Bill Maher and his guests should be ashamed of their horrible
portrayal of the Israeli bombardment of Gaza on Realtime (19.07.14 – view the
full episode
here).
As a proviso – I’m intending to criticise the show’s
particularly awful moments and not attempting a balanced assessment of all the
guest’s points. There is, of course, truth in their criticism of Hamas; I’m pro
Israel and pro Palestine, but this ‘debate’
was particularly one-sided and bizarre for something outside of Fox News.
Some of the misinformation and opinions presented were
bordering on offensive – to my intelligence, not my sensibilities. I like Bill
Maher, I like the show. Consider this a friendly reminder.
Absurdity No. 1: Israel ain’t that bad
Maher begins by suggesting that Israel is actually
demonstrating restraint in its
invasion by not simply destroying Palestine:
‘Israel has the opportunity to kill way more, and they do
not. It seems like they are victims of the soft bigotry of high expectations.’
This is ridiculous. And delivered with that little look that
Maher always has on his face when he’s done a nice sentence. Israel has the
opportunity to kill
way less, and
they do not. If Israel was purely defensive in their military operations in
Gaza, then
over 800 civilians would not be dead.
Plus, the international community would undoubtedly not allow Israel to
commit full-scale genocide or decisive ground invasions, so they are not as free
to ‘kill way more’ as Maher suggests; they get away with what they can (which Hamas
does too).
Absurdity No. 2: Jews are superior
After opening with this interesting
angle on Israel’s ruthlessness, Maher asks why it is that ‘Israel wins
every war’ and, hence, ends up killing many more Palestinians than it suffers Israeli casualties.
Shockingly, he puts it down to the amount of Nobel prizes
Jews have: ‘A big advantage to team Hebrew’. This not only implies that Arabs
are inferior, which is pretty dangerous ground, but also overlooks a pretty
significant fact: the unwavering support and monumental financial backing of
the world’s largest military superpower.
Does Maher really think Israel’s ‘atheist’ (!) scientific
community gives it the edge over oppressed, destitute, isolated, barricaded,
sanctioned and blockaded Palestine? Maybe it’s got something to do with the
fuckload of weapons and money they get from the US.
Absurdity No. 3: Gaza isn’t occupied
Next, one of Bill’s guests, Jane Harman – a former Democrat member
of Congress – points out that ‘Israel doesn’t want to be in Gaza’ and that Gaza
hasn’t been occupied since 2005, implying that Palestine has no claim to being oppressed
and, therefore, enacting ‘resistance’.
That’s a nice line for apologists to repeat as it suggests
that Gaza is actually a free, independent state since Ariel Sharon ‘disengaged’
9 years ago but it masks the truth. Occupation is a legal designation and, by
many accounts, Gaza is far from unoccupied. The UN has noted Israel’s
‘effective’ control of Gaza by way of:
- substantial control of Gaza’s six land crossings
- control through military incursions, rocket attacks
and sonic booms, and the declaration of areas inside the Strip as “no-go” zones
where anyone who enters can be shot
- complete control of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters
- control of the Palestinian Population Registry,
which has the power and authority to define who is a “Palestinian” and who is a
resident of Gaza.
Palestine is definitely not a free, independent state with
no legitimate gripes.
This is a particularly pernicious lie because Harman, as a high profile politician who is
presumably aware of diplomatic history and international law, must know that calling Palestine an unoccupied
territory is contentious at best and completely disgusting at worst.
Absurdity No. 4: Israel’s military action is wholly defensive
Harman goes on to say that ‘the purpose’ of this current incursion,
the purpose, is to take out Hamas’ tunnels
and missile launchers. The shelling of
schools and
hospitals,
alongside the UN’s suggestion that
war crimes may
have been committed, completely undermine this argument.
This is disproportionate, psychological and inhumane warfare,
whether you think some level of Israeli military action is justified or not.
Plus, just two days ago the US posted the only NO vote
on
a motion in the UN General Assembly to set up an independent inquiry into Israel’s
potential human rights violations. This would suggest that the US is not
entirely confident that the result will be in Israel’s favour or, as a Washington
State Department spokesperson put it: ‘[the US] will stand up for Israel…even
if it means standing alone’
– a more
candid admission of blind support.
The Times of Israel suggests that the US didn’t back the
motion
because
it was one-sided and doesn’t mention Israeli deaths or Palestinian attacks,
but that’s not true; sections 3 and 4 explicitly include condemnations of
Israeli civilian deaths.
Once again, Israel is disproportionate, ruthless and
murderous in its ‘retaliation’ to Hamas attacks and American apologists claim the
military action is purely defensive before vetoing any UN action. This happens
all the time. I put ‘retaliation’ in scare quotes since the 3 Israeli deaths that
apparently sparked this conflict were actually preceded by
2
Palestinian deaths at the hands of the IDF that went unnoticed.
If Israel’s behaviour isn’t completely inexcusable, then its
justification is at least questionable, while Maher’s panel doesn’t even discuss the possibility
that targeting civilians might be problematic or that Israel might not have
carte blanche to eviscerate whole communities.
Absurdity after absurdity after absurdity
There are more hilarious/disgusting distortions in the
programme and this is only a short 15 minute segment.
Palestinians are referred to as ‘professional refugees’ who
are used ‘as a symbol of propaganda’ by Jamie Weinstein, senior editor of the
Daily Caller, and trusty Jane Harman claims that the million and a half Arabs
living in Israel are ‘treated as Israeli citizens and afforded democratic
rights’. I don’t even need to rebuff this Ministry of Truth bollocks.
It is amazing (or perhaps, sadly, not) that this passes for acceptable
debate on US television. You’d expect this shit from Jamie Weinstein, but Bill Maher
is apparently a liberal/libertarian and Jane Harman is a Democrat; not that I expect Democrat politicians to express pro-Palestinian sentiment, but at least not to resort to Bill O'Reilly levels of bull.
Realtime is
a show for the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert demographic and, while I don’t
expect members of the American political elite to be wearing Keffiyeh’s, I was shocked
by the way this level of extreme rhetoric went unchallenged (I suppose Maher’s
audience are the
most
sycophantic and clap-happy morons around) and elementary falsehoods were
fired around so rapidly.
I’m no scholar on Israel-Palestine and nor am I a hardened pro-Palestinian,
but I recognised much of what was said by apparently educated and knowledgeable
pundits as heinous.
We will not see peace between Israel and Palestine until the
US allows it to happen, and the US won’t allow it to happen while this sort of
self-censorship abides. At least Maher recognises the Israeli gag placed on the whole of America’s political class
at the end of the segment, but he, unfortunately, seems to be wearing it too.
