The Israel I Was Fighting For

Sixty years ago, when I was fighting for Israel during its war of independence, I won a lot of respect. Now many of my liberal colleagues, including Jewish ones, raise their eyebrows. They hoped for an Israel that is citadel of individual rights, a land in which social justice prevails as laid out by the Prophets, and a peace-making nation—a sort of a Switzerland in the Middle East, only more enlightened.

These liberals are ready to trade land (that is, Israeli land) for peace; a fine idea—if peace can be had. They claim that they ‘know’ (especially if they toured the Holy Land for a week or more) that when Hamas states that it seeks the destruction of Israel, that this is merely rhetorical stance and nothing more than posturing to improve its hand in the forthcoming peace deal. They are sure that if Israeli leaders would only agreed to sit down and talk with Hamas (and Syria and maybe even Iran), differences could be worked out. If not, they maintain, the U.S. must “lean” more on Israel.
About the last thing my colleagues want to hear about is 1948, when seven Arab armies invaded the day-old Israel. They know little about the large numbers of Israelis killed during the War of Independence, and the still larger number who were maimed and wounded. (My Pal Mach unit started with eleven hundred members and end up with four hundred).
During the Six Day War, when Israel again repelled its attackers with great courage and sacrifice, my colleagues still congratulated me; they still could take some pride in victorious Jewish fighters. Today, Israeli incursions into Gaza, the oppressive occupation of the West Bank, the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, are viewed as akin to Bush’s invasion of Iraq, or worse. When I now recount the days in Jerusalem when Jordanian tanks were closing in and we had nothing that could stop them, and suggest that the same holds now for the missiles Syria, Hezbollah and Iran are readying, my many liberals are quick to suggest that if Israel would make peace with the Palestinians, all the other nations in the Middle East would fall in line. “The road to Tehran [Beirut, Damascus, Ryadh] runs through Jerusalem” is their favorite cliché.

Above all, they want for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders, not merely to stop the oppressive occupation but also to ensure that Israel will remain a democratic state. They hold that as long as Israel contains within its borders a large and rapidly multiplying Palestinian population, to become a majority in the near future, Israel will be forced to give up either its democratic nature or-- its Jewishness. Given that they were never subject to a mortar barrage, or had to take out a machine gun nest, my colleagues pay little attention to the small number of days—or should I say hours?—that Israel would survive if the West Bank would become a much extended version of rocket-launching Gaza.

Moreover, for many liberals, withdrawing to the 1967 borders is but the first step. Their next concern, very much echoing other multicultural agendas, is for Israel to cease being a Jewish state; to become a state in which the Arab citizens of Israel (about 17% of the total population) have the exactly the same rights as Jews—and the state is culturally neutral. Never mind that as it is Arabs in Israel already have many more rights—de jure and de facto—than they have in any Arab state. Israeli Arabs vote freely and are represented in the Knesset by their elected officials.  Muslim religious functionaries are free to arrange all personal matters (marriage, divorce, burial, etc.) as they wish, just as Jews are. Still many liberals want to strip Israel from any remaining Jewish features. They are so inclined because in their mind this is what a full respect for the rights of Arab Israelis commands and because these liberals are mainly secularists and deeply offended by the fundamentalist Rabbis who do command undue influence and a bunch of privileges in Israel. These  liberals ignore that separation of state and religion is largely a French-American ideal, not established in most democracies, and that all nations have some kind of cultural identity, indeed often one that has a religious tinge. (For instance, in many democratic countries, only Christian holidays are national holidays).

All this makes me reexamine what I did fight for (and would again), why my son volunteered to serve in the Israeli Air Force, and why my granddaughter just completed her basic training. The need for Jews to have their own state is not smaller today than it was in 1948, given the very wide spread anti-Semitism in the four corners of the earth. Moreover, by my light, Jews have the same rights as other ethnic groups all over the world, from Romanians to Indonesians, from Jamaicans to the people of East Timor, to embed their community in state, and for the Jewish state to maintain some, already very attenuated, cultural identity.

I strongly favor the kind of peace deal with the Palestinians that Ehud Barak championed and for which Yitzhak Rabin died. However, such a deal must entail stopping attacks on Israel and threatening its very existence. If not, I fear, and I know what I am writing about, there will be many more casualties on both sides, all God’s children, all people who deserve to live in peace.

Comments

[Saint Michael Traveler]

One nation: The Federal States of Israel-Palestine

We have had 60 years of experimenting about the Israeli- Palestinian struggle. The region would need help before we will be dragged into a World War III.

The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel were resettled in 722 B.C. in Iran. Iranian Jews are descendent of these exiled tribes. Their exile is a historical fact. Often, the people defeated were scattered and exiled. Judah and Benjamin, two tribes later known as the Jews, claim Israel as their as their ancient homeland.

Jews and the Palestinians, whatever they were called then, were both in Middle East at the same time. Both Arabs and Jews have historical claims to the Palestine land.

No one can reject the fact that creation of Israel on the Palestinian land has created tremendous political and economical problems for the United States and the world. World (the United Nation) may have to look outside of the box to diffuse the problems.

One solution would be for Israel joining us as a member of the Unites States’ Common Wealth. The United States are already supporting Israel economically, politically and by sharing intelligence and military hardware. In addition, some Israeli Americans with both Israeli and American citizenships serve in the Israeli Armed Forces. Our great American Armed Forces will protect the common wealth as they would the homeland.

Would it be politically more advantages for the United States to manage the Jewish state as a member of our Common Wealth?

The Israeli Common Wealth will be free to exercise the religious freedom that our great nation would offer without being isolated among the hostile Arabs.

The Common Wealth would have to include the Arabs who were forced to leave the land when Zionist invaded the land. It should also include all of the land called by Palestinian as their homeland and by Israeli as their state. I don't suggest this proposal would work or be acceptable by Israel. In my opinion, this may be more destructive for the USA and would not help the Middle Eastern conflict in the future.

Then, what next?

Would really two nation model for Palestinian and Israeli work in the future? Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.

Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.

We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t fight wars after wars to support a non-working model of a two state solution. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two state model.

Both Jewish and Palestinians have paid a high price for a failed system to consider the human side of the Israeli-Jewish struggle for a lasting peace.

I suggest that only as one nation, Federal State of Israel-Palestine, the peace may endure. We, Americans, have failed to see the both side of the struggle for a lasting peace. The two cousins may have to kiss and forgive for all the hurt they have caused and endured. As Semitic people, they have common historical and religious heritage.

[ga]

Small correction. It was the nation that is now Iraq, not Iran, that took the 10 tribes captive. Iran is historic Persia, not Assyria.

[Saint Michael Traveler]

I thank you Emil Etzioni. Your correction that "the nation that is now Iraq, not Iran, that took the 10 tribes captive. Iran is historic Persia, not Assyria." is appreciated.

[tom]

Dr. Etzioni, great article. Many so-called "liberals" really don't know what they're talking about when they say that Israel can end this conflict so easily. It makes me wonder how many suicide bombings they've witnessed or how many Qassams have hit their homes in the past few years.

[Jordan 6]

Hold on your own accountable to get a increased common than everyone else expects of you. By no means excuse oneself. Thank You. .