It seems to be happening a lot lately: publicly known figures telling us how much they ‘love’ Israel and insisting that they are its ‘friend’ before launching into some kind of attack on this or that aspect of Israel. So I suppose it’s time to talk about love.
The kind of love for Israel which Jonathan Freedland professes in his JC article of November 7th is better known as infatuation. Like many a starry-eyed young lover, having just discovered that the object of his affections snores and leaves wet towels on the floor, he now feels betrayed. Israel is not the perfect being he put on a pedestal and so his affection becomes conditional; either she lives up to his ideals or it will be her fault that he can’t love her any longer.
That, of course, is not love. Genuine love is capable of accepting the faults of the loved one as part of the whole package but recognising the merits too. Just as our partners and children sometimes disappoint or annoy us with their flaws, so does Israel, but we do not stop loving them because of that. And we do not lay down pre-conditions for our love.
The Israeli people know full well that their country – like any other – is far from perfect, as do Israel’s many friends within the British Jewish community. But apparently unlike Freedland, both these groups understand that despite its flaws, Israel represents a tremendous achievement. Increasingly and uniquely that achievement has its very existence called into question.
Freedland’s attempt to equate the external threat represented by delegitimisation of Israel’s basic existence with its internal faults and failures is at best disingenuous and possibly even a form of delegitimisation in itself due to its selective highlighting and amplification.
In his dramatic description of a visit to Hebron, Freedland fails to mention the town’s complex history including the expulsion of its ancient Jewish population, the fact that Israelis living there today do so under the terms of the Oslo accords accepted by the PA or the numerous attacks on Israeli civilians there which have made ugly and regrettable security measures necessary in order to protect lives. Freedland completely exonerates by omission one side of the dispute; his opprobrium is reserved exclusively for the object of his disappointed infatuation.
Moving on to Mea Sharim, again Freedland neglects to paint the whole picture, failing to state that the Israeli High Court has emphatically ruled against sex segregation (reflecting majority opinion in broader Israeli society) or to mention the sterling work of Jerusalem council members in combatting this aberration. Equally disingenuously, Freedland presents one of the hundreds of proposals placed annually for debate on the Knesset table as though it were evidence of the demise of Israeli democracy.
Like any democracy, Israel has its fair share of healthy wrangles between different sections of society, each with its own interests. Rather than heralding its demise, there is much to celebrate about the fact that truly multi-cultural Israel is confident enough in its robust democracy to allow all kinds voices to be heard – even those the majority find unacceptable.
By presenting a selectively edited cameo of what he sees as Israel’s unlovable traits and conditionalising his love and friendship upon their removal, Freedland displays profound disrespect for the very democracy he claims to uphold and trivialises the many complex realities the Israeli people who make up that democracy face.
Even more worrying is his employment of linkage between perceived faults in Israeli society and Israel’s very existence – a tactic frequently used by the very worst assailants on Israel’s legitimacy and one which no other country, however undemocratic, has to tolerate.
Such conditionality chauvinistically reduces Israel to the status of dumb trophy wife.
That’s a version of ‘love’ best avoided by its object.
Related articles
- The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland, Hebron and the logic of ethnic cleansing (cifwatch.com)
- The Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland reconciles with the anti-Zionist left (cifwatch.com)
- Jonathan Freedland’s Intifada delusions. (cifwatch.com)
- Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland is mugged by the reality of BDS movement’s malevolence (cifwatch.com)
- An open letter to Jonathan Freedland (cifwatch.com)






19 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 13, 2011 at 7:36 am
Another Joshua
Israelinurse’s has fleshed out an interesting alternative explanation to Freedland’s reasoning. Whilst not sitting with anti-zionists, he is happy to appease some of their positions in their conflict with jews and Israel by adopting elements of their argument (occupation etc,) to suit his own personal disillusionment over what Israel, in his view has become, but disregarding what others say it is but isn’t, in order to keep holding his position. Hence the moment of self-realisation in a public discussion with Barghouti in which he discovered that while he said he supported the “end of occupation while arguing against boycotting Israel, found himself having to defend Israel’s existence against delegitimisation.
I recall years ago talking to a group of supporters of Likud, when I was in Israel, and I was asked what my views were on the subject of handing over territory. It was after Begin and Sadat had signed the peace agreement. It was my view then, as it is now, that it was a premature question. Without having clear recognition by all the Arab Staes and the Arabs generally, the answer to that question will have to wait.
November 13, 2011 at 9:37 am
sencar
“Without having clear recognition by all the Arab States and the Arabs generally, the answer to that question will have to wait”..
The Saudi Plan of 2002 offered full recognition of Israel by all Arab states in return for withdrawal to 1967 lines and a “just settlement” of the Palestinian refugee crisis. Sharon refused to conside the offer, calling it “a non-starter”.
