It's never been harder to be both a conscientious liberal and a Zionist than it is right now. Particularly in the United States, where Zionism has been reduced to "there is no such thing as bad Israeli policy," and where it's easy to conclude that only the neo-cons think that Israel should do anything to defend itself, the tension between liberal values and Zionist values is, quite frankly, enough to make me bang my head against the wall.
It wasn't always this way. Zionism was once flat-out socialist; indeed, there was a time when Israel was more aligned with the Soviet Union than the United States (-ish; most of the Middle East alliances during the '50's have a certain amount of "-ish" to them; you can also argue that the Soviets were backing pan-Arabism and be just as right). It was once easy to be both Zionist and left. No more.
Rather than wade into the trenches of "who did what to whom" and the round and round of the flotilla incident (which in the best possible interpretation is an example of Israeli leadership seriously blowing the call, possibly worse than Jim Joyce), I decided I would throw out a few thoughts about things that probably aren't the best phrases to toss around in the conversation.
- "Israel is a terrorist state." To be perfectly honest, this one makes me as close to being a Likudnik as you will ever see. First, there isn't really a definition in international law for "state terrorism," as there's no consensus in customary international law. Various U.N. figures have noted that there is no legal concept of "state terrorism," here and here (apologies for linking to the New America Foundation, whose bona fides I have been unable to judge; however, they quote directly from a UN report and interview with SG Annan that I have been unable to otherwise find). So, when you say "Israel is a terrorist state," what you are really saying is, "I feel like this particular action by Israel about which I am outraged is terrorism." Which is fine, when we can all agree that that's "just, you know, your opinion, man," but when you present it as a statement of fact you announce that you will brook no disagreement; that those who may disagree are not just wrong, but in fact terrorist enablers; and by saying that "Israel is a terrorist state" rather than "This particular action is terrorism" you have decided that there is no circumstance under which any action by any Israeli government organ is appropriate. Which leads to the next problematic statement:
- "I demand an independent investigation into <ACTION>." Well, sure, we'd all love an independent investigation; the problem is that the way "independent investigation" seems to be used in this sentence, it really means "blame Israel." Here's an option: why not run an investigation using Israeli jurists? The Israeli courts have frequently proven themselves to be intolerant of government efforts to justify curtailments of freedom in the name of "national security." In fairness, the courts in Israel have also sometimes fallen short, so I'm not saying that we shouldn't be skeptical of an Israeli-only investigation; just that the Israelis have a role to play in any investigation other than "defendant."
- "Israel is doing <ACTION> that is illegal." Quite frankly, that's probably extremely unlikely. I won't say "impossible," because it could certainly be true, but color me skeptical. Here's why: first, for a state's action to be illegal (strictly speaking, unlawful, but why quibble?) it has to be contrary to authority that binds that state. There are three sources of binding authority on states: domestic law, treaties signed and ratified by the state under the state's domestic law for ratifying treaties; and customary international law. While I certainly agree that there are interpretations of various authorities that would suggest that some Israeli actions are unlawful, those authorities provide enough different interpretations within the compass of their language that most (not necessarily all) Israeli actions can at least be argued to be licit. You are, however, strongly encouraged to say, "I prefer this interpretation of Authority X, under which <ACTION> is unlawful; it is just as unlawful when Israel does it as any other nation. I prefer this interpretation because of <REASONS>."
- "Israel is justified because of <ACTION> or <BELIEF> among the Palestinians." No, it's not. First of all, when we talk about punishing someone for what they believe, absent action, hey, guess what we call that? Is it a thought crime? I think that might be one phrase used to describe that. Second, why is it appropriate to act as if you are at war, when you in fact deny the statehood of those you're fighting? The Israeli position on the basic legality of its actions don't hold up under simple logic. Which does not, on its own, condemn every Israeli action; I would not only that every action has to have a separate justification - offering up "we are at war for our own existence" as a justification for everything is kind of silly on its face.
And here, unfortunately, is where my bias really shows through. I am certain that there are other statements made in support of Israel that are inappropriate or just wrong; but being focused on the Israel criticism that I see means that I see the corrections needed by criticism more than the ones needed by defense. I'm not excusing it, simply explaining my own failures. Please feel free to offer your own thoughts on how Israel SHOULD be defended in the comments.