1) Israel is a democratic, multiethnic, multireligious, almost secular, LGBT-tolerant, West-aligned country with a sizeable opposition that wishes to make the country more liberal, a military ally of the US in the region.
2) Their enemies are fascist militarists, a theocracy with a culture dreaming of genocide, strictly monoethnic, they execute LGBT people on the spot, hate America and "the West" almost as much as Israel, and have no meaningful opposition that is remotely democratic.
I'm not going to deny that (from my natural perspective/world-view) Israel is a diamond in the rough, regionally. As far as my subscribed-to ideas of culture, it is far less 'foreign' in all kinds of ways, but looking not as a local comparison (however well I could do that) and instead being critical in terms of the world that I (we) might know best:
Democratic - There is significant disenfranchisement of non-Jewish inhabitants within Israeli borders.
Multiethnic - By circumstance, with examples of ghettoisation and apartheidism abounding.
Multi-religious - Pretty much as above, by 'necessity', under sufferance. (Also see below.)
Almost secular - When you have people saying
"We must do it. It's part of Israel area," he says. "This is the land that God gave us, and you couldn't go to God and tell him, 'OK you gave me, and I gave to other people.' No. I believe in the end we will go back to Gaza.", who are not being quietly ignored by the government (the opposite?), that's making "almost" do a lot of heavy lifting.
LGBT-tolerant - maybe generally amongst the 'secular' bit (pity about the 'almost', then).
West-aligned country - easiest description so far to agree with, but easier yet to say its more like being "the Israel-aligned West".
Sizable opposition - In their coalition-type system, it seems that nationalist/expansionist elements have the hand firmly on the steering wheel. An assessment of their
centre parties' supporting positions doesn't exactly put me in paroxisms of pleasure, either. It's not a "sizable opposition" such as I would normally understand and come to expect by UK terms, which is an imperfect frame of reference but the best way I can hope to understand this 'desirable' situation.
Making the country more liberal - (discounting "making it more liberal
than its neighbours, as already stated), from what I can see, this is mostly "economic liberalism", and ambivalent (at best) on issues that involve different spheres of liberalism (that are not already subsumed within other arguments, like settler vs. non-settler rights).
A military ally of the US - as with "west-aligned", I'd say it's more driven by the antiparallel relationship. Which is important to it (if it wasn't for US support, I have no doubt that it wouldn't be here today), but not sure quite as much a benefit in return.
I am being
critical here in the sense of making a judgement from (best as I can) a disinterested viewpoint having to look at your assertions. I don't think we're in any doubt that a 'critic' from the Arab world would have a number of stronger objections, perhaps prefering illiberalism, definitely not liking the elements of zionism.
"fascist militarists, a theocracy with a culture dreaming of genocide, strictly monoethnic, they execute LGBT people on the spot, hate America and "the West" almost as much as ["they hate", sic] Israel, and have no meaningful opposition that is remotely democratic"
I'm not going to say that there's not substantial truth in that applying to their regional opponents (neighbours and beyond), albeit that you might tar
some undeserving areas of life with an overwide and simplistic brush. I'm not here to categorise the whole of the Middle East, so instead:
Fascist - Israel is leaning heavily right-wing (beyond the US, way beyond the 'dreams' of the current UK government). I would hesitate to say they are fascists, or even significantly fascistic, for several reasons. But others (
Western others, for starters) may not, and not have to invent things out of thin air to do so.
Militaristic - Maybe by necessity, but strong-defence tending to (and proving to be cable of) a strong offence tips things over into a valid description of Israel
Theocracy - Cultural/Ethnic Judaism might be the overarching deal (and ideal?), but all it takes is a populist leader who pays heed to the religious elements and... Tell me that is not happening.
"Dreaming of genocide" - Maybe not as in extermination/holocaust (some individuals publically think in that direction, maybe, and it's hard to tell if others are "I won't say it, but..." territory), but definitely creeping in under the 'culturally extinguishing' banner. From the prior linked report:
"The world is wide," she says. "Africa is big. Canada is big. The world will absorb the people of Gaza. How we do it? We encourage it. Palestinians in Gaza, the good ones, will be enabled. I'm not saying forced, I say enabled because they want to go."
