- Former Israeli general and prime minister Ehud Barak, 1986
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/
This is one of the most candid, reasoned assessments of Israel's security paradox from a former Israeli major who is now at the Kennedy School. And he doesn't blame anything on the Palestinians, even when justifiable arguments exist. He maturely realizes that Israel is ultimately in control of, and responsible for, its actions and destiny, and any attempt to blame others for "forcing their hand" into bloody mistakes is an insult to their homeland, people, and values. As previous emails have touched on, there is no logic in using violence to defend oneself, when those acts of violence ultimately compromise future security (and one's social/moral values). If you are truly committed to ridding the world of terrorists, WMDs, and murderous fanatics, you cannot use that cause as pretext for becoming the very thing you're fighting against.
We recently discussed how the Israeli public as a whole has soured on the peace process, and would rather maintain the status quo of apartheid. During the first Lebanon war in 1982, Israeli-backed Christian militias slaughtered hundreds of Palestinian refugees. A crowd the size of 10% of Israeli's population gathered in Tel Aviv to protest Israel's indirect responsibility for the atrocity. A generation later during the 2008-9 Gaza war, only a few dozen Israelis protested similar killings of Palestinian civilians - this time directly by Israeli hands (and not accidental in some cases). Possibly in the 1980's, criticism of Israel's government/military was not automatically equated with anti-Semitism and betrayal of heritage, as it may be today thanks to provocateurs like Alan Dershowitz. Despite much past suffering, those Israelis who took to the streets in 1982 understood that true patriotism is not blind support, but rather diligent scrutiny to ensure that their country met the social and moral obligations of a righteous nation. But current Israelis mostly criticized the Lebanon/Gaza wars and the recent bloody aid flotilla raid because they were not resounding victories like the Six Day War. They were upset that their government wet the bed, not that they killed innocents in unnecessary conflicts.
The number of Palestinians killed over five years of the first Intifada equals the number killed in the Gaza war in just 22 days. The intensity of violence is increasing, yet the number of internal Israeli investigations of Palestinian civilian deaths has decreased. The Israeli public generally accepts this because their quality of life has improved, yet more Palestinians are starving and dying. Israeli deaths are way down after the erection of the security walls and Hamas/Hizbullah's ceasefire of rocket attacks. And all the while, their government has become more right wing, and provocative settlement and enforcement activity in the West Bank show no signs of abating. I suppose the government and public believe that such measures are necessary to counter the growing threats of terror groups and a near-nuclear Iran, but international condemnation of their draconian methods makes it harder to build consensus for punitive action on Iran and supporters of anti-Israel terrorism. Though all that has nothing to do with millions of unarmed Palestinians living in squalor and oppression. I'm not saying it's an easy fix, but why can't they make a better effort to decouple the humanitarian consequences from their security strategy?
Israel was created after WWII as a homeland and safe haven for Jews. Yet since then, more Jews have died in Israel than the rest of the world combined. Sadly, more Jews would be alive and thriving today had Israel never been created. So has Zionism been a failure? I am sure that Israelis would counter that finally having a homeland was worth the sacrifice, and look at all they have accomplished (with massive Western aid and diplomatic support). But is ethnocentric pride clouding rational judgment? A successful Jew would still be free to succeed in most other corners of the industrialized world. Though a Jew is less safe in his homeland than in nations that were formerly affiliated with Nazi Germany, or even in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Jews aren't dying in the Holy Land because their neighbors wish to exterminate them for who they are. They're dying because they refuse to give up or even fairly share land that others want, or used to legally reside in. So really it makes no sense for politicians and the media to conflate anti-Semitism with territorial power and politics.
This should be obvious but I'll state it anyway: I think Jews should have a safe, independent homeland that reflects some of their ancestral territory. I also wish the same for every other landless minority group, but not at the price of endless conflict, regional instability, and displacing others (especially those who never even remotely contributed to the suffering of that minority group). Israel is here to stay, that is the reality. But military strength and propaganda are not enough to guarantee its future. Success and survival depend on sharing and cooperating with neighbors, not subjugating and murdering them. South Africa, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, and maybe even Sudan have all shown signs of progress towards peace and reconciliation from ostensibly intractable, complex, and delicate situations. It's their choice.
Now if only Helen Thomas could have articulated something like that instead of, "They should go back where they came from".
No comments:
Post a Comment