Balanced I/P Analysis?
Recently Fred Moolten and Dan K. wrote blog entries that were excellent expositions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as it relates to TPM. The commentary that followed was generally lucid and civil. I just wished I had not been out of town that week and could have participated. To that end, I decided to respond with this blog entry.
The basic problem with the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the inability of each side to accept the other's narrative. You can see the same thing on this blog by partisans on each side. Both want to claim the honor of being the biggest aggrieved party or victim.
As a Jew I understand the victim role - we have used it and nutured it for thousands of years. We still want acknowledgement by the world of the thousands of years of descrimination and pain we have suffered. In the grand scales of justice, it's a debt the world will never be able to repay to our satisfaction. Yet we never acknowledge what a gift it is from G-d to be born Jewish. Thru a combination of genes, culture, economics and a supportive family and tribal structure we are blessed and the results worldwide are illustrative.
When my relatives living in the settlements and outposts complain about how hard and dangerous their lives are I ask them whether they would rather have been born as an African, or Hondurean or G-d forbid an arab, they grudgingly acknowledge maybe things are not so bad.
Through the auspices of the arab family in Haifa my sisiter hired as nanny/gardener/handyman when she made aliyah in 1966, I have come to know many Palestinians on both sides of the green line. The arab grievence stems from the demise of the great Islamic wave that swept over much of the civilized world more than a 1000 years ago. Islamic scholars were the epitamy of knowledge and Islam was the religion growing geometrically. The Ottoman Empire was the decaying end of the age of Islam. The honor and dignity of arabs disappeared with the empire. This is the reason Israeli attempts to deliberately humiliate Palestinians is so counterproductive.
Progress on the Peace front will not move until there is loud public acknowledgement on both sides of the other's grievances and narrative. The Palestinians and arabs need to say explicitly that Jews have been descriminated against and slaughtered for thousands of years and need the security of a Jewish state to live peacefully. They also need to acknowledge that the 1948, 1967, and 1973 wars against Israel were wrong and apologize. They also need to apologize for suicide bombings and driving out Jews from arab lands. To that end, arab countries are prepared to pay $50 billion to Israel in compensation.
Israel needs to state loudly and explicitly that the origin of their own state by UN mandate never considered the rights and wishes of the native arab population. That what happened during the Nabka was wrong. The 1948 war was fought primarily by armies of Jordan, Egypt and Syria and the vast, vast, vast majority of Palestinians driven out of Israel were non combatant civilians. They also need to acknowledge and apologize for the decades of occupation and excessive counter-terrorism tactics. To that end, Israel is prepared to pay $50 billion in compensation to the Palestinians. In addition Israel has to acknowledge the Palestinians right of return - then negotiate a face saving limitations to it's actual implementation. While we are in an apologetic mood, the Palestinians can apologize for the Hebron Massacre of 1929 and Israel can apologize for Dier Yassin.
Once these emotional issues are dealt with, I believe the issues of borders, East Jerusalem, how to allow Jews to continue to live in Palestine will all become fairly easily and quickly solved. But nothing will happen until the emotional baggage on both sides is dealt with. This will not be easy for anyone on either side to do. Pride is an obomination befor G-d and it needs to be jettisoned before peace will emerge.
I was waiting for someone else to comment first, since I've already hogged the spotlight too much recently on this topic, but since no-one has yet, I'll comment briefly.
I think they should consult a marriage counselor. One of the first principles of counseling is to ask the combatants to stop saying "you" and start saying "I". For example, instead of saying, "You're always trying to put me down", say, "I'm hurt when I feel that what I do isn't appreciated." The idea is simple - respondents feel an impulse to relieve someone else's suffering. On the other hand, when they're the target of accusations, their first impulse is to hunker down to defend themselves and ignore the hurts of the other party.
The analogy is a loose one. Given the mile-long list of grievances on both sides, it will take more than counseling to bring them together. What will be needed is forceful outside leadership, combined with a willingness to provide some outside practical (read economic) assistance as well. A leader must let both sides know that he or she believes their grievances are legitimate, and need to be addressed, and then be prepared to advocate a strong framework within which the parties can negotiate.
I think President Obama made a good start with his Cairo speech, which acknowledged the grievances on both sides in a non-accusatory manner, and in his insistence on a settlement freeze. I hope he keeps the pressure on, realizing that a resolution won't come quickly. However, if we observe that extremists on both sides are angry at him, we'll have some cause for optimism.
July 12, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred - I'll have to ponder your marriage counseling analogy. But off the cuff, the issue of an accusatory tone turning off the other party is right on. Here on TPM, I've seen commentators who I respect greatly, like bslev and armchair guerilla literally go from objective sane analysis of Israel to jumping to it's defense at the first sign of criticism.
It's sad to see at TPM but you can see the same thing in Israel. People are hunkering down and becomming immune to any and all criticism. It's kind of screw the world attitude. I've been guilty of excessive and one sided criticism of Israel. It's born out of my frustration with getting Israel to do the things it knows it eventually will have to do.
