In the city of Temper, Arizona, families huddle together in their basements, avoiding potshots and mortar shells from Mexican rebels firing across the United States’ disputed southern border.
After months of failed negotiations with the government of Mexico, the U.S responds with a counterattack. The Swiss government immediately condemns the U.S. for excessive use of force.
Sound ludicrous? It should, not only because we have good relations with Mexico, but, more important, because it’s a given that the United States as a sovereign nation has the right to defend itself against attack, regardless of whether the attack results in loss of life.
Yet just as Israelis are getting ready to celebrate 53 years of independence next week, a similar defense of sovereign borders alongside the Gaza Strip Monday brought renewed world condemnation, including from the United States, Israel’s staunchest ally (see story page 8).
According to Nir Barkin, a graduate of the Middle Eastern Studies Center of Tel Aviv University, Milwaukee shaliach (emissary) and head of the Israel Resource Center of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation, “The U.S. condemnation of the Israeli intervention in the Gaza Strip following mortar attacks inside Israel Monday will have the exact opposite effect than it has intended. Instead of discouraging violence, it will generate yet another cycle. The Palestinians will read this again as weakness.
“What the United States should understand is that toughness in the Middle East earns respect. The Israelis know this; they have lived it for too long. Whether we like Prime Minister Ariel Sharon or not, whether we fault him perhaps for not being the best international politician around, we cannot fault him for knowing, and reacting appropriately to, his neighbors.
“Sharon, who has been holding back Israel’s military for weeks, knows that he lives in a region in which if you do not react immediately, you are viewed as weak. The United States should realize this as well, and recognize that instead of hurting its relations with Arab nations, toughness will foster them.”
Toughness, backed by a willingness to resume dialogue under the appropriate conditions, seems the only option open to Israelis as long as the violence and incitement toward violence by the Palestinian Authority continues. Does that leave anything to celebrate on Israel’s Independence Day next week?
“Yes,” Barkin said. “We have held the sword in one hand all these 53 years, while at the same time making Israel into one of the most modern countries in the world, with tremendous achievements in the areas of economics, medicine, agriculture and technology.
“We want peace and coexistence, but only after the violence ceases and the Arab countries surrounding Israel recognize Israel as a Jewish state with the right to exist. Even then, we are talking about long-term interim agreements that take a significant number of years to bring both sides to the level of trust required for coexistence.”
As Israelis remain staunch in their resolve to defend their borders and right to exist, the Bush administration would do well to channel its energies toward increased understanding both of the cultural dynamics at work in this volatile region and of the need for a sounder foreign policy for it. As the history of Middle East negotiations and peace agreements has shown, progress toward peace seldom occurs when the U.S. maintains a hands-off policy. Understanding all this can only increase the chance that Israel some day will celebrate its independence with both hands holding the olive branch, instead of with one on the sword.
Loading ...