Do we need to go into "strictly monoethnic"? Oh, maybe theyntolerate white Christians, and others who they don't have an immediate dislike of (and maybe not go even further, when 'the current problem' is no longer relevent). But there are people here who are intent on 'encouraging' and 'helping' those who have long roots in the area to simply 'go away' in favour of their own kind of person. Descendents (or maybe not even that, the more recent arrivals) whose roots
due to past ethnic 'filtering' (often enforced or 'encouraged') are often far more foreign to the region. (This is not "the state of Israel", here; this is not "every Jew", or necessarily anywhere near a significant fraction, but there are those openly pushing for this and
not being knocked back. This goes beyond merely dealing with a bad situation of history having put you in a difficult position, and becomes a matter of 'othering'; of solving your problems by creating a net increase of problem.
The rest of the list I'll skip over (caveats abound... ultraorthodox elements have 'opinions' re: LGBT, and there's always secular bigotry; already said that, for a 'democracy', it's not what I'd accept as a democratic parsdise, and I have an aversion to the popularism that likely supports this situation).
The TL;DR; is that your uniquivocal praise of Israel is missing some detail. I'd say that it's the better (FCVO 'better') situation that many of the comparable ME states, handwaving away the current situation (and skipping over that Beirut was itself, not so long ago, the shining star of liberal paradises on that coast).
What's worse, is that it's almost funny how justifying Israel in this way reflects the way
Putin justifies Russia's own 'operation'. Acting like(?) a fascist under the guise of overthrowing (alleged) fascists, an (apparently) illegitimate government of territory which "historically is not a separate" and is only still 'a thing' because of foreign governments propping it up in various ways. (I could go on.)
You know that I'm not pro-Putin. That I'm hopeful of Ukraine prevailling. There are historic elements to it, but recent living memory suggests that Russia is the aggressor.
Looking at this other place I honestly have very little skin in the game in Gaza/West Bank situation, and it was always (well, for as long as I remember) something I really had very little idea about, besides that it was Islamic terrorists who attacked the Israelis at Munich (and then, more subtly and supposedly proportionate, Mossad might have done some similarly oversees retribution). My take-away was that it was perhaps more in favour of the one side than the other, even after I learnt enough to know where Britain and France (and, perhaps ultimately, Germany) set up this fractious scenario. I am still full of goodwill to your average Israeli (the average sits firmly off the arab-israeli demographic, obviously). But that's now like saying that I don't mind the average Russian (so long as they aren't expounding indoctrination).
What a
pernicious element of Gaza did was what Putin is variously trying to make people believe Ukraineans were doing/planning to do. They've got their "Gazan sea-front properties" in the form of appropriated Crimean ones, have encouraged resettlement, tolerated the 'locals' perhaps a bit better (mostly "speak Russian, think Russian,cuse Russian currency, get a Russian passport" covers the fine-points, away from the battle-hit areas, letting you continue to vote in Russian-affiliated elections). What Israel is doing is not a million miles away from what Putin claims he has to do. Different levels of truth, but the comparison should be clear. For you to adamantly have entirely the opposite perspectivenon the two scenarios is, of course, your right. But it stands out as notable.
I could disagree with others, and may counter-propose various arguments to them also. I'd definitely raise eyebrows at modern Israel being deemed the sole aggressor, plus expect people like Bumber to be way adrift from me on the political (and social) compass and probably we couldn't agree on very much at all (favourite Babylon 5 character?
). The one or two words I've now devoted to this reply perhaps render this unreadable/unread, but relates to the obvious (to me) contradictions that lead you down this interpretation. I'm not (as a whole) saying you're wrong, but where there's nuance aplenty your definitiveness is saying various arguable things.
...as Schmaven says: strong views. That's because it's a
tricky situation.