Published: 6 January 2025
Last updated: 6 January 2025
Because the issue of the Middle East has become so dominant, friends sometimes ask me, or sometimes avoid asking me but would probably like to know, my views.
This is an attempt to summarize my position. It is not comprehensive, nor a plan to solve the catastrophe, but just an attempt to assemble the key building blocks I believe must be accepted if a way forward is to be found.
I am not trying to provoke or persuade, nor, given how horrific and complex this issue is, am I confident that all my views are beyond challenge or can help find a resolution to it. I simply seek to explain how I see it.
- Netanyahu is a disaster. He is not interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict or the lives of Palestinians. While he has a lot of support in Israel, and agrees with, or opportunistically yields to, the views of right-wing extremists in his coalition, there is also substantial opposition to him, and Israel remains a democracy, albeit a flawed one. (A recent poll found that 69% of Israelis want a ceasefire and hostage release.) One can only hope the democratic process will throw him out sooner rather than later.
- Hamas is a disaster. This dispute is about more than history, territory and the settlements; it is actually about the militant, fundamentalist Islamism of Hamas and some other nations in the region, most notably Iran, and their rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Unlike Israel, in Gaza there is little opposition to the ruling regime, Hamas, and such opposition as there is is brutally suppressed.
- There should have been a ceasefire long ago, but it takes two to agree, and neither Netanyahu, nor Hamas (which triggered the current round of conflict) or Hezbollah (which has no actual territorial dispute with Israel), are genuinely ready for one.
- Israel should have withdrawn from the West Bank long ago. That said, while the settlements, and in particular the brutality of some (but not all) of the settlers and the politicians who encourage them, are a significant cause of the hostility to Israel, they are also an excuse, and withdrawal would not end the rejection by Hamas of Israel's right to exist.
- The Palestinian leadership must stop poisoning the minds of children and teaching them that Israel is evil and that their duty is to eliminate all Jews from it by becoming martyrs who will be rewarded in heaven.
- Israel had to respond to Oct 7, and to Hezbollah’s constant bombing of Israel. Hamas is a real threat to Israel, and the accusations about tunnels and human shields are real, and make innocent casualties inevitable - as is always the case in war e.g. Hiroshima, Dresden, Afghanistan. However, it is not unreasonable to criticise Israel's response and the resulting toll as horrendous, probably excessive, and counter-productive (in that rather than eliminating Hamas, it may create a new generation), but it is not genocide if the meaning of that term is understood correctly (even if some extremists in Israel would countenance a genocide-like response).
- That said, Israel has gone much too far now, and should indicate a genuine and serious willingness for a ceasefire, perhaps even by offering a unilateral pause to see how Hamas responds. A real settlement will almost certainly require an international peace-keeping force.
- The refugee issue is largely spurious. Palestinian refugees are the only refugee category in the world in which descendants of the original refugees continue to be designated as refugees, and have a special UN agency (UNWRA). The 700,000 people who became refugees after the UN’s creation of Israel in 1948 are matched by the similar number of Jews who were at the same time forced to flee the surrounding countries (Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, etc) for Israel.
- The failure of the other Middle East countries (some of which are super-wealthy) to assist, or resettle, refugees since then, and to offer sanctuary and aid to the people of Gaza now, is contemptible, and reflects their manipulation of the refugee issue for political purposes, and their unwillingness to incorporate militant Palestinians into their own populations. Tragically and intentionally, Oct 7 set back the momentum towards better relations with some of those countries, in particular Saudi Arabia.
- The characterisation of Israel as ‘colonial’ is simplistic and unhistoric. It fails to recognise that the movement of people into Israel was not conducted by an imperialist invading foreign nation, exploiting people and resources, but that it augmented (incrementally, through land purchases, migration, and other, mainly but not always legal means, and finally in 1948 with a UN vote) an unbroken Jewish presence in the land.
- The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is, at best, only partially true. It may be that, regrettably, because of the hardening of attitudes and the perception of security threats, arrangements in the occupied territories look disconcertingly like apartheid. It is absolutely untrue, however, to describe Israel itself as an apartheid nation; non-Jewish citizens there (including Arabs) enjoy full civil rights and occupy senior judicial and other positions - almost certainly more than minorities do in neighboring nations.
- That is not to deny that Israel's creation resulted in significant conflict, injustice, dispossession and suffering for Palestinians and Arabs. Even so, dispossession and conflicts as a result of movements of people over time and territory have occurred everywhere in the world throughout history - for instance, in post WWII Europe, and on a massively larger scale, and at the same time as the establishment of Israel, in India and Pakistan, but also here in Australia. These movements have not always led to the turmoil that the ME has endured for so many decades.
- Whatever the horror and injustice of the current situation, even worse is happening elsewhere and the world does not care. In the past 24 years 432,000 people have died in Afghanistan; in the past 10 years, 306,000 people died as a result of the conflict in Syria, in the past year 62,000 have died in Sudan. This selective outrage is what leads some in the Jewish community to perceive the worldwide opposition to Israel as partly based on ingrained, historic - albeit often subconscious - antisemitism.
