Disclaimer: This is a combination rant/analysis of a problematic type of person in the world today. I acknowledge that the majority of the readers of this blog do not fit this description. Therefore, if you do not see yourself in the post following this disclaimer, do not be offended. If you do see yourself, you might give some thought to how you formulate and express your political views.
I occasionally find myself debating with bloggers and commenters in the blogosphere. Most recently, I mixed it up a bit with someone on Westbankmama’s blog.
I am not the most eloquent spokesperson for Israel, and I am also not naïve enough to think that what I write changes anyone’s mind. Someone who thinks that Israel was the aggressor in Operation Cast Lead, who thinks that the Goldstone Report is a valid document, or who bleats incessantly about Israel’s “occupation” of “Palestinian land,” is someone whose mind is made up, and the facts are unlikely to change that.
I should point out that I am not a critic of liberal politics in general. I think it is no accident that, as Matt Santos on “The West Wing” points out, “Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act.” Why did liberals effect all of these social and environmental changes? Because they care about people. I think that’s laudable, and I agree with it.
In the policy changes listed above, liberal politicians and activists identified the vulnerable, the underprivileged, the oppressed—in short, the underdog—and sought to change the social equation to give that underdog an advantage. That habit of identifying the underdog and championing those who appear to be weak or put-upon has continued. But something I have found disturbing in recent years is the fact that while liberals claim to care about people, they don’t always care about facts. Well, not all of the facts. And only about SOME people.
If I’m a liberal thinker, my first job is to find the underdog. And these days, quite frankly, it’s hard to pick out the underdog in a line-up. The guy who appears to be the underdog may not be right. He may be immoral, or devious, or hateful, or oppressive, or just plain wrong. Sometimes the guy who looks like the underdog is not really the underdog at all. It takes a well-informed person with a critical eye and the ability to ask questions and scrutinize the situation to spot when this is the case.
I don’t believe that liberal-minded people are unintelligent. Most of them are very bright, thoughtful people. But I have noticed that there are some liberal-minded people who have serious blind spots in the way they view the world. They are underinformed. They don’t ask questions. They don’t know which questions to ask, or even how to ask questions. They assume that the people they think are underdogs are all truthful and sincere. They assume that those who have any power over the underdogs are heartless, self-serving, and bloodthirsty. In short, they are as ignorant and prejudiced as they accuse others of being.
At the conclusion of the Six Day War in 1967, Israel was the darling of Planet Earth. The world had just seen a tiny country with very limited resources go head to head with its much better-supplied, better-trained neighbors intent on destroying it utterly, and crush them in less than a week. What happened between 1967 and 2009, when Israel is without question the pariah of Planet Earth? Has Israel’s essential nature changed in the intervening years? Has the Arab world’s? No, and no. But in the last 42 years, Israel has grown from a small developing nation to a world leader in science, technology, and agriculture. Even in its worst years, with buses blowing up, tourists staying away, and high unemployment, it has had the capital to continue to build its cities, its roads and railway system, and its industry. Meanwhile, the Arab world has changed very little from the cluster of “monarchies” and despotic regimes, where the haves live in palaces and the have-nots live in squalor; where non-Muslims have few (if any) rights; where women cannot drive or vote or walk out of their homes unaccompanied; where gays and adulterers are stoned in public; where peaceful protesters are gunned down in the streets by lawless thugs hired by the government to keep the “peace.”
So why doesn’t the world’s liberal-minded populace still champion Israel? Because they cannot. In their view, economic success precludes “underdog” status. Rooting for Israel would be like rooting for Microsoft (in the Cap’n’s words)—an impossibility for someone who can only see the underdog as poor, third-world, non-White. The worldview of many liberal-minded people has become very simple. Too simple, in fact.
I’ve given considerable thought to what would actually transform such well-meaning people from champions of terrorists and despots to champions of the actual underdog. Here are some of my conclusions:
-Refrain from automatically romanticizing the underdog. Love of the disenfranchised has traditionally been a strength of liberal activism. It worked many times in the past few hundred years and allowed Western civilization to advance in fairness and equality, but the world has changed, and things are not always what they appear to be anymore. Some wealthy, successful white people use their money and influence for great good in the world, while some non-Western poor people spout hatred and relish spilling the blood of innocents.
-Let your values be your guide. When judging other societies, take a look at what their core values are. If you value freedom, civil rights, tolerance, rule of law, and democracy, look at how the people you sympathize with view these same values. Do they share them? Do they embrace them? Do they treat each other and their neighboring societies the way you believe human beings ought to treat one another? And if they don’t share your core values, ask yourself why you support them.
-Let your opinions and positions be determined by ALL the facts. In arguing with someone on Westbankmama’s blog, I argued that Palestinian Arab leadership has turned down three very generous offers of a state in the last 10 years. My opponent ignored that, and blathered on and on about Israel’s “occupation” of Palestinian land and “aggression” against its people. He either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care, about how the Palestinian Arabs ended up without a state in the first place, and which countries are actually responsible for their statelessness (Jordan, Egypt, Syria) and who is responsible for the failure to resolve their refugee status (the UN). Buzzwords like “occupation” and “aggression” and “war crimes” trump the facts with such people every time.
-Learn the facts. When I stop to reflect, I remember that when I first came to Israel in 1996 I had a very left-wing view of politics in Israel. I believed that they had been harsh in their dealings with the Palestinians. I believed that the handshake between Yitzhak Rabin z”l and Yassir Arafat y”s would put both peoples firmly on the road to peace. When I heard someone on NPR read a news story in which the Israelis had demanded that the PLO renounce their goal to destroy Israel as part of the beginning of the Oslo Peace Process, I was angry that the reader added, “The PLO is not expected to agree to this.” Why not? I believed the Arabs wanted a peaceful conclusion to what I viewed as a simple turf war as much as the Israelis. Then I set out to learn the facts. In reading books about the history and background of the conflict by many different authors (journalists, diplomats, popular writers), I realized that the conflict is much more complicated than newspaper stories, radio and television segments make it out to be. And those newspapers and other media outlets are often limited in their access to the events and facts, rely on not-always-reliable witnesses, don’t always check their facts carefully, and are naturally limited by deadlines and the ignorance and prejudices of their reporters. In other words, those sources often present half-truths and cockeyed stories to the public, and don’t always print their retractions on the front page.
To gather the facts takes time, and many people find themselves pressed for time these days. Nonetheless, if one feels strongly enough about a subject, one should do it the justice it merits to find out all they can about the history of the conflict or region, and weigh different perspectives in figuring out where their sympathies lie. If I were sitting in my comfortable chair on the other side of the world from where the events are happening, I would make damned sure I’d done my homework before I started leaving comments on people’s blogs, defending a people about whom I know nothing against people about whom I know even less.
