Israel is in the midst of voting in general elections, so it is no surprise that its people are not focusing on whether or not the Gaza war was worth the price. Of course, the price was mostly paid by Gazans rather than by Israelis.
In that sense, Israel was the clear "winner" while Gaza, still burying its dead, was the loser. Unfortunately, it is not clear that Hamas lost – a critical distinction. The people of Gaza are not Hamas. They are just people; many of the dead were children. Hamas, however, is surviving.
In one area, Israel clearly lost: public opinion. In the past, a distinction could be made between how America reacted to a Middle Eastern war and how the rest of the world did. Judging from media coverage, this time there was little difference between America and everywhere else.
The media focus was on the humanitarian disaster, not on who was or wasn't responsible for the war. The blogosphere – now as influential as the mainstream media – was almost uniformly opposed to Israel's position. The prevalent view there was that Israel's blockade of Gaza was no less a casus belli than the Qassam rockets.
The impact on public opinion has been striking. Except from within the more conservative segment of the pro-Israel community, there was little show of support for this war. In New York, a city where crowds of 250,000 have come out for "solidarity" rallies in the past, only 8,000 came to Manhattan for a community demonstration on a sunny Sunday. The same scepticism about the war was true elsewhere and Israelis noticed the break with past patterns.
So did the media. The current issue of Newsweek features a story called: "Israel Has Fewer Friends than Ever, Even in America."
Then came 60 Minutes. Last Sunday, the highest rated programme in the United States ran a scathing Bob Simon segment on the occupation. One part stood out. Simon and his crew filmed a private home in Nablus, which the Israeli army seized so that its soldiers could use the upper floor as a lookout post.
The episode was pretty incredible television, at least for the United States (not so in Israel where these issues are freely discussed). But this type of analysis is becoming more and more common. Just check out Jon Stewart's Daily Show, on which the brilliant and hugely influential Jewish comedian consistently takes on the safe and conventional wisdom about the Middle East.
The American approach to the Middle East is changing and the shift in the media is just one sign of it. Most important of all, America has changed.
Could anyone have imagined in the first years following 9/11 that the very next President of the United States would be an African American named Barack Hussein Obama, who makes a point of addressing Muslims in his inaugural address and telling Al Arabiya about his Muslim relatives?
Obama's America is going to be even-handed in the Middle East not only because that is what Obama is, but because it is what most Americans today expect and want. Younger people, in particular, cannot even imagine that anyone would suggest that even-handedness is bad. To them, that is like saying that the best referee is one who bends the rules to favour one team.
I also have more faith in Israel. It seems to grasp what Obama's election signifies. Every major front page in Israel ran Obama's interview with Al Arabiya, his first with any foreign media since his inauguration. Israelis heard him endorse the Saudi plan and state that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to our problems in the region. They recognise a clean break with the past when they see it. And they are beginning to realise that Obama is a friend, even if he does not mouth simple-minded rhetoric about the Middle East and what will fix it.
Even Benjamin Netanyahu is eager to convey that he gets Obama. He has moderated his tone since Obama's election and has made it clear that the last thing he wants is a difficult relationship with America's most popular president in a generation.
I would expect that, no matter who is elected as Israel's prime minister, he or she would get along with our new president. They know that George W. Bush, whose "support" for Israel was ultimately destructive, is gone. It's a new day and, for Israel, that will mean dialling down the rhetoric. Far more significantly, it means changing policies – starting with an end to the settlement enterprise.
That is what Israel's friends here want – an end to the occupation and the full implementation of the two-state solution now, before it is too late.
In that sense, Israel was the clear "winner" while Gaza, still burying its dead, was the loser. Unfortunately, it is not clear that Hamas lost – a critical distinction. The people of Gaza are not Hamas. They are just people; many of the dead were children. Hamas, however, is surviving.
In one area, Israel clearly lost: public opinion. In the past, a distinction could be made between how America reacted to a Middle Eastern war and how the rest of the world did. Judging from media coverage, this time there was little difference between America and everywhere else.
The media focus was on the humanitarian disaster, not on who was or wasn't responsible for the war. The blogosphere – now as influential as the mainstream media – was almost uniformly opposed to Israel's position. The prevalent view there was that Israel's blockade of Gaza was no less a casus belli than the Qassam rockets.
The impact on public opinion has been striking. Except from within the more conservative segment of the pro-Israel community, there was little show of support for this war. In New York, a city where crowds of 250,000 have come out for "solidarity" rallies in the past, only 8,000 came to Manhattan for a community demonstration on a sunny Sunday. The same scepticism about the war was true elsewhere and Israelis noticed the break with past patterns.
So did the media. The current issue of Newsweek features a story called: "Israel Has Fewer Friends than Ever, Even in America."
Then came 60 Minutes. Last Sunday, the highest rated programme in the United States ran a scathing Bob Simon segment on the occupation. One part stood out. Simon and his crew filmed a private home in Nablus, which the Israeli army seized so that its soldiers could use the upper floor as a lookout post.
The episode was pretty incredible television, at least for the United States (not so in Israel where these issues are freely discussed). But this type of analysis is becoming more and more common. Just check out Jon Stewart's Daily Show, on which the brilliant and hugely influential Jewish comedian consistently takes on the safe and conventional wisdom about the Middle East.
The American approach to the Middle East is changing and the shift in the media is just one sign of it. Most important of all, America has changed.
Could anyone have imagined in the first years following 9/11 that the very next President of the United States would be an African American named Barack Hussein Obama, who makes a point of addressing Muslims in his inaugural address and telling Al Arabiya about his Muslim relatives?
Obama's America is going to be even-handed in the Middle East not only because that is what Obama is, but because it is what most Americans today expect and want. Younger people, in particular, cannot even imagine that anyone would suggest that even-handedness is bad. To them, that is like saying that the best referee is one who bends the rules to favour one team.
I also have more faith in Israel. It seems to grasp what Obama's election signifies. Every major front page in Israel ran Obama's interview with Al Arabiya, his first with any foreign media since his inauguration. Israelis heard him endorse the Saudi plan and state that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to our problems in the region. They recognise a clean break with the past when they see it. And they are beginning to realise that Obama is a friend, even if he does not mouth simple-minded rhetoric about the Middle East and what will fix it.
Even Benjamin Netanyahu is eager to convey that he gets Obama. He has moderated his tone since Obama's election and has made it clear that the last thing he wants is a difficult relationship with America's most popular president in a generation.
I would expect that, no matter who is elected as Israel's prime minister, he or she would get along with our new president. They know that George W. Bush, whose "support" for Israel was ultimately destructive, is gone. It's a new day and, for Israel, that will mean dialling down the rhetoric. Far more significantly, it means changing policies – starting with an end to the settlement enterprise.
That is what Israel's friends here want – an end to the occupation and the full implementation of the two-state solution now, before it is too late.
By M.J. Rosenberg
Source: Israel Policy Forum, www.ipforum.org.
