The Tightrope of Critical Support

It is no easy feat, walking the tightrope of critical support. Chaim Weizmann described the world in 1936 as ‘divided into two parts — those places where the Jews cannot live and those where they cannot enter.’ The liberal Israeli finds themself trapped in the past. Nothing has changed. Lately, trying to talk to people both inside and outside of Israel has left me feeling uncomfortably two-faced. I am not happy with my country. And I am not happy with the criticisms levied at it. How did we get here?

The simple answer is that most of the external criticism of Israel misses the mark by a long shot. So does the majority of Israeli government action. Foreign perspectives tend to be unrealistic and naive at best, or broadly antisemitic at worst. Within Israel, where the people who live and breathe the local politics make astute, productive, observations, their complaints have no influence on the ruling coalition. The result is an uncomfortable overlap where anti-Zionist critique is partially justified by the current Zionist regime. Those of us who struggle to reside in a healthy moderate zone find the ground under our feet shrinking daily.

Israel’s current government is enacting a series of policies that are immoral, unjust, and harmful to the Jewish people, as well as the Arabs with which we share the land. Israel, as it is acting now, harms us, and yet we need it more and more. The state exists as a bastion of safety for the Jewish people at a time when fascism, populism, and reactionary hatred is on the rise globally (and in accordance, as has always been the case, so rises the tide of antisemitism). These two positions generate a contradiction that should be laid bare:

You can, and should, both stand with, and against, Israel in its current state.

The state of Israel deserves to exist, as justified by the basic right of a people to self determine and reject persecution. Antisemitism both current and historic attests to the fact that Jews are an oppressed people globally. Furthermore, the basic right of a people to self determine applies just as much to Jews as to any other minority group — as established in the UN general assembly resolution 1514. The call to end colonialism, meaning freedom for peoples subjugated in their land by external imperial forces, applies just as much to the Muslim empire that colonized and subjugated historic Palestine as it does to the British that later did the same. Zionism, in its simplest form, is the right of the Jewish people to self-determine in their homeland, the land of Israel. It’s goal has always been that of continued Jewish safety and autonomy alongside its non-Jewish neighbours. In theory this is simple, but the road towards it has, in practice, been challenging.

The Jewish quest for freedom takes place in direct parallel to the Palestinian one. While there is no Palestinian state, and never has been, in the last 100 years a unique Palestinian people has emerged. They too are entitled to self determination in the lands in which they reside, irrespective of ancestry or historical legal agreements. This right has been denied them by the surrounding Arab nations of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt — and also, just as much, by Israel. The current Israeli regime has seemingly no interest in peaceful coexistence, breaking from much of past political and popular sentiment. The Palestinians deserve, as human beings, to be delivered from the plight imposed upon them by a government that is afraid to cede any control.

The two movements are hoplessly intertwined. Everybody knows the situation is inherently cyclical at this point. The Jews feel they cannot budge or they will be destroyed, and the Palestinians feel the same way. Radical elements have strong-armed the efforts of entire nations, degrading them in the process. Israel’s current government is redirecting funds away from public services towards ultra-Orthodox communities and building settlements in territory it controls militarily in order to maintain power. On the other side is the terror organization Hamas, a military industrial complex with the resources of a small country (and the support of at least two others), as well as the Palestinian Authority, a hive of corruption that pays lip service to coexistence as it funds violent crime.

In such a situation it’s hard to see a reason to stay. The conflict is intractable and there is nobody to root for. So why stay at all? And why even support a side? On this question, putting aside the fact that most Israelis have nowhere else to go, I think the first thing that must be said is this: sometimes there are only lesser evils to choose from. Yet, you can recognize the wrong of one’s own side without abandoning it wholly. In fact, you must.

You must because if all the reasonable voices leave then the situation can only get worse. But, beyond that, you must because loyalty is essential to building a functional future. And loyalty isn’t worth a damn if your side is always correct. In such a case one wouldn’t be performing loyalty but justice. But if loyalty contrasts directly with justice, what is the value of loyalty? An ancient virtue meets a logical challenge. The answer is not complicated. The virtue of loyalty lies in a broader realm. We recognize that nobody and nothing is without flaw — we learn this early enough, and with time come to accept it even of ourselves. Loyalty, then, is faith in the greater value of somebody or something, even in a moment of darkness. To recognize potential, even when the horizon is bleak. This faith is essential for basic social function, and for future growth. If we gave up on our friends because they made a mistake the world would become a lonely and miserable place. This is why loyalty is essential if we want to make progress. Everybody needs someone to stand by them and, often, it is this loyal support, even when you are at fault, that allows you to move forward, to learn and to grow. It is the necessary unconditional care of a mother, without which we would grow twisted and sad. But more importantly, it doesn’t mean blind support. Loyalty means sticking by even when times are rough — but not sycophancy. A truly loyal friend has to be able to tell you that you’re wrong. Otherwise they’re not really standing by you at all.

Loyalty is what allows a people to stick together through hard times and to change from within. Both Israel and Palestine must change from within if there is any hope for a peaceful future. But calling for change is very different from calling for an end. And I find myself arguing this point on both sides. That Israel should indeed exist. And so should Palestine. Even if we’re not ready for that future yet there is more than enough space in the discussion for this kind of nuance. Yet somehow marching for Palestine in Israel is very different from marching for Palestine outside of Israel — none of that essential nuance is preserved. Cynicism is not helpful. Neither is naivety. Most criticism or support of Israel is cutting one way and naive in another. To see Israel as a paragon of virtue, at war with barbarians, is harmful to both sides. But those that call for a one state solution claiming, in spite of all evidence, that the Palestinians are yearning to build an egalitarian utopia — would the Israeli boot only be lifted from their throat — are no better. It matters less, then, what ‘side’ you choose, but rather how you work from your vantage point. Towards coexistence, or conflict?

Rape cannot be resistance. And shackles cannot be security. So how do you walk the tightrope of critical support? Perhaps for now two faces are simply necessary, for balance. One for the inside, to stay loyal and present, even when you see your side as wrong — to be a dissenting voice and criticize what should be criticized; and one for the outside, to reject those that would expand your criticism into condemnation, and weaponize your battle for betterment into a war for the destruction of the Jewish state. We can work towards merging these faces by striving to make space for nuance wherever we go. Two faces, facing apart. Tools to push back on either side, to expand the ground on which the liberal Israeli can stand until it encompasses all of Israel, and until all people can live together in peace.