Since my debates tend most often to be about the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict, I will take the liberty of listing some recommended reading about the issue from different points of view, from insiders and outsiders, eyewitnesses, journalists, and academics, who look at the issue from many different angles.
Conor Cruise O’Brien’s The Siege
Hands down, best book I’ve read about the conflict. Irishman O’Brien cannot be accused of belonging to either camp, and I am amazed at how well he “gets” both sides of the issue, and explains their motivations and actions.
Daniel Gordis’s Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End
The most up-to-date of these books, having been published just last year. It describes the toll on the psyche of Jews both in Israel and abroad of the wars and terrorism, but also why those should not define Israel’s character or its sense of purpose. Beautifully written.
Mitchell G. Bard and Joel Himelfarb’s Myths and Facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict
This small volume covers the history of Israel from shortly before the War of Independence to current events. It lays out commonly held beliefs about the conflict—e.g. “Palestine was always an Arab country,” “The West’s support of Israel allowed the Jews to conquer Palestine,” and “Israel is militarily superior to its Arab neighbors in every area and has the means to maintain its qualitative edge without outside help”—and then debunks them with the facts. (My volume extends to shortly after the Gulf War in 1992; I believe there is an updated version. And Mitchell Bard has a less concise volume which may provide even greater depth.)
Thomas Friedman’s From Beirut to Jerusalem
Friedman’s account of his stints as New York Times bureau chief first in Beirut during the First Lebanon War, then in Jerusalem during the Intifada. Gives some dated, but valuable, background on the first direct conflict between the IDF and the PLO, as well as a look at what one might view as the turning point in how modern wars are fought (particularly between national and terrorist entities).
Larry Collins and Dominic LaPierre’s O Jerusalem
A thorough, slightly romanticized view of Jerusalem during the War of Independence, particularly the siege of the city and the role of the British who tacitly supported the Arabs during the war. The reported massacre at Deir Yassin is presented here as fact; it has been hotly disputed through the years, and has been discredited by those who investigated it.
Ze’ev Chafets’s Heroes and Hustlers, Hardhats and Holy Men
A down-to-earth account of Israeli society in the wake of the Yom Kippur War (1973) and how it changed the Israeli government, its people, and ultimately, the Middle East.
Rav Meir Kahane’s They Must Go
Contrary to the accusations that Rav Kahane was a racist and a terrorist, I have never read anything by him that suggested he was either. This book includes the most sympathetic analysis I’ve read of how Arab Muslims and Christians cannot be expected to take joy or wish to participate in the Zionist adventure that is the Jewish State, and what the options are. It also includes a house-to-house description (very difficult to read) of the massacre of Jews in Hebron in 1929. Kahane had no love for Arabs, but I believe he understood them better than most people, and did not shrink from turning a critical eye to their TRUE plight in Israel.
Solomon Grayzel’s A History of the Jews
A sparsely-written, yet somehow elegant history of the Jews, and one that takes as its starting thesis that when Hashem closed a door on the Jews in Jewish history, He opened another somewhere else. A Jewish history with a decidedly Jewish perspective.
In addition to these books, I have found articles by others with expertise in various areas to be helpful:
J.H.H. Weiler is an expert on “international law” and its limitations.
Shmuel Katz z”l wrote incisive articles about Israel’s relations with its neighbors and the peace process.
Khaled Abu-Toameh, an Israeli Arab, is one of the best journalists on the Jerusalem Post staff, and is an eloquent critic of the Palestinian Authority.
Brigitte Gabriel and Nonie Darwish, two Arab women, have riveting stories to tell about their lives in Arab society, and the demonization of Israelis they witnessed firsthand.
Sarah Honig’s biting critiques of Israel in the Jerusalem Post don’t sound like those of most of the rest of the world, but they are nearly always valid, in my opinion.
Daniel Gordis’s essays, available on his website, detail his family’s struggles with the politics and realities of living in Israel, with discussions of the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the unresolved hostage situation of Gilad Shalit, the waning interest in Israel by Diaspora Jews, and the need in Israel for a new leadership training institute.
I have been grieved to see the European Union, the United Nations, and even many in the United States lose their moral compass. Whether the excuse lies in political correctness, a natural antipathy toward Jews (i.e. anti-Semitism), fear of their own growing Arab/Muslim populations, or a hope of winning those populations over to them through appeasement, I don’t know. But failure to tell the truth, look the facts in the eye, and stick to what they know is right cannot lead civilization to any good.
Shimshonit 
Mike’s mother also thinks it’s excellent. In fact, I’ve bookmarked it so that I can go back and refer to your recommended reading list. If it’s all right, I just might refer people to it when I blog on the subject. I’ve found people’s minds to be made up too; anyone who is an apologist for Israel is often accused of telling lies and of wanting to kill “innocent” Arabs, of hating poor little Arab children, etc. People need to look at the whole picture and learn the truth.
Excellent, thank you. As you can see, I told my mommy about this post of yours as well.
Yehuda ha-Kohen of the Zionist Freedom Alliance says that when speaking on American college campuses, he tries to frame the discussion around British imperialism. I tried that myself, here.
My mother has told me that when Oslo happened, my older brother asked her if she thought peace would finally come. She told him that yes, she thought Arafat had finally grown up.
Then, of course, the terrorism continued, and that was the last straw for her, and ever since, she’s been a Kahane/Feiglin-ist. Both she and I, like you, cannot figure out what’s supposed to be so racist about Rav Kahane. (Rav Kahane explicitly said he had nothing against Arabs qua Arabs, and discriminated only against terrorist Arabs. By definition, he’s not racist, and any accusation against Rav Kahane is an accusation against Merriam-Webster as well.)
She says she first heard about this crazy racist maniac named “Kahane”, but she gave the matter no thought; there are plenty of lunatics on earth. Then, she starting learning Feiglin, and thought he was wonderful. Then she heard equation of Kahane and Feiglin, and she couldn’t understand; how could this (supposed) maniac Kahane be compared to this wise and sensible Feiglin? So she learned Kahane and found that he was … wise and sensible too!
Gavriela: Thank you for your kind words. I am flattered that you would refer to it on your own blog; feel free to do so.
Michael: Thanks for sharing this with your mom, and for the link to your own framing of the issue. I’m not sure I agree with every word, but you make some excellent points and what you’ve said is definitely worth reading.
Gavriela: Can you give us the link to your blog?
Yeah, Mom, since when do you have a blog?
My apologies, Shimshonit and ilanadavita; I don’t actually have a blog. Maybe I’ll start one. If I do, I’ll be glad to post the link. Thank you for the permission!
