The mood in Israel

According to the New York Times, that is. Some excerpts from today's article, "Israelis Ask, What Have We Gained Since the '67 War?"

There is a debate about what kind of country Israel is, about the impact those 40 years of development, immigration, war, settlement and occupation have had on the dreams of those who chose to make their lives here. And there is a widespread feeling that both left and right are out of answers.

The left says that Israel must reach out to the majority of Palestinians who want a two-state solution and that the right is too despairing about the possibility of reaching peace.

The right, which remains somewhat more popular, believes that the left was seduced by the dream of normality in the 1990s, after the Oslo accord with the Palestinians, and that the siren song of peace and coexistence is softening the Israeli character.

Israel, the right says, will never be like other countries both because of Jewish history and because the neighborhood is getting more threatening, not less, with radical Islam and a nuclear-ambitious Iran. Israelis cannot sit around Tel Aviv cafes and let their children avoid serious military service.

As the Times continues:

Ari Shavit, an influential columnist, is obsessed with the fear that Israel is losing not just its values in a more capitalist and corrupt era, especially in its collective caring for the poor and the disadvantaged, but also its edge in an increasingly dangerous region.

Last summer’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon showed the increasing mediocrity of the military and the political leadership, Mr. Shavit said, while challenging the ethos of the new hedonistic, modern Israel. Many here, he said, think they are living in a poor European country like Greece, instead of in the Middle East.

“Can the mall defend itself?” he asked. “The gap between the inspiring economy and society, and the dysfunction of the state is becoming impossible. There are admirable achievements in the private sphere, and in the public sphere, decay.”

Israeli society showed itself resilient in the face of Hezbollah’s rockets, he conceded, even as the cabinet and the military command seemed irresolute. But he is worried about the trend.

“Postmodern yuppies can’t deal with this region,” Mr. Shavit said. “You gain respect by understanding how the neighborhood behaves, and conducting yourself in a way the neighborhood respects.”. . .

“This idea that we could settle all the land and somehow absorb all the Arabs into Israel, it has cost us a lot, morally and politically,” he said. “You can’t have occupation as a permanent state. That’s why Israelis say: ‘No more messianic ideas. Let’s divide the land.’ ”

The other side of this, as the Times reports, is how Palestinians now feel:

For Palestinians, of course, the 1967 war was another disaster, but a secondary one to the formation of Israel in 1948, said Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian political scientist. The year 1948 is known as Al Nakba, the catastrophe; 1967 is Al Naksa, the setback. But since it brought Israeli occupation, it helped shape the Palestinian cause.

“Ironically, it started our march toward independence and statehood,” Mr. Shikaki said. “Unfortunately the price was the occupation of our own land. Israel is seriously thinking of ending the occupation, which you couldn’t say five years ago. But is a Palestinian state closer?”

Nasser al-Kidwa, a former foreign minister for the Palestinians and a nephew of Yasir Arafat, sees fragmentation all around. The last 40 years of occupation, he said, “have seen a serious disintegration of Palestinian society.”

The middle class is emigrating, youth dreams of leaving and the economy is dying, Mr. Kidwa said. “We are clearly the weaker side, the destroyed side,” he added. “We can’t do things on our own now, and I’m ashamed to say it. There’s a grand catastrophe in the making here.”

If there were optimists to be found, the Times apparently couldn't locate them.