Middle East Focus: New and Improved US/Israel Relations - A Users Guide

- - -

As President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu prepare to meet, it is a shame that the context put forth in the media is almost completely about Netanyahu's point of view and what he will and will not say. It is as if the past 15 years of Israel clearly paving the way for a Palestinian state mean nothing.

But then again, Israel is used to having its History and what it did for peace 30 seconds ago ignored and forgotten by much of the world.

So I wanted to take this opportunity to begin a series of entries that will do what so many of my friends and colleagues ask me quite frequently - give us all some language we can use to talk about Israel without sounding like a brainwashed, Israel-right-or-wrong Stepford wife (or husband as the case may be).

The key to doing this, of course, is to make sure you are always doling out legitimate criticism of Israel's actions at the same time you asking for understanding about her predicament and the almost incessant Catch 22's she finds herself in.

My first one has already presented itself:

1) Yes, Netanyahu has expressed reservations about proclaiming his support for a Palestinian state. In the world of diplomacy, this is a disaster. It helps put the spotlight on those who have been saying for 15 years that Israel isn't serious about a Two State Solution. It also allows the world to believe that maybe Israel hasn't been serious. But friends, DO NOT BE DETERRED. The truth is that no election or 2009 policy can change HISTORY. Israel has been holding a door open for a two state solution for 15 years. It was a major door to hold open since so many thought it crazy. So many thought that any sovereign land held by Palestinians would be a staging ground for terrorism and attacks on Israel. And yes, those people, like Bibi, seemed to have been vindicated by Gaza.

2) Yes, Gaza does give many pause to be SO committed to the Two State Solution as Kadima was. They felt burned and they feel that there should have to be SOME change in how Hamas acts as a partner before we feel comfortable with them as any part of a future Palestinian sovereign state. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. And this is what is so difficult to navigate. Of course Israel could have handled the Gaza withdrawal better. But more people need to understand (and be talked to by well-meaning and level headed supporters of Israel) that Israel wants to be able to hand over sovereignty in theory to the Palestinian people and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, the reality that presents itself is truly horrific for the people of Israel. I say this not because of any bias or racism on their part (even though it is there). I say this because of the word I use over and over - DISTRUST AND DAMN GOOD REASONS FOR IT - ON BOTH SIDES. This is why Bibi should legitimately be able to say - hold on a minute - before just committing to a State when the nature of its leadership is so in doubt.

3) Why is it so hard for people around the world to understand that Israel IS actually threatened by the VERY REAL words of Hamas and Fatah leaders, that talk about - not reconciliation with Israel - but her ultimate destruction? Why is that fact so downplayed along with the threats from Iran. Why do people not know about or routinely ignore these very important problems?

• 3a ... My first real answer. Those who have no knowledge of the prevalence of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment in the world outside of the United States, and how it is actually one in the same outside of the United States, will never understand how a Jewish person or Israeli sees and feels the pressure of that VERY REAL animosity.

• 3b ... My second real answer. Despite that very real pressure and the very real threat it creates, when well off Jewish Americans and Israelis sit and ponder, and speak of threats to Israel and Jews, IT IS NOT RIGHT to compare the way we feel threatened with the way a Palestinian feels in the West Bank and Gaza. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. It does not mean that one is better than the other. It is simply apples and oranges and will never CONVINCE anyone of the validity of the case for Israel. It comes down to this - In the West Bank, the standard of living is not good. Checkpoints are annoying, inconvenient and infuriating. Israeli soldiers often do seek to humiliate or simply have the effect of humiliating those they stop or interrogate. It does seem to the West like "Extreme Racial Profiling" and clear Occupation. In Gaza, the impact of the war on the Palestinian psyche was simple. "We are weak, we don't want to be weak, and Israel shoved it in our faces. As a result of this, too many of us died and we will always blame Israel and not Hamas." When you come to grips with the harsh reality that what I just described can NEVER be trumped by the situation in Sderot, or by the "threat" of terrorism Israeli's feel on a daily basis in 2009. IT JUST CANNOT COMPARE.

• 3c ... My third real answer. What people seem to forget is that the gauge of suffering is skewed. Because Israel is the one with the army and the apparent upper hand, no mention of Sderot or Terrorism will convince anyone. It needs to be made clear, that the territories have evolved from the over-sized refugee camps the Jordanians and Egyptians set them up as. In the meantime, Israel, a very long time ago set itself on a path, with a vision and a goal. It prospered, developed, and is a beacon of progress to Jews, Arabs, and all those who live and travel within the "green line." This only happened because of how seriously it protected those borders from enemies who sought to destroy her. And so now, in 2009, its standard, and definition of itself as a safe, secure and prosperous country does not include shells coming in from any neighbor. This standard is fairly universal in Western countries, yet I just read the other day by a "lefty" writer this phrase .. "The Katushas had almost all stopped, what was Israel's problem." Now I am not exactly sure what this person's definition of "almost all" was, but I actually have no problem with the fact that Israel's standard of safety is not "Well its only a couple of shells a day - looks like we can move ahead with our plans for peace." Where Israel wants NO threat of terrorism, and Israel seeks to have NO neighbors who even whisper about its annihilation, others would say - that is too high a standard. Others would say, "Israel, you shouldn't care what your neighbors say, or do, you should just give them all what they want, now." We need to be able to speak to our friends, not in the context of this argument - but in the context of a country who is so much like the United States. Once we can do that, we shift the discussion from who has the power to "What would Denmark do? And what would Germany do if they didn't like what Denmark did?" Only when you do that do you also see that as problematic as it is to build a house in a settlement that 5 peace plans say will be part of Israel in the future - "problematic house building" would never be a justification for Germany to send missiles into Denmark. We need to be able to acknowledge what more needs to be done to set the conditions for peace, while never relenting that Israel's standard for trust and comfort is the same as any countries would be - be they Denmark, Germany, or the United States.

- - -