A few points to bear in mind on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
Today my Synagogue had, as a guest, a Presbyterian Minister who came by to explain how it came to pass that the Presbyterians have decided to divest from corporations invested in Israel. It was not a position with which he himself agreed, and he has been getting quite an education as he has been talking about it. It seems his purpose to get them to rethink their position, and his church is not considering any divestiture itself.
The discussion brought to light a number issues I think both Jews and Liberals/Liberal Christians need to consider when talking about the troubles in that part of the world. Here are a few points.
1) Non-Jews often ask why it is nearly impossible to criticize Israel without being accused of anti-semitism. There are a few answers to this.
a) Israel is unique in being a Jewish state. One does not hear talk of Christian states or Islamic states. The reason is that there are many countries that are Islamic or Christian. One can condemn one Christian or Islamic country without condemning them all. With only one Jewish country, to condemn it is to condemn them all.
b) Israel was established in the wake of the Holocaust. Its foundational narrative as a modern state is inextricably bound up with the greatest manifestation of anti-semitism the world had seen (not that the sentiment hadn't been there, but Hitler's adoption of Henry Ford's methodologies made the process of killing Jews more efficient than it ever had been before). To constrain its ability to defend itself connotes a wish to see it gone because
c) since its establishment, Israel has been engaged in a fight for its very life. It was established in the midst of states with powerful armies, none of which wished to see it survive. Iran, Hussein's Iraq, Syria, and many other Arab states have made it clear that they would prefer not to have Jews in the region at all. Skirmishes since 1948 make this clear, and it is made even clearer by the gathering of Arab armies around Israel in 1967 - the conflict from which the occupation came. Israel was attacked again on Yom Kippur, 1973, by nations that do not dispute its border, but rather its very existence.
d) It has happened on many occasions, of which the Holocaust is only the most egregious example, that it has become impossible for Jews to continue living wherever they happened to be. The promise of a Jewish state is that Jews who find themselves in such a position have a safety net. If Israel's Arab neighbors should ever succeed in their goal of eliminating Israel, that safety net is gone. It is this that makes every Jew's relationship to the state of Israel deeply personal. If Israel were not there, we would be condemned to suffer at the hands of whoever found us inconvenient, as has happened so many times before.
These are the reasons that anti-zionism and anti-semitism are so inextricably linked. I am laying them out here because many liberals tend to forget this when they think about the troubles over there.
2) Liberals have a tendency to side with the underdog, whoever it happens to be. Also Christian modalities tend to be gnostic in nature, describing the world in terms of good and evil. In the 1967 and 1973 wars, it was clear that Israel - a state the size of New Jersey, surrounded by large hostile states - was the underdog. The intifada has been very successful in tightening the focus so that what the world sees is the Israelis dealing harshly with the Palestinians. This makes the Palestinians seem the underdogs. But the truth is that the goal of the Intifada is the goal the Arab states have held all along: the destruction of Israel. Those who contemplate divestiture need to consider: just as the M16’s, Apache Helicopters, and Caterpillar bulldozers employed by the IDF come from the US, so the AK47’s, Dynamite belts, and Rocket Launchers employed by the Palestinians do not spontaneously appear ex nihilo in Gaza. They are coming from someplace, and that someplace is an Arab world which, after the Yom Kippur war, came to understand that if it ganged up on Israel with armies, it would be seen as the oppressor. Any discussion of divestiture to promote peace in the region that fails to address the Palestinian supply lines implements a double standard. See (b) and (c) above for why this is problematic.
A note for Jews: the wish to be able to divide any given conflict into a paradigm of Good vs. Evil is entrenched in Christian modalities of thought. It has its foundations in gnosticism and was exacerbated further by Augustine who spent years studying with the Manichaeans before converting to Christianity and laying down foundations for Christianity that even the most iconoclastic of protestant denominations have been unable to slough off. This modality is such a part of American culture that even Atheists and "fallen away" Christians hold with it. It permeates American mythologies from the earliest writing of Puritan settlers to the Star Wars series and Reality TV.
3) The Barrier.
Not nuch to say on this really. Where it exists, incidents of suicide bombings are greatly diminished. Where it does not exist, suicide bombings continue to occur. The Israeli supreme court altered its route, determining that the Sharon Government’s planned route imposed undue hardship for the Palestinians. One would be hard pressed, I think, to find another government in the region whose courts would find against a leader for the benefit of a group that has been problematic. The International Criminal Court’s ruling that the barrier is illegal is nothing more than a demand that Israel strip naked before its enemies. Weighing the "hardship" it causes Palestinian against the lives that have been lost to suicide bombings, I think saving lives wins out.
