An article called “Palestinian Sees Lesson Translating an Israeli’s Work” by Ethan Bronner, was published on March 6, 2010 in the New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/world/middleeast/07khoury.html?hpw) It deserves a reply.
The article seems to be a bittersweet story of a grieving Palestinian parent, Mr. Khoury, who after losing his son to terrorism is trying to bridge a social and political gap between Jews and Arabs. Noble indeed.
However, the story has many inferences that show a completely different theme. Let's start with "(their) 20-year-old son George, who was killed in a Palestinian terrorist attack." The terrorists apologized for their error, that is for thinking he was a Jew, the killing of whom they consider perfectly legitimate.
Anyone who reads the Times regularly will notice two things that rarely if ever are present when a Jewish man, woman or child is murdered in the same manner. First, the victim has a name and his age is also mentioned. Second, his killers are called Palestinian terrorists. When Jews are murdered it is usually at the hands of 'militants' or 'gunmen' who are hardly ever referred to as Palestinian.
In this story it is very important for the author to make it clear that there is some differentiation, that the murderers of this boy are "the other Palestinians - the bad ones - the radical ones".
Here is the description of the boy’s father: "A prominent Jerusalem lawyer who often fights Israeli confiscations of land from Palestinians". Do you see the paradox? Jerusalem, accepted by Jews, but not by the Arabs, as the eternal capital of Israel and the Jewish people is used here to place this man, whom the author already said considers himself a Palestinian. He works out of Jerusalem against Jewish and Israeli interests. The claim of “confiscation of land from Palestinians” is accepted at face value.
Furthermore, "He paid for the translation into Arabic of the autobiography of Israel’s most prominent author and dove, Amos Oz.". Oz is certainly famous, but the content of his writings are only accepted by post Zionists and the liberal left. He has written that he and his friends would lie down in the way of bulldozers that tried to destroy an Arab home, but was all for the disengagement of Jews from Gaza. For Mr. Khoury to translate and distribute Oz's work is nothing less than adding a propaganda tool against the 'Zionist regime'.
I don't minimize Mr. Khoury's pain. For a parent to lose a child, whether to terrorism or anything else, is something none of us should ever have to endure. But the next point will hopefully clarify the way I see this article, how I understand the writer and the players within.
There is nothing I'd like more than to hold hands with the world and sing Michael Jackson's 'We are the world' or John Lenon's 'Imagine'. Except that there are people out there that believe that their happiness and fulfillment can only come about by the destruction or elimination of others. Mr. Khoury says he "he considered violence a toxin corroding his nation’s core" That is quite admirable. But this makes Mr. Khoury a minority.
Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), the ones referred to in the article as 'Palestinians' voted for Hamas in the last elections they held. They rejected Fatah, who although it continues to claim not to recognize Israel's existence, once was willing to sit at a negotiating table. Gazan Arabs voted for Hamas, the most violent anti-Israel group that vows to 'wipe Israel from the face of the earth'. Hamas promised to continue its terror campaign making every Jewish man, woman or child a valid target for assassination.
Both Mr. Khoury and Mr. Oz live in la-la land. Neither represent the majority of either people. Neither are able to propose a solution to the conflict. The author, who used this tragic story to push his propaganda piece, quotes Khoury as saying “If we don’t understand each other, there will always be suspicion and gaps that can’t be bridged.” But I understand him. I also understand how the writer used this story to vilify Israel and Jews, and accuse them of stealing land from 'native Arabs' in pre-war Israel. The author does not present the other side of the argument. There is no rebuttal. The story screams "look, this poor Palestinian who has suffered at the hands of Zionists wants to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict".
It is sad that Israel's PR is bleak at best. We lost the war in the media a long time ago. When we call out to the world and show them how terrorists are killing our children, we are told that it is because of our 'occupation' or 'apartheid' that the poor Palestinians are driven to commit such violent acts. And that as they shoot with guns, Israel kills them with bombs and tanks.
What hurts us the most is that the Jews themselves lack the necessary understanding and real perspective of this very complex conflict. Living in Israel and experiencing reality first hand, I can see clearly that the Times article is a thinly veiled attack on Israel and that it lacks objectivity and balance. And I admit it is hard to explain to average readers why it is so. That is what makes it so terrible.
On a positive note, I don't mind if people that liked the Times' article, because it means that they have good hearts and believe that if we try hard enough we can find a peaceful resolution to any conflict, even to the Arab-Israeli war which seems to be eternal. They are simply naïve. Perhaps Mr. Oz is too.