In Defense of Israel
I recently returned from a research opportunity in Israel. It happens that the focus of most of my research relates to terrorism and the opportunity to travel to Israel and work with the Israelis was a chance I could not miss. There were many things this research helped me to realize. Beyond the considerable data I accumulated towards my own personal research, I left with an appreciation for the state and people of Israel.
First, I must say that beyond the affinity that many church members feel towards the Jewish people, I felt a close kinship with them as well. Certainly the trials that the Jews have endured makes those experienced by the Mormons dwindle to insignificance. However, the public resentment heaped on Israel demonstrates the type of ignorance that led to the alienation and persecution of the saints.
Like the Mormons, the Israelis have literally “made the desert bloom as a rose”. They came upon a sparsely settled region, fleeing religious and ethnic persecution, and legally began to buy property and gather Zion. Only when those around them started to envy the product of their industry and began to fear the collective works and power that an industrious people created out of almost nothing, did those around them fear and persecute to the point of violence.
My training constrains me to skeptically process information and data, but from the first I was impressed by what the Israelis have accomplished. The infrastructure was impressive, but beyond the bare basics, Israel has made life worth living and enjoying. The stark contrast emerged from the beginning of my trip and could be seen from the plane. Israel is a green country. It is lush with trees and flowers. I was struck by the banks of Oleander by the side of the highways and flowers and fruit trees everywhere. There was an abundance of parks and recreational facilities. The West bank, however, was the exact opposite. The only greenery and industry were found in settlements constructed by the sweat and sometimes blood of Israel. I interviewed a man in Bet El (Bethel) not far from Ramallah (the Capital of the Palestinian Authority). He survived the terrorist attack which killed his wife and son just outside the settlement. The perpetrators were apprehended and put in prison for life. His questions seemed perfectly reasonable: Why should I give up my home? We made it nice here, why give it up? Why “exchange” the criminals responsible their murder. The start of the recent violence was instigated by the terrorist organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah, when in contravention to international law; they violated recognized borders and staged a raid in order to capture Israeli soldiers in hopes of an exchange.
I was also impressed by the Israelis themselves. They were, on the whole, some of the friendliest, fittest, and self assured people I have ever met. While this certainly could be a by-product of forced military service, It almost made me desire a similar program in the US (a topic for a later post). I was able to interview Israeli Arabs as well. For the most part, they would rather be admittedly second class Israeli citizens than citizens of a Palestinian State.
There is much of my trip that will find its way into postings, but I would like to to finish this post by referring to the response to the recent violence. Certainly there have been Lebanese civilian casualties. I abhor those casualties and I know the Israelis do as well. I know that prior to attacking any target; the Israeli military weighs the ethical costs versus the military gains both through both legal and religious experts. Much of the blame must be laid at the feet of Hezbollah. Unable to face the Israelis in open battle, they ignore the accepted rules of war and fight without uniform, utilize non-combatants and human shields, and rain unaimed weapons of terror on non-combatant Israelis. These are the same rockets with which they have been attacking Israel constantly for the last couple of years.
I posit the rhetorical question: If a state or non-state actor launched such weapons of terror on the United States or any other country for that matter, what would be the response. The US has invaded two countries now to stop the threat of terrorists. It is our stated policy to attack not only the terrorists, but also any country harboring them or giving them aid. Isn’t Israel justified in not only attacking Lebanon but also Syria and Iran? It is easy to condemn Israel. They are more powerful. They have consolidated and annexed land which they have gained militarily. The Palestinians live in conditions of hopelessness and squalor.
As for me, I stand in the defense of Israel. Perhaps my decision is colored by the fact that a couple of suicide bombers were apprehended a couple of weeks ago in the hotel that I stayed at in Tel Aviv. There but for the grace of God…
Very persuasive. You bring up a point I hadn’t considered: the Jews purchased the land they occupy. While that was certainly true before 1947, I assume it was not mostly the case afterwards. I don’t suspect that all the refugees left in protest. Can you shed any additional light on this point?
