|
...and I don't think I'm all that unusual. I doubt many (if, indeed, any) who criticize Israeli policies would wish the state of Israel to cease to exist. And even if some did, the reality is that Israel isn't going anywhere. With it's drastically-superior military capability, I cannot imagine a scenario, now or in the future, where the very existence of Israel could be seriously threatened, no more than the U.S. could be driven out of existence by al-Qaeda.
Given that, I find it a dishonest bit of rhetoric to suggest that those like myself who criticize Israel's actions are "anti-Semitic" or "want to see Israel driven into the sea." To me, it's no different from conservatives who insist that to criticize the Bush administration is to "hate America" or "want to see the terrorists win." By making that either/or distinction ("either you support Bush 100% or you're an America-hater" or "either you support Israel's government 100% or you want to see the Jews exterminated") is a false dichotomy and an attempt to bully one's opponent.
Much like Joshua Micah Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo, I want to see a just solution in the Middle East, which includes both a secure Israel and a viable Palestine with a dividing line as close as possible to the "Green Line" -- not to mention a rebuilt and democratic Lebanon. And, as a corollary, each side free of influence by the "all-or-nothing" extremists.
However, I'm of the opinion that "if you want peace, work for justice" -- and that the track record proves me right. When there has been genuine hope of a solution to the problem, as in the early days of the Oslo process (up until Netanyahu's election), the route of violence was shunned by the majority of Palestinians; when that hope was blotted out, armed revolt (in the name of Islam or not) became much more popular. Therefore, I disagree with the notion (which seems to be the prevalent sentiment both in Israel and among its supporters here) that first all extremism must be stamped out, and "then we can talk" about a settlement. From my experience, all that approach does is breed more extremism, and make a final resolution all the more far off.
I suppose a legitimate retort might be, then, if I am against both Israeli expansionism and Arab/Muslim extremism, why do I frequently criticize one and far less frequently the other? For me, this is because of several reasons:
-- Opposition to violent Islamism is so obvious that it scarcely needs to be mentioned. Am I required, every time I criticize Bush, to issue an "equal time" denunciation of al-Qaeda? I doubt that there are many on the left (although plenty on the right) who would make such a demand.
-- Similarly, opposition to violent Islamism is by far the "conventional wisdom" in the U.S., while said conventional wisdom is strongly in favor of Israel's existence (and, indeed, in its right to "defend itself" by any means it deems necessary). I fail to see any need to ratify the conventional wisdom any time I want to say something that might contradict it. To assert that the 2000 election was stolen shouldn't require me to first issue a disclaimer that the vast majority of elections in this country were run fairly.
-- There's a serious disproportion to the threats involved. I won't claim that Hezbollah or Hamas aren't a threat to Israelis, but on a relatively small scale. However, the difference in death-dealing power between a cadre of suicide bombers, or even a few hundred Katushya rockets, and the massive arsenal of Israeli weaponry is so far out of balance it hardly needs mentioning, as the body count of civilians in Lebanon vis-a-vis Israel makes clear. As I see it, Israel has all the advantage in an armed conflict; therefore, in my opinion, it also has the primary responsibility to wield that power with wisdom and restraint -- something I don't see it doing at this time.
-- Finally, the fact remains that Israel is a recipient of massive U.S. aid. Hamas and Hezbollah, to put it mildly, are not. That means that I am at least partially responsible for the use Israel makes of that aid. Like it or not, I helped pay for the bombs that killed the women and children in Qana, and the four U.N. observers, and destroyed Beirut airport, and caused the worst oil spill since the Exxon Valdez. Since I'm partly, although unintentionally, responsible for all these acts, it is my intentional responsibility to speak out against them. Had the U.S. been a donor to Hezbollah, or even to Iran, I would feel an equal responsibility to speak out against that use of my tax dollars. But that isn't the case, and never will be.
But one should never take criticism of the Israeli government's policies, or sympathy for the civilians of Palestine or Lebanon, as evidence that I "hate Jews" (for the record, I'm half-Jewish myself) or "want Israel wiped out." I want Israel to exist in security in a just peace. For that matter, I want the U.S. to take its rightful place in a world ruled by international law, and do the works of justice both at home and abroad. That doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to speak out when I see the leaders of either country acting contrary to those goals.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
