A Palestinian mother and her young daughter crossing a checkpoint in the West Bank of Israel

Photos by Carol Eisenberg

Over the last two years, my wife and I have visited various locations in the West Bank near the town of Qalqilya. The reaction from people we know, on both sides of the political spectrum, has often been extreme. What we have come to realize is that tolerance and respect for the opinions of others is needed if any modus vivendi is ever to be achieved.

In our visits to the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), we accompanied a friend who is a member of 'Machsom Watch' (Checkpoint Watch), an organization of women that monitors the Israeli military (and the hired security guards who work with them) as they manage the flow of people and commerce through crossings at the security barriers that separate Israel from the West Bank and at various points along the extensive system of security fences which have been erected inside the area. The barrier, which was put up to stem the tide of suicide bombings that had  killed or injured thousands of Israelis, is (controversially) located entirely on the West Bank side of the Green Line that separates Israel from the 'as yet to be born' Palestinian State. Our friend reports on her observations at the crossings and checkpoints. Inasmuch as the soldiers and guards anticipate that any Palestinian could be a terrorist, it is not a good-natured, friendly operation.

On these visits we have interacted with farmers and small-business owners – and to some minimal extent have heard their stories. It is clear from our own observations that the internal fences, many of which are deep inside the West Bank, interfere with the normal life of the inhabitants as they often separate villages from their schools and farmlands, bisect farms and groves, and generally hamper the normal commerce and movement of the inhabitants. It is also clear from looking at a map showing the placement of these fences, that an obvious reason for their existence is to insulate West Bank Jewish settlements from the local Arab population.

Our West Bank trips have provoked extreme reactions on the part of some of our friends and family. These polarized responses have taken two forms. Certain of our friends, in response to the undeniably harsh, arbitrary, humiliating and antidemocratic treatment of the Arabs in the West Bank, uncritically endorse the Palestinian narrative -- rationalizing, then discounting, all past and present bad behavior on the part of Arabs. At the same time these friends come down hard on Israel, holding it to a much higher moral standard.

Some of these friends have professed support for Hamas even as it fires rockets and mortars into Israel. They cite Hamas’ good works, alleged honesty and opposition to the West Bank occupation, while ignoring its vehement denial of Israel’s right to exist. Indeed, Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant of August 18, 1988 advocates a general slaughter of the Jews. Although it was reported, prior to the 2006 elections in Gaza, that this offensive language would be removed, it is still a part of the charter. Equally mystifying is the support some of our friends have expressed for Lebanese-based Hezbollah which continues its attacks against Israel despite the fact that Israeli forces withdrew from Lebanon (to the internationally recognized border) more than 10 years ago.

Focusing solely on the tactics of the Israelis, our friends turn a blind eye to the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah, which are backed by Iran and Syria, want all of Palestine (including Israel) to become an Islamic state. What is more, these Arab organizations embrace the kind of anti-democratic policies our friends profess to abhor.

This marriage of Arab religion-based anti-Israel organizations and the liberal left is mind-boggling and calls to mind the time, at the close of WWII, when liberals demonized England and America for ‘’thwarting’‘ the virtuous Russians from claiming their Eastern European ‘rewards’ after having defeated the Nazis.

Equally mystifying is why Israel is being held to Western standards of behavior and ideology while the political and social actions of its Moslem neighbors, where theocracies or secular dictatorships and draconian human rights violations are the norm, are blithely excused with the ‘politically correct’ caveat that we Westerners do not have a right to pass judgment on their culture.  

Equally surprising (at the other extreme) is the reaction of certain friends and family who may acknowledge abuses on the part the State of Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians, but discount the significance and importance of these abuses as if the Palestinians do not matter. Some of these friends have expressed dismay at our having even wanted to visit the West Bank, and they appear to resent being asked to examine Israel’s conduct there. Like many American and Israeli Jews, and some non-Jewish Americans too, these friends are no longer willing to cut the Palestinians any slack and are not interested in placing them within the context of a protected minority. For them the Palestinians' civil rights are readily discounted because of Arab provocation when measured against the security needs of the State of Israel.

