![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 1st, 2010 09:48 amI think I'm finally ready to comment on the Israel/Palestine situation. Because something finally clicked into place for me, something deep enough that now I feel like saying to myself, "Thanks, Captain Obvious," though it is not something that is ever talked about and therefore seems to be the invisible elephant in the room.
The historical perspective is shunned in American discourse. Maybe it's a consequence of not having much of our own, I don't know. But the relevant historical perspective here is this: 3,400 years of history in which Jewish people have not been allowed to live in peace by any of their neighbors. There are times and places where there have been exceptions but all have proven without exception to be temporary. The figure that puts this in perspective for me is the estimate by writer James Carroll that the Jewish population of the world today would be 200 million, instead of 13.5 million, if not for all of the wars and persecutions that have occurred since the Roman-Jewish war 1,870 years ago.
So when you add that history to the history of aggression against the modern state of Israel, it is not perhaps completely outlandish to conclude that Israel will never have peace, so it can at least ensure its own survival and security. From this perspective, peace overtures and alliances are doomed to ultimate failure, and so are only a means to buy time. From this perspective, international public relations are irrelevant; it doesn't matter what the world thinks of their retaliations against Hamas in Gaza, or their building of settlements in the West Bank, or their raid this weekend on a flotilla in the Mediterranean, because they believe whether or not they act peacefully, inevitably the world will turn to condemnation and war.
There's a chilling, unassailable logic at work here. You cannot prove to someone who believes this way that it could well be a self-fulfilling prophesy. If peace talks fail, it only seems to prove the point. If allies criticize and withdraw, it is not seen as an indication that they should change their strategy; it looks like proof they are right.
Another dimension to this perspective is the conclusion that even if what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is wrong, it is justifiable on the grounds that it buys future generations of Jews in Israel a better chance at survival. Frankly... I find that last sentence heartbreaking. But I think it is the heart which drives policies which any of us should objectively find revolting. I hope the people who do them are as revolted when they consider their own acts, but I think I can begin to understand where they are coming from if they cannot see an alternative. I don't know how the rest of the world can say, in a way that will get through, "Yes, we're as aware of all the history as you are, but really, trust us; stop this and there will be peace."
The one thing that undermines this perspective is that not all Jews agree with it. The argument that Jews who disagree with the Israeli strategy are "self-loathing" only goes so far, especially when for example among the activists in the Gaza aid flotilla is a Jewish holocaust survivor. In a prominent recent article in the New York Review of Books, Peter Beinart wrote:
Beinart goes on to argue that the liberal plank of the American Jewish community has proven more willing to distance itself from Israel than from leftist critics of Israeli policy.
I don't really have an answer to this. There is no nation of the world which does not have blood on its hands; how therefore can any nation assure Israel that if they stand down from their hard line, there will never be another holocaust or even another invasion? In the meantime, what is the toll of their hard line stance on their humanity?
The historical perspective is shunned in American discourse. Maybe it's a consequence of not having much of our own, I don't know. But the relevant historical perspective here is this: 3,400 years of history in which Jewish people have not been allowed to live in peace by any of their neighbors. There are times and places where there have been exceptions but all have proven without exception to be temporary. The figure that puts this in perspective for me is the estimate by writer James Carroll that the Jewish population of the world today would be 200 million, instead of 13.5 million, if not for all of the wars and persecutions that have occurred since the Roman-Jewish war 1,870 years ago.
So when you add that history to the history of aggression against the modern state of Israel, it is not perhaps completely outlandish to conclude that Israel will never have peace, so it can at least ensure its own survival and security. From this perspective, peace overtures and alliances are doomed to ultimate failure, and so are only a means to buy time. From this perspective, international public relations are irrelevant; it doesn't matter what the world thinks of their retaliations against Hamas in Gaza, or their building of settlements in the West Bank, or their raid this weekend on a flotilla in the Mediterranean, because they believe whether or not they act peacefully, inevitably the world will turn to condemnation and war.
There's a chilling, unassailable logic at work here. You cannot prove to someone who believes this way that it could well be a self-fulfilling prophesy. If peace talks fail, it only seems to prove the point. If allies criticize and withdraw, it is not seen as an indication that they should change their strategy; it looks like proof they are right.
Another dimension to this perspective is the conclusion that even if what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza is wrong, it is justifiable on the grounds that it buys future generations of Jews in Israel a better chance at survival. Frankly... I find that last sentence heartbreaking. But I think it is the heart which drives policies which any of us should objectively find revolting. I hope the people who do them are as revolted when they consider their own acts, but I think I can begin to understand where they are coming from if they cannot see an alternative. I don't know how the rest of the world can say, in a way that will get through, "Yes, we're as aware of all the history as you are, but really, trust us; stop this and there will be peace."
The one thing that undermines this perspective is that not all Jews agree with it. The argument that Jews who disagree with the Israeli strategy are "self-loathing" only goes so far, especially when for example among the activists in the Gaza aid flotilla is a Jewish holocaust survivor. In a prominent recent article in the New York Review of Books, Peter Beinart wrote:
In 2003, several prominent Jewish philanthropists hired Republican pollster Frank Luntz to explain why American Jewish college students were not more vigorously rebutting campus criticism of Israel. In response, he unwittingly produced the most damning indictment of the organized American Jewish community that I have ever seen.
The philanthropists wanted to know what Jewish students thought about Israel. Luntz found that they mostly didn’t. “Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and connection to Israel,” he reported. “Six times the topic of Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six times these Jewish youth used the word ‘they‘ rather than ‘us‘ to describe the situation.”
Beinart goes on to argue that the liberal plank of the American Jewish community has proven more willing to distance itself from Israel than from leftist critics of Israeli policy.
I don't really have an answer to this. There is no nation of the world which does not have blood on its hands; how therefore can any nation assure Israel that if they stand down from their hard line, there will never be another holocaust or even another invasion? In the meantime, what is the toll of their hard line stance on their humanity?