What I do do is to post on Arutz 7; a local (to me) radio station’s website, WTOP (www.wtop.com); and on http://www.washingtonpost.com (WaPo) Maybe I used the word “blog” incorrectly; many posters on WaPo use the word interchangeably with “post” or “comment”.
I’ll be careful though, as my son has left his full name here, and therefore crazies at the last two of the three sites I mentioned (I’m not kidding) would be able to ID him and also me. But I’d definitely like to call attention to this well written article!
P.S. I do know how to spell my own name. LOL! What I don’t know how to do is proofread my typos, even though I am and have been an editor. I am blushing. ;)
Excellent post. My only criticism is that I think you give reporters too much credit. I don’t think that they write against Israel because they don’t have the time to do the proper research – I think they have an agenda and when the facts don’t match up they ignore the facts.
[…] Shimshonit has an excellent post on bleeding hearts. She includes a wonderful reading list too. Take a look. Leave a […]
There’s a book by Ze’ev Chafets in which he details all the reasons reporting from the Middle East is so poor. Among the reasons:
1) The reporters are shuttled from country to country, with no time to learn. He tells the story of one reporter who was suddenly shipped to Turkey, and told to have an article the next day. He spent all day combing through the newspapers, looking for any mention of “Turkey”. He even had his entire family searching with him, including his barely-literate kindergarten-age son (who was told to look for that one keyword, “Turkey”).
2) Most Middle Eastern countries are too dangerous! He tells several stories of death threats against reporters, noting that whereas tons of bad news of atrocities came out of Israel, no news came out of Iraq at the time Saddam was doing his worst!
3) The reporters speak only English (or other European languages), so they can speak only to elites, getting a skewed account. Chafets notes that when Begin was elected, the American newspapers blared how he had no support, and would fall within days. But in fact, half of Israel – the Sephardi half – had voted for him! (I’d personally add from Feiglin’s Where There are No Men that whereas about 70% of Israelis keep Yom Kippur, only about 10% of media anchormen do. The elites in Israel are about as representative of Israeli society as European monarchies were of theirs.)
Westbankmama and Michael: I’m sure you’re right about reporters. Khaled Abu Toameh wrote a piece for the Middle East Forum about reporters trying to write under the watchful eye of the Palestinian Authority: http://www.meforum.org/604/telling-the-truth-about-the-palestinians
Conor Cruise O’Brien once described his perspective on the Middle East conflict as he represented Ireland in the UN, thus finding himself seated between the representatives of Iraq and Israel.
I do think that he was pro-Israel and was sympathetic to Labor Zionism as it existed 25 years ago. Anyway, even if you can’t read his book, his essay Why Israel can’t take ‘bold steps’ for peace (an excerpt of The Siege) is available online.
Excellent post, on a subject I’ve struggled with. For a while I’ve just avoided any debate on Israel as the vitriol can get pretty ridiculous. Half the time the debate spins into criticizing Judaism itself, with comments like ‘Judaism is rooted in racism, they don’t care if gentile Arabs die’ and things like that. Or that Jews control the US government through AIPAC, etc.
I think a lot of it started with the 2000 intifada. I was in college in the late 90’s and I don’t recall Israel ever being much of an issue with the left. Since then, the Palestinians have taken the ‘underdog’ role as Israel beefed up its security due to suicide bombings and rockets. Now that things in Africa and Latin America seem to have cooled down from 80’s Cold War meddling, Israel is the cause du jour.
“… I realized that the conflict is much more complicated than newspaper stories, radio and television segments make it out to be. …”
That’s true. But to fully understand who’s responsible for this conflict, this bad situation, one must look at both sides. Neither side is innocent and both sides could and should do much more if they wanted.
soccer dad: O’Brien did indeed have an interesting seat in the UN. I got the feeling that he was sympathetic to Israel, but also that he understood the Arabs well. I think he was fair to both. Thanks for the link.
Seth: Thanks for your comment. I remember people starting to warm up to the Palestinians even in the Intifada of the 1980s (when I was in high school): kids armed with rocks facing off with soldiers in riot gear and firearms played really well to the bleeding heart crowd, and I think without a full-scale war, people thought they were seeing “demonstrations” rather than a war. The Arabs are smart; they picked up on this and the rest is history.
eli: No “buts.” It’s very complicated. Oversimplifications like “neither side is innocent” and “both sides could and should do much more” are exactly the sort of observations underinformed people like to make, as though you were guiding two children through a session of schoolyard conflict-resolution. Reread my post. And even better, read some of the books I recommend. Your comments will carry more weight if you have more information and fewer slogans and buzzwords to offer.
I’m not trying to over-simple anything. I just said – and I insist – that BOTH SIDES need to be blamed to current situations and that they’re no “angels”, if you know what I mean. One needs to be fair (and critical) to both, Arabs and Israel. It’s crucial to understand this. If you can’t realize and accept this, then I’m afraid you’re not able to look at the whole picture and learn the truth. Period.
The word “truth” is also quite relative term. Ask Arab historicans/ Middle East experts about the Isr-Pal conflict and you’ll get very different “truths” and opinions from those opinions you’d get if you asked, say, Israeli historicans/political experts. Or books on that topic – it’s the same story.
You claim you “have been grieved to see the European Union, the UN, and even many in the United States lose their moral compass”, yet you don’t (want to) see what’s happening with Israel’s moral compass! By that I mean the occupation, the “collective punishment” policy and the possible war crimes comitted last in Gaza conflict. You should ask yourself why don’t you believe any of human rights reports. Is there a problem with them or with you? To conclude, I think it would be better for all if Israel could use some self-criticism. And please, don’t mark me “anti-semite” for saying that :D
War crimes in Gaza??!! Israel accidentally and unintentionally killed civilians, at a rate of about three per day, I think, if I remember correctly. If we define genocide as one million people dying (to pick a round number), then it would take 913 years of non-stop daily warfare in Gaza for Israel to commit genocide.
By contrast, the Gazans built their military infrastructure in civilian areas and used women and children as human shields. They broke so many of the Geneva Conventions it isn’t funny.
—————
Collective punishment??!! In Darfur, the UN said it wasn’t sure whether genocide was being committed, even though Merriam-Webster would seem to be quite clear on the matter, and even though the Janjaweed themselves admitted to raping black women so that they wouldn’t be acceptable to their husbands and wouldn’t sexually propagate themselves, thus demographically killing off the non-Muslim peoples there. And yet when Israel demolishes the homes of terrorists without killing anyone, it’s an atrocity! Raping innocent women systematically is fine (the UN spoke, but actions speak louder than words), but destroying a terrorist’s home is going too far!
