Light on a hill? The deepening Israeli identity crisis

By Tad Trueblood

One of the central philosophical tenets that led to the founding of modern Israel was the idea that it would be something more than just another nation-state. As historian and rabbi Arthur Hertzberg puts it, Israel was to be a “proud affirmation of the work and values of Jewish culture and spirit through the ages”. Put in more ancient terms, this is the Judaic religious tradition of being “a light unto the nations” and “healing the world.” Today, even though the majority of Israelis are very secular-minded, this ethos still permeates their collective self-image and shapes their conception of what they want Israel to be.

But as 2004 dawns, and the “security fence” goes up to protect and divide Israelis from Palestinians, more and more Israelis are struggling with the yawing gap between what they think their country should be and what they see it becoming. Even facing the threat of terrorism, many Israelis question the morality of military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza, the efficacy of harsh counter-actions against Palestinians, and the wisdom of allowing any Jewish settlements in those territories.

Consequently, prime minister Ariel Sharon’s hard-line policies are under increasing criticism from Israelis of all political stripes. Most telling are criticisms from military and security leaders, and a growing “refusenik” movement within the Israeli military of those who refuse to perform military service in the occupied territories.

• Late last month, 13 officers and soldiers from Israel's top commando unit sent a protest letter to Sharon refusing to serve in the territories on moral grounds. In September, a group of Israeli fighter pilots--including a Brigadier General--refused to fly bombing missions over the territories. According to their statement, “perpetuation of the occupation is fatally harming the security and moral strength of Israel”.
• In November, four former Israeli security chiefs gave spoke out in the press, calling for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, and the removal of the 220,000 Jewish settlers in those areas. One of them, Ami Aylon, stated "We are taking sure, steady steps to a place where the state of Israel will no longer be a democracy and a home for the Jewish people”.
• The IDF’s chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, told reporters that unnecessarily harsh Israeli policies lost a chance for peace by undermining the failed Palestinian Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas.
• The current director of the Shin Bet security service recently stated that Israel's policies for defending its citizens over the past three years have failed and made an urgent, public call for easing Palestinian living conditions.

These kind of principled stands taken by those charged with defending the country against enemies show just how deep the wrestle over Israeli policy is, and reveal the dimensions of a real crisis of identity.

This identity crisis is progressing relatively unseen and unappreciated by the rest of the world, overshadowed by war in Iraq, Islamic suicide bombings and worldwide terrorism alerts. While American Jews are certainly aware of Israeli soul searching (and often are engaged in it themselves), I venture to say that most Americans are oblivious to it, and still perceive Israel and Israelis through one of two prisms--I’ll call them right/conservative and left/liberal.

• The right/conservative view (yes, I know I’m simplifying here) is the most widely held across the U.S., and casts Israel as the heroic, embattled underdog, a faithful American ally, and the only outpost of democracy in the Middle East. This paradigm lines up most closely with that of hard-line Jewish settlers on the West Bank in Gaza--a small minority of Israelis willing to fight for every last inch of sacred land.
• The competing viewpoint, so prevalent on many American universities, is basically seeing through the other side of the prism. The left/liberal paradigm also sees Israelis as unyielding hardliners, but condemns that stance. Israel is seen as an “apartheid” state equated with colonialism, imperialism and racism. Israelis are oppressors, exploiters, and even “Nazis”. Essentially, this view allies its proponents with Palestinian extremists who deny Israel’s legitimacy.

Both these paradigms, however, miss the existential debate raging within Israel over the soul of the nation and its future. That debate also echoes throughout the worldwide Jewish community and within the circles of statesmen trying to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Americans, if we hope to understand what is happening in Israel-Palestine, or contribute to a peaceful and lasting solution there, we have to start by casting off inaccurate, outdated perceptions.

T.T.

Click here to comment on this article

© 2004, WestRim Digital Arts