacking some Jews. Matas claims that only the destruction of Israel will satisfy the anti-Zionists. I disagree. Israel is not a problem, so I see no reason why the destruction of Israel would even begin to satisfy the anti-Zionists.
Of course, Israel itself is accused of human rights violations. Matas discusses them: genocide, colonialism, terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. As the author shows, these accusations are bogus. But as he says, there is a danger in even taking such accusations seriously. The questions of whether such accusations are valid are themselves the problem. We can ask how many Christians the Jews killed yesterday in order to drain their blood for use in baking their bread. But if we do, we are way out of line. And a "serious" discussion of anti-Zionist charges just plays into the hands of the racists.
There is a good chapter on the charge of Israeli "occupation" of the West Bank. And a chapter on the Israeli settlements, which points out that the issue is simply the racist one that Jews are living in the neighborhood. As Matas says, "it is a moral duty to repel opposition to the settlements." I strongly agree. Some folks say that it is a crime to allow Jews to live in the West Bank. But the author makes the point that the criminals would then be those who permit it: the settlers themselves would be innocent. And the author asks how something can possibly be a crime when everyone agrees that those who actually commit the act are doing nothing wrong. That's a question I never thought of!
Matas points out the bias involved in demanding that the West Bank be Jew-free but not making the equally outrageous demand that Israel be Arab-free. Yet Amnesty International (as the author points out) did just that in a September, 2003 report, demanding that Jews be forcibly evacuated from the West Bank and Gaza.
Now, what about the question of forcible transfer of populations, which is against the Protocol on International Armed Conflict? Well, the author says that the rule is just fine. It should be supported. The problem is with its use: Israel is falsely accused of violating it.
There is an excellent chapter on the well-known Israeli fence. This is sometimes called a "wall" even though less than 3% of the completed barrier will be a wall, "and much of that wall portion has been in existence for years." As Matas says, "every time a court gives judgment, justice itself is on trial."
Obviously, the International Court ruling against Israel's barrier was a grave violation of justice. But the biggest problem, according to the author, was for the Court to take the case at all. It certainly did not take cases such as the failure of the ruling authority to oppose Levantine Arab suicide bombers, or incitement to hatred, or other terrorism, or the funding of terrorist activities. Taking any of these cases means taking sides in a conflict. I strongly agree with the author. Many years ago, I was shocked to see the United Nations taking sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict at all (although I was also surprised that it took the side of the aggressors).
There is a section on the supposed Levantine Arab "right of return" to Israel. Matas shows that this is all nonsense: Israel simply is not the country of the Levantine Arabs.
Are there rights to self-determination and statehood? Once again, the author is right on the money. All peoples have a right to self-determination. None have a right to statehood. Statehood may be a necessity, for self-protection. But it is not a human right. And I agree. Israel is a state because the British White Paper of 1939, among other things, made Israeli statehood a necessity to protect human rights.
What is to be done about anti-Zionism? The author and I agree that it has to be fought on the basis of human rights. As Matas says, "a document that is part racist is all bad." And, "there is no hierarchy of rights." He explains that "Durban was a disaster, a racist conference in the name of anti-racism." And he opens his book with a chapter on the awful 2001 Durban conference.
There is a question of what to do about the UN. Should one oppose it or try to reform it? I favor opposing it (actually, I'd outlaw it). Matas does not want to give up on it. But he does explain that there are alternatives to the UN. One of them is the UN's ideals!
There are complaints that the Levantine Arabs are "underdogs." But the author points out that those Levantine Arabs "who seek death are always going to be worse off than Jews who embrace life." He encourages those who wish to support the Arabs to wean them from self-destruction. After all, a true friend does not tell a potential suicide to jump!
One campaign Matas suggests is to fight against the victimization of Arab children by anti-Zionism. This ugly philosophy simply violates human rights by teaching such self-destructive hatred. It is not part of a culture, but a violation of it. Once again, I agree.
This is truly an excellent book. Everyone ought to read it right away!
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
