The situation as I see it

I looked back over my blog (I accidentally typed "blob," which might be more apropos), I noticed that by far the most read post is the one entitled, "Ancient Stones." I don't know what to make of this, but I suspect this might be explained by an exhaustion among my friends and family with endless discussions of Israel in the political realm, particularly the conflict with the Palestinians and Arab world; and a greater interest in it as the Holy Land - thus, my trip is a proxy for those who desire and imagine what it must be like to visit the Terra Sancta.

People often try to relate to my field of study in terms of Israel and its place eschatologically - meaning, how and where the great tribulations that we see described in prophecy will play out in relation to Israel. I don't think I became interested in Israel for that reason, although I think its centrality in so many religious paradigms, including end of days prophecies, is a huge factor in that. But frankly, I get tired of people asking about that. I especially get tired of people who think, based on their thorough study of scripture and modern prophetic utterings, that they know how and when it is all going to go down, and then go about insisting on their correct interpretation. Modern prophets have made it clear that even they don't know. (Check out this great talk by Elder Holland that gives me a great deal of peace and perspective on the matter.)

No, I simply want to talk about Israel as it is, as I experience it, as I see it. That's what this blog is about, anyway.

Of course, then the question becomes, what do I see? What don't I see? (Right now, I must admit, I write this as I gaze out on the Mediterranean Sea, the waves coming peacefully in as if nothing major is going on. Last night I looked out upon thousands of beach-goers, continuing on with their lives despite the threat. That is the reality of Israel's existence.)

The situation right now brings up the ghosts of Israeli-Palestinian conflicts past. I have to clarify, however, that the hostilities with Gaza are not really directly related to the recent protests of Arab Israelis throughout Israel, except to say that this all ties back to the three kidnapped and murdered Israeli (settler) teens. In response to that, Israeli security forces arrested hundreds of Palestinians, sometimes ransacking homes, even destroying homes of known Hamas leaders.

I inquired as to why the IDF (Israel Defense Force) destroys homes of terrorist leaders. They are very careful to let the local residents know in advance that they will carry this act out, whether they hit it with missiles, or do it manually with explosives. Thus, rarely are there any human casualties, so that Israel can try to remain in the good graces of the watchful eye of international as well as national opinion, and simply because, contrary to what is often reported, Israel is very concerned about preserving life. (Although, in reality, the videos of homes being taken out does very little to make Israel look good.) So, if the terrorist often just walks away to another house, why take the time and risk of criticism to destroy it? One reason is that the home is often full of terrorist materials - rockets, guns, explosives, etc. Another is that it does, Israeli believes, send a warning message. I think the effectiveness of that message is certainly questionable, but that is not my call to make.

Since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000, Israel has come under heavy international criticism for how it has handled the waves of Palestinian violence. The police have been criticized for being excessively forceful, and with this series of riots, reports are that, although they are again too forceful for Israeli Arab liking (not unexpected), they are much more restrained. Suicide bombs were the greatest implement of terror just 14 years ago. The bombers were impossible to distinguish from peaceful Arab Israeli citizens (which is a reality that has very negatively impacted Jewish relations with their Arab neighbors in Israel - hence, much of the current riots), and the consequent terror nearly ground the Israeli economy to a halt. They no longer hired Arab workers; Israelis were frightened of riding buses, so movement throughout the country was decreased; they were likewise hesitant to go out at all, as cafes and public places were favorite bomb sites.

But Israeli security forces noticed that no suicide bombers were coming from Gaza. How could this be? Gazans hated Israel at least as much as Palestinians in the West Bank. The simple answer was, Israel had created a security fence around Gaza, and it was working. At first the proposal for a fence separating Israel and the West Bank was rejected by then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. It would be an expensive and long project, and would undoubtedly be seen as an attempt by Israel to establish a border to be used in peace negotiations. Likewise, Sharon was a right-winger and supported the settlements. He knew that a fence couldn't include them all behind safe lines, and he didn't want them exposed to greater violence. But as the death tolls mounted, he acquiesced, the wall was built, and suicide bombings have essentially ceased.

100 cases went to the Israeli Supreme Court about the legality of the security fence. In most of the cases, the Supreme Court caused the government to change the route of the fence in order to avoid demolishing any homes. In that regard, it is also a success story. However, the International Court of Justice declared the fence illegal. Israeli leadership asked why? Hadn't the court often ruled that states have the right to defend themselves against this kind of enemy? The reason that was given was that the court was not convinced of a military necessity, which is the fundamental requirement. Why isn't it a military necessity? Doesn't the death toll by suicide bombers provide convincing evidence of the necessity? The answer to that was that Israel's enemy was not a state, and therefore could not be considered a threat significant enough to justify the fence.

Israeli leadership sees these kinds of rulings as absurd, especially when similar projects have been approved by the IJC (the one that is often referenced is the security fence around the American base in Okinawa), and evidence that the real issue is not what Israel does - it makes every effort to preserve life, even when their enemy makes every effort to threaten life as much as possible, and received international sympathy for it. Israelis over recent decades have become convinced that the real problem in international relations is more about what Israel is. Whereas a century ago, it was the norm to deprecate Jews as a race (the form of anti-semitism that replaced hatred of Jews on religious grounds), now one generally speaks ill of the Jewish State, on moral grounds.

Whether this is an accurate picture of Israel's problems internationally, it does reflect the way Israel feels. What else explains why, despite the reality of corrupt and violent regimes in the Middle East, Israel is often the scapegoat for the problems of the region. It also explains why the UN and international courts seem to hold Israel to a different standard than other countries, even ones who enjoy peaceful recognition by their neighbors - a luxury Israel can only dream of.

I think the reality is much more complex than mere anti-semitism, and that Israel only worsens its plight by sliding back into the old comfortable paradigm of victimization. The world, including many Jews feels that Israel justifies immoral acts by playing the victim card. The Holocaust, they insist, does not give them a blank check. The paradigm of anti-semitism can cause Israel to flout international pressure - it doesn't matter what it does anyway; the world will find a way to disapprove, simply because we're the Jewish State. They stood by during the Holocaust, and we have no greater assurance now that they would do anything to halt an Arab second attempt.  And here's the catch-22: In order for Israel to finally normalize relations with the (western) world, it must finally establish peace with its Arab (specifically Palestinian) neighbors. In order to do this, those neighbors must recognize Israel's right to exist and establish some sort of relation with the state. this is nowhere near happening, and the dilemma perpetuates.  If the cause is hopeless, why try? We will do what we must to protect ourselves and promote our interests. This kind of thinking is very dangerous and damaging.

But it exists. Poor thinking and faulty paradigms lie at the heart of this conflict, anyway.

It is now 7:33 a.m., and I have been writing for an hour. I could write for the rest of the day, but I won't. I'll do my morning yoga, get ready and enjoy an extravagant breakfast on the beach (it's over tomorrow, alas!), and then attend more lectures, hoping I don't hear the siren telling us we have 45 seconds to get to the bomb shelter. (The IDF's Iron Dome system already shot down at least one rocket headed for Tel Aviv...) Today includes a segway tour of Tel Aviv! I'm rather excited! Tomorrow, I'll upload a few pictures and write a little less.