4) Controversial Actions.
The Bulldozing of Palestinian homes is an unacceptable policy, which draws justified condemnation. The most fundamental problem with it is that it punishes people who did not commit the crime, and is, on that ground, patently unjust. The second problem, a corollary to 1.(a) above, is that when the Jewish State acts unjustly it becomes a basis for hostility to Jews even outside Israel.
The Assassinations of Yassin and Rantisi: These are both men who publicly proclaimed the destruction of Israel as goals, and were doing all that they could to effect those goals through their organization, Hamas. This makes them legitimate military targets. As for violating the Geneva convention, if one values one’s life, one does not restrict oneself to the Marquess of Queensbury rules against an opponent who hits below the belt with brass knuckles.
Conclusion:
The view that Israel is the obstacle on the road to peace in the middle-east stems from two fallacies. The first is that the occupation is the issue. The occupation is a consequence of the 1967 war and the intifada is the continued waging of that very same war. The Palestinians are being offered up as human sacrifices by Arab states that understand that direct engagement grants Israel moral capital. This is, for them, a war fought by proxy. Ariel Sharon has done much to play into their hands, sacrificing moral capital readily. Israel could probably readily regain moral capital by refraining from retaliatory attacks. The notion that every attack must be receive a tenfold punishment has failed to improve the situation. Yet, the political reality is that no leader of government, anywhere in the world, would be able to continue governing if he let such things slide.
The second is that the belief that the territories are the scope. While the territories is where the battles are being waged, the supply lines to the territories reach into the Arab world and even into parts of Europe. Although the point of contact has become more tightly focussed, it remains the case that by supplying and even inciting the intifada, the Arab world continues to gang up on Israel. Reprehensibly, however, they demand that the Palestinians alone wage the war for them.
A desire by Israel to solve the conflict is insufficient. Even a desire by the Palestinians to resolve the conflict is insufficient. Until the Arab world drops its entrenched anti-semitism and acknowledges Israel’s right to exist peacefully within its borders, there will always be an intifada. To exert pressure on Israel without exerting pressure on Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world is to ignore the realities on the ground. It is also to say that it is all the fault of the Jews, and this is why such pressure is perceived as anti-semitic; it is not even-handed.
And now, a cartoon from David Horsey that puts it all far more succinctly than I have done with all my words:
The discussion brought to light a number issues I think both Jews and Liberals/Liberal Christians need to consider when talking about the troubles in that part of the world. Here are a few points.
1) Non-Jews often ask why it is nearly impossible to criticize Israel without being accused of anti-semitism. There are a few answers to this.
a) Israel is unique in being a Jewish state. One does not hear talk of Christian states or Islamic states. The reason is that there are many countries that are Islamic or Christian. One can condemn one Christian or Islamic country without condemning them all. With only one Jewish country, to condemn it is to condemn them all.
b) Israel was established in the wake of the Holocaust. Its foundational narrative as a modern state is inextricably bound up with the greatest manifestation of anti-semitism the world had seen (not that the sentiment hadn't been there, but Hitler's adoption of Henry Ford's methodologies made the process of killing Jews more efficient than it ever had been before). To constrain its ability to defend itself connotes a wish to see it gone because
c) since its establishment, Israel has been engaged in a fight for its very life. It was established in the midst of states with powerful armies, none of which wished to see it survive. Iran, Hussein's Iraq, Syria, and many other Arab states have made it clear that they would prefer not to have Jews in the region at all. Skirmishes since 1948 make this clear, and it is made even clearer by the gathering of Arab armies around Israel in 1967 - the conflict from which the occupation came. Israel was attacked again on Yom Kippur, 1973, by nations that do not dispute its border, but rather its very existence.
d) It has happened on many occasions, of which the Holocaust is only the most egregious example, that it has become impossible for Jews to continue living wherever they happened to be. The promise of a Jewish state is that Jews who find themselves in such a position have a safety net. If Israel's Arab neighbors should ever succeed in their goal of eliminating Israel, that safety net is gone. It is this that makes every Jew's relationship to the state of Israel deeply personal. If Israel were not there, we would be condemned to suffer at the hands of whoever found us inconvenient, as has happened so many times before.
These are the reasons that anti-zionism and anti-semitism are so inextricably linked. I am laying them out here because many liberals tend to forget this when they think about the troubles over there.