Eli: Israel’s moral compass is where Europe’s and everyone else’s should be. Israel waited 8 years to react to Hamas’s rocketing of its citizens. Personally, I wish they hadn’t waited so long, but they were trying not to involve the rest of Gaza in their grievances against Hamas, and I’m sure they were equally concerned about endangering the life of Gilad Shalit, who has been held captive there for years now. The alternative was to continue to endanger the lives of Israelis by providing Hamas with continued target practice against civilians. What’s okay about that?
Israel is incredibly self-critical. You should read some of the Israeli newspapers, listen to the conversations in cafes in the cities, talk to cab drivers, and hear the debates in the Knesset. It investigates every individual complaint against its soldiers. Does Hamas do that? (Don’t worry; I don’t expect you to answer that.) It agonizes about putting its soldiers and non-combatants in the line of fire. It takes great pains to avoid hurting anyone not specifically responsible for Hamas’s misdeeds. It offers economic partnerships with the Palestinians to help them build their economy (which they refuse, saying it insults them). It is constantly debating what it can do to improve the prospects of peace in the region. Does Hamas do that?
And the “occupation” is clearly the life of choice for the Palestinians; otherwise they would have said “yes” to one of the three offers of a state made them in the past decade. And given that the economic situation in the West Bank is far superior to that of that in Gaza, I don’t blame them for dragging their heels. Their politicians may bluster, but the Arabs who work here in Efrat and tell us about their lives know they’re far better off building our homes here than they would if the PA declared a state and they were forced to live at the mercy of their greedy, incompetent leaders.
Now look at your comment and look at mine. Mine is full of specific examples, information, and eyewitness knowledge. Yours is full of slogans and generalities. I don’t think you’re an anti-Semite. I just think you don’t know what you’re talking about. This post is about YOU.
Out of curiosity, do you visit blogs of pro-Palestinian writers and needle them about being pro-terrorism, targeting Israeli civilians, thumbing their noses at the Geneva Conventions, refusing offers of peace, and preferring to live their lives as Iranian proxies and perpetual victims rather than rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the business of making peace and building themselves a state? If so, I have some respect for you. If not, get off my blog.
I’m afraid you confused some terms, mr Makovi. First of all, I never mentioned the word “genocide”, I wrote “possible war crimes”. There are many different sort of war crimes ( key words: human shields, white phosphorus, using indiscriminate force in a civilian area, ignoring white flags…). If you’re interested in details, read any of those reports (HRW, AI, Goldstone’s, B’tselem). Of corse, noone is saying Hamas acted any better. By the way, you said “Gazans built their military infrastructure”. Wasn’t that Hamas? Or do you perhaps think Operation Cast Lead was against all the Gazans (including civilians)?
Secondly, the collective punishment. Again, I’m really not sure why are you mentioning Darfur there. Yes, there was/is a genocide in Darfur (and you’re right, the UN should do something), but that’s a genocide, not collective punishment. Declaring the Gaza Strip as a “hostile entity” and limiting its supply of fuel and electricity, that’s a collective punishment!
As for your claiming :”…Israel demolishes the homes of terrorists without killing anyone…”, let’s see what did some IDF soldiers that fought in last Gaza offensive told reporters:
“At first the specified action was to go into a house. We were supposed to go in with an armored personnel carrier called an Achzarit [literally, “cruel”] to burst through the lower door, to start shooting inside and then… I call this murder… in effect, we were supposed to go up floor by floor, and any person we identified — we were supposed to shoot. I initially asked myself: Where is the logic in this?”
and
“This is really frustrating, to see that they understand that inside Gaza you are allowed to do anything you want, to break down doors of houses for no reason other than it’s cool.
You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won’t say anything. To write ‘death to the Arabs’ on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing in understanding how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It’s what I’ll remember the most.”… ”
more on: http://www.ajwnews.com/archives/1373
Ok, Shimshonit, you’re the boss. I hope I didn’t insult anyone, all I was trying to do was to tell how do I see some things. I always like to hear other people’s opinions, though. However, if you can’t stand any criticizm on your country, if you think HR, AI and Goldstone are all liers or israel haters or if you think I don’t know what I’m talking about, then it’d really be better for me to leave. I just need to respond to your last post:
We’ll never agree on Israel’s moral compass, so I’ll leave it as it is. Next, you said Israel is “incredibly self-critical”. Unfortunately I’m not able to listen to the conversations in cafes in the cities or hear the debates in the Knesset. But I do see what’s happening in reality. I’ve see how does Israeli government Israeli government attacked NGOs like HRW and AI and tried to discredit them. I read Goldstone report. I read interview (in Haaretz) with some Israeli soldiers who fought in the recent war in Gaza. Scary and disturbing stories. Yet, IDF denied everything. And mentioning IDF’s own investigations… do you really think they’ll admit anything? No army in the world likes to admit its mistakes/war crimes, remember that.
What do we have nxt.. I see. The occupation. Don’t be silly, it’s not life of choice for the Palestinians. Nobody likes to live under the occupation. Nobody. What happened in the past is a very complicated and yes, there may be some wrong decisions from Palestinian past leaders. But that doesn’t mean Palestinians are today satisfied with their life under the control of Israel, does it? One must also be aware that any occupation brings a resistance and sometimes terrorism. In one word – violence.
And as for the “economic partnerships”, you probably know that Israel controls a big part of Gaza’s economy, so she’s co-responsible for its bad state.
If Israel really “is constantly debating what it can do to improve the prospects of peace in the region”, why does she build illegal settlements where they shouldn’t be build? Even Obama realized that.
In the end, I need to say Palestinian side must be criticized as well. Their radical movements with all those Qassam rockets are not bringing a peace to their people. Some of their brainwashings of little children (like Hamas TV) are disgusting and won’t bring any good to them. Palestinian leaders should also do much more to improve the lifes of their people. But in the end, one needs to be fair and look at both sides. BOTH sides needs to be blamed for current situation. Period.
best regards,
Eli
Eli,
I’ll concede that perhaps I clumsily used terminology, but I don’t think my point is weakened. The UN looked the other way from Darfur, and played its fiddle while Rome burned. Meanwhile, every single little house that Israel demolished, the UN jumped up and down about.
You talk about Israeli soldiers spitting on paintings and busting down doors, while the Hamas soldiers were launching rockets into civilian areas and deliberately putting women and children in harm’s way.