Comment by Bradley Ross — 8/19/2006 @ 8:37 am
“a sparsely settled region”
I don’t think the Palestinians who lived there felt that raw numbers were the issue. I will be the first to admit that I know little about this issue, but I recently finished reading _The Lemon Tree_ and I was struck by the injustice that had been done to the Palestinians. At least for the family in this story, they didn’t sell their land–they were forced out as refugees and the home was given to recent arrivals from Bulgaria who didn’t ask too many questions about the free, furnished house they were given.
I have no idea what would be best to do now, in 2006. But I do know that a grave injustice was done to Palestinians when Israel was created–Palestinians whose only crime was being in the path of European and American guilt over their inaction during the Holocaust. At the same time the US had quotas on Jewish immigrants (they didn’t want them either!) and Europe was still seriously anti-semitic, they were happy to see Palestinians displaced so the Jews could be put somewhere–just NIMBY.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — 8/19/2006 @ 9:13 am
I don’t feel any affinity toward the Jewish people. I am routinely disappointed with them, as I am dismayed with the behavior of the US government regarding the American Indians in the 1800s, and the South African apartheid government. The United Nations has regularly brought these human rights abuses to the world’s attention.
My personal view on this was influenced by a couple different experiences. One was back in the 1970s at BYU having a Palestinian LDS neighbor whose family had been displaced by Israeli settlers. His viewpoints opened my eyes to the basic lack of justice in modern Israel. I thought he was amazingly forgiving and tolerant of the Jews considering how his family had been treated, and it made me understand how some Palestinians, without the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives, could be so angry and motivated to violence.
Then my husband applied for a job at a university in Israel in the 1980s, and during the course of the interviews, it was explained to us in blunt terms how non-Jews are treated in Israel (substandard medical care, children’s education, etc.). The faculty chair doing the interviewing was rather rude about it, and asked how we could be so stupid as to apply for a job in Israel and not know of the situation. We tried to explain about the pro-Israel media treatment in the U.S. and glowing reports such as your blog entry here, which overlook that fact.
And to be fair, much of the discrimination against the non-Jews in Israel is subtle: theoretically, the government-run health care does not discriminate against non-Jews. The catch is that most of the health care is not government provided, it is operated by Jewish groups like Hadassah. And that’s how, as a practical matter, non-Jews end up in separate hospital wards and don’t get adequate anesthesia for surgery, etc.
And much preferential treatment is given to veterans. All Israeli Jews must serve in the military. Non-Jewish Israelis are not required to serve, because of the (common) scenario of having to fight their brethren. And so as a practical matter, most non-Jewish Israelis are denied the benefits of service, which keeps them out of good jobs, etc.
Another subtle prejudice is that any Jewish person has an automatic “right of return” to Israel but non-Jews have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove their right to citizenship, and so a lot of children and spouses are not recognized as citizens. (It reminds me of the tests for voter registration of blacks in the US South during the 1950s and 60s, which spurred passage of our Voting Rights Act.) About 20% of Israelis are non-Jewish, but that percentage would likely be higher if it was not so hard to register a birth, etc.
The other well documented problems involve the funding for public schools in Jewish areas versus non-Jewish areas.
No doubt the Israeli’s have challenges, and I am NOT defending violence against them. But I think their lives would be easier if their society was more just. I do believe that the land is blessed and cursed according to our obedience to the Lord’s commandments, and I don’t believe the modern state of Israel is living up to their claim to be a covenant people.
