Nonsense. Modernism has its pessimists but also its idealists. You see the idealism in science fiction, for example. You can look at politics in strictly cynical Machiavellian terms, the kind that Christian myths used to ignore, or you can add progressive humanistic values.

Your account of the Arab-Israeli conflict is just one-sided, so it's dispensable. Any situation can be made to look wrong if you only tell one side of the story. Yes, Zionists won a propaganda war and got some land to which they'd been historically tied, displacing some Palestinians. But those Palestinians were offered a state too, and they rejected the UN's resolution. Why? Because they don't accept the two state solution. They don't want a Jewish ethnostate anywhere in the Muslim world. And they've been willing to kill for their anti-Judaism. That existential threat to Israel forced Israel to seize more land in wars, to blockade regions to keep out terrorists, and so on.

No, that's not exactly liberalism. It's war brought to Israel by Arab hostility, racism, and ongoing medievalism. But Israel's liberalism has restrained its military in lots of ways. Israel could have done far more damage against the Arab world, conquering entire countries, such as Egypt and Syria. Why hasn't that happened if modernity is no improvement over ancient or medieval imperialism?