Thoughts on Israel

Many people have asked me about my experience in Israel, which coincided with the recent conflict in Gaza. With the election results upon us, I thought I might take a moment to describe my perspective on the myriad viewpoints I encountered:
The children’s memorial at the Israeli national holocaust museum consists of a dark tunnel that leads into a man-made cavern where the walls appear to be constructed out of windows. Inside each window is a single candle, flickering. The soft flames are reflected in the layers of shimmering glass. Gazing in any direction, one has the perception of seeing thousands of candles scattered into the distance. It is not unlike the feeling of lying in a field and gazing at the night sky, endless stars stretching out toward the horizon. The tunnel opens up again on a hillside that overlooks the city limits of Jerusalem, perhaps contrasting a vision of hope for the modern state against the tragic circumstances of its beginnings. The memorial’s layout is telling of the mentality many Israelis have concerning the birth of their nation and its continuing struggle for survival. Although Israelis are infamous for holding conflicting opinions simultaneously, “If you have two Jews in one room then you have at least four opinions,” I did encounter many similarities during my recent 10-day birthright trip to the country.
Before leaving I sat glued to the television in my Grandmother’s house in New Jersey, watching the situation in Gaza escalate. I felt conflicted, on the one-hand I was outraged the so many civilians were being killed in an operation whose origin I barely understood. I was also terrified of going to visit a war-torn land during the height of an international crisis. On the other hand, I was interested in seeing how military actions affected the greater Israeli population, and decided that if citizens there could daily live with the threat of suicide bombers, I would probably be alright during my brief stay. In the end curiosity won; my sister and I decided to ignore the pleas of our family to think of our safety and set out to experience Zion with a group themed “Peace, pluralism and social justice.” My goal was to enter with an open mind, with the hope of learning historical context that could elucidate current events.
Once in the country, I found it challenging to keep abreast of developments in Gaza for two reasons: our exceptionally busy schedule, and my extraordinarily poor Hebrew language skills. If I had never known of the circumstances, my observations of daily life not have revealed any signs of it. Things appeared to continue normally in the northern and central parts of the country. Although we did get word that rockets has been fired from Lebanon a few miles from where we were staying one night, and a city we had visited was targeted a few days after our excursion. Had we been in Be’er Sheva, however, daily rocket attacks would have served as a reminder of the raging air and ground war. The Israeli students who accompanied the trip had been dismissed from their university due to the aerial attacks; homes, pubs and schools were damaged in their neighborhoods. Of course, contrasted with the scale of the operation in Gaza, such losses were minimal.
Nearly every Israeli I spoke with supported the operation and was worried about the troops. They repeatedly highlight the fact that their troops act ethically, they do not use women and children for shields, do not occupy schools and fire from within. Yet in order to carry out the mission, they are forced by the actions of those they are fighting (Hamas) to target civilian areas because their enemy utilizes them for safe cover. Everyone regretted civilian causalities but many thought that based on the manner in which Hamas operated they were often unavoidable. I have seen videos of Hamas fighters training children to use weapons and grabbing children for use as shields. Former Israeli military officers told stories of having Hamas fire through women, wounding and killing Israeli soldiers who were unwilling to fire at a civilian. (I should say that I did not have the opportunity to speak with any Palestinians during my trip, nor any Arab-Israelis, so inevitably the perspective I relay is biased. Nonetheless, I do think it represents the mindset of the majority of Israelis.) Hamas is viewed as a terrorist organization that spends more time training its population for warfare than it does supplying necessary goods and services. Israel has had a cease-fire agreement with Hamas and the Gaza territory, however southern Israeli cities have sustained rocket attacks nearly daily for the past eight years. The rationale for the recent attack is that a unilateral ceasefire is unsustainable and is not tolerable if Israeli citizens are forced to live in constant fear of rocket fire.
This is not the say that the grievances within the Gazan population are not valid. Nearly 80% of the population is unemployed since the borders into Israel have been closed. Medical provisions and food were already short supply prior to the operation. I often heard Israelis comment about the ability of Hamas to import rockets through their network of tunnels, but their inability to bring supplies to the population. Israel views Gaza as a burden, won from Egypt during the 1967 war, it contains the largest percentage of the Palestinian population in the annexed territories during the war. Israel has created infrastructure throughout the small region (much of which was just destroyed). They view themselves as pouring millions of dollars into the region and question why the Arab world does not do the same. Some Israelis voiced the concern that it is somehow politically expedient to allow the Palestinian populations in Gaza and the West Bank to suffer because it assists in achieving the goal of eliminating Israel and/or utilizing Israeli actions to fuel calls for jihad. The Palestinian diaspora is dispersed throughout Jordan, the United States, Australia, Europe, and other nations within the Middle East. Israelis often question why money doesn’t get funneled back to enrich Palestinian communities (I am sure that some does even if it is not acknowledged).
The view that Israel is an occupying army is one that also sparks much contention. It is only since the end of World War I that that majority of countries within the middle east region gained autonomy as unique political entities. Egypt was the last, ceasing to be a British protectorate in 1952. Palestine was created after WWI by the British and promised to the Jewish people quickly thereafter due to the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Europe during the 1930s. The area had been previously ruled by the Ottoman empire. The borders of British Palestine included present-day Jordan and Israel. However, the Hashemites emigrated from Africa during WWI and after WWII were granted monarchial rule of the newly formed Jordan by UN mandate. This action effectively gave away 70% of the land originally promised to Jews. The Hashimites were and are the minority within Jordan, Palestinians make up the majority of the population. Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1951. It was eventually re-annexed by Israel in the 1967 war (international law would not consider such action an occupation, however a former Israeli Prime Minister referred to the territories as occupied once and the concept has not only stuck, but has been reinforced by Israeli military and political action) The argument in Israel goes: Palestinians have not been under self-rule for hundreds of years, if ever. Additionally, Palestinians have a state that is not currently democratic but that should belong to them: Jordan. Israelis ask: Why doesn’t the international community pressure Jordan to support Palestinians and grant them more rights within the state? Many Jews were thrown from their homes and forced to leave their countries when Israel was internationally recognized as a state in 1948. Should Jews from Lebanon, Syria or Iran be allowed to return to their countries if Palestinians who were forced to leave or left on their own accord are allowed to reclaim their homes within Israel? Is there a double standard being enforced by global communities due to Israeli’s relative wealth and power?
The above questions tie into another concern I heard voiced often: Is Israel being scapegoated for a situation that it did not create? The original two-state system proposed once British Palestine was dissolved broke the portion for Palestinians into three disconnected segments. It also gave Israel and 11-mile strip of coastline. Based on the rhetoric of the day, that Israel “ should be driven into the sea,” such borders were seen as a threat to the longevity and security of the state. Golda Meyer viewed the borders as a death sentence similar to that signified by concentration camps- quite a poignant comparison. Can Britain be held responsible for irresponsible partition of the original state (much like the continuing mess left by the partition of India and Pakistan?). Can historical perspectives be utilized during discussion on the news about current crises involving Palestine and Israel? British media, particularly the BBC, is incredibly skewed toward the Palestinian perspective- for example their online brief history of Israel does not contain a single picture of an Israeli civilian or soldier, but contains many photos of Palestinians effected by Israeli military actions. Should it be re-named the history of Palestine?
In a different vein— A central question in this discussion is: can a Jewish democratic state be equitable to all its citizens who are of different religions? There are many Arab-Muslim-Israelis, however, despite their ability to vote, many are viewed (and rightly so) as discriminated against. Israel is currently the only democracy in the Middle East (besides Iraq, which is debatable, though less so since the most recent elections there), but is it a fair one? Is it still necessary in this world to have a Jewish state that grants protection to any Jews suffering from persecution? Is anti-Semitism a thing of the past? What would a non-secular state of Israel look like? Is the idea of a birth-right still valid? Is Israel central to Jewish identify? What is modern Jewish identity? These are a sampling of some of the questions that constantly tug at the collective Israeli psyche.
The current elections also grant insight into Israeli mindset. The fighting in Gaza seems to have made the right more staunch in their defense of the rights of the state to defend itself, where as the left feels like no party adequately represents their sentiments. If Tzipi Livni “wins” and is able to form a functional coalition government, it will still be dominated by right-wing nationalist factions because Israeli parliament is a representative democracy with multiple parties. It validates my sense of Israel- that it is a very centrist country forced to balance strong conflicting factions. None of the candidates for Prime Minister would have likely changed the country’s course, as all were engaged in and supportive of the Gaza conflict.
Many of my peers in my birthright group expressed concern the Israeli military actions appeared to arise from a place of fear- fear with origins in the pogroms and the holocaust, fear of being persecuted and annihilated. The state was founded due to a desire to never again be discriminated against or killed because of Jewish identity. These origins beg the question: Does Israel have a right to defend it borders against perceived threats? If so, at what scale?
The Israelis I spoke with believe that peace with Palestinians is possible, however they also believe that it won’t emerge for at least 10-50 years. However, they are not sure that peace with a militant group such as Hamas is possible. Based on how you look at it, luckily, or unfortunately, Palestinian politics is currently divided- Fatah controls the West Bank, and Hamas, Gaza. Israelis believe that strong leadership on the Palestinian side committed to non-violent means of gaining statehood, and willing to compromise, will be the most likely way to broker a peace agreement. They site the peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan and Syria as models. “Nobody 30 years ago thought that we could ever achieve peace with any of these countries, but now we have it. Peace with Lebanon and Palestine is possible.” To achieve lasting peace and security, Israelis are willing to concede territory, such as to Golan heights, back to Syria. The majority of the population supports the “two-state solution” based on pre-1967 borders. Such actions make Israeli borders more vulnerable and less defensible, however the viewpoint is that if they can broker real peace based on recognition of their right to exist, narrow borders are preferable. The majority support eliminating Jewish settlements in the West bank. Most dream of a time when the wall will no longer be needed to discourage suicide bombings like those that occurred during the second intifada. It is encouraging to hear that they do not believe that the current situation is permanent and unsolvable. Yet they also concede that compromise is essential, for neither side can receive 100% of their goals, but together they can forge an agreement that brings both closer to a better situation. They blame Arafat for his inability to compromise at Camp David for the continuing situation. They see Palestinian leadership over the past fifty years and inflexible, uncompromising, weak, and therefore incredibly ineffective as governors or brokers of peace.
Many people in the US and around the world seem to be pegging their hopes on the Obama administration. I asked whether Israelis were as excited and hopeful. One commented that she would have voted for McCain because she believes that his strong militaristic stance would best provide support for Israeli security. Others wanted to wait and see if Obama’s rhetoric matches his actions. They did not expect that his efforts would be capable of quelling the situation.
So what does the future hold? I did not gain any insight into the answer to this question, however, I think that if the situation is portrayed in a historical light that does not show either side as black and white, but rather as a whole spectrum of colors and opinions, it may help the Israelis and Palestinians, and the world, begin to find areas of commonalities to build upon. It is a complex situation indeed, but nonetheless, there are many lessons to be learned from the tumultuous and continual unfolding negotiations.
After spending a few days in the country (which, by the way, is ecologically gorgeous), I do not believe all hope is gone for “peace in the middle east.” But I do believe the road ahead will be long and challenging—much as any path toward a worthy reward often is.