Sunday, February 17, 2008

Discussions and solutions

When we have discussions we Jews often get intense and even passionate about our positions. But, being in England I try to "tone down" my reactions to fit into the prevalent milieu.
I had two minor disagreements while talking to people there. At one point I mentioned that the Security Fence that has been built around much of the West Bank has resulted in a quieter security situation and has saved lives. The person I was talking to said bluntly, "that's a land grab." I realized that this person got his information from the headlines and had only superifical understanding of the situation, but I replied quite sharply, "the original route of the fence included about 15% of West Bank territory, but many cases brought to the Israel Supreme Court by Palestinians and Israelis have resulted in the Govt. changing the route of the fence so that it now only includes 5% of the West Bank, hardly a "land grab," and anyway the fence itself can be moved subject to any agreement that is made on borders. And I for one am glad the fence is there because it has saved many lives including maybe my own and my family's." Then I moved away, giving him something to think about. I suppose he could discount my response as being merely that of an Israeli apologist, however, one does hope that facts are still important even to the ill-informed.
Another person got quite upset about US policy in Iraq, and when I said that Bush's policy of the "surge" seemed to be working, he launched into an anti-American diatribe. I suggested that in order to understand Saddam's Iraq he should read the book "Cruelty and silence" by Kennan Makiya. He said that each country has its own way of doing things and the US should not impose its way on others (a clear case of "moral relativism"). At that point I said if you're going to equate the US to Saddam's Iraq then there is no point in continuing this discussion and I walked away. Although I found people in England as usual, nice and friendly, there is certainly an undertow of political animosity.
Back in Israel, discussions are more animated and "solution-oriented" such as what are we going to do about the rockets on Sderot (nothing?) or Iran (wait until they strike us?). Suggesting military solutions only raises eyebrows, with the liberal/leftist attitude that any attempt to "invade" Gaza will result in "huge" Israeli casualties. On the contrary, said I, the longer we wait the more likely it is that Hamas will fire more long range rockets into central Israel, causing far greater civilian casualties, or do you want to wait until they do that? Anyway we don't have to invade across the borders where they are waiting for us, we can land troops by helicopters and ships behind their lines and take them by surprise, and we don't have to enter their cities, only surround them. Also, with Iran, now that the US has essentially ruled itself out of striking Iran with the faulty NIE, that leaves Israel alone, and then it may be a question of strike or be struck. Noone wants a war with Iran, so everyone agrees that we hope lightning may strike or some unpredictable event may happen, like Sadat visiting Israel or the USSR collapsing or an uprising in Iran. But, you can't depend on that.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home