- Jews have vastly diverging views on the situation. While most, including me, fervently believe in the importance of Israel’s survival (and in that sense could be described as ‘Zionists’) many of us are very critical of its government. Many, like me, also recognize and are deeply distressed that the character of Israel as an enlightened, pluralist, secular, moderate, democratic and united nation, informed by the idealistic socialist and secular origins of its foundation, is seriously jeopardised by its recent history and conduct.
- It therefore follows that if those people (and movements such as Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) opposed to Israel’s conduct wish to avoid being seen as antisemitic, they should direct their opposition at Israel’s government and its representatives, not at Jews, universities and other institutions.
Comments10
Naomi Vallins14 January at 01:18 am
It may be true that life may not be easy for Israeli Palestinians and it is true that they are stopped at checkpoints ( I know of a case) but that does not equal apartheid. it could simply reflect the tense situation in the country and also its desire to be safe
When such an epithet is hurled at Israel, it is, IMHO, incumbent for those making the comparison to have a good understanding of this odious system of government. There is plenty about it on the net but I will repeat one item from the net which sums apartheid up:
The Population Registration Act of1950 The Group Areas Act of 1950 The Pass Laws of 1952 The Separate Amenities Act of 1953 The Bantu Education Act of 1953 143 other apartheid laws controlled every aspect of life. It was heartbreaking to see the consequences of these laws everyday. How are these laws evidenced in Israel proper and in the West Bank?
Annamarie Cohen11 January at 11:02 pm
Thank you for being brave enough to put yourself out there and share your views. I appreciate that it was so clear and easy to read. Point 13 is one of my bug bears. From my experience, people do not want to have their beliefs challenged and so I change the conversation by raising wars in other places such as Ukraine, Mynamar, Sudan etc and ask where is there concern for these places.
David Milstein10 January at 12:28 am
It is not often that I read an article that aligns so closely to my long-held views.
I only question the issue of when the cease-fire should have started. When was “a good time”?
Jeff Loewenstein9 January at 11:29 am
There is much one could take issue with in this piece but what is concerning that as an academic the writer almost always finds a “excuse”, qualification or justification for the question he poses. With respect, in particular to Point 11, the good professor has obviously either not visited Israel or gone into the West Bank or Jordan Valley or spoken with any of the 21% of Arabs living in Israel. Apartheid and discrimination against Palestinians / Arabs – including in Israel itself – is widespread in a large number of respects and even visible to the naked eye. Just take a look at so-called Check Points as a good starting point or the roads designated for Israelis only. And what about Areas A, B and C in the West Bank?
Naomi Vallins9 January at 10:51 am
With regard to my comment about the description of Israel as an apartheid state I am like you, Michael talking only about the occupied territories and not Israel proper
Naomi Vallins9 January at 10:43 am
Michael, Agree with your views in the main but have concerns with the apartheid designation . I grew up in South Africa and saw apartheid in operation. As I recall, blacks did not have the vote, had few if any rights, could not live where they chose, had to have passes in order to move around, poor education opportunities etc. I could go on. The comparison plays right into the hands of those who hate Israel b/c it brings up images of one of the most despised systems of government in the 20th century .
Could you be more specific: in what ways is Israel apartheid-like?
andrew gelbart9 January at 07:08 am
Thank you Michael Liffman for an excellent summary of what’s been rattling round in my head for too long. I could embellish the article but I ít would only be marginal decoration.
Wesley Parish9 January at 06:45 am
“The 700,000 people who became refugees after the UN’s creation of Israel in 1948 are matched by the similar number of Jews who were at the same time forced to flee the surrounding countries (Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, etc) for Israel.”
This is historically incorrect. Yemeni Jews were sought after as labour in kibbutzim before the Nakba; after Israel declared Independence Yemeni Jews chose to migrate. I’ve got a little book on Israel dating from the early 60s, translated from French, which tells a rather different story, that Yemeni Jews chose of their own free will to migrate to Israel. The Egyptian Jews were abused by Israel’s government in the Lavon Affair, being used as “human shields” if you will, to shield Mossad’s terrorism. Consequently they came under a lot of harsh Egyptian anti-terrorism controls, and that eventually broke the community up. There’s still a lot of debate about Zionist involvement in the Iraqi Jews leaving Iraq. As far as I know, the Moroccan Jews were never forced to flee, as there is still a substantial Jewish community in Morocco, with their own parliamentary representatives.
Deborah Stone8 January at 10:28 am
Thanks for your feedback. We aim for variety. Our last several spotlit stories have been Australian in focus. As for depressing stories, we don’t make the news – but we do try to cover uplifting stories too. Check out our Generation Change series, our Arts & Culture coverage or our Beyond Black and White series for some uplifting content.
Sara Cross7 January at 11:05 pm
i dont understand why this story is gets such a spotlight on this news website. isnt this meant to be an australian jewish website?? why are all the featuredf news stories only focused on one thing only???? and everythign is always so depressing!!