You claim IDF soldiers write “Death to the Arabs” on the walls, but meanwhile, Hamas soldiers deliberately launch rockets at Israeli civilians. Yeah, those are really equivalent! Obama in Cairo noted that both the Arab world and America have problems with women’s equality. Yeah, Arabs pour acid on women trying to go to school, while in America, female executives make 3/4 of what male executives do – yup, we both sure have our problems!
Whether we are discussing “genocide” or “war crimes”, or whether we are discussing “Gazans” or “Hamas”, the point is the same: Israel’s supposed crimes pale in comparison to anything Hamas did, like comparing the school bully to an armed murderer.
I’m skeptical of your claim that Israeli soldiers burst in and shoot indiscriminately. On the contrary, Israel conducts its house-to-house searches precisely in order to minimize innocent casualities. Israeli military experts have noted that they could just bomb everything to smithereens, but instead, they deliberately and tediously – and dangerously – go house to house. Urban warfare is extremely hazardous – a SWAT expert has about a 50% of getting killed in any given operation – but Israel deliberately chooses to use ground troops rather than airplanes and tanks. Given all these, it makes no sense for Israel to be using spray-and-pray in its house-to-house searches, since if Israel cared so little about innocent Gazan lives, they’d just use napalm and be done with it. Have you read about Israel’s agonizing decisions about what to do when terrorists occupy a basement with civilians in the upper floors? The security experts will debate whether to use a bomb large enough to kill the terrorists – and the civilians too – or whether to use a smaller bomb that will kill no one at all. I think usually the latter (pointless) route is taken, precisely because Israel actually does care about Arab lives.
Furthermore, many of those eyewitness reports from IDF soldiers, attesting to war crimes, were proven false within days of their being made. Most of those IDF soldiers who made such claims were found to be lying.
By the way: given that Gaza is supposed to be an independent nation, why does Israel have a responsibility to provide gas and electricity? And if you’ll blame Israel for the blockade, what about its partner, Egypt? After all, Egypt is blockading Gaza no less than Israel is. Maybe Egypt should provide electricity!
You ask, “why does she build illegal settlements where they shouldn’t be build?” Maybe because not all Israelis consider them illegal! Some Israelis, believe it or not, are actually still Zionistic, and they haven’t forgotten the Zionist dream of settling Israel. The West Bank is actually the Biblical heartland of Israel, so it’s really not so clear that these settlements are illegal. Plus, the original 1917 Balfour Declaration gave all of what is today Jordan to Israel, so it’s not like it’s so cut-and-dry what is Israel and what isn’t.
When Jordan was in control of the West Bank, the Palestinians didn’t mind. Very strange. Are not the Jordanians just as foreign as the Israelis? Or do the Palestinians only have national aspirations when Jews are involved? If so, Golda Meir would be correct that Palestinian nationality is merely a response to Israeli nationality; as soon as Israel is not involved (as when Jordan was in control of the West Bank), the Palestinians suddenly have no independent identity. Alternatively, the Jordanians were such brutal occupiers that we couldn’t even hear the Palestinian cries for national self-determination; at least Israelis let the Palestinians make their claims be heard!
Eli,
One more thing: you say, “One must also be aware that any occupation brings a resistance and sometimes terrorism.”
It is interesting that the Kurds, despite being Muslim, support Israel over the Palestinians. Why? Because despite their desire for independence from Iraq, they never resorted to terrorism against innocent Iraqis. According to the Kurds, any claim – even a righteous one – is annulled when innocent civilians are targeted.
(I’m discussing Iraqi Kurds, not Turkish ones. The Turkish Kurds, and their PKK, do indeed resort to terrorism, and the Iraqi Kurds criticize them the same as they criticize the Palestinians.)
As I’ve said before, I and the rest of Israel can stand criticism, no problem. It just has to be based on fact, not fiction. The sources you cite (Human Rights Watch, Goldstone, Haaretz) are not infallible, or even credible. It all goes back to being informed and asking questions, and since you are not in Israel, I’m not surprised to find you less informed.
Human Rights Watch was founded originally as Helsinki Watch by—among others—Natan Sharansky and Robert L. Bernstein. Sharansky and Bernstein have both leveled sharp criticism of Human Rights Watch in recent months, saying it has departed from its purpose.
Richard Goldstone, a respected jurist, wrote a scurrilous report based on hearsay and has said himself it would never stand up in a court of law. And since you’re probably not a jurist, here are some articles (here and here) to help you understand what is wrong with the report.
Among other verbal atrocities, Haaretz’s editor has stated publicly that the newspaper will not criticize any politician, no matter how corrupt, if he agrees with the man’s political agenda. And, it turns out, those interviews with soldiers published in Haaretz were conducted anonymously with foreign funding, despite the IDF’s policy of openness and insistence that any irregularities or excessive use of force be reported. If these soldiers acted inappropriately, they should either be tried for violating IDF rules governing their behavior, or complain to the IDF about any lack of preparation they may have had. Tattling anonymously to the world (perhaps collecting a paycheck in the process) is the mark of a poor soldier and does no one–themselves, their victims, or the IDF–any good.
I don’t know about you, but I would take the “facts” presented by these sources with a very large grain of salt.
You keep using the word “occupation,” as though you believe that the Palestinian Arabs had a sovereign state before 1948. Looks like you need a crash course in Middle East history on top of everything else. Before 1967, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights were in the hands of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. Are you suggesting we give them “back” to these countries? Or perhaps you mean before 1948 when the land was in the temporary custody of Great Britain. Do you think we should be flying the Union Jack over Efrat and Gaza City? If the Arabs would learn to say “yes” when offered land for a state, they could have had one in 1948. Or 2000. Or 2007. Or 2009.
Your statement that “Nobody likes to live under the occupation. Nobody” is just the sort of blanket statement you have no business making. Just because you imagine it’s really bad here doesn’t mean it is. And if you think all Arabs are unhappy living in Israel and want a state run by the goons in charge now, you obviously don’t know any.
Name the law Israel has broken by building settlements in territory it conquered in a defensive war.
I can anticipate in advance that you won’t hold as valid anything I’ve said here. Because you are a shining example of a bleeding heart, you’ll believe anything an NGO says, but hold all states and armies to be liars. You will believe some witnesses (even if you have never met them and don’t know their names and can’t ask them any questions) but not others (e.g. me). You believe the UN despite the fact that some of its most powerful players are gross human rights violators (Libya, China, Syria). You don’t seem to have noticed that we’ve re-entered the zone of the “automatic majority,” defined by Abba Eban, Israel’s former UN ambassador, as being when a vote in the general assembly about whether the earth was flat, and that Israel had flattened it, would pass with an automatic majority based on clear voting blocs.
I think you’re probably a very good person at heart, but you’ve clearly got nothing more to contribute to the discussion. Have a nice day.
