By David Harris
Since writing “How can a liberal defend Israel?” last month, I’ve been deluged by comments.
Some have been supportive, others harshly critical. The latter warrant closer examination.
The harsh criticism falls into two basic categories.
One is over the top.
It ranges from denying Israel’s very right to nationhood, to ascribing to Israel responsibility for every global malady, to peddling vague, or not so vague, anti-Semitic tropes.
There’s no point in dwelling at length on card-carrying members of these schools of thought. They’re living on another planet.
Israel is a fact. That fact has been confirmed by the UN, which, in 1947, recommended the creation of a Jewish state. The UN admitted Israel to membership in 1949. The combination of ancient and modern links between Israel and the Jewish people is almost unprecedented in history. And Israel has contributed its share, and then some, to advancing humankind.
If there are those on a legitimacy kick, let them examine the credentials of some others in the region, created by Western mapmakers eager to protect their own interests and ensure friendly leaders in power.
Or let them consider the basis for legitimacy of many countries worldwide created by invasion, occupation, and conquest. Israel’s case beats them by a mile.
And if there are people out there who don’t like all Jews, frankly, it’s their problem, not mine. Are there Jewish scoundrels? You bet. Are there Christian, Muslim, atheist, and agnostic scoundrels? No shortage. But are all members of any such community by definition scoundrels? Only if you’re an out-and-out bigot.
The other group of harsh critics assails Israeli policies, but generally tries to stop short of overt anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism. But many of these relentless critics, at the slightest opportunity, robotically repeat claims about Israel that are factually incorrect.
There are a couple of methodological threads that run through their analysis.
The first is called confirmation bias. This is the habit of favoring information that confirms what you believe, whether it’s true or not, and ignoring the rest.
While Israel engages in a full-throttled debate on policies and strategies, rights and wrongs, do Israel’s fiercest critics do the same? Hardly.
Can the chorus of critics admit, for example, that the UN recommended the creation of two states — one Jewish, the other Arab — and that the Jews accepted the proposal, while the Arabs did not and launched a war?
Can they acknowledge that wars inevitably create refugee populations and lead to border adjustments in favor of the (attacked) victors?
Can they recognize that, when the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab hands until 1967, there was no move whatsoever toward Palestinian statehood?
Can they explain why Arafat launched a “second intifada” just as Israel and the U.S. were proposing a path-breaking two-state solution?
Or what the Hamas Charter says about the group’s goals?
Or what armed-to-the-teeth Hezbollah thinks of Israel’s right to exist?
Or how nuclear-weapons-aspiring Iran views Israel’s future?
Or why President Abbas rejected Prime Minister Olmert’s two-state plan, when the Palestinian chief negotiator himself admitted it would have given his side the equivalent of 100 percent of the West Bank?
Or why Palestinian leaders refuse to recognize the Western Wall or Rachel’s Tomb as Jewish sites, while demanding recognition of Muslim holy sites?
Or why Israel is expected to have an Arab minority, but a state of Palestine is not expected to have any Jewish minority?
Can they admit that, when Arab leaders are prepared to pursue peace with Israel rather than wage war, the results have been treaties, as the experiences of Egypt and Jordan show?
And can they own up to the fact that when it comes to liberal and democratic values in the region, no country comes remotely close to Israel, whatever its flaws, in protecting these rights?
Apropos, how many other countries in the Middle East — or beyond — would have tried and convicted an ex-president? This was the case, just last week, with Moshe Katsav, sending the message that no one is above the law — in a process, it should be noted, presided over by an Israeli Arab justice.
And if the harsh critics can’t acknowledge any of these points, what’s the explanation? Does their antipathy for Israel — and resultant confirmation bias — blind them to anything that might puncture their airtight thinking?
Then there is the other malady. It’s called reverse causality, or switching cause and effect.
Take the case of Gaza.
These critics focus only on Israel’s alleged actions against Gaza, as if they were the cause of the problem. In reality, they are the opposite — the effect.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it gave local residents their first chance in history — I repeat, in history — to govern themselves.
Neighboring Israel had only one concern — security. It wanted to ensure that whatever emerged in Gaza would not endanger Israelis. In fact, the more prosperous, stable, and peaceful Gaza became, the better for everyone. Tragically, Israel’s worst fears were realized. Rather than focus on Gaza’s construction, its leaders — Hamas since 2007 — preferred to contemplate Israel’s destruction. Missiles and mortars came raining down on southern Israel. Israel’s critics, though, were silent. Only when Israel could no longer tolerate the terror did the critics awaken — to focus on Israel’s reaction, not Gaza’s provocative action.
Yet, what would any other nation have done in Israel’s position?
Just imagine terrorists in power in British Columbia — and Washington State’s cities and towns being the regular targets of deadly projectiles. How long would it take for the U.S. to go in and try to put a stop to the terror attacks, and what kind of force would be used?
Or consider the security barrier.
