Regarding their rockets, amidst ours (Israel, Gaza, and the New Year)

(This was also posted on facebook for non-bloggy sorts; ignore or entertain at will.)

As a student of politics and a perennial news junkie, I spend a lot of time thinking about goings-on in the world around us, and subsequently harbor quite a few strong opinions, but Israel/Palestine is one issue I have never been able to wrap my mind around. Subsequently every time it nudges (or catapults) itself onto the world stage I find myself getting very upset, because should President-Elect Barack Obama telephone me tomorrow and ask my advice—an event I try to remain vigilantly prepared for—I fear I would not know what to say.

But because I’ve been thinking, and debating, and, yes, weeping, a bit about it recently, here is what I WOULD say, if anyone asked.

I can understand, first and foremost, where the Israelis are coming from. There’s an incredibly effective ADL campaign that comes to mind—a handout showing tiny Israel, in red, surrounded by some commentary about its being the greatest threat to the Middle East. Then, open it up, and the rest of the region emerges, ominously in gray. It’s a much-maligned little corner of the world, and if you speak with Israelis about it—not Zionist ideologues, but regular Israelis—you can perceive their fears of Arabs in their memories of some relative or other who was caught in or dangerously near a suicide bomb. This is why, for example, many desire stronger physical and military borders between the Israeli and Palestinian states—something many protest, fearing Palestinian difficulties crossing the border for employment, or, worse, urgent medical treatment. And they view themselves as facing an enemy whose refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Israeli state has been all but constant, whose allies engage in shockingly inflammatory (if sometimes exaggerated) threats, whose antisemitism and saber-rattling descends even into their elementary schools, and whose ability—or desire—to engage in dialogue or diplomacy is severely compromised—a perspective that is only legitimized by the political success of organizations like Hamas and the persistent barrage of rockets to which the state is subjected.

Of course, Joe (or perhaps Muhammad) Palestinian has a few more pressing concerns than the geopolitical eminence of his nearest neighbor. The desperate poverty of especially the West Bank is one of the world’s most overlooked tragedies, due in no small part to the general disinterest of the United States (and its Middle-Eastern ally). As many observers have noted, there are few environments more conducive to extremism than abject poverty, which is ripe for scapegoating (and legitimately-apportioned blame). When other actors, be they the UN, US, Israel, or even Europe, Palestine’s foul-weather friend, are too preoccupied to offer humanitarian aid, the actor who finally distributes food, security, infrastructure, and other amenities, will likely be lauded and elected, irrespective of political allegiance. Hence the seeds of Hamas’s eminence have in many respects been sown by their opponents. This does not dismiss the very legitimate Palestinian objections against Israelis who insist that their government seize the Golan Heights and other settlement areas so that they may keep their summer homes. Perhaps we ought even to stop to consider the foolish Balfour Declaration or its post-WWII follow-up, the grossly misinformed and irresponsible decision to establish the state of Israel in its present location. And then there is the very obvious and very tragic matter of the nearly 400 (and counting) Palestinians dead a week into this brewing horror.

Yet here lies the key to my biggest frustration with the Israel/Palestine conflict—the very notion that any one of the facts I have presented above, on either side of the issue, legitimates the radical extremism both espouse. I disagree fundamentally with Israel’s commitment to the all-out military offensive—it is disproportionate, violent, imbued with fundamental departure from the Jewish creed, and engenders the very sentiments it aims to eradicate. I would tentatively agree that it was very foolish for the powers that be to establish the Jewish state where they did, but we must remember that this was one of a great many incredibly foolish post-colonial border decisions made by those with neither the right nor the knowledge (although apparently the power) to appropriately make them. However, many decades into the concurrent tragedies, I’m hesitant to agree that all of these borders should be done away with. Things cannot so easily be undone. A Pan-African state? Perhaps. But—and perhaps this is the territory traversed by my Jewish heritage, impenetrable by simple argument—I have trouble imagining an easy rearrangement of power, I dislike the notion of subjecting “the Chosen People” to another ill-fated diaspora, I recall quietly their onetime origins in the place, and I shy away from accepting that fundamentalism-informed terrorism should be honored by the United Nations as a legitimate means of expressing political disapproval or engendering territorial change. But whether or not this argument strikes you as shaky, it is an argument deeply accepted by Israeli and American politicians alike—and therefore unlikely to be opposed in practice. Israel will go on existing or we will all cease to in its last-ditch attempts.

As I see it, Israel retaliated to its constant border barrage because of a) its legitimate fears, discussed above and b) its imminent elections. Had Olmert (and Livni) neglected to officiate this particular tragedy, incessant rocket-fire would have brought to power a politician with fewer qualms about force. Israel retaliated “disproportionately” because it desired to severely suppress Hamas’s resources and bring about a cease-fire that would be respected; Gaza casualties were high because it is a very densely populated area, no larger than the city I presently inhabit, but home to 1.5 million, living in tenements and similar wretchedness, and because Hamas purposefully secrets its military headquarters amidst civilian neighborhoods.

I don’t think that any of these factors excuse Israel’s violence. I think that its wealth, military prowess, spiritual undercurrents, and long-term security should persuade it to pursue pacifism. But I do feel that this retaliation is something any world power would pursue in similar circumstances and do not feel that Hamas’s behavior and incitement is acceptable.

Here’s a wild idea. Israel needs to fully evacuate and return any outstanding settlement regions—this should have been done long ago. If necessary, it could keep these new borders relatively secured; we all have an active interest in diminishing the occurrences of suicide bombing, for the carnage and fallout both. But if Israel does actively sequester itself, then it needs to make a few concessions. I think that it should offer scholarships to Palestinian medical students and fund the construction of hospitals in the West Bank, supplying much-needed medical facilities and jobs. I think that it should immediately cease material sanctions and permit (if not fund) material humanitarian aid in Palestine. I do not feel that it should undertake any of these initiatives as punishment but of its own volition, recognizing relevant security and human rights objectives. It seems nigh impossible to bludgeon a people into submission—perhaps instead we should begin by proving their propaganda wrong.

Maybe this wouldn’t work. Maybe antisemitism is so entrenched that there is nothing to be done about it; maybe this region of the world should be left to tear itself apart so that none of us might make our hands dirty compromising. Maybe Hamas will bomb any identifiably Israeli assistance; maybe Hamas will bomb forever onward. But Israelis are strong, defiant, and well-defended; they are also wealthy, powerful, and surrounded by (legitimate or otherwise) hatred on all sides. Perhaps they should see wisdom where presently they see weakness.