November 13, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Ariadne
No wonder. Arabs lost the land and want it back painlessly. Why were the actual refugees not settled as all others have been? Not one still alive can be younger than 62.
Arab countries have plenty of room and some of them even have Jordan.
November 13, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Another Joshua
Full recognition of what Sencar? A precondition to commit suicide by allowing 4 million so-called ‘refugees’ to enter Israel. A complete non-recognition of having gone to war against Israel and no end of stopping the violence. I’m sorry to puncture the discussion so early on. I was referring to 1981, when the Camp David accords made an allowance for the Arafat to join the negotiations , which he declined to do.
Obama and Netanyahu speak of land swaps and territorial concessions in any future arrangement. Not a dicky bird from Abbas. Not a single word to change in the PLO Covenant or the Hamas Charter. That is why I say it’s premature. Right or left side of politics, no one is going to move.
November 13, 2011 at 8:37 am
Abtalyon
It really is becoming tiresome; this constant treatment of Israel as if it were one’s local football team, cheering and celebrating the wins, ranting and raving over the losses and nit-picking over the goals that were missed or conceded, the manager’s unfathomable team selections, the state of the pitch and the appalling behaviour of the opposing teams’ fans.
We are a country of tremendous contrasts, physical, geographical, ethnic and religious and ideological. There are bound to be people who will like us and others who will hate us- and many, myself included, who oscilate between those extremes from time to time.
There is no need to make such an issue of it, but I suppose, journalists have to find something to write about: otherwise they would be forgotten.
November 13, 2011 at 9:36 am
Serendipity
Good article, but perhaps you overcomplicate, Israelinurse?
Perhaps Freedland is little better than many Guardian hacks in that he lacks both spine and moral compass when push comes to shove. Rather than go out on a limb he toes the party line and dishes out the Guardian world view because he needs his job.
November 13, 2011 at 10:11 am
JerusalemMite
Lovely ‘rendering’ if Freedland Israeli Nurse.
He will have to come to terms with himself.
I don’t mind Israel being held to higher standards than our neighbors. I start to see a problem when people, some of them Jews, ‘turn on’ Israel for not being perfect.
However, I do differentiate between the rabid Israel hater and those who take there criticisms a little to far. Mostly they simply cannot bring themselves to agree that Israel’s security situation demands some measures that a naturally liberal person takes issue with. Different from the rabid Israel hater, (Ben White, Georgina Henry and Seamus Milne comes to mind), who cannot conceive of anything ‘good’ about Israel or ‘bad’ about Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims.
November 13, 2011 at 10:34 am
Mitnaged
Part of my post to the “Guardian vindicates CiF Watch” thread repeated here because it is relevant:
“…. For me, the sheer hypocrisy of the Guardian and its zoo of journalists/hacks is summed up by the behaviour of Jonathan Freedland. We are told that he was shocked into the realisation, at the recent debate about BDS in which he participated and which is reported elsewhere on this blog, that the machinators of BDS don’t just want the end of the occupation but the end of Israel’s very existence (and to deny the right of Jews to self-determination is also an antisemitic act). Freedland is a journalist and is, one assumes, worldly-wise, both of which beg the question of why the Israel hatred in the debate was so shocking to him, given that he is employed by the most anti-Israel newspaper in the UK, which also gives space above and below the line to antisemites. Could it have been shocking only outside the Guardian environment and because, as a result of Freedland having worked for so long in the toxic anti-Israel environment of the Guardian, he was inured to it there?
“Even so, he was brought to his senses, we were led to believe, and was visibly shaken by the reception the BDSers gave to speeches in opposition to their views.
“Now, here’s the rub: One might assume that, having been shocked into reality by such an experience, Freedland might convey something of them in his future articles about Israel, but no, he is so much the Guardian’s man that he has been able to split off the cognitive dissonance his experience at the debate must have caused him, and achieved consonance by denying to himself that he had had that experience.”
November 13, 2011 at 11:15 am
peterthehungarian
Maybe Cifwatch should comission a poll in Israel regarding how many of its citizens would give a shit about Freedland’s emotions. I have a feeling the number would be zero…
November 13, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Penny
“Israel is not the perfect being he put on a pedestal and so his affection
becomes conditional”
Speaking as a Brit, I dislike the Jonathan Freedland’s of my country (and elsewhere) because they can’t take time out of their finger-wagging at Israel to spare 5mins looking around their own country. They embarrass me.
Do they not realise that an Israeli journalist visiting the UK could descend on our inner cities and highlight the issues theirein? We have alcohol and drug problems; knife and gun crime, and some children who leave school barely literate. Throughout the UK we have poverty, run-down areas and hopelessness. We have thousands of homeless people living on our streets – some of whom are there because of violence, many who are trapped by bureaucracy Perhaps Israeli journalists might also make some mileage out of some of our young people when they go out on the razzle of a weekend? Or when they riot, steal, trash and burn – as they did this summer.
