My response to human rights activist Elena Bonner

 

Alik Bakhshi

 

My response to human rights activist Elena Bonner

 

 

"The heart of the pure is a transparent, beneficent reservoir.

And she cares for her people."

                                                                       Nizami

 

    Russian liberals and human rights activists, who position themselves as impeccably pure and principled in the fight for democracy and human rights, are guilty of a biased dependence on their nationality when it comes to Israel, whose apartheid regime toward the Palestinians they unconditionally support. While condemning the punitive actions of the Russian army in Chechnya, which seeks to escape imperial clutches, Russian human rights activists ignore the right of Palestinian Arabs to their own state and, moreover, are trying in every way to convince the international community that the Palestinians have no right to fight for their rights. Thus, Valeria Novodvorskaya, leader of the Russian Democratic Union, calling Israel a "super-democratic state" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y6H4ZYSWq0&feature=channel), whose democracy, in her opinion, is "even excessive," considers the Palestinians' desire for their own state a whim. They have representation in parliament, work and study alongside Jews—what more could they, the "insinuate ones," as she calls them, need? True, but the liberal Novodvorskaya either forgets or deliberately fails to mention the Palestinians in the occupied (or controlled, as the Jews officially call it) territories. The situation of these people is unique. While within Israel's borders, they are not citizens of Israel and have no rights—they are nothing. The Jewish state cannot grant them citizenship status, because such a legal status, common to any state, would instantly change the demographic situation. However, Novodvorskaya is simply lying when she talks about Palestinian rights in Israel, and based on this lie, she concludes that they should be deprived of their right to a state:

   "If the people prefer to create terrorist concerns instead of a state—if they don't want one, then that's fine. Let them live within the Israeli state, do internships, and study. But that requires the desire to learn. Israel doesn't refuse to be a teacher. Israel has provided employment for all members of the Arab population who wanted to work and study, who wanted to become civilized, with jobs, elected them to the Knesset, even made their language the official language, and conscripted them into its own army, if they so desired. Go ahead, study, and maybe you'll learn something. But if there's no desire to learn, no desire to create a state, but a desire to interfere with another state, then it's time to rescind this mandate until better times." And this will be the only possible resolution to the conflict in this situation."

 

    Suggesting stripping the mandate for the state, Novodvorskaya doesn't propose what to do with the "insane eaters." Presumably, taking their lives; no other option follows from the verdict handed down by the leader of the Russian democrats.

    The Jewish state needs ethnically clean territories. This was partially achieved in the first years of the state's creation, resulting in more than 4 million Palestinian refugees scattered across neighbouring countries. Those who remained were isolated from the rest of the world by a concrete wall. For them, the entire Israeli "super-democracy" consists of the right to exist in one enormous open-air prison, from which some are taken in the morning, like prisoners—which is what they are—through checkpoints to perform hard physical labor for pennies on Israeli construction sites and plantations, only to be returned in the evening behind the concrete wall. However, the half-century-long expectation that the Palestinians will die out in the reservations and disperse, being refugees, does not produce the desired result. Moreover, these "stupid people" do not appreciate Israel's "excessive democracy," as Novodvorskaya puts it, and have the audacity to demand anything, even the right to their own state.

Actually, after discussing the "stupid people," I see no point in further analyzing the chauvinism of the liberal Ms. Novodvorskaya. I just want to note that Israel, with its occupied territories, is like a "dog in the manger." The intention to retain territories with densely populated Arab populations creates serious problems and is the main cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is metastasizing in various parts of the world.

 

   The flourishing international terrorism has Middle Eastern roots, and looking for other causes, such as Islam and the war of civilizations, is not only unwise but also dangerous. (For more details, see "International Terrorism and Its Interested Parties" (https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2026/04/international-terrorism-and-its.html  ).

 Arena The conflict has spread throughout the world. The clarification of relations between Arabs and Jews is taking place wherever possible, regardless of borders and countries. A striking example of this was the Arab attack on America, Israel's military ally, on September 11, 2001, which, in its audacity and number of casualties, was comparable to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

 

   This mournful date marks the beginning of the essay-message to the world (Speech at the Oslo Freedom Forum http://www.grani.ru/Politics/World/Mideast/m.151256.html) by human rights activist Elena Bonner (better known as the wife of Nobel laureate Andrei Sakharov). Unlike Novodvorskaya, Bonner, in a gentle, intelligent address to the reader, explains why a Jewish state has a right to exist, while a Palestinian state does not. Like an artist, with a few vague, irrelevant strokes, she attempts to lead the reader to her essentially false conclusion:

 

"In the years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the entire world has changed incredibly—historically, incredibly quickly. But has it become better, more prosperous for the six billion eight hundred million people inhabiting our small planet? Despite all the new advances in science and technology, despite the process we commonly call progress, no one can answer this question definitively. It seems to me that the world has become more unsettled, more unpredictable, more fragile. This unpredictability, anxiety, and fragility are felt to varying degrees by all countries and by each individual. And social and political life is becoming increasingly virtual, like a picture on a computer screen."

Strangely enough, for Bonner, this is typical nostalgia for people of the communist period.

"Meanwhile, the external backdrop of life, shaped by television, newspapers, and radio, remains the same: countless conferences, summits, forums, and various competitions—from beauty to sandwich-eating. Rapprochement in words, but disunity in reality."

Why disunity? Because, as it turns out, for life to be more than virtual, everyone needs to rally around Israel in support of it.

"And it's not because an economic depression suddenly struck, and then swine flu. It all started on September 11th."

