Guterres incurs the wrath of Israel

I hate to be all anti-Israel, because I get the distinct impression from almost all the Western politicians I hear that that is not politically correct these days. I think I am perhaps doubly critical of Israel just because everyone around me seems so undiscriminatingly uncritical of it. That's just how I roll.

Anyway, I was struck by the Israeli reaction to UN chief António Guterres, who I actually think is doing a pretty good job of remaining objective and non-aligned throughout this horrible conflict. The Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen was in full outrage mode - although that is pretty much his default mode - after Guterres made the comment that Hamas' attacks "did not happen in a vacuum", as was Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan. Both guys were absolutely apoplectic that anyone should have the audacity to suggest that Israel might have acted in anything other than an exemplary fashion at some point over the last 75 years.

As Guterres noted, "The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation. They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing." That's known as telling it like it is, even if most politicians don't have the stomach for that.

It was however greeted by responses like, "You, Mr. Secretary-General, have lost all morality and impartiality. Because, when you say those terrible words, that these heinous attacks did not happen in a vacuum, you are tolerating terrorism, and by tolerating terrorism, you are justifying terrorism." Further, "This is a pure blood libel. [Is that a thing?] ... The Secretary-General must resign ... There is no justification to the existence of this building [the United Nations]."

Guterres did, however, in his original speech, temper his comments with, "But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas ... Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring and kidnapping of civilians, or the launching of rockets against civillian targets." Pretty clear, and once again telling it like it is. But the Israeli commentators chose not to register that part of the speech. Guterres repeated these parts in his rebuttal the next day, for the benefit of those with selective hearing.

So, was the Secretary-General being anti-Israel? Antisemitic even? Hardly. Both Israelis and Palestinians are genetically semitic, for one thing; they are essentially one people divided by religion. But, in making an attempt to be even-handed in a fraught situation, Guterres has incurred the not-insignificant wrath of an Israeli political machine well-versed in self-protection, evasion, and the craft of geopolitics.

This whole Israel-Palestine conflict has placed free speech in a glaring spotlight. There have been so many instances of contrary opinions (esssentially, any words of support for Palestine) being summarily shut down, or even shot down, from unions to students to stores to politicians to company CEOs being forced to resign. It's not a good look. Not good at all.