All right, let me respond for the last time, because I think there’s still some issues that need to be adressed and some questions that need to be answered.
First to mr Makovi:
1.) I’m sorry but I can’t agree with your comparasions (the school bully to an armed murderer). You act like it wasn’t Israel who bombed Gaza, that is one of the most densely populated tracts of land in the world. Like it wasn’t israeli army who killed more than thousand of Palestinians. Not to mention those (possible) war crimes. School bully indeed… As for terminology, I think the word ‘genocide’ has no place in Operation Cast Lead. War crimes however, were (unfortunately) mentioned in those reports. As the reports tell, both sides commited them. You are free to ignore those reports or try to discredit them, but I’m telling you the rest of the world is not so sceptical.
2.) You said :”I’m skeptical of your claim that Israeli soldiers burst in and shoot indiscriminately. On the contrary, Israel conducts its house-to-house searches precisely in order to minimize innocent casualities.” and “if Israel cared so little about innocent Gazan lives, they’d just use napalm and be done with it”.
First of all, I didn’t claim that, those IDF soldiers (that fought in Gaza) told it in interviews. And I rather believe them than you, who probably didn’t fight in Gaza. You claim that “Most of those IDF soldiers who made such claims were found to be lying.” I’m asking you, why would they do that? Furthermore, you have B’Tselem and other HR organizations claiming that Israel did use human shields in Gaza. There’s a special section in wikipedia of human shields in connection with Israel. Read it if you’re really interested in truth. As for using napalm, I think Israel didn’t use it – not because of “caring about innocent Gazan lives”, but rather because of their image in the world. It would do too much harm to them. I mean, do you really think the world would sit and watch Israel using it? After all, Israel is a democratic state, not some paramillitary radical organization like Hamas’ armed wing.
3.) Regarding Gaza, you asked “why does Israel have a responsibility to provide gas and electricity” and suggested that “maybe Egypt should provide electricity”. You probably know despite the withdrawal of the troops in 2005, Israel continues to exercise significant control over life in Gaza and controls Gaza’s borders, its tax system, funding of its public services etc. Israel has thus an obligation to provide for the needs of Gaza residents. I read somewhere that Israel’s provision of water and electricity is done in the framework of its control over the funding of public services in Gaza and the West Bank. You may remember that in 2006, Israel bombed the transformer station (an example of collective punishment) and destroyed about 40% of Gaza’s electricity supply. Repair of that station is dependent on Israel’s willingness to allow Gaza residents to bring equipment and experts into Gaza, in order to fix it. As for Egypt, it already does provide electricity, but I agree it should provide more. I don’t know why it doesn’t.
4.) Illegal settlements. Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Got it? Some of them even by Israeli law. Even Israel’s closest partners (the U.S. and France) agree on that issue. Israel’s policy of encouraging, financing and expanding Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories violates principles of international humanitarian law. And I think that’s all one needs to know about it. I don’t care what does Torah say or what does some radical zionists think about that. I’m not interested in myths about “Biblical heartland” or “chosen people”. All I know is that international laws should be respected. Period.
5.) Finally, the Kurds. I think you’re very naive about the reasons why do Kurds support Israel. I’ll just remind you on some issues you forgot to mention, but that could also play a big role in Kurds-Israel relationship. Kurds regard Israel as their partner in the Middle East because:
-Israel was assisting Kurds in their wars in Iraq during the 1960s and 1970s
-(there are reports of) Israeli firms involved in sales of military equipment and training assistance aimed at establishing an autonomous Kurdish administration in northern Iraq.
As you see, there’s no mentioning of Palestinians. It is also an example of double standards: The US and Israel see Hezbollah as a group of terrorists, on the other hand they support some radical Kurd groups, including the PKK and PJAK, which resort to terrorism.
And to Shimshonit:
I may be less informed on some issues regarding Israel’s life and Israeli politics, but at the same time I can look at the conflict from the perspective that you can’t, because you live in Israel and are therefore too involved in the conflict. Human Rights Watch, Goldstone and AI may not be credible sources for you, but they’re for me. Mr Goldstone is a respected jurist and – as his daughter said – a zionist. I’m sure he wouldn’t wrote a report if he didn’t trust into it. I have a feeling that – no matter who or what organization criticizes her – Israel will always attack it and try to discredit that person or that organization. Be it the UN, mr Goldstone, Israeli organization B’tselem or even IDF’s own soldiers. By the way, why would Israeli organization or those Israeli soldiers lie and try to harm their own country? Do they have any good reason for doing that? I’m somehow very skeptical of your thoughts of “collecting a paycheck in the process”. To be clear, I’m not saying those NGOs are perfect or that they don’t make any mistakes. Far from that. But I see most of the Israel’s attacks and accusations on them baseless and unfounded.
As for the word “occupation”, we could discuss it all day. Let me just say that I try to use the terminology that the rest of the world (except perhaps Israel and some American politicians) is using. You even have some JEWISH organizations inside and outside Israel (for instance, Jews Against the Occupation) that are calling for the occupation to end. So I guess I can’t be that wrong. You’re right, Palestinian Arabs did not have a sovereign state before 1948. But they still lived there and were forced to leave. I also never said all Arabs are unhappy living in Israel, I just believe Palestinians would rather have their own state.
In the end, I’m glad that our short discussion ended without any bad accusations or “calling names”. I appreciate that both of you were being polite even though we mostly disagreed. I’m afraid you didn’t change my mind about the conflict – I insist both sides are being responsible for it. I’m aware that I probably didn’t change your mind either. However, I think it is always good to hear other peoples thoughts and perspectives, especially if they’re well-argumented.
Best regards,
E.
Eli,
I don’t have time to research and respond to most of your above points. However, I’ll respond to two of your points, which will illustrate my general attitude towards your claims:
(1) You say, “… Israel continues to exercise significant control over life in Gaza and controls Gaza’s borders …”. But Egypt exercises an equal amount of control over Gaza’s borders; Gaza has three borders (Israeli, Mediterranean, and Egyptian), and Israel can only control the first two. If Israel blocked the first two but Egypt did not block the third, then economic life in Gaza would be far more normal. So if you fail to criticize Egypt the same way you criticize Israel, then your criticisms are quite dubious, nay hopelessly biased.
(2) You say, ” Israeli settlements are illegal under international law. Got it?”. No, I don’t get it. According to international law, any territory seized in a defensive war belongs to the conqueror. According to international law, the West Bank is Israel’s. It is only antinomian Western double-standards that impugn Israel’s legal claim. I’m tempted to make some sort of reference to mysticism (I just read a lengthy summary of the Shabetai Tzvi messianic movement), but I’ll refrain.
