Some have been supportive, others harshly critical. The latter warrant closer examination.
The harsh criticism falls into two basic categories.
One is over the top.
It ranges from denying Israel's very right to nationhood, to ascribing to Israel responsibility for every global malady, to peddling vague, or not so vague, anti-Semitic tropes. There's no point in dwelling at length on card-carrying members of these schools of thought. They're living on another planet.
- Israel is a fact. That fact has been confirmed by the UN, which, in 1947, recommended the creation of a Jewish state. The UN admitted Israel to membership in 1949.
- The combination of ancient and modern links between Israel and the Jewish people is almost unprecedented in history. And Israel has contributed its share, and then some, to advancing humankind.
Or let them consider the basis for legitimacy of many countries worldwide created by invasion, occupation, and conquest. Israel's case beats them by a mile.
And if there are people out there who don't like all Jews, frankly, it's their problem, not mine. Are there Jewish scoundrels? You bet. Are there Christian, Muslim, atheist, and agnostic scoundrels? No shortage. But are all members of any such community by definition scoundrels? Only if you're an out-and-out bigot.
The other group of harsh critics assails Israeli policies, but generally tries to stop short of overt anti-Zionism or anti-Semitism. But many of these relentless critics, at the slightest opportunity, robotically repeat claims about Israel that are not factually correct.
There are a couple of methodological threads that run through their analysis.
Related Article: Israel Calls
The first is called confirmation bias. This is the habit of favoring information that confirms what you believe, whether it's true or not, and ignoring the rest.
While Israel engages in a full-throttled debate on policies and strategies, rights and wrongs, do Israel's fiercest critics do the same? Hardly.
Can the chorus of critics admit, for example, that the UN recommended the creation of two states - one Jewish, the other Arab - and that the Jews accepted the proposal, while the Arabs did not and launched a war?
Can they acknowledge that wars inevitably create refugee populations and lead to border adjustments in favor of the (attacked) victors?
Can they recognize that, when the West Bank and Gaza were in Arab hands until 1967, there was no move whatsoever toward Palestinian statehood?
Can they explain why Arafat launched a "second intifada" just as Israel and the U.S. were proposing a path-breaking two-state solution?
Or what the Hamas Charter says about the group's goals?
Or what armed-to-the-teeth Hezbollah thinks of Israel's right to exist?
Or how nuclear-weapons-aspiring Iran views Israel's future?
Or why President Abbas rejected Prime Minister Olmert's two-state plan, when the Palestinian chief negotiator himself admitted it would have given his side the equivalent of 100 percent of the West Bank?
Or why Palestinian leaders refuse to recognize the Western Wall or Rachel's Tomb as Jewish sites, while demanding recognition of Muslim holy sites?
Or why Israel is expected to have an Arab minority, but a state of Palestine is not expected to have any Jewish minority?
Can they admit that, when Arab leaders are prepared to pursue peace with Israel rather than wage war, the results have been treaties, as the experiences of Egypt and Jordan show?
And can they own up to the fact that when it comes to liberal and democratic values in the region, no country comes remotely close to Israel, whatever its flaws, in protecting these rights?
Apropos, how many other countries in the Middle East - or beyond - would have tried and convicted an ex-president? This was the case, just last week, with Moshe Katsav, sending the message that no one is above the law - in a process, it should be noted, presided over by an Israeli Arab justice.
And if the harsh critics can't acknowledge any of these points, what's the explanation? Does their antipathy for Israel - and resultant confirmation bias - blind them to anything that might puncture their airtight thinking?
Then there is the other malady. It's called reverse causality, or switching cause and effect.
Take the case of Gaza.
These critics focus only on Israel's alleged actions against Gaza, as if they were the cause of the problem. In reality, they are the opposite - the effect.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, it gave local residents their first chance in history - I repeat, in history - to govern themselves.
Neighboring Israel had only one concern - security. It wanted to ensure that whatever emerged in Gaza would not endanger Israelis. In fact, the more prosperous, stable, and peaceful Gaza became, the better for everyone.
Tragically, Israel's worst fears were realized. Rather than focus on Gaza's construction, its leaders - Hamas since 2007 - preferred to contemplate Israel's destruction. Missiles and mortars came raining down on southern Israel. Israel's critics, though, were silent. Only when Israel could no longer tolerate the terror did the critics awaken - to focus on Israel's reaction, not Gaza's provocative action.
Yet, what would any other nation have done in Israel's position?
Just imagine terrorists in power in British Columbia - and Washington State's cities and towns being the regular targets of deadly projectiles. How long would it take for the U.S. to go in and try to put a stop to the terror attacks, and what kind of force would be used?
Or consider the security barrier.
It didn't exist for nearly 40 years. Then it was built by Israel in response to a wave of deadly attacks originating in the West Bank, with well over 1000 Israeli fatalities (more than 40,000 Americans in proportional terms). Even so, Israel made clear that such barriers cannot only be erected, but also moved and ultimately dismantled.
Yet the outcry of Israel's critics began not when Israelis were being killed in pizzerias, at Passover Seders, and on buses, but only when the barrier went up.
Another case of reverse causality - ignoring the cause entirely and focusing only on the effect, as if it were a stand-alone issue disconnected from anything else.
So, again, in answer to the question of my erstwhile British colleague, "How can you defend Israel?" I respond: Proudly.
In doing so, I am defending a liberal, democratic, and peace-seeking nation in a rough-and-tumble neighborhood, where liberalism, democracy, and peace are in woefully short supply.