|
Say you're on a bowling team called "The Ducks," and one of your friends on the team has a drinking problem. Call him "Joe." If Joe asks you to buy him a drink, and you do, does that make you "pro-Joe"? And "pro-Duck"? And if you don't buy him a drink, does that make you "anti-Joe"? Does it make you "a self-hating Duck"?
Those are the questions I have to ask when I see how routinely people seem to misconstrue what I'm saying when I criticize Israel's self-destructive policies against the Palestinian people which have gone on for decades now, leading only deeper into dead ends, denial and despair.
Just to make things perfectly clear, I'd like to call attention to the positions of J Street, the newly formed organization that describes itself as "the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement." J Street has a section on its website, devoted to FAQs on the recent violence in Gaza. The answers they provide there are, I think, far more rational, positive, and objectively pro-Israel than anything you will here from the chest-thumping crowd.
Although I might express myself somewhat differently, and come at some things from a different angle, there is not one thing in J Streets FAQ that I read that I would hesitate to defend. They do an excellent job of demonstrating what a real pro-Israel position looks like. I'd like to underscore a few highlights on the flip.
|
| First, let's look at the question, Was Israel justified in attacking Hamas?.
Remember what I said: "Although I might express myself somewhat differently, and come at some things from a different angle, there is not one thing in J Streets FAQ that I read that I would hesitate to defend." This is certaintly true in this case. My natural response is not to express myself as J Street does here, but there is nothing it says that I wouldn't defend:
Israel has the right and obligation to defend its citizens from short and long-term threats, such as rocket attacks - including taking military action designed to address the specific threat.
The more relevant question is whether Israel's attack on Hamas will accomplish its security goals. Retaliation is inevitable, though we don't know how far the violence will spread or how many more Israelis and Palestinians will die and suffer in the days and weeks to come. We think escalating the conflict will prove counter-productive and only deepen the cycle of violence in the region. This attack will deepen animosity between the Palestinian and Israeli people. It will further damage the international standing of both Israel and the United States. It will ignite further anger across the Middle East, further challenging the governments of allied Arab regimes. All of this damages long-term prospects for peace and stability for Israel and the region.
This is all so obvious that it shouldn't need to be stated. But obviously it does need to be stated, because that's the essence of the problem here: people have grown so incensed, so consumed in the cycle of violence and revenge that they've lost touch with the most basic truths. Of course a country has the right to defend it's people. But of course thinking only of this right, and nothing else, will lead only to disaster, and will not actually defend anyone at all, but only further endanger them.
"The only true security, the only lasting security is common security," that is how I would put it. And that's perfectly consistent with what J Street is saying here.
The next question is a good deal more comlicated: Are Israel's goals in attacking Hamas militarily achievable?. J Street's answer begins:
The most clearly articulated Israeli goal is to stop the rocket attacks on southern Israel. Other goals likely include weakening Palestinian support for Hamas, restoring Israel's deterrent power and destroying Hamas altogether. While a measured military response was always an option, the degree of escalation currently being pursued will almost inevitably prove counterproductive in achieving these goals
It then goes into a detailed discussion that could easily consumer a whole series of diaries to delve into. But the bottom line argument here is clear: there is very little reason to think that any of these goals are militarily acheivable. This is just like the neocon response to 9/11: doing more and more of the wrong thing is not going to acheive your goals.
Next is a guestion that's vitally important, because it highlights the sorts of opportunities that the dominant discourse has blinded us to:
"What could Israel have done instead?". Here is what J Street says:
Israel could have spent the 4-5 months of calm under the June ceasefire [the ceasefire was 6 months but began to unravel in November, even so throughout the six months there were no Israeli casualties] working, with international support, to deepen the ceasefire. Of course Israel had to plan to defend itself and build its military and was rightly concerned that Hamas was strengthening its own capacity. One important component of the June deal was that Israel would ease the blockade on Gaza. This, however, never happened, and the humanitarian situation in Gaza was allowed to deteriorate. Had Israel eased the blockade, it would have created deeper incentives for Hamas and the Palestinian people to renew the ceasefire, giving civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that they had more to lose in a military confrontation.
Israel would have benefited from encouraging more effective mediation channels to Hamas through others, like Turkey and Qatar, instead of relying exclusively on Egypt. Similarly, Israel could have sought greater external pressure from Egypt and the United States to stop weapons from entering Gaza, particularly through the tunnels, while simultaneously improving defense systems and shelters in the south. More regularly opening crossings into and out of the Strip would have decreased the tunnel phenomenon, which currently benefits and strengthens Hamas and hurts civilians the most.
At the same time, Israel could have been working to improve conditions on the ground in the West Bank, including halting settlement expansion and easing check point restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement. These steps would have shown the Palestinian people the benefits of working for peaceful change through diplomacy.
How is this anything else but another expression of simple common sense? How is this "self-hating?" How is it even "ideological"? This is what pragmatism looks like, folks!
There's much more contained in J Street's FAQs on Gaza, and much else on their website besides that as well. If one wants to find a different way, a more productive way to deal with resolving the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it can be done. It's not rocket science. But you have to want to do it.
Yes, it's difficult making peace with your enemies. But the kicker is, they're the only ones you can make peace with. And making peace with them--making them, eventually, over time, into friends--is the only reliable way there is, or ever has been, to destroy enemies.
Don't buy Joe that drink. He will thank you, some day. The sooner you say "no" to him, the sooner that day will come. |
STATE BLOGS
