MJ - I did not mean to convey that the interogation was rough or anything. I assume they just looked me up on Google and could see list of numerous comments both on TPM and other sites. As I'm sure you can guess, Israel is pretty sensitive right now - especially just before elections. They knew a lot about me, aside from my posts. None of my relatives admited to answering any questions about me, but at least some of them consider me to be a self hating Jew out for Israel's demise. I don't know if one of them reported me or how I came to the authorities attention.

I have had routine questioning at Ben Gurion before but nothing this intensive. Getting a military pass to visit some of the West Bank is much more frightening. I've been around a security concious Israel long enough to have much of it roll off my back. I only mentioned it in my write-up because of the impact it had on my wife. Having been married for 40 years, any and everything we do has to be a joint endeavor. We will make our Aliyah decision on the totality of the situation not just this unpleasant episode.

MJ,

I like your blog and am refreshed at your strident tone of late. However, here we have an issue.

I hate to say I told you so, but...

It is a slippery slope and you have not been a boyscout in this affair.

When Norman Finkelstein was interrogated, detained, and deported from Israel for his views - which are celebrated by many a serious scholar - you took a hardline stance against Finkelstein. You apparently did not like his views and his attitude.

Well, it was wrong then and it is wrong now. I think you misunderstood the expulsion and ban on Finkelstein. It was a clear shot at dissent, and now it has come home to roost.

I think you have some 'splainin to do...

Based on this episode (which however is certainly not greatly at odds with what one often could have read in many daily newspapers over the past 8 years), I find it remarkable that the Israeli relatives of this retiree apparently aren't trying to get OUT of an Israel that is clearly now a far cry from what it used to be, and a farther cry still from what it used to WANT to be, rather than anyone wanting to move INTO that downward spiraling mess.

MJR: I can understand why the more strident anti-Israel folks who hang out here (i.e., Colindale, mythbuster, Seth Edenbaum, DanK) see Lieberman as part and parcel of a racist, expansionist, colonial power that exults in the oppression of the Palestinians. As someone who professes himself "pro Israel" (whatever that term means) and "pro peace" (aren't we all), however, I am struck by your eagerness to seize upon the worst Israel has to offer and hold it up as representative. This is not to say that Israel is beyond criticism. But if Israel were truly guilty of so many of the crimes you accuse it of, one might expect you to favor US military support for the Palestinians.

Jdledell's post certainly represents a different view of Israel than the one I know, although it's certainly possible that attitudes have changed and hardened since I was there last, in August 2007.

Certainly the open hatred of Arabs he describes is a relatively new thing, although I do wonder how widespread it is. And the total indifference to their humanity is an unfortunate new phenomenon.

It used to be that Israelis didn't have hatred for Arabs as much as have contempt for them. Arabs were seen as backward losers, and Israelis developed a habit of looking down their nose at them in general. This was partly a result of an Israeli culture of arrogance in general (Israelis look down their nose at just about anyone), combined with a special contempt for Arab military, economic and political failure.

In stepping over into outright hatred - and indifference to Arabs' humanitarian needs - I believe Israelis are most likely expressing frustration and disappointment that they have been forced to become something they once hated.

What do I mean? Israelis have always seen themselves as fundamentally pragmatic when it comes to relations with the Arabs. The Arabs were for so long the obvious obstacles to peace in the first 40 years of the state that it was taken for granted that when the time came and they put down their weapons and proclaimed a readiness to settle the conflict, Israelis would be ready. Ben Gurion and his immediate successors were always ready to make a deal with any Arabs that were willing. But they never werel. And so it was during the Oslo period, which I'll call from 1992-2000. Israel's positions were driven primarily by security concerns and territorial disputes, not by a fundamental view of Arabs as illegitimate interlopers (and yes, there are Israelis that think that, but they have never driven the debate). If the Arabs really showed that they were ready to accept Israel and strike a deal, Israel could make one happen.

The violence after the collapse of Oslo shattered the illusion that the Arabs had really changed. Israel was forced back into a pre-1988 mindset, where the operating assumption had to be that it was a tiny sliver of land surrounded by a sea of hostility and it would take ruthlessness and toughness to survive in such a dangerous neighborhood.

Thus Israelis are profoundly distressed that they have been once again put in a position where they need to act in ways that contradict their self-image as a modern social democracy with Western values. Ten years ago, Israelis thought they were done with living as a garrison state. They thought they were done with the tut-tuts of world opinion. The Oslo period saw the tide of opinion and acceptance turn, with Israel more accepted than ever. But then it all turned to dust, and as virtually any Israeli will tell you, it wasn't their fault. They were led up the garden path by the liar and charlatan Arafat. Arafat's successor is a weak non-entity who couldn't make a deal even if he wanted to. The rejectionists of Iran are on the march, funding the worst fundamentalist fanatics. Israel has been drawn back into war and pariah status when it thought it had peace and acceptance in sight. It is provoked and provoked and when it responds it is condemned. What was Israel supposed to do about the rockets from Gaza? Were they just supposed to ignore them? Does anyone actually believe that if Israel were to open the borders with Gaza, that that would make the rockets stop? What was it supposed to do? The only option was a military one. And because of Hamas's tactics, any military operation, no matter how carefully executed, was going to have a lot of civilian casualties. Now Israel is condemned and shunned and people are throwing around words like "war crimes". All for trying to defend itself from rocket attacks that were rendering an entire section of southern Israel increasingly uninhabitable but that no one in the world gave a shit about (where are the "war crimes" cries about them?).

From Israel's standpoint, it is an utterly infuriating situation. That's why hatred is spilling over now. It's not pretty, or necessarily completely justified. But it is understandable.

I get MJ's point about the airport interrogation. But as Mr. Ledell says in his moving post, that in itself was a minor concern for him and his family.
The issue is what kind of state Israel is becoming -- in fact, has become.
I read Bradthedad's depiction of the collective mindset, and I'm sure it's accurate. Not historically defensible or reality-based, but accurate.
We've reached a new stage in the evolution of that country's foundation myth. As Brad says of the Oslo failure, "As virtually any Israeli will tell you, it wasn't their fault."
So why accord the Palestinians anything, when you have the military might to decide not to?
That virtually all Jewish Israelis buy into this apparently self-serving logic puts the question for the rest of us into sharp relief.
The mythical, idealistic Israel of Hollywood imagination no longer exists, if it ever did.
The rest of the world must deal with the real Israel that is actually on display. And as some of us have been arguing, it is not a pretty sight. Nor will it get prettier.