What is especially surprising, is that these friends can be liberal regarding other political issues, but when it comes to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, they adopt the Israeli right wing ‘narrative’ and justify their views by reciting every bad action on the part of Palestinians and other Arabs against the State of Israel. Thoroughly exasperated with the seemingly insurmountable conflict, a few even espouse expulsion of all West Bank and Israeli Arabs to another Arab land (shades of Helen Thomas).

Discussions of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict inevitably turn to questions of U.S. foreign policy, its effectiveness in advancing U.S. goals and its morality in the context of the 21^st century. One could argue, as I have, that as a tactical ploy the U.S. should use its considerable leverage (credits and military cooperation) to force Israel to halt settlement construction and expansion, and to change some of its policies in the West Bank. Both George Bush 1 and Barack Obama attempted this, but, disappointingly, backed off when Israel called what turned out to be a U.S. bluff. There are those who argue that for political reasons Netanyahu cannot currently deliver a halt to settlement expansion and that the issue is a red herring, as evidenced by the fact that the Palestinian Authority had, for years, been participating in negotiations without such a halt. However, I believe the ongoing construction has not only caused the Arabs to doubt that Israel will ever vacate the West Bank; it has also blunted Israel’s incentive to conclude a peace treaty. And surely, it has hurt Israel’s image in the eyes of the world.

Today, significant changes are rapidly taking place in the Middle East. Governments heretofore thought to be very stable are being forced to shed their longtime dictators in the wake of severe social upheavals. The outcomes of these revolutions are unknowable and in the short run may not lead to an increase in democracy or in civil rights for the citizens of those countries. Equally unpredictable are the political and social effects of the apparent rapprochement between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank. How this will impact the negotiations between Israel and the new Palestinian leadership remains to be seen. Iran’s nuclear ambitions constitute yet another wild card that has been thrown into the Middle East disputes. It is debatable whether a resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian political dispute would change Iran’s world view or at least its conduct.

In short, the Israel/Palestine land and ideology dispute which has festered since the late 19^th century, is certain to be impacted, in unknown ways, by the changes sweeping the region as well as by an acceleration in Palestinian nationalism and in some other places (Turkey and Egypt) the Islamization of nationalism. Just as Jews fought and died to create their state, today’s Palestinians are also willing to lay down their lives to make a nation. To promote stability and save lives, now is the time to end this conflict.

Accordingly, our efforts should be to push the peace process forward by putting pressure on Israeli and Palestinian (PLO and Hamas) leaders and all of the other Middle Eastern states to finally implement the plans of Great Britain, the League of Nations and the United Nations for two states living in peace within defined borders, as set forth in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242. 

As an American without close ties to the Arab world, I do not presume to give advice to that side of the conflict. But to my side, family and friends both Jewish and Christian, I offer the following: to those who denounce Israel’s every action and question its legitimacy, you are not helping the peace process and are, in fact, promoting war. Of course you should question and expose all of Israel’s bad actions, but the emphasis should be on nudging Israel toward humane actions and a pragmatic negotiated settlement. If all you do is demonize Israel and apply a ’double standard’ to every one of its actions when compared to those of its neighbors – and if your new best friends are reactionary groups that call for the destruction of Israel – you might need to question your true feelings about Jews. Indeed, there are many who see Israel-bashing as a new, more politically correct, form of anti-Semitism.

To our friends and family at the other end of the spectrum who discount the rights of the Palestinians, accept all of Israel’s actions as necessary for the security of the state, secretly take pride in Israel’s expansion (in land and power) and believe that if Israel can stall negotiations for another generation the Palestinian problem will go away, I would remind you that Ariel Sharon, despite having once been a vigorous advocate of settlement expansion, ultimately concluded that it was a disaster in the making for a variety of reasons including the fact that Israel’s enemies are getting stronger militarily, and that annexing the West Bank would, as long as Israel remains a democracy, result in its loss of identity as a democratic Jewish State .

 At the end of the day, it is necessary - to prevent war and ensure Israel’s survival as a successful, modern state that can provide a refuge for Jews as needed – to take a chance on peace and to negotiate a settlement that satisfies both sides.

Palestinians waiting to cross the checkpoint.

William Benjamin, M.D. is Professor Emeritus, Physiology and Biophysics and Medicine, State University of New York at Stony Brook.