http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/28/israel-free-speech-middle-eastAsk Israel's harshest critics who live to condemn the country and you'll find Strenger is just excusing Israel's so-called "crimes", covering for the Rightwing government with this piece of propaganda. The Guardian's so-called liberals explicitly said that in the comments section. Note how Strenger cites Bernard Henri-Levy and Alain Finkielkraut at the end of the article? You'll never find Israel's harshest so-called liberal critics ever admitting to the anti-semitic nature of what passes for (irrational) demonization of Israel. In fact, all you hear is how Israel's "Rightwing" defenders label all criticism as antisemitism.
These sanctimonious charlatans simply cannot and are unwilling to relate to Israeli liberals. Another example is Amos Oz's 2009 interview with Johan Hari...
And yet, and yet... it seems that Oz has failed, at last, to hold himself to the high standards he has set. He initially supported Operation Cast Lead - the bombardment of Gaza that killed more than 1,400 people, 40 per cent of whom were children - even though he says he knows, from his own experience, that it will make the children of Gaza dream lunatic dreams of revenge. I ask him why. "Hamas fired some 10,000 rockets on southern Israel, where I live. And I don't think any country in the world would simply turn the other cheek to that. I don't think England would restrain if anybody showered Yorkshire with 10,000 rockets. So, an Israeli response was understandable and acceptable, in my view. The dimensions of the response, the disproportion of the response, is something which I severely criticise."
But use your own test - of seeing the other side; of empathising. Using the same logic, you can ask from the Palestinian perspective - what country could tolerate being violently occupied for 40 years, then having part of its territory blockaded and semi-starved, just to punish it for how it voted in a democratic election?
He uncharacteristically changes the subject, and tries to blame somebody else. "Well, I'll tell you something about this blockade. Gaza borders with Egypt. There was no reason why the Egyptians would not provide Gaza with whatever it needs. And there is very little reason for Israel to provide Gaza with what it needs. After all, Gaza is firing on Israel... If Egypt and the rest of the Arab world wanted to invest in Gaza and to rebuild Gaza and to raise the standard of living in Gaza, they could have done it." Yet Oz knows it is Israel that puts vast pressure on Egypt - especially through the US - not to do that. Israel's own security services said Hamas would extend the ceasefire if Israel agreed to ease the blockade. Wouldn't that have been better? Wouldn't fewer children now be dreaming of shooting rockets at Tel Aviv?
Oz - for the first time in our interview - seems unsure. "I don't know. I think we tried. If we tried hard enough, I don't know. I really don't know." He looks down, then away.
Then he says more confidently: "I think in the last days before the Israeli attack on Gaza, the firing of rockets increased to about 80 rockets a day. And our casualties, and our homes destroyed, and there was the suffering of close to one million Israelis who have to live in underground shelters. No government could tolerate this. No government could simply turn the other cheek."
But the Palestinian side was suffering even more horribly - using your logic, they, too, have a right to fight back and bomb. "I could understand and justify, and justified, a limited, proportionate, measured, cautiously targeted Israeli military response - not a full-scale war. You see... I said many times, and I'll say it again - I'm a peacenik, not a pacifist. Yes, the pacifists believe that the ultimate evil in the world is war. I believe that the ultimate evil is not war but aggression, and aggression sometimes has to be blocked by force. Hence the difference between a peacenik and a pacifist."
It is another wriggle. I'm not advocating pacifism - I'm saying this specific war was a bad idea. As if to soothe me, he says: "I think there should be a thorough judicial interrogation of the occurrences in the Gaza war. The Israeli judiciary is independent and bold and I think there should be a thorough, comprehensive interrogation." He then says that "in principle", Israel should negotiate with Hamas. "If Hamas is ready to talk to Israel, Israel should talk to Hamas right away. Absolutely. Absolutely. Of course, we need to. It's difficult to compromise with Hamas because Hamas maintains that there should be no Israel at all. Not even I can propose as a compromise that Israel exists Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. But the moment Hamas shows the slightest inclination to recognise Israel, I would talk to it - of course I would."
The he surprises me with a bold prediction. I ask: can you imagine Bibi Netanyahu shaking hands with the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on the White House lawn, with Obama smiling in-between? He beams. "Absolutely, yes. Absolutely, yes. Absolutely, yes." He adds: "Don't swear an oath about Netanyahu not delivering the two-state solution. So far, we have seen almost every right-wing Prime Minister making surprising concessions for peace. Begin over Sinai and the peace with Egypt; Sharon in evacuating the Gaza strip; Netanyahu himself over the Hebron concessions. So, I don't know. I cannot read his mind; I am sure he does not know yet what he is going to do. But it may well be that reality will be stronger than him, that he will sense the mood of the majority of the Israeli people and surprise us." He has met Netanyahu "a few times", and says: "Deep down below, he strikes me as an opportunist, and that's not necessarily a bad quality under the circumstances."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/israels-voice-of-reason-a_b_176724.htmlSame with David Grossman here...
Grossman: All my life I have tried to prevent the use of military power, but I also insist on Israel's right as a sovereign state to defend itself when attacked. It is strange that Israel is the only country that is immediately criticized when it retaliates after years of rocket terror.
SPIEGEL: Perhaps because the scope and strength of this reaction were disproportionate?
Grossman: The world denies our right to retaliate in principle. At the same time, the government in Jerusalem conducts a war which leads to many civilian victims. It is a tragedy that we believe we have to constantly decide between total pacifism and monstrous violence. My hope is that we shall find an adequate language for the complex situation between us and the Palestinians.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,641437-2,00.htmlIsrael's harshest critics who say they represent the Left reject Strenger, Levy, Finkielkraut, and Oz by misrepresenting their opinions as Rightwing. They use Oz, Grossman, Strenger, etc... to hammer away at Israel. Never to empathize with liberal Israelis.