It didn’t exist for nearly 40 years. Then it was built by Israel in response to a wave of deadly attacks originating in the West Bank, with well over 1,000 Israeli fatalities (more than 40,000 Americans in proportional terms). Even so, Israel made clear that such barriers cannot only be erected, but also moved and ultimately dismantled.
Yet the outcry of Israel’s critics began not when Israelis were being killed in pizzerias, at Passover Seders, and on buses, but only when the barrier went up.
Another case of reverse causality — ignoring the cause entirely and focusing only on the effect, as if it were a stand-alone issue disconnected from anything else.
So, again, in answer to the question of my erstwhile British colleague, “How can you defend Israel?” I respond: Proudly.
In doing so, I am defending a liberal, democratic, and peace-seeking nation in a rough-and-tumble neighborhood, where liberalism, democracy, and peace are in woefully short supply.
Laura,
I did not say that all liberals were evil. I did say they were dishonest about what their objectives are and even more dishonest about the results they achieve. It is patently idiotic for anyone to believe that governing elites know what is good for everyone else, which is the essence of political liberalism.
Nancy Pelosi is a great example. She said today that the Democrats had focused on deficit reduction and “pay as you go” legislation during the last two years. No one in the liberal media picked up on this brazen lie. Imam Obama lied about the economy he inherited and his role in the economy he inherited. He has lied about Obamacare because he would be tarred and feathered if he told the truth about how this would destroy the American health care system. In 2008 he lied about his anti-Semitic indoctrination as well as being a post-partisan and post-racial President.
Calling themselves “progressives” is yet another lie. Bringing everyone down towards the least common denominator is hardly progressive, is it?
With all due respect, “social liberal and fiscal conservative” sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. For example, it is spending on social programs that has bankrupted every country that has tried socialism, which is the predecessor of political liberalism.
Why would any Jew buy into Palestinian propaganda? The liberals seem to be completely ignorant about the history of the refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish atate – or they do not seem to care about what this means. Alan Dershowitz showed how liberals think when he said he voted for Obama because he was convinced he was a strong supporter of Israel and would encourage more liberals to support Israel. How can any sane person come up with such a conclusion knowing Obama’s background?
Israel and Jews in general have done a terrible job of publicizing the Arab hostility and intransigence. The refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state and the Hamas Charter that calls for the elimination of Israel are not even part of the dialog about the middle-east whereas it should be the centerpiece and known to everyone. Thus they blame Israel for its reaction to Palestinian attacks instead of blaming the Palestinians who are really to blame.
As a moderate Democrat who is socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I get tired of the label-bashing. The idea that all liberals are evil idiots is just as ridiculous as saying that all conservatives are idealogues and extremists. Extremists are generally objectionable because they are, simply put, too extreme, but mostly because they are completely intolerant. Our modern society has come to equate tolerance with moral weakness or a lack of moral conviction, and it is not only sad that we have become so “unintellectual” that we can’t sanely discuss conflicting ideas, it is dangerous.
How can anyone that knows the facts and is capable of independent thought really not support Israel’s right to exist? My answer to that question is that you can’t criticize Israel if you know the facts (although that is not to say that Israel has never made mistakes or acted imperfectly). The reason this so-called “liberal” anti-Israeli view is so prevalent today is a testament to the Muslim political activists and groups that have successfully advertised their new, revised version of Palestinian history. That facts are irrelevant here when it comes to public perception.
What the public perceives as true (believes) is their realtiy. And the Islamic terrorists and political activists know this and use this against Israel and all of Western culture. The sad fact is that our collective intellectual laziness and the extreme dialogue in our political discourse has opted for manipulating and controlling us rather than informing and serving us. And it spills over to every part of our lives, our belief systems and our view of the world.
If Israel is to get the kind of support it deserves in this not-so-brave new world, it must learn how to spread propaganda better than Hamas and CARE, etc. It is not enough to say it should not be this way. Let me say it for us all: IT SHOULD NOT BE THIS WAY. But the sad fact is that it is this way and is not likely to change until we find ourselves completely powerless and victimized by those who wish to use intimidation, fear and terror to subjugate us.
My question would be, how can any honest person with more than half a brain who is not an anti-Semitic bigot, NOT defend Israel?
The answer is that most liberals are not honest people. They need to lie about everything they believe in as well as the results they achieve. They need to try and fool people by calling themselves “progressives”, whereas the results they produce are regressive and destructive. They are the successors of Marxism/socialism, the most idiotic philosophy ever devised because it holds that a small number of elites can know what is good for everyone else better than they do. This is why it has failed wherever it has been tried, even in the old Soviet Union and China which were willing to force everyone to live under its oppressive precepts – but it still failed.
David Harris is an exception because he has honestly looked at the facts, not in gauzy and delusional Biblical terms, but in terms of the real world.
However, the David Harris’ of this world do have a conflict – with radical Jews as well as with radical Palestinians, both of whom want a one state solution, one with yarmulkes the other with hijabs and niqabs.
In my opinion, a one state solution can only be achieved with a decisive war in which one side surrenders and the other side prevails with their version of the one state solution.