2) Liberals have a tendency to side with the underdog, whoever it happens to be. Also Christian modalities tend to be gnostic in nature, describing the world in terms of good and evil. In the 1967 and 1973 wars, it was clear that Israel - a state the size of New Jersey, surrounded by large hostile states - was the underdog. The intifada has been very successful in tightening the focus so that what the world sees is the Israelis dealing harshly with the Palestinians. This makes the Palestinians seem the underdogs. But the truth is that the goal of the Intifada is the goal the Arab states have held all along: the destruction of Israel. Those who contemplate divestiture need to consider: just as the M16’s, Apache Helicopters, and Caterpillar bulldozers employed by the IDF come from the US, so the AK47’s, Dynamite belts, and Rocket Launchers employed by the Palestinians do not spontaneously appear ex nihilo in Gaza. They are coming from someplace, and that someplace is an Arab world which, after the Yom Kippur war, came to understand that if it ganged up on Israel with armies, it would be seen as the oppressor. Any discussion of divestiture to promote peace in the region that fails to address the Palestinian supply lines implements a double standard. See (b) and (c) above for why this is problematic.
A note for Jews: the wish to be able to divide any given conflict into a paradigm of Good vs. Evil is entrenched in Christian modalities of thought. It has its foundations in gnosticism and was exacerbated further by Augustine who spent years studying with the Manichaeans before converting to Christianity and laying down foundations for Christianity that even the most iconoclastic of protestant denominations have been unable to slough off. This modality is such a part of American culture that even Atheists and "fallen away" Christians hold with it. It permeates American mythologies from the earliest writing of Puritan settlers to the Star Wars series and Reality TV.
3) The Barrier.
Not nuch to say on this really. Where it exists, incidents of suicide bombings are greatly diminished. Where it does not exist, suicide bombings continue to occur. The Israeli supreme court altered its route, determining that the Sharon Government’s planned route imposed undue hardship for the Palestinians. One would be hard pressed, I think, to find another government in the region whose courts would find against a leader for the benefit of a group that has been problematic. The International Criminal Court’s ruling that the barrier is illegal is nothing more than a demand that Israel strip naked before its enemies. Weighing the "hardship" it causes Palestinian against the lives that have been lost to suicide bombings, I think saving lives wins out.
4) Controversial Actions.
The Bulldozing of Palestinian homes is an unacceptable policy, which draws justified condemnation. The most fundamental problem with it is that it punishes people who did not commit the crime, and is, on that ground, patently unjust. The second problem, a corollary to 1.(a) above, is that when the Jewish State acts unjustly it becomes a basis for hostility to Jews even outside Israel.
The Assassinations of Yassin and Rantisi: These are both men who publicly proclaimed the destruction of Israel as goals, and were doing all that they could to effect those goals through their organization, Hamas. This makes them legitimate military targets. As for violating the Geneva convention, if one values one’s life, one does not restrict oneself to the Marquess of Queensbury rules against an opponent who hits below the belt with brass knuckles.
Conclusion:
The view that Israel is the obstacle on the road to peace in the middle-east stems from two fallacies. The first is that the occupation is the issue. The occupation is a consequence of the 1967 war and the intifada is the continued waging of that very same war. The Palestinians are being offered up as human sacrifices by Arab states that understand that direct engagement grants Israel moral capital. This is, for them, a war fought by proxy. Ariel Sharon has done much to play into their hands, sacrificing moral capital readily. Israel could probably readily regain moral capital by refraining from retaliatory attacks. The notion that every attack must be receive a tenfold punishment has failed to improve the situation. Yet, the political reality is that no leader of government, anywhere in the world, would be able to continue governing if he let such things slide.
The second is that the belief that the territories are the scope. While the territories is where the battles are being waged, the supply lines to the territories reach into the Arab world and even into parts of Europe. Although the point of contact has become more tightly focussed, it remains the case that by supplying and even inciting the intifada, the Arab world continues to gang up on Israel. Reprehensibly, however, they demand that the Palestinians alone wage the war for them.
A desire by Israel to solve the conflict is insufficient. Even a desire by the Palestinians to resolve the conflict is insufficient. Until the Arab world drops its entrenched anti-semitism and acknowledges Israel’s right to exist peacefully within its borders, there will always be an intifada. To exert pressure on Israel without exerting pressure on Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world is to ignore the realities on the ground. It is also to say that it is all the fault of the Jews, and this is why such pressure is perceived as anti-semitic; it is not even-handed.
And now, a cartoon from David Horsey that puts it all far more succinctly than I have done with all my words: