American perspectives on how to treat Israel fall into three general categories (with degrees of nuance and complexity): Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace, and Pro-Palestine. This piece is part of a series that sorts through various arguments on controversial political issues; wherein I debate... myself. For purposes of the discussion, Pro-Israel will be represented by “ME”, Pro-Peace will be represented by “Mark”, Pro-Palestine will be represented by “Ellis”, and my actual opinion will be represented by “Mark Ellis”. Pro-Israel drew the short straw and will go first, then Pro-Palestine, and then Pro-Peace. Go.
ME- Pro-Israel:
1. Israeli Independence. Israel is one of America’s closest and most important allies. Israel’s constant state of war with its neighbors requires regular pursuit of ground intelligence within those Arab nations. As allies and fellow democratic nations with aligned interests and values, Israel shares some of that intelligence with the U.S. to help with America’s ongoing struggle with terrorism. Supporting Israel does not mean pushing this critical ally to accept a deal with an adversary unwilling to negotiate in good faith and/or unable to maintain the conditions necessary to foster a peace. Palestinian leadership still repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel and for the deaths of Israeli civilians (including children). And for the illusory promise of peace, Palestinian leadership demands land and greater autonomy, which endangers the security of Israel (see #3). Further, Israel held serious negotiations before, but when progress was made, Arafat left the negotiating table (and Abbas did the same). The Palestinian authorities never removed from their platform the goal of the destruction of Israel. And Hamas, an important part of Palestinian government, is a terrorist organization. Clearly powerful factions of Palestinian leadership have no desire for peace and other individuals lack the ability to enforce peace. So, with whom should Israel be forced to negotiate? Demanding Israeli acquiescence and appeasement is not a pro-Israel stance.
2. History and Legality. Israel was the Jewish homeland since the days of the Bible thousands of years ago. Jews have maintained a presence in the Jewish homeland throughout the years, even as they have endured numerous tragedies, including mass deportations, in the diaspora (e.g.s, the Spanish Inquisition, the pogroms, and the Holocaust). After World War I, Great Britain legally controlled the area that is now Israel and its surrounding areas. By virtue of the Balfour Declaration, the Jews were promised the land of Israel, which was an even larger plot of land than current Israel. After the Holocaust, which killed approximately 6,000,000 of the approximately 15,000,000 Jews on Earth, the call to deliver on the promise was heightened. As Britain de-colonized its empire, it withdrew from Israel and shortly thereafter, the United Nations recognized Israel as a state. Immediately, Israel was attacked by many neighbors. Israel won that war and a series of wars instigated by its neighbors (or Israel preemptively struck neighbors prior to imminent attacks). Israel obtained that land as fairly as any nation has obtained land. Many Arabs fled and abandoned their rights and claims to their land rather than be subject to Israeli rule, while others remained as part of a growing diverse nation of Israel that includes Muslims, Christians, and Arabs as citizens who serve in the military and the government. During those wars, Israel conquered land, some of which it returned in the immediate aftermath of a war or battle, some of which it returned (e.g. the Sinai Peninsula) to forge peace with neighboring nations. Israel added tremendous value to much of the land it maintained. “Palestine”, on the other hand, is an artificial construct and is not a unique group of people. Palestinians were not distinct from Jordanians, who occupy the Trans-Jordanian portion of “Palestine” as it was constituted under British rule. Israel is historically and legally entitled to the land it controls. Consequently, Israel should be permitted to settle all of its land, police that land, or transfer that land as it sees fit based upon its economic and security needs. And from a general legal perspective, if a nation is struck or faces imminent attack, it can strike back. If people within the occupied territories take criminal actions against Israelis, it is the responsibility of the Israeli government to justly prevent further such attacks. Israel should not be pressured to cede its land based upon the interests of other nations in the middle east, Europe, or the United States.
3. Risks of Negotiations. Land for peace is not a fair trade (peace for peace is a fair trade).... particularly if there is no likelihood of peace. Giving up land does not guarantee security. The elimination of Israel is the stated goal of Hamas and other prominent Palestinian factions. In fact, appeasing terrorists threatens security because it demonstrates the success of vile tactics (e.g. getting America to diminish its support for Israel). Intentionally killing children, targeting civilians, and acting in heinous frightening manners (rock-throwing, stabbings, shootings, bombings, rockets in populated areas) should not be rewarded. Further, it is dangerous for Israel to cede territory, which includes tactically critical locations such as higher ground, water sources and access, sites in close proximity to important hubs (like major cities and military outposts), and Jerusalem, which Israel considers its capital (and indispensable for morale). Israel is insufficiently large to cede land without creating additional risks (not to mention the risk of losing the economic, agricultural, energy possibilities of the land). Creating a nearby enemy nation also permits enemies to organize and amass shipments of people and supplies by air, by water, or by un-monitored land routes. Beyond the security risks, when rockets are launched from these Palestinian territories, Israel will feel compelled to invade these territories and dismantle the threats, leaving Israel and the Palestinians in the same position (except that invasion will have less legal authority). Finally, Israel places immense value on Jerusalem, as do the Palestinians, which makes negotiations unlikely to succeed, despite unrealistic solutions like splitting Jerusalem or making it an international city.