In my frustration, I vacilate between trying to cajole Jews into doing the right thing and advocating the 2x4 method of getting their attention. You are right that it's going to take a powerful outside force to get the two sides to start making the right decisions.
Speaking of the 2x4 method, I got a number of phone calls today from my Israeli relatives about Javier Solana's suggestion that the UN declare a Palestinian state, including borders, Jerusalem etc. My relatives are going crazy over this possibility even though I point out to them that Israel was formed initially by the same arbitrary UN mandate. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. With that calls usually abruptly ended.
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/12/1006470/solana-to-un-establish-palestinian-state
July 12, 2009 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi jdledell, glad you're back. You say:
Progress on the Peace front will not move until there is loud public acknowledgement on both sides of the other's grievances and narrative.
I suppose my view is that this is putting the cart before the horse. I'm inclined to think the international community has to intervene to end this conflict though more coercive means. Once the occupation is ended, a border has been established, firm benchmarks for demilitarization and decolonization established and the killing stopped, then over time mutual respect and healing can begin to grow. And as the sense grows that the conflict is really coming to an end, even some rejectionists on both sides may be attracted by the prospect of a real and enforceable peace, and soften their stances. But the Israelis and Palestinians aren't going to negotiate a mutually acceptable final status resolution any time soon on their own. Their aims are too divergent. The basic outlines of the resolution have to be negotiated and determined for them by outside powers, and imposed on them though the application of carrots and sticks: credible offers of economic rewards and threats of punitive sanctions associated with benchmarks. Over time, especially after the current generations are replaced with younger ones, mainly through the intermediary of the grave, good will and mutual respect can grow. But Middle East peace and security are vital to the global interest, and can't wait on the blossoming of respect and understanding.
Obama has now visited Cairo, Riyadh, Moscow and Europe. He and the leaders of those countries, along with the UN, have exchanged notes and are now developing the plan they will collectively put on the international agenda. I assume that the plan will be rolled out some time this fall. While there are certainly details that will have to be negotiated among supervised negotiating teams from the Israeli side and the Palestinian side, I hope the basic outlines of the final status agreement, which most people already know, will be presented to the parties with a show of no-nonsense international unity and resolve, and the commitments of funds, peacekeepers and conditional sanctions that will be required to make it stick.
July 12, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan, Your points are well taken, but as always, the devil is in the details. Coercion is easy to invoke as a principle, but devilishly hard to implement in practice, particularly as a coordinated multinational effort in the absence of an immediate threat to the involved nations.
In that sense, while I would fully support an effective "stick" part to your proposed carrot and stick approach, I wonder whether it won't be more practical in the short run to emphasize the carrot of additional economic aid to whichever party chooses to cooperate, beyond aid already part of established practice. In that sense, withholding of the additional aid would be a stick of sorts.
You speak of punitive sanctions for failure to meet benchmarks. I wouldn't object, but to play the same devil's advocate here, what punitive sanctions would be politically feasible for the U.S. to impose on Israel for a failure to comply? I might support them, and you, but it would take more than two of us. Punishing the Palestinians might be easier in the U.S., but less welcome in Europe, and counterproductive for U.S. relations with the Muslim world.
Do you have specific measures in mind that would be politically viable within the involved nations?
July 12, 2009 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred and Dan - I note today that England has implemented a partial arms embargo against Israel. In order for that to be effective, the US would have to do the same and there is zero chance of that. Here are my thoughts on what the we should do.
1 - The UN should grant the Palestinians full fledged statehood based on the 1967 lines. The actual implementation of this statehood should be subject to negotiations between the two parties along with the UN and it's designees (read the Quartet). This moves the negotiations to a whole different plane and starts to equalize the power relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.
2 - Since the 67 lines are impossible for Israel to live with, the negotiations will feature Israel trying to gain territory rather than how much to give up. The most probable result will be something on the order of the Clinton Parameters, Taba and the Geneva Initiative.
3 - I would like to see EU countries establish many light industry plants in the West Bank Area A as well as Gaza, especially those industries which might provide competition to Israeli companies. The EU would then give preferential purchasing of these Palestinian products along with all agricultural products produced by Palestinians.
4 - After statehood, the EU should demand the ability to import raw materials and finished goods from Gaza directly.
You will notice, I am recommending no embargos which I think at this time are counterproductive and politically impossible in the US. This is also the reason I feel the EU should take the lead role, recognizing the backlash that will occur in the US Congress.
July 13, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
A little late to the ballgame, but how can I not comment when I am referred to as a respected commentator - a welcome complement heartily returned. As for the flipside - going from sane analysis to jumping to Israel's defense at the first sign of criticism, mea culpa (at least, I think that's an apt statement, although not being a Catholic, I can't be sure). In my defense, allow me to point out that it's not the first sign of criticism, it's the consistent, unrelenting drumbeat that I see going beyond criticism to vilification that gets my dander up. This brings to mind a quote from Eric Alterman from a column back in January - note that I would compare the TPM blogs to living in Europe in his example:
July 13, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink