The most frustrating thing about being a liberal critic of Israel these days is the fact that the generally fractious people of the Jewish state are more or less united behind their government as it attempts to defend the country against terrorist assaults from Hamas. This consensus is rooted in the knowledge that neither the Islamist-controlled enclave in Gaza nor the supposedly more moderate Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has the faintest interest in peace. Left without any peace partners, Israelis understand their nation’s only choice is to do what it must to lessen the peril from rocket attacks while preparing for even greater threats such as that of a nuclear Iran.
The need to take a realistic approach to an intractable problem is merely common sense, but it still grates on Israel’s critics who still prefer to blame the victim rather than the aggressors. A classic example of such thinking was found in the form of an op-ed masquerading as a news analysis on the front page of the New York Times yesterday. Writing by former Times Jerusalem Bureau chief Ethan Bronner, the piece took as its premise that Israel was stuck in an outmoded mindset that refused to take into account the changing circumstances of the Middle East. Instead of realizing that the rise of a new wave of Islamist sentiment in the wake of the Arab Spring meant they should be more accommodating, Bronner wrote that the foolish Israelis are simply doubling down on their old tactics of being “tough” with the Arabs.
As Bronner writes:
What is striking in listening to the Israelis discuss their predicament is how similar the debate sounds to so many previous ones, despite the changed geopolitical circumstances. In most minds here, the changes do not demand a new strategy, simply a redoubled old one.
But what Bronner fails to comprehend is that the changes in the Arab world are exactly why Israel’s policies are correct.
At the heart of this critique is a belief that Israelis don’t care about peace. This is ridiculous since, even now, it is probable that a comfortable majority could be found for even the most far-reaching land-for-peace deal with the Palestinians if it could be reasonably asserted that such a treaty would actually end the conflict rather than merely continue on terms that are less advantageous for the Jewish state. Unfortunately, that is all the Oslo peace process turned out to be. Both the collapse of Oslo in the terror of the second intifada and the transformation of Gaza after Israel’s complete withdrawal from that territory in 2005 into a missile launching pad has convinced the overwhelming majority of Israelis that peace is not possible in the foreseeable future.
That leaves them with no choice but to hang tough until a sea change in the political culture of Palestinians enables them to produce a leadership that might dare to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders are drawn.
That angers deluded observers who cling to the idea that the only real obstacles to peace are those created by Israeli policies. But unless you believe, as one Arab academic quoted in Bronner’s piece asserts, that Israel’s creation was a “crime” that must be rectified for there to be peace, the only rational response to Hamas attacks is a periodic effort to “cut the grass” that will make it harder for the terrorists to kill more Jews.
Taken out of the context of Arab intransigence and a fanatical Islamist determination to continue the conflict until Israel is weakened and ultimately destroyed, talk of “cutting the grass” in Gaza seems cynical and hard-hearted. That depiction dovetails with a mindset that views Israelis as military aggressors and out of touch with their neighbors. But it is Bronner’s piece that is detached from reality, not the Israeli grass cutters.
Israel tried repeatedly to make peace in the last 20 years, but only a tiny minority in the country has failed to comprehend that all they accomplished was to trade land for terror and to empower Hamas in the process. The decision of Turkey to abandon its alliance with Israel in pursuit of pan-Islamic glory and the transformation of Egypt from cold peace partner to active ally of Hamas (as well as the tacit acceptance of these developments by the United States) has rendered talk of more concessions even more absurd.
Most Israelis understand the choice facing their country is not between holding onto territory or settlements and peace. It is between death and survival in a war with Palestinian Islamists that has no end in sight. That is a reality that Israel’s liberal critics at the Times and elsewhere haven’t yet come to terms with.
welcome to reality, jonathan !! Hopefully some of your colleagues on this website will share your opnion!
I haven't read the Bronner piece, but it sounds like he's parroting Thomas Friedman's talking points.
Perhaps Ethan Bronner should run for a Knesset position, and give Israelis the direct benefit of his judgement and perspective, honed over a few short years of left of center liberal arts education and many more years of anti-Israel animus, of varying degrees of subtlety. n nI would love to be able to say that no one of note reads him, but, on the other hand, Obama did just get reelected. The NYTIMES therefore remains the paper of record of the party in power. n nAt least Israelis don;t take him seriously. n nIf Israel followed all the supposedly well meaning advice she got over the years from these 'friends', there would be no Israel. n nNo doubt there would be plenty of memorials to the Israel that once was, and her people who are no more. These same asses would have insisted on them. n n n
If you ever feel the need to wonder what the NYT thinks about Israel or any Jews who don't live on the upper east side of Manhattan, just go to the source and pick up a copy of Al Ahram. It's available in English and it not particularly hardline by Arab or Egyptian standards. It's the Arabs NYT for people who only want to exterminate some of the Jews but not all of them. I swear if you put the NYT and Al Ahram side by side you can't tell the difference.
The heart of Jonathan's claim is found within the idea that it is ridiculous that Israel doesn't want peace because "it is probable" that a majority of Israeli's would be willing to take a less advantageous borders for Israel for prospects of a long-term cease fire. Probable? The basis of his analysis is nothing more than a probable assertion on some sitcom version of reality. Probable based in which universe? In the universe that saw 17000 massacred in the 1980's at the hands of Israel? The only thing unique in this article is its startling ignorance that is sits in a long line of PR ahistorical claims that seeks to establish the simple binary of defense versus attack. Israel is legitimate because it "defends" and Palestine is wrong because it "attacks". This simple opposition is nothing more than an iteration of divine right mandate that is easily deconstructed by a review of ALL of available evidence–especially the excluded evidence from the transcendental purity of Israel's claim of divine right
I can recall when Shimon Peres, at the time the second to Yitzak Rabin, stated, "You can only make peace with your enemies". Meaning, of course, that making peace was so powerful and important that you had to do everything in your power to make peace. No liberal, before or since, has learned one vital truth of existence; that being, your enemies want you dead. Then they don't have to waste any time talking with you. Peace at any price is not peace; it is suicide. I am an Israeli; I served in the IDF during the 80's and 90's, and all 3 of my sons serve now. One of them is even now standing by in the south, waiting for orders to move into Gaza. "Gentle people can sleep safe in their beds at night only because hard men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Here's another for the leftists to consider: " Who loves peace prepares for war."
"… Israel’s creation was a “crime” …" is exactly what the left believes, and why they see Hamas as 'freedom fighters'. n nHow many comment threads do you want to read to believe this is what they think? n nWhy do you think Glenn Greenwald is in today's UK Guardian? nThey really believe Israel is a failed "experiment".
The same reason Greenwald is at the Guardian at all. He's an anarcho totalitarian with Nazi sympathies. At least according to his own admissions he is.
So, the question is, have Israelis sobered up and accepted the reality? Or, will a brief military engagement with a few enemy civilian casualties bring about maudlin hopes for peace and a readiness to "take risks for peace" as its done so often? Can one hope for a new generation of realists? "Hope" is not a particularly good word these days.
Take it from me, an Israeli who's been around the block and back: There will NEVER be peace between the Philistines and the Children of Israel…._If that sounds biblical it's because the palestinians vexed, VEXED, the Israelis for 200 years, from the time of Joshua to the time of Solomon when they disappeared from the annals of the Jewish State!_Vexed