Israeli Gears

The Israeli pot has boiled over again, this time in the White House kitchen, although most of us missed it. The story did not involve any missile strikes, or suicide bombers, or homes being bulldozed. There were no sensational claims of war plans being handed over to Jewish spies. Not this time.

What happened was rather low-key: A man named Charles Freeman was appointed by President Obama to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council. AIPAC and others in the pro-Israel lobby raised all manner of opposition, on account of Freeman's past views on the Middle East, specifically on Israel's role - or lack thereof - in the peace process.

Before too long, Freeman had to withdraw from consideration, but not without firing off a public letter decrying the nature of his own high-tech lynching. So the story isn't really about Freeman, but about the way in which most any criticism of U.S.-Israeli policy inevitably results in a cry of anti-Semitism, whether such is warranted or not.

When I was just a kid, I saw a photograph in the newspaper that blew me away. An elderly Palestinian man was on his knees in the street with his hands bound behind his back. An Israeli soldier was swinging a baton toward his head.

Clearly, I thought, They Have Forgotten. Over time, as the situation evolved (mostly for the worse), it became apparent that the people of the Jewish state considered this to be a struggle for survival. Geographically and demographically speaking it is precisely that.

The Palestinians have gone two generations now living in the kind of desperation that leaves them open to the radical influences of religious fanatics. It doesn't take much more than the obvious to convince them that suicidal martyrdom makes sense. The sheer paucity of their existence fuels those hellish fires.

Freeman's sin was his belief that Israel has utilized "high-handed and self-defeating policies". Does that make an anti-Semite out of him, or out of Jimmy Carter, who goes so far as to define the current situation as a form of apartheid? Doesn't the overuse of that accusation in dealing with differences of opinion dilute the very horrific and shameful nature of the historical persecution of Jews?

Ironically, a much more liberated discussion of this subject takes place every day in Israel, where the population is closely divided as to which path to choose. This was demonstrated in the recent election in which Tzipi Livni, the candidate more likely to pursue peace by actually peaceful means, was narrowly defeated by the hawkish former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But we've seen this 'Yahu before, after Yitzhak Rabin (the only man to ever seriously pursue peace with his neighbors) was assassinated, in Israel, by a right-wing Jewish militant. "Bibi" was less than effective then, and was replaced by the more concession-minded Ehud Barak, who also got nowhere with the Palestinians.

The story remains the same. Only the writers have changed. No solution is in sight, and even the pursuit of one is tinged with suspicion and hostility, wherever it takes place. The hearts, minds and souls on each side have hardened to the point where neither can agree on anything, to the point where none of them have any business living in what they so sincerely call the Holy Land.

pH 3.15.o8