Good entry from a blog that's new to me, Heretic's Almanac, found via Imshin:
Israel and Hyde
From what I can tell, nearly all Israelis are sick and tired of dealing with the Palestinians. The doves would like to see more efforts and reconciliation and less military action; the hawks would like to end talk of any unilateral steps that concede anything at all, but it's a dwindling group of people who think co-existence is particularly viable.
And so the debate on the incursion into Rafiah is a little different from before. Israelis shrug off international criticism with a sneer, having long since come to the conclusion that Israel's security is of no concern to Europe, the UN, and even the US. People are upset and a little ashamed about non-combatant casualties but readily point out that these people were put in harms' way by their Palestinian brothers. They cringe when they see homes get demolished, but they have little doubt these houses were terminals for smuggling weapons, drugs, and prostitutes.
Israeli fatigue is tempered by the fact that terrorist attacks have decreased considerably, and by the apparent success of the IDF in finding and destroying important terrorist targets in Gaza. There's a growing acceptance that Israeli military deaths, Palestinian "collateral" damage and property destruction, and (predictable) international condemnation is the cost Israelis must pay to stay safe.
This is nothing to get morally self-righteous about, and I get the sense that the long-standing Israeli ambivalence is deepening. What will it take, they wonder, to end this impasse peacefully? What must Israel give up to satisfy the Palestinians?
My sense is that an increasing proportion of Israelis believe that the only way to stop Palestinian terrorism is for Israel to cease existing, that the Jewish state simply capitulate and let itself be overrun.
There are plenty of vocal leftists who dispute this premise. They claim that Palestinians only want a just settlement, that they accept Israel's right to exist, and that terrorism is only a direct result of Israeli occupation and oppression. In other words, it is all in Israel's hands: show good faith and give up enough, and the Palestinians will come around.
Other Israelis are not trying to be hyperbolic when they point out that such appeasement could be catastrophic. Why, they ask, would the Palestinians settle for anything less than a complete victory, i.e., the eradication of Israel?
On the other hand, Daniel Pipes believes that the Arab-Israeli war will only end when the Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular realize they have been roundly defeated and request (rather than try to dictate) terms of peace, and yes, coexistence.
There is little appetite among Israelis for the most radical solution to this problem: "transfer," which is to say that Israelis forcibly evacuate all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, dropping them off in Egypt, Jordan, and elsewhere. They're generally against it because they a) are doubtful it will bring an end to hostilities and could expand it; and b) don't want to be part of such "ethnic cleansing."
But the issue is no longer whether Israel must do distasteful, regretable things to keep its citizens safe. The issue is only how far it is morally justifiable and strategically effective to go.
I'm getting to my point, which is this:
If it continues to be necessary for Israel to employ means that Israelis find shameful and morally unacceptable and that attract universal condemnation; if Israel finds that the moral fabric of its society disintegrates as a result; - will there ever be a point when Israel will face an existentialist dilemma: Will it only be possible to survive as a repressive, brutal regime? Is it better to give up rather than become a monster?
I've asked this question before only to have it dismissed. Israel will not, I have been told, give up. Israelis will do whatever is necessary to ensure their country's survival. Collective suicide is not an option, and it's not as if Israelis have anywhere else to go.
But if Israelis aren't ready to give up, they are asking themselves the question: What is this conflict turning us into? And they're worried about the answer.
Much of the blame lies with external parties. Europe and the U.S. have in particular demonstrated an astonishing double standard to the conflict, characterized by unreasonably high expectations of Israeli conduct and unreasonably low expectations of Palestinians.
This subversive effect of this double standard is hard to underestimate. It gives Israelis every reason to discount any criticism directed at them; and it encourages bad behavior among Palestinians.
vyer.typepad.com |