Comment by Naismith — 8/19/2006 @ 10:27 am
What many of us don’t understand is that according to the UN plan in 1948, a Palestinian State would have been created along side Israel. The Israelis were willing to abide by this plan. However, the injustices were done not by the Israelis but by their fellow Arabs. Combined forces from Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan invaded the territory set aside for the Palestinian state and then went on to try to eliminate Israel as well. Jordan actually annexed the terrirtory it had occupied (terrirtory that would have been part of Palestine). In later actions, Israel was able to drive the Arab forces out and thus we have the situation that has led to the current state. Yes, Palestinians have been discriminated against and have been dealt a poor hand. But is this the responsibility of Israel? In the same way that the Israelis have come under condemnation for their “excesses” recently; they did not start the hostilities. Neither would they have had to resort to such “excesses” if Hezbollah would fight them according to accepted international norms. Israel cannot afford to “lose” once. Can you blame them for ensuring their security?
The right of return question is a good point. That is one question that the Israelis have been adamant about. The Israelis have a term for the this situation: The demographic problem. They understand that if the right of return were granted Arabs, they would quickly become a minority in their country. This is already a concern for the Arab Israelis that already enjoy the rights of citizenship in Israel. The fact is that the Israelis, like most of the developed world, have a low birth rate. The Palestuinians, on the other hand, have a phenomenal birth rate. I found there is a real concern by Israelis on the street over this issue.
As far as the question of disparity in funding, I spoke to the mayor of one of the Arab Israeli towns. He decried the injustice in the disparity of funding as well as disparity in social security benefits. When I took those issues up with government officials, I was told that money is dispersed based on revenues collected. Cities that collect more money get more money. (We have similar discussions about the disbursements of highway funds). I can’t say I agree with the way they allocate funds, but they do have a system that is explainable. As for the pension, those who elect not to serve in the military (the Ultra-Othodox Hasidim also elect not to serve) recieve reduced social security. I must also note that you may elect to serve you compulsary military time in local community service and recieve full credit for service.
Comment by Craig S. — 8/19/2006 @ 11:07 am
The Druze as a community have elected to serve in the military and as far as my interviews allowed, they are not considered second class citizens. Arab Israelis are not requied to serve, but they may elect to serve. They are voluntarily limiting themselves.
Comment by Craig S. — 8/19/2006 @ 11:44 am
A while ago, I wrote a post that outlines why I think popular Mormon theological support for Isreal is likely misguided.
Of course I can simpathize with the reaction to non-state parties’ provocation. If we got bombed from Canada, we would likely go in after them. I also think liberal democracy is a very good thing. But like in many former colonies, I don’t think we can look at the arab peoples and just assume that they are the authors of their situation. The west carries a considerable burden of culpability.
Personally, the Isreali racialist policies are concerning. I really don’t have any idea what to think about the current situation beyond mourning the great tragedies of war.
Comment by J. Stapley — 8/19/2006 @ 4:37 pm
J.,
I must say that I wince a little when you say “racialist policies.” If they must be defined as such so that us “moderns” understand that certain peoples are privileged, well then, so be it. I don’t think most folks, pro or anti-Israel really understand the continuous pains that the Israeli state must endure to insure survival for the Jews. Call it racist if you want, but remember these folks are in constant threat of being showered by the hellfire and brimstone of their enemies–constant–this little tiny georgraphic speck in the middle of a gigantic supra-nation of enemies who seek its utter extinction.
As for those who have suffered at the hands of the Israelis–
As terribly sad as it is that so many have suffered in Lebanon because of the recent hostilities, no doubt the blame is being laid at the feet of Israel (by the Lebanese) as if they were the sole purveyors of injustice. I seriously doubt that many are criticizing Hezbollah or any of its backers for their wiley strategies.
I must say that I grow tired of the relentless criticism of Israel’s “brutality” when none of the friends of those who have suffered at the hands of Israel have done a damn thing to help–except, of course, by forming terrorist cells.
PS. Not all of this is directed at you, J. I’m just venting a little.