Suffice it to say, my mother has noted that the nomenclature for the West Bank has changed over the years from “disputed territories” to “occupied territories”, with absolutely no change in anything geopolitical on the ground in the meantime. As Orwell so ably shows us in Nineteen-Eighty-Four, language is powerful, and so the world has changed the name of the West Bank, even though nothing has changed in reality, thereby changing people’s attitudes. As long as the West Bank was “disputed”, people were willing to openly discuss Israel’s settlements there, but now that the West Bank is “occupied”, it’s simply not open to discussion anymore. The world has decided – like the Ultra-Orthodox rabbis possessing the power of apodictic ex cathedra rulings and papal infallibility (“Daas Torah“) – that the West Bank has changed from “disputed” to “occupied”, and the world has forbidden the use of rational cognitive faculties or historical data to play a role in the discussion.
Mike’s brother and I watched the movie “1984” only last night. Apt reference.
eli, I’m sorry, but you repeat the leftist mantras over and over without really thinking. Why are b’Tselem and Goldstone so credible to you? Is it only because they bash Israel, and most people like to be on the popular side of a debate?
You say Israel doesn’t use napalm because of her concern about her image before the world. Do you realize how inconsistent you are? If that were true, then why would Israel use white phosphorus on civilians or indiscriminately shoot civilians? Those alleged actions don’t harm Israel’s image? You don’t make sense.
Eli:
The claim that “Jewish settlement of ‘The West Bank’ is against international law” is certainly widespread, and is believed by many (including Jews, as you point out), but that doesn’t mean that it is true! In many ways this is a classic “big lie” — say something loudly enough and often enough, and many people will believe it!
A nice treatment (with some historical background) of the legal argument of why Jewish resettlement is legal may be found at: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517224676&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull but here is summary of the legal argument showing why, under modern international law, Jewish resettlement of Judea and Samaria (i.e. “the West Bank”) is 100% legal:
In 1917 the Balfour Declaration established Mandatory Palestine (consisting of Modern-Day Israel and Jordan), “viewing with favor” Jewish resettlement of the land. In 1922, the League of Nations codified this into International Law (though not before splitting the mandate along the Jordan River Valley, and designating the area east of this valley “Transjordan” for Arab rule — this became the modern country of Jordan. As of this time international law supported Jewish resettlement of all the land west of the Jordan river valley.
In 1947, the UN (which had inherited the Mandate from the League of Nations) voted to partition this land into a Jewish State and an Arab state, but the Arabs rejected this proposal (and of course declared war on the nascent Jewish State), leaving the legal status of the Mandate still in force.
When the state of Israel was founded and recognized in 1948, its laws abrogated the Mandate within its recognized boundaries, but those parts of the Mandate outside of the 1948 borders were still legally operating under the Mandatory laws — i.e., favoring Jewish resettlement.
In 1948, concomitant with the founding of Israel, Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and the West bank, and destroyed all previously-existing Jewish life in the area, and denied any Jews the ability to visit, let alone live in the land. This was clearly in violation of both the armistice agreement and the international laws of the day, which were still the laws in effect from the Mandate, favoring Jewish resettlement.
In 1967, Israel liberated the territories in a defensive war. Initially she offered them “back” to the Arab states in return for a comprehensive peace, but the Arab states responded with “the three Nos:” No peace, No negotiation, No recognition. Note that the Mandatory pro-Jewish-resettlement laws at this point had still not been abrogated!
To this day, then, the operative international law over the territories would be the League of Nations Mandate favoring Jewish resettlement of the territories.
One might argue that as part of the Oslo accords, Israel (as the representative of the Jewish people) ceded the right of Jewish resettlement in what is now known as area “A”, but certainly not in areas “B” or “C.”
Now, of course, for many people modern international law isn’t the operative force. Judea and Sumeria were the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, and thus many Jews would not recognize the modern international laws as having any standing. Similarly, according to Sharia law, once any land has come under Muslim rule, it is eternally Muslim, and if non-Muslims have political autonomy it is an insult to their religion. Modern-day Israel certainly falls into this category, which is why, for example, Hamas et.al. refuse to recognize Jewish sovereignty over any part of Israel. (They also, by the way, have problems with Catholic sovereignty over Spain). But that is not the point of this comment — I am focusing on modern “International Law.”
[…] 17, 2009 by Shimshonit After my recent post about bleeding hearts, a lively debate took place in the comments section. A card-carrying bleeding heart stepped […]
Shimshonit,
I thought you’d like this piece by Rabbi Marc Angel: http://www.jewishideas.org/blog/anti-israel-propaganda-leads-war-not-peace
[…] that shed plenty of heat, but no light, on something as complex as the conflict here. I’ve written before that anyone who seeks to understand the Middle East would do well to read fact-filled, coolly […]
Shimshonit, you asked:
“…So why doesn’t the world’s liberal-minded populace still champion Israel? Because they cannot…”
And one your conclusions above was:
“…-Let your values be your guide. When judging other societies, take a look at what their core values are. If you value freedom, civil rights, tolerance, rule of law, and democracy, look at how the people you sympathize with view these same values. Do they share them? Do they embrace them? Do they treat each other and their neighboring societies the way you believe human beings ought to treat one another? And if they don’t share your core values, ask yourself why you support them…”
For me, you’ve answered(part of) the question yourself there.
Arab countries are dictatorships, westerners – let alone liberals – cannot identify with them. They do business with the Gulf states, mainly, and accept the political systems the arabs use to rule themselves, scynically. Israël was not only founded as a jewish state, but also as a democracy. Both these aspects of the Zionist enterprise resonated with western audiences in 1948 and in much of the 2 decades to follow. The jewish democratic state changed over the last 62 years, due to the effects of wars against it, a changing population(sfardi & mizrachi aliyah from North Africa and the Middle East, outnumbering the askenazi), so the political realities in the Knesset and the coalition governments that were formed changed since Avodah(and for a shorter time the Likud) lost the absolute majorities they once had. The fact that Zionism is about ‘settling the land’ was OK with western countries till 1967, but became problematic when it started to include teritories captured in ’67 – not the Golan so much because the Syrian regime is simply unpalatable to everyone, but the situation in Gaza & the West Bank where Palestinian nationalist movements blossemmed that resisted the Israëli control of those areas since then.
Like Zionism(jewish nationalism) was seen as the ‘underdog’ in 1948, the loyalties of the western world shifted to the new arab nationalist movements in the territories. But this sympathy is often misguided because these movements are not striving towards a democratic state. Arab nationalism doesn’t have a ‘modern’ agenda, though they take much trouble disguising that. It’s more religious and cultural conservatism with a semi-modern front.