We have prejudice against some of our minority groups and we have some members of one specific group who hate us to the extent that they carried out 7/7 – and we have hundreds of others whose intent is similar. We have marches in the street by a handful of them whose slogan is ‘Bomb, bomb UK’ and ‘UK you will pay – Bin Laden is on his way’ (although they will now need to change that particular placard !). We have Travellers who we move on the moment they park up – for very good and legal reasons but even so; evictions carried out in the UK every day of the week somehow pale into insignificance for the Freedland’s of my country when compared to the eviction of an Arab in Israel. And then we have Tower Hamlets and the ‘Sharia Zone’ posters..
But the truth is, if an Israeli journalist did report on these particular situations most Brits would be up in arms – and rightly so because these examples are certainly not representative of the UK as a whole: Britain is a decent country in which the overwhelming majority are tolerant and sympathetic , where the kids are well-behaved, are not permanantly guzzling alcopops, rioting or taking amphetamines and are in decent schools. There is considerable effort ploughed into changing the lives of those in inner cities and on the streets. In short. we are not perfect – because no society is – and we shouldn’t be seen or judged only by the failings that we work hard to address. And neither should Israel.
Finally (and with apologies for the lengthy comment!) I dislike the notion that Israel should be ‘better’ than any other nation. It poses an impossible burden on both Israelis and disaspora Jews. Let’s just focus our attention on getting to the stage whereby Israel is ‘normal’: judged by the same standards as every other darned country in the world before we start attempting perfectionism.
November 13, 2011 at 3:44 pm
SarahLeah
Penny, I too dislike the hypocrisy and lack of spine of the Jonathan Freedlands of the UK. Israel is an easy target for them and the Guardian gives a base for their burblings.
I agree with you that the people of Britain are essentially decent but it seems to me that many of them are close to feeling that they have been pushed too far as regards their being told to “understand” rather than actively work against people who want to kill them. Brits are essentially uncomfortable with rocking the boat, they are not volatile, but push them too far and you will know it.
peterthehungarian, I , too, don’t give a damn how Freedland feels or how many times he changes his mind according to who’s paying for his lunch. I began to have a little respect for him when he seemed to wake up to the dangers of Islamist BDS propaganda, but that rapidly evaporated and proved to be as short-lived as his illusory change of heart.
November 13, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Penny
SarahLeah – I agree with your analysis of us Brits inasmuch as many feel enough is enough.
Freedland, Sherman and other journalists maintain a disproportionate focus on Israel’s problems and by their biased reporting, infer that amongst all Western societies it is Israel and only Israel that deals with these problems in a way quite removed from the Western mind. This leads some ordinary, everyday people of the West into a belief that Israel and its citizens are uniquely and negatively *different* from themselves. As if only the Europeans, Americans, Australians (etc) could go about this whole Palestinian business in a way far more *civilised* than the Israelis. It’s an arrogance born of lack of introspection and our good fortune in not having to face the same awful issues.
We have a minute number of jihadists in our midst, yet they have managed to affect our lives in various ways that are disproportionate to their number and more of us are affected than was the case with Northern Ireland. (There were few politicians telling us we were Irishophobic and intolerant then, though!). Given our current viligance and fears over a relatively tiny clutch of Islamists, how would we deal with a hypothetical scenario of, say, Brighton being overtaken by jihadists launcing rockets into neighbouring Hove?
November 13, 2011 at 5:25 pm
SarahLeah
At the risk of sounding flippant, Penny, I’d shrug my shoulders and remind the residents of Hove (who I believe number the egregious Tony Greenstein among them) that they should not be racist in their condemnation and that jihadis have rights….
November 13, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Penny
“who I believe number the egregious Tony Greenstein among them”
Brighton and Hove just popped into my mind; I had no idea Greenstein was a resident. But anyway, I get your flippancy. I’d be tempted along that line, too!
November 13, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Jonathan Hoffman
In 2008 Freedland supported Livingstone for Mayor. Livingstone has a history of antagonism to Israel including telling me three times that the country should not have been created.
It speaks volumes.
Wonder if he will support him in May 2012 …..
November 14, 2011 at 8:12 am
HairShirt
Freedland’s minders at the Guardian probably told him who to support, Jonathan. Not that this lets him off the hook but if that is true, it shows the true (lack of) measure of the man, and it’s just about believable.
November 14, 2011 at 5:41 am
Hebroni Asli
Hopefully, Livingstone will win and get rid of the waster who is paid by council tax payers to be chief economist at Boris’s Bollock.
November 14, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Yohoho
And starting hugging “moderate” Islamists again in public? That’s what you’d want, is it?
November 15, 2011 at 6:34 am
Israel | David Joseph Constable
[...] Jonathan Freedland to Israel: I love you, I love you not. (cifwatch.com) [...]