 

So, no more, no less, the origins of all misfortunes, including swine flu, must be sought in the date of September 11th, which Bonner quite correctly links to the Jewish state. She then immediately gets to the heart of her revelation:

"I'm going to talk about Israel and the Jews. And not only because I'm Jewish, but first and foremost because the Middle East conflict, throughout the entire period since the end of World War II, has been a springboard for political games and speculation by great powers, Arab countries, and individual politicians seeking to vindicate their political reputations in the so-called 'peace' process, and perhaps even win the Nobel Peace Prize."

 

   Is Bonner perhaps referring to the dove Tzipora Livni, who soiled her feathers with "Cast Lead"? No. She's referring to Nobel Peace Prize laureate Yitzhak Rabin, whose life that peace cost. Ms. Bonner refuses to recall that Rabin died at the hands of a Jewish terrorist, an opponent of peace with the Palestinians. If he had been killed by an Arab, however, Bonner would have been quick to point out the "insinuity" Israel has had to contend with on its difficult path to peace. Incidentally, Bonner justifies Israel's "Cast Lead" military operation, condemned by the international community, which is highly questionable given her status as a human rights activist. In her article "Lead Rain" (http://www.grani.ru/opinion/bonner/m.146107.html ), she writes that by striking schools with phosphorus bombs containing children, "Israel is simultaneously liberating the civilian population of Gaza, all of whom—to a man—are held hostage by Hamas." It's important to understand that the human rights activist welcomes the idea of ​​schoolchildren being exempted from life. But if we accept that Palestinian children are future Hamas militants, and this is undoubtedly the case, then their elimination, as is now fashionable to say and as practiced by the Mossad around the world, is a good deed. 

    There's no reason to be hypocritical; every Palestinian has the right to see their country and their people free from occupiers, and Israel and our human rights activist deny them this natural right. Bonner fights for the rights of the Chechen people, but she denies the Palestinian people the right to freedom, even though there's no fundamental difference in the status of these peoples. Moreover, at least formally, Chechens have citizenship status, something denied to Palestinians trapped behind a concrete wall. So what's the reason for our human rights activist's such different assessments of freedom? The reason lies in her nationality; there's no other explanation. This is precisely why Bonner opposes the just principle of "Two countries for two peoples," and she argues:

 

    "Israel's population is approximately 7.5 million, of which 2.5 million are ethnic Arabs who call themselves Palestinians. Imagine Israel with another five million Arabs, and the Arab population significantly outnumbering the Jews. And next to it, a Palestinian state will be created, completely cleansed of Jews, because in addition to the demand for the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, there is also a demand to clear Judea and Samaria of Jews and hand them over to the Palestinians, and today there is not a single Jew left in Gaza."

   First, there is another lie here: the Palestinians have no objection to Jews continuing to live in settlements; they just don't want to be left in a powerless state under the surveillance of Israeli soldiers. Secondly, Bonner unwittingly revealed the truth behind the emergence of Palestinian refugees, and this truth is hidden in the figures she cites:

 

"Jews (about 600,000) were accepted by the then-newlywed state of Israel."

 

Further: "According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the number of registered Palestinian refugees has grown from 914,000 in 1950 to 4,600,000 and continues to grow."

 

   Comparing these data reveals only one thing: that to accommodate 600,000 Jews, 914,000 Arabs were expelled. It was virtually impossible to create a Jewish state where the Arabs had numerical superiority. This is the reason for the emergence of Palestinian refugees.

   Let the women not be offended, but, as is typical of most women (women are inferior strategically, but equal and can surpass men tactically), Bonner is guilty of limited logic and sees no promise in the conclusions that follow from her words:

 

"According to the official UN status, only those who fled violence and war are considered refugees, not their descendants born in another land."

 

   In other words, Bonner means that only the 914,000 refugees themselves have the right to return, not their descendants. But then what about the fact that the descendants of Jews who left Palestine 2,000 years ago are returning to Palestine? Thus, logic breaks down. She, without intending to, deprives the Jews of the right to return to the Promised Land.

   And another important detail I'd like to point out: Palestinian refugees, despite all the obstacles, are eager to return to their homeland, while Jews, even the majority of them, are reluctant to return to Israel, even with repatriation financed by Jewish organizations, preferring, like Bonner, to remain in Galut. Moreover, if America hadn't been closed at the insistence of Jewish organizations, the Great Aliyah would never have happened. Paradoxically, when leaving the USSR, Jews preferred Germany over the Promised Land.

   Jews living outside Israel don't understand the gravity of the situation facing the Jewish state (see «Israel, - way to nonexistence»

 (https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2024/08/israel-way-to-nonexistence.html )

 and, through powerful Jewish organizations, use economic and political leverage to support right-wing extremists in Israel. Israel's future is seen only in peace with its neighbors, and this peace can only be achieved at the negotiating table (possibly in the UN Security Council), followed by the deployment of UN forces to the dividing line between the two countries and the two peoples.

 

   Yelena Bonner concludes her message to the world with the words of A. Sakharov, which embody the truth and reflect the formula of humanism. However, I have serious doubts about Yelena Bonner's own morality. Caring for one's people is a noble cause, but the trouble is, there are examples of villains doing the same, and only morality has achieved the final outcome, of all possible options. Therefore, I will allow myself to conclude my response to "human rights activist" Yelena Bonner with words that embody a great truth:

 

"Ultimately, the moral choice turns out to be the most pragmatic."

                                                                                                                     Andrei Sakharov

 

05.02.2010