At the same time Israël lost its status of ‘darling’ of the western world(and particularly among liberals) because the inspiration of the ideals of Zionism turned sour for them(for the Israëlis this is just a 2nd stage in the venture). Also the influence of the arab world grew due to the growing importance of oil. These 2 have basically made Israël less ‘popular’ because the ‘values’ that you mention that the west and Israël are supposed to have in common took different directions. In the west it went direction more equality, ‘human rights’ and peaceful relations, while in Israël the changing electorate put more value on nationalism, expansionism(settling the WB & Gaza) and defense/repression of resistance movements~a.k.a. terrorism. Only since september 11 2001 this attitude has again changed in the west and are Israël and the western world again more of the same view – on the importance of combating terrorism, but unfortunately not on the causes of it. This was also visible in the debate on ‘Linkage’ between the American intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq and its effects on the muslim world and the effect of the Israëli-arab conflict.
Israël has to ‘renew’ its antecedents as a western democracy, I feel, reconnect to the mainstream of thought in the west, if it wants a more sympathetic hearing. But Israël will have trouble doing that due to the electoral importance of secular nationalist and national-religious parties in the Knesset and the subsequent coalitions which include them. These don’t see any need to ‘reconnect’ or ‘renew’ their alliance with the secular post nationalist west. So a majority of Israëli voters don’t share the same ‘values’ with the west anymore, only partly and when it suits them. This is noticed in the west and leads to a certain alienation. That’s why Israël has so much trouble being on amicable ‘speaking terms’ with Europe, the US is moving in the same direction under Obama. Being a ‘pariah’ state is not necessary for Israël, but it seems its leaders don’t understand the motivations of western leaders in supporting the ‘peace process'(awful word). Northern Ireland is often used as a comparison. The west has suceeded there after along time to defuse the religious-nationalist conflict and manages it by economic and diplomatic means. That’s what it would also much prefer to do with Israël & the Palestinians. But this hasn’t worked so far – negotiations are again unproductive at the moment.
Does this make sense to you :-)?
Peter: I agree with many of the historical points you make. But I don’t think it’s Israel’s business to depart from its agenda in order to bring itself in line with Europe and the US thinking, especially on security. I recently read an interview with Tony Blair, who has been enjoying a second career as head of the Quartet. This is a man who as PM of the UK was responsible for a good deal of the UK’s attitude and actions towards Israel, and who admitted in this interview that it’s only since he’s spent so much time here for the Quartet that he has really understood the importance of security to Israelis. What does that say about the ability of the rest of the world’s leaders to “get” Israel? I congratulate the UK on finding a solution to the problem with Northern Ireland. But the Middle East is not Northern Ireland.
No, I maintain as I always have that anyone who hasn’t been here, toured the country, and really talked to people across the spectrum doesn’t have a clue what it’s like, or what is needed to establish peace.
Thank you for your comment, Shimshonit.
You write in your blog:
“…I have been grieved to see the European Union, the United Nations, and even many in the United States lose their moral compass. Whether the excuse lies in political correctness, a natural antipathy toward Jews (i.e. anti-Semitism), fear of their own growing Arab/Muslim populations, or a hope of winning those populations over to them through appeasement, I don’t know…”
I think it’s not so much these factors as it’s diverging interests between Israël and EU/UN/US, not so much moral values. Moral compasses don’t always point North, like physical ones :-). Some values change over time, others are foundational and principal to democracies.
Supporting Israël was natural for the west after the 2nd WW and during the Cold War. Gradually in the 1980’s but especially after 1989 – collapse of the USSR – many alliances between the west and other parts of the world – Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East – changed and had to be put a new footing. Globalisation took firm hold in the economy, political trends favoured the right(free market) over the left, the importance of oil producing countries(among them the Gulf nations, Iran) became more important, fundamentalism in all 3 of the monotheïstic religions grew, former colonies asserted their rights etc. which all required adaptations in relations between the west and these regions. This has been a slow and painful process because basically the west had to give ground in the aforementioned regions – for the US this meant loosing influence in Vietnam, Southern Africa, Chile, Iran.
Israël in the meantime felt comfortable under the new American ‘umbrella’ since 1967(a special relationship that didn’t exist before that time) and, unlike the 1st 20 years of its existence, made peace deals with Egypt & Jordan(lubricated by continued American financial support for all 3), but not with Lebanon, Syria and Fatah because these wouldn’t negotiate or it they did it would’ve involved refugees returning and the return of conquered territory(that unlike the Sinaï was deemed of strategic importance). At the same time Zionism’s nature changed by continued immigration of North African & Middle Eastern jews(religion became a force in politics) and the Israëli government and private groups started the settlement enterprise in the West Bank/Judea & Samaria & Gaza, against express demands of EU/UN/US. This made relations between Israël and the west less straightforward.
You write in your comment:
“…Tony Blair…admitted in this interview that it’s only since he’s spent so much time here for the Quartet that he has really understood the importance of security to Israelis. What does that say about the ability of the rest of the world’s leaders to “get” Israel?…”
Tony Blair – a disingenious politician in my view – tries to reassure Israëlis by making this statement, saying ‘I understand you'(as they say in Ivrit: ‘shlomelei’- believe me). It’s diplomatic language. As UK’s PM for 10 years he was intimately informed and aware of Israël’s position. But it’s not he only position that he has to take into account(unlike Israëli PM’s). If you mean by ‘get’ Israël ‘agree with’ Israël, that is wishfull thinking.
Israël is better placed than the PA/arab countries and negotiates better, makes better offers and takes credit for them when they’re unjustly rejected. Israël like the Quartet values freedom, civil rights, tolerance, rule of law, and democracy unlike some others. If Israël(or other democracies) acts in defiance or contradiction of these values it weakens its position in negotiations or in diplomatic relations with the western world.
Your dictum that “…anyone who hasn’t been here, toured the country, and really talked to people across the spectrum doesn’t have a clue what it’s like, or what is needed to establish peace…” has some merit(better and more up to date information), but the fact is that many people who do live/have lived/visited extensively in Israël still have diverging and contradictory views on what should happen, depending on their worldview/ideology. Your view and mine are only 2 of many and they’re not the most extreme at that – if it would be up to us(both jews) we’d probably have enough in common(I hope) to come to a compromise that would be acceptable(though not ‘sweet’) to both of us. Others can’t, or don’t even want to.
Both South Africa and Northern Ireland found solutions in democracy and equality. This could also be Israël’s approach, since it is one of its core values – next to Zionism/jewish state.
But this is a difficult proposition for secular-nationalist and religious-zionist parties for obvious reasons. A dilemma.