Israel no longer gets a pass, based on the past

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support today for as little as $1 per month!

Israel's claim this week that its soldiers killed nine civilians in self-defence on an aid-to-Gaza flotilla it had boarded is at best tone deaf. It strains credibility. You attack unarmed ships at sea and when people resist, shoot them and then blame them. It's beyond Orwellian. The analogies occur to anyone: Home invaders kill residents who try to stop an assault, etc. At least there, no one would assert self-defence. I know elaborate arguments have been unfurled to justify the claim but that's not my point. Whether the claim is right or wrong isn't even the point. It just won't fly with most people. To them, it's implausible on its face. That's where tone deafness comes in.

Whence this tone deafness? It seems to me that Israel's leaders have grown mindlessly, habitually dependent on asserting their own victimization. This was often effective, based largely on sympathies rooted in revulsion at the Holocaust and the history of Western anti-Semitism. But this has gradually changed, due partly to the arrival of generations who, as it were, knew not Hitler and aren't inclined to feel even indirectly guilty for him. The shift became evident during the 2008 Gaza invasion and perhaps even more this week. Yet Israel's leaders still automatically assume the victim position. It's like the boy who cried victim.

Asserting big historical attitude swings is risky, so let me exemplify this by way of Margaret Atwood. Last month, she went to Israel to receive a large arts award from a private foundation. Beforehand, she was besieged by pro-Palestinian groups urging her to boycott the event. She refused, on the grounds that cultural boycotts are counterproductive and contrary to free speech. On her return, she wrote a piece about the experience for the Israeli daily Haaretz. She said she'd largely ignored the issue for years, feeling all sides were behaving badly and hoping for a good ending. But she'd had a quick course now and it was "like learning about cooking by being thrown into the soup pot." Everywhere in Israel, she sensed a shadow. "The Shadow is not the Palestinians" but "Israel's treatment of the Palestinians." It seems to me this is the key to what has changed and poses a new problem for Israel. The core for anyone examining the situation with a fresh eye, isn't what "they" - Palestinians -- are doing to Israelis; it's what Israel is doing to them. "Having strayed into the Middle-eastern neighbourhood with a mind as open as it could be without being totally vacant, I've come out altered," she wrote.

Israel no longer gets a pass, based on the past. It is remarkable how Israeli leaders and their backers have managed to squander so much sympathy and goodwill in so short a time -- but I digress.

The question for Israeli society now is whether it will double down, in effect, on the victim position, or adopt a new stance. Israel has always had public voices who believed the consequence of a past of persecution was not impunity but responsibility. Their views were often reflected in movements and parties. But those currents have become rarer, or less vocal. They grow silent, or acquiesce, or emigrate. Societies that lose their internal dissent and self-criticism have a sad and scary record, especially when combined with a sense of victimization. There's a unique wrinkle in the case of "the Jewish state," which involves the role of Jews elsewhere. Will they contribute to the isolation, via uncritical support from abroad, or assist in some kind of renewal, and help undo the isolation and descent toward disaster?

And in this situation, who is a real "friend of Israel" -- as they say. Is it Margaret Atwood, who raises questions and doubts, or Stephen Harper, who encourages Israel along the same perilous route that brought it to this point?

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.