Sunday, January 27, 2008
An elaboration on why I love Israel
I wanted to further extend my blog entry on the issue of Israel... I stated how much I love the country, but I didnt really explain why. Here it goes. I think it is incredible how after the Holocaust, so many Jews made Israel their home because they virtually had no where else to go. Although many people were sent back to Europe by the British under the British Mandate, there were those who made it to the land. After MUCH debating, in May of 1948, Israel became an independent state and was recognized as the homeland for the Jewish people. Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors shortly after its establishment, and prevailed. This is the first reason I love Israel. A brand new country with the only intentions of celebration, goes under attack yet manages to over come the Arab armies and win the War of Independence. Without the IDF, where would Israel be today? The Israeli army's slogan is "tzvah haganah leh yisrael" which means Israeli Defense Force. I think the name is so important because it shows that Israel's goal is self protection and to defend the people of the country. There is no other army in the world that has defense force in their name and I think it shows that Israel's army is not one to be thought of as starting wars, rather as peaceful. Unfourtunatly, many people think differently. I sometimes wonder if there would even be a state of Israel without the IDF, and the thought of it not existing terrifies me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thanks for this, Heather. At the same time, it doesn't really address my last comment. What you have here is pretty much the standard Zionist Jewish textbook version of "Why I love Israel." It's one narrative of many (even among Zionist groups), and perhaps the easiest and most elegant one to communicate. That said: what other narratives are out there? And why do those other narratives exist? (And why do you feel closest to *this* version of the story?)
One example about how ambiguous this can get: It's worth noting, that other versions of the Israeli wars story state outright that Israel has started wars as well (the summer 2006 incursion into south Lebanon is perhaps the most recent example people use). If one already believes it's a central Israeli value not to start wars and only defend the country, then it's possible to believe that Israel was attacked first (by mortars and abductions of Israeli soldiers). If, on the other hand, one believes Israel's more of an aggressor, then it's possible to look at the response to those mortar attacks/kidnappings as a blatant overreaction--and then further deduce that it was that overreaction that constituted the start of the war. In some cases, then, it's not necessarily the "truth" that one holds onto, but rather a truth that comes about based on what one wants to believe. Why do these different approaches to truth arise? What's at stake here?
Post a Comment