Comment by Jack — 8/19/2006 @ 6:37 pm
Part of the issue regarding modern-day Israel is that the privilege *is* pretty much based on race, since nowadays most Jewish Israelis are “secular Jews”–they are of a Jewish heritage, but do not practice their religion. (Just last week we had some visiting scientists from Tel Aviv and asked them what percentage of the Jewish population is religious, and they said 17%, which sounded low to me. Most studies find at least 20% and some higher, but clearly the majority are “secular” Jews.)
From an LDS perspective, and especially in this year when we are studying the Old Testament in Gospel Doctrine, one has to wonder: If the Jews were actually living their religion, would not the Lord help protect them as in the time of Joshua? Should they be going about insuring their survival through fasting and prayer as well as bombs?
And if the Jews are not living their religion, then why is their right to survival so much more important than that of their neighbors?
Comment by Naismith — 8/20/2006 @ 7:29 am
Someone said above that Hamas crossed borders to capture an Israel soldier. This is not true. Hamas captured a soldier in their own occupied terroritory, likely in reponse to the Israeli kidnapping of a Palestinian physician and his brother the day before. The kidnapping is barely mentioned in the media while it is obviously a more heinous crime than the capture of the soldier in the occupied terroritory.
Also, you said that Hezbollah crossed the border to get the two Israeli soldiers, but this is even disputed. The initial reports were that the soldiers were taken when they made an excursion into Lebanese territory. Lebanese police reported this and it was carried on many of the wire services.
You also disdain Hezbollah fighting tactics, but many of the same criticisms could be said about the Israelis. The missiles the Hezbollah have been raining down on Israel have killed 118 soldiers and 41 civilians. That’s about a 3:1 ratio. On the other hand, Israel has killed 1200 people in Lebanon, 3-400 of whom (if we can believe Israel’s numbers) have been Hezbollah fighters. That’s about a 1:3 fighter to civilian ratio. Also, Israel has been using cluster bombs, a well known civilian killer, as well as depleted uranium weapons, associated with a 10 fold increase in birth defects and a 5 fold increase in childhood cancer in Iraq. Additionally, Israel massacred children in Qana saying that it was a sight from which Hezbollah had been firing missiles. The Lebanese Red Cross denied this, saying that there were no Hezbollah in that town and definitely no missiles.
In the recent post-cease fire raid by IDF commandos it is reported that the IDF were wearing Lebanese Army uniforms.
Comment by Curtis — 8/20/2006 @ 7:45 pm
And…? You think the raid would’ve gone smoother had they dressed up like the Energizer Bunny? Battle of the Bulge anyone? (and yes, the point was that they were playing dirty while violating the cease fire but I couldn’t resist)
Comment by Jon in Austin — 8/21/2006 @ 10:14 am
Craig, excellent post. This is a much needed perspective, in my opinion.
Comment by john f. — 8/21/2006 @ 10:34 am
I think the racial issue is very tricky. We are used to a nation that is of mixed racial background and that makes some legitimate attempt to put our racial prejudices aside as a nation (Though of course there are still grave problems.) I think on one hand that Naismith is right to point out that we shouldn’t be seeing the Jews as especially worthy of divine protection purely because of race. We have every reason to believe that much if not most of the earth has the blood of Israel in it, and the only reason that they were able to displace the inhabitants of Palestine after the Egyptian captivity was because the Lord had reasons to want them wiped clean. We can only assume that they were ripe for destruction, and perhaps I’ll post on why I think this was so. So, on one hand, right of return based on race seems a bit unjustified. On the other hand, there is very little to Jewishness other than race, as Naismith’s comment also points out. This is an issue for many nations in the (post)colonial world. That is, if anyone can come to your country, in any numbers, and gain full citizenship, at what point to the cultural practices that your national status protects get simply overwhelmed. This happened, certainly, in Hawai, for instance, where the mix of death rate among natives and immigration of whites made them a bit of a minority in their own land (I’m not sure of the nubers right now). They were certainly in the economic minority, and that menat that white businessmen were able to influence government policy in their favor. In the end, it resulted in the loss of Hawiian sovereignty, which was assured only by a racially determined monarchy. The fact is, national status and nationalist sentiment is important in the world today. It’s the way the world works, if it is problematic. Culture has become a national phenomenon, and gets codified into law. I find it hard to imagine an Israeli state that protected what is culturally unique about the Jews and yet was dominated by non-Jewish Arabs. In fact, I would rather think that any such state would be marked by ethnic cleansing. Maybe pessimistic of me, but in this case, there hasn’t been much to be optimistic about.
