Shortly after the 1967 Israeli sneak attack on Egypt that
started the six year war (1967-1973), there came an exchange of prisoners
between the two countries.
There were not many prisoners to exchange because the battle
consisted of the Israeli air force bombing Egyptian planes on the ground, and Egypt 's air
defenses downing a limited number of Israeli planes. A handful of pilots
ejected safely when their planes were hit, and parachuted down on Egyptian
soil.
When they got home in Israel , each of the pilots told an
almost identical story. They landed mostly in a rural area and saw villagers
coming at them from several directions. They were scared not knowing what will
happen next but nothing did, they said. Eventually, the Egyptian military
showed up and took them into custody. They were treated well till the prisoner
exchange was done.
Years later, during the first Gulf War when many countries –
including Arabs such as Egypt and Syria – were fighting alongside America to
chase Saddam Hussein's military out of Kuwait, stories surfaced to the effect
that many Iraqi soldiers decided to surrender rather than fight what they
determined was a losing war. No matter who was there to take them in, the
Iraqis always asked to be turned over to the Egyptians.
And speaking of Iraq , it happened during the second
Gulf War that an American helicopter was downed, and those on it taken into
custody, one of them being a woman. They were all released eventually and
returned to America .
For a long while, however, none of them had spoken publicly, and rumors
circulated telling of the woman's heroism at battling Iraqi men in a Rambo-like
confrontation during which she single handedly eliminated four of them before
escaping and returning to America .
And then, the woman started to speak in public about what
really happened. She said that when the helicopter came down, she fell to her
knees and prayed that nothing bad will happen to her or her colleagues. She was
taken to a nearby facility that may have been a clinic or a small hospital
where the Iraqis took care of her medical needs. When she was able to walk, the
Iraqis escorted her to a nearby American outpost. All that was done without a
shot being fired by anyone, without violence being committed by anyone, and
without an angry word being exchanged by anyone.
And then, there is the story of the Americans who found
themselves surrounded by Libyan nationals during the anti-Gaddafi uprising.
Instead of harming them, the Libyans who spotted them, welcomed them and
treated them like honored guests – a custom for which the Arabs are renowned.
Add to this the story of Afghan parents whose children were taken to Guantanamo and then
released because they proved to be innocent. The parents thanked the Americans
for treating their children well, and for teaching them a few things while in
their custody.
No one can claim that the Egyptians, Iraqis, Libyans or
Afghans live under what is called a “democratic” system of government. In fact,
neither of the people mentioned above were acting democratically or even
autocratically, for that matter. Even though, their enemies came from abroad
and bombed them as savagely as they could while in their homes, they who are
human, acted like human beings and treated the aggressive strangers with the
humanity that is the hallmark of their Arab and Afghan cultures.
Now, my friend, go ahead and read the article that came
under the title: “The Frightening Truth About Israeli Society,” written by
Ronen Bergman and published on January 7, 2017 in the New York Times. It is the
story of an Israeli soldier who fired a bullet in the head of a wounded
Palestinian boy, killing him instantly. The reason why this story is making the
headlines is because a camera was there to record the incident. But the truth
is that this kind of savagery happens all the time when no camera is there, and
the eyewitnesses are discredited by the Judeo-Israeli propaganda machine.
What the Israeli soldier did is horrifying, of course;
equally horrifying is that the political class and the population of Israel consider
him a hero and want him pardoned. These creatures are in Palestine , in the homes of other people,
looting and killing them for half a century already. When the local kids who
have known nothing but despair since they were born, challenge their tormentors
in a hand do hand brawl as teenagers often do everywhere in the world, the Jews
and their beastly supporters in America
want them summarily executed, and want their killers treated like heroes.
Ronen Bergman who wrote the article is dismayed by the
realities he observed, but his treatment of the subject falls short because he
misses two important principles.
The first is that his views are narrowly concentrated on the
ghastly incident, and what it means in the context of what he calls the army's
code of ethics. This may also bring into focus the Geneva Convention, the
International Criminal Court, and all that. But none of that widens the context
enough.
These were never the ingredients that transformed the
beastly behavior of our species and turned it into the human behavior with
which we now associate. In fact, it was the culture that transformed us. And
culture is what separates the Arabs and Afghans from the Jews in Israel and the
Americans at Abu-Ghraib. Add to this the Brits in Iraq
who acted in a way comparable to Abu-Ghraib, and the Americans in Afghanistan who
urinated on the corpses of enemy combatants – and you get a picture that should
make you wonder.
The second thing that Bergman missed is actually an offshoot
of the first. Having neglecting the wide context of culture being the chief
determinant of our behavior, he switched from a discussion on the code of
ethics to a discussion on the system of governance without mentioning culture.
Here are two passages where that deficiency is detected: “a phenomenon that
endangers the future of Israeli democracy,” and “guardians of democratic values
forced to stand up to the mob and the politicians”.
What is shown here is how 'liberal democracy' – which is
supposed to be the antithesis of dogma – has been turned into a dogma, viewed
by its adherents and cherished by them as a panacea under which everything can
only be good, and away from which everything can only be bad. This is why
civilized behavior flourishes among the so-called autocracies while savage
behaviors flourish among the so-called democracies.