4. Progressive Israel. Israel is the only nation in the middle east with any semblance of civil rights, and ceding authority to the Palestinians will only hasten government restrictions, limitations, and enforcement of anti-women, anti-gay, anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-atheist, rules and laws. Israel allows all of these individuals to serve in the military, to serve in the government, and to maintain equal rights. Israel also enforces laws, equity, and fairness within the court system (many Arab Israelis prefer an Israeli government to a Palestinian one), and it punishes even its own soldiers’ violations of human rights and wrongful harm against Palestinians. Israel’s limitations on Palestinian imports restricts weapons or items that can be used to endanger Israelis; most recently, concrete was used to build tunnels to enter Israel illegally and attack Israel. Israel does as much as any other nation in the world to limit civilian casualties during its missions, and any errors it makes are exacerbated by the fact that Israel’s terrorist enemies hide themselves among human shields and their weapons caches among civilians, children, schools, hospitals, ambulances, and even Red Cross missions. And the Palestinian authority as well as neighboring nations provide money to the families of suicide bombers that are designed to kill civilians and instill fear. Regardless, Israel continues to do its best to avoid hitting such civilian-populated targets. The large number of civilian Palestinian deaths are caused by the tragic norms of war, the Palestinians creating an atmosphere of war, and the Palestinians hiding within populated areas to discourage Israeli reprisal and maximize damage for purposes of public relations victories. To compare the morality of the Palestinians to the Israelis is not to compare the carnage or casualties on both sides, it’s to compare the intentions and actions on both sides; Palestinian leadership is immoral because it tries to kill civilians (even if they fail to kill greater numbers of Israelis because of the vigilance and effectiveness of the IDF and the Mossad). Israel is more moral because it constantly tries not to kill civilians in the midst of dire police and military actions.
5. Israel-Haters. Anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish sentiment, to be less confusing) is rampant (even at the Olympics). This specific hatred is historically ubiquitous, recently unleashed in the Holocaust, but also seen in American organizations like the KKK and the BDS movement, which is popular on college campuses (silencing pro-Israel sentiments in lieu of open discussion). This hatred is rampant in the Palestinian territories, in the middle east, in Europe, the UN (who in its report on women’s rights, declined to mention other nations’ horrific records on women’s rights and treatment, but rather used the opportunity to reprimand Israel, a nation that is relatively strong on women’s rights), in the far right (who support bigoted agendas), and in the far left (who oppose organized religion or hate Israeli’s military superiority in the middle east and “suppression” of Palestinian “rights”). This is reflected in the media’s bias: which frequently includes terrorist bombers as Palestinian victims, or declines writing a story about Palestinian violence (or terrorist attacks within Israel), and then merely reports the retaliation or Israel’s attempts to stop the missiles as acts of Israeli aggression, rather than self-preservation. The media reports the tragedies that occur when Israel unintentionally harms Palestinian civilians and children, intentionally placed in harm’s way by Palestinians, and then neglects to report (or scantily reports) the Israeli civilians and children intentionally murdered by the Palestinians. Surely, there is a distinction between people who intentionally murder civilians and people who seek self-defense, and take extraordinary measures to avoid civilian casualties, even if more civilians die as a result. Prominent political candidates even use false information about the number of Palestinian deaths to get support for their cause. Academia also frequently supports the underdogs (the disenfranchised) in such conflicts, to allow people to have a voice, but they underestimate the superior numbers of the surrounding Arab nations who could entirely stifle the Israeli voices with one major defeat. And many nations with Arab populations, oil interests, refugee issues, and terrorism appeasement concerns (particularly in Europe and the middle east), are frequently against Israel. These countries and organizations attempt to sanction and de-legitimize Israel for building housing (settlements), but ignore Israel’s neighbors that forbid Jewish or Christian citizenship, silence political and religious opposition, and persecute women and homosexuals. Israel even had to stop stamping passports of visitors because of restrictions placed on mere visitors to Israel. If you don’t want to call it Antisemitism, you can at least acknowledge the unfair (inequitable, unjust, and unequal) treatment of Israel.
Ellis- Pro-Palestine:
1. Palestinian Independence. Palestine will have a nation. It’s only a matter of time. America’s support of Palestine may hurry the process and create good will among the nations in the middle east, which perceive America as Israel’s big brother (or worse). Supporting Palestinians is not only the moral thing to do as a group that has been down-trodden, but it is also a practical thing to do, as America (and Europe) can ingratiate itself with the middle eastern countries and people. Israel has walked away from negotiations and has veered away from peace. And Israel and America are not as close or friendly as Israel’s aid packages would have you believe. American money and pressure could make a difference.
2. History and Legality. Arab Muslims have steadily occupied the land that is now referred to as Israel for thousands of years. Much of the current Jewish population in Israel is based upon relatively recent immigration. Palestine was also promised the same land the Jews were promised and part of that land was delivered to the Jews. After losing the 1948 war and others, many of the native Arabs fled their homes for fear of reprisal and many have become refugees ever since (in camps in countries like Jordan). Currently, Palestinians live as refugees in their own lands (”the occupied territories”) as there are heavy restrictions placed by Israel on the types of goods that can be imported, severely restricting the economy and self-determination of the Palestinian territories. When Israel won those wars in 1948, 1967, et al., Israel should have returned those territories rather than annex the occupied territories as imperialist conquerors. Additionally, the settlements built by Israel are not only aggressive actions by Israeli civilians - encouraged by the Israeli government - with obvious intent to permanently settle those disputed lands. Those settlements also violate existing law (which has led to many U.N. resolutions for sanctions). The Arab nation of Palestine was promised and was never delivered. Instead, there is a chaotic state of apartheid and a blocked right of return to the Palestinians.
3. Mischaracterization of War. If Israel makes concessions, so too will the Palestinians. More importantly, terrorists and freedom fighters are two sides of the same coin (and often interchangeable depending on the cause). The tactic is the product of an ongoing guerrilla war between the Palestinians and their occupiers who have wrongly taken control of Palestinian land and seized Palestinians’ rights, access to government and economic prosperity. Innocent people are dying at the hands of Israelis. Homes and businesses are being destroyed. Families and values are being corrupted. Israel should give up its control of Palestine - the territories up to the 1967 borders - and release its stranglehold on the people. Until they do, Israel and Israelis should be pressured to do the right thing by Israel including by, as necessary, asymmetrical warfare tactics. And killing children and civilians is near universally considered wrong, but there is mandatory military service, so the concept of an Israeli civilian is muddled. Also notably, Israel used similar tactics against the Britain to hasten its decision to leave.
4. Regressive Israel. Israel violates the human rights of the Palestinians by restricting access to Israel and foreign countries, and limits access to economic trade through blockades, etc. Israel’s actions, particularly its military campaigns, lead to the inevitable deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians and children. Israel also intentionally levels buildings, including government buildings, mosques, and homes, requiring communities to rebuild amid rubble and ashes (and then restricts importation of cement for rebuilding). More importantly, Israel takes the lives of far more Palestinians, Palestinian civilians, and children, than Palestine does of Israelis. Even if Israel claims it does not intend to kill civilians, how different is Israel if it knows its actions will kill civilians? At some point, isn’t there equal or greater culpability and blameworthiness for someone who knows he/she will kill many people without malice versus someone who kills a few people with malice? And when Israelis try to blame Palestinians for hiding among civilians, the world knows that hiding is a standard tactic in guerrilla war against a militarily stronger enemy that is impeding its progress and its people.
5. Islamophobia. There is tremendous anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States, Israel, Europe, and throughout the world; people fear Arabs, Muslims, and Islamic culture. Prominent political candidates espouse that Islam hates America, and support banning Muslims (which appeals to many voters) and other policies targeting innocent Muslims (such as attacking innocent family members of terrorists). This is after years of the American government propping up unpopular wealthy tyrannical regimes who suppressed their own angry poor people and who, in turn, were sometimes compelled to turn to the angriest sectors, clerics, and tenets of their religion to give them solace and power against the foreigners. Most Arabs and Muslims don’t support Islamist terrorist organizations, but many understand the sentiment of seizing control over their lives from outside influences. And before saying there is media bias against Zionists, it is notable that Jews are disproportionately represented in the media, entertainment, and politics (and general financial success). Attention and decent treatment of the Palestinian plight is only recently trending upwards because of efforts like BDS. And it’s notable that some Americans support a Jewish state of Israel because they think it’s a pre-condition of the arrival of the Messiah, so let’s not allow that to be a basis for decision-making or a support for Israel.
Mark- Pro-Peace:
1. Two States. Ultimately, peace is the only way Israel will survive. It cannot maintain a perpetual state of war. It is exhausting, expensive, and history is not on the side of those in constant conflicts. Beyond that, with nuclear proliferation and continued hate, the possibility of Israeli destruction becomes more dire and ever more likely. European countries’ advocacy of pro-Palestinian positions to ingratiate themselves with Arabs has not worked, as Europe still has been repeatedly targeted by Islamist nations and movements, as much, if not more than the U.S. The pro-Peace stance is best (and popular among Israelis and Palestinians) because actual peace (or at least steady movement toward peace) would quiet down a hostile situation, rather than riling it up by publicly supporting one side or the other. Acting as a neutral (or semi-neutral) arbiter is the one chance America has at making a difference. And if America does not take the lead, some other nation(s) (like Russia or Egypt) will... and the agreement might not be to our liking.
2. History and Legality. Great Britain messed up; it promised the same chunk of land to two different peoples. But, we’re here now and it’s time to be practical. Israel has control of some lands that are overwhelmingly populated by Muslim Arabs who are hostile to Israeli control (including East Jerusalem), so Israel policing and governing those territories is undesirable and untenable. The best answer is proper negotiations that lead to two nations that can appropriately secure their borders and permit economic prosperity and governmental autonomy to end some of the motivation for war, to break the cycle of violence. If some longer term peace is attainable, a moderate Palestinian middle-class could grow into a symbiosis with Israel (if not a mutual forgiveness).
3. Necessity of Negotiation. Land for peace is the only manageable deal to secure Israel’s future. Israel can’t realistically hope to police these hostile territories indefinitely. And if Israel was to stop some of its more provocative actions (e.g. stop building settlements in disputed territories to rile the situation), then the world at large, including America would likely contribute more to protect Israel, whether that means some sort of peace-keeping force and/or some sort of de-militarized buffer zone. And while Israeli security is non-negotiable, the methods of attaining Israeli security are negotiable. The possibility of ending or minimizing terrorism in Israel and diminishing middle eastern fury and international Islamist terrorism is a worthwhile goal.
4. Our Strongest Imperfect Ally. Israel is a Western democratized nation with technology, some wealth, and some resources, so expectations of Israel are higher than expectations of Palestinians who are struggling with poverty and other limitations of occupation. Israel shares our increased value of life (among aspiring for other values of free speech and equality) and they should value our abhorrence of violence as well. But Palestinians, who receive substantial sums of American aid (along with Israelis), should also maintain some semblance of human rights. And while Israel errs, we should be wary of over-criticizing Israel because Israel, despite its Western values, has few other friends and is surrounded by enemies. Thus, when Israel creates settlements in the occupied territories or disproportionately responds to a perceived threat, we should chastise them, but we should also keep pushing them towards peace, which is the only long term answer for both peoples. And our American aid packages should buy us some influence, formally or informally.
5. Moral Relativism. With regard to bias, anti-Jewish sentiments, and anti-Arab or anti-Muslim sentiments, of course, there are bad apples who hate one or the other or both. Most other people are just muddling their way through and doing their best. And in the muddle, some find great sympathy with the levels of poverty or sheer volume of death and decay of the Palestinian people, largely aided by the occupation of Israeli territories, while others empathize with Israel (who have Americanized values and living circumstances) living in a constant state of fear. But, there are strong points and weak ones on both sides. Most Americans generally favor Israel, but about half also support the peace process (while Europeans favor Palestinians and peace). Moral relativism is sometimes considered a negative term, but it is predicated on having respect and cultural sensitivity towards people with different values.
Mark Ellis
I am in the Pro-Israel camp. I have historical, spiritual, and familial ties to the country. As long as Israel is safe, I have no issue with the recognition of a Palestinian state(s). But the parties are not currently willing to genuinely negotiate, particularly on the Palestinian side wherein some lack the desire for peace and others lack the capacity to enforce a peace. The lack of enforcement capability is especially dire because Israel’s safety would depend on Palestinians policing themselves. And the dangers grow when easing restrictions allow Palestinians access to more dangerous resources. So, while pressing a pro-Peace agenda is an understandable stance in the hopes of aiding a beleaguered people, ending constant warfare, and opening up the possibility of lasting serenity and prosperity, it places Israel in immediate peril for the glimmer of hope of a better distant future. More pointedly, granting more concessions to Palestinians seems counter-intuitive in that: (i) it rewards (and incentivizes) terrorism, (ii) it relies upon a chance that Palestinians change that behavior, and (iii) it entails the one westernized country in the region (both in values and power) to cede some of its authority to a less westernized government.
Further, while there are clearly biases against both sides, I personally frequently notice the unfair treatment of Israel in the media and among “social advocates”. Israel’s survival is important (to me); no country, including America, knows precisely what Israel can safely cede. Thus, we should not compel Israel to give away the little it has, thereby risking the fate of a strong ally, for theoretical gains.