In short, I don’t think we can apply our attitudes about race universally.
Comment by Steve H — 8/23/2006 @ 12:51 pm
I’ve actually been thinking about this for a bit Steve. I’m not sure if “Race” is the right term (even though I used it in my earlier comment). I mean, you line up an ethopian, an ashkenazi and a sephardic jew, and I think one will have a fairly dificult time making a tradition racial classificaiton. So, I think it does boil down to culture. The policies are “culturalist,” but it seems that culture falls on predominantly racial lines.
Comment by J. Stapley — 8/23/2006 @ 2:38 pm
I enjoyed this post. Thank you for it.
Comment by Lisa M — 8/30/2006 @ 12:05 am
If the Jews were actually living their religion, would not the Lord help protect them as in the time of Joshua?
What the h%@* does that have to do with anything? I would estimate that 50% of Mormons are “secular Mormons.” I suppose we aren’t worthy of divine protection either. But the Palastinians blowing themselves up with the hopes of 72 mansions with 72 beds in each and 72 virgins in each bed were…
“Culturalism?” “Racialism?” “Right to return?” Somebody please pull out the forks I just jammed into my eyeballs. Every d@%$ culture or nation on this planet is culturalist or whatever rediculous term you want to use. This is about fear and revenge and an inability to let go. Yes, injustices did occur with the creation of the state of Israel. But what have the Palestinians done since? They have played the role of the victim and instead of improving their circumstances and trying their hand at industry, they have squandered their resources fighting a no-win battle. Do they really think Isreal would just roll over and give up? That’s positively retarded. Our forefathers were driven out of their homes and lands and were forced to live in appalling conditions while the mobs didn’t ask questions about the fully furnished homes they occupied. The Nauvoo legion was the largest standing military force in the state when the Prophet Joseph was killed (check my facts, J). Why didn’t they put up a fight? And now that the LDS church has some stature, why don’t we go back and reoccupy the lands we lost? I mean, think of the injustice! Living as close to Independence, Missouri as I do, it could really use a good cleaning.
In the end, I guess there is some wisdom to the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 5.
I have more to rant about, but I have to go to a meeting.
Comment by Chris S. — 8/30/2006 @ 12:02 pm
Chris S.
I believe h%@@ is the correct spelling. Nice rant though.
Comment by jns — 8/30/2006 @ 4:23 pm
I really don’t have any idea what to think about the current situation beyond mourning the great tragedies of war
and
You think the raid would’ve gone smoother had they dressed up like the Energizer Bunny?
and
I have more to rant about, but I have to go to a meeting.
To which I can only add that the entirety of greater Palestine/Israel is about the same size as Metro Los Angeles or the four county Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. It would help people visualize the whole thing if they routinely superimposed maps of American City areas over the Middle East maps of Israel and the rest.
I don’t have a solution, only great sadness and a question as to what your line of research/business is.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 8/30/2006 @ 10:20 pm
Stephen M
I don’t follow the relevence of your comment. What does geographical size have to do with apprechiating the conflict? It is immaterial to the principles behind the issue.
And why does my profession matter? I’m happy to divulge it, but I wonder why it is important to you. I don’t mean to be offensive (which is novel for me), just curious.
Comment by Chris S. — 8/30/2006 @ 11:01 pm
Stephen,
I can’t look at that map without being overwhelmed at the disparity in size between Israel and the Arab supra-nation.
Comment by Jack — 9/1/2006 @ 2:50 pm