JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

On walls and olive trees

In the Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen -- generally speaking one of Israel's more reliable defenders in the American commentariat -- has some admiring words for "Budrus," a documentary film about Israel's attempt to construct its security wall at the expense of some Palestinian olive trees. 

Those of us who have watched Israel trying to control the West Bank have always wondered why the Palestinians have not tried passive resistance. This is what Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King did -- and Israel is weak in the way Britain and America are. It has a conscience.

In the end, Israel moved the fence. It compromised. Most of the olive trees were spared, and the barrier was kept back from an elementary school. Hamas and Fatah cooperated with the Israeli peace activists and to a degree with the army. It was a genuine kumbaya moment.

Stephen M. Walt, a professor at Harvard and co-author along with John Mearsheimer of the extremely controversial book "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," has for some time been carrying on a running dialogue with almost anyone to make the point that supporting Israel is not in America's best interest. In the sense that America's best interest has to do with oil and Muslim nations and fighting Islamic radicalism, he is right. But if America's interest is enlarged to encompass shared values, he is wrong. It is in America's interest to support Israel.

But "Budrus" the film and Budrus the village are emblematic of why America's support for Israel is being questioned. The pretty Israeli soldier aside, those appealing peace activists aside, the eventual compromise aside -- the awful sight of cranes yanking olive trees into the air sinks the heart. The current leaders of Israel, intent on expanding settlements and thus retaining the West Bank, ought to see "Budrus" in a theater. They won't like the film, but they won't like the audience's reaction even more.

  • Share Share

Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments

04/13/10 05:52 PM

How many Israeli lives is one olive tree worth?  The barrier wall/fence has been very successful in saving Israeli lives.  If there had been no intifada and no suicide bombers there would be no fence.  Therefore, those Palestinians who promote hatred and violence are responsible for the uprooting of their own olive trees and the suffering of their own people.

04/13/10 07:39 PM

Mike,

Your reasoning is fallacious; your premises are false.

Premise 1. “The barrier has saved Israeli lives.” In fact, there is no evidence that a single Israeli life has been saved by the barrier. Read my post, “On Exploding the Myth that The Israeli “Security Barrier” Saves Lives”

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-exploding-myth-that-israeli-barrier.html

But there is abundant evidence that the security barrier has destroyed thousands of Palestinian lives—and added more land for settlements, which was the real reason for the fence in the first place.

2.  “If there had been on intifada,” etc., Palestinian land would have still been expropriated for settler roads and settlements.  Just look at how much was taken before the intifada.

3. Conclusion: “the Palestinians are responsible for their own olive tree uprooting.” By that reasoning, the Israelis are responsible for their being blown up by suicide bombs.

And, by the way, since the last suicide bombs, how many Palestinian lives and livelihood been lost?

Only one people is being held hostage without self-determination, and basic human rights. Were thousands of Jews blown up by suicide bombers (God forbid), the equation would not be altered.  As long as one side has no self-determination, the other side has no right to self-determination.

Leave a Comment

To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.

Already a JTA member?

I forgot my password

Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!