Justice or Common Sense?
Anyone who closely follows events in the Middle East (as I have done for several years) will know that the discourse of the two sides tends to be based on issues such as 'justice', 'morality' and 'honour'. Many Israelis view the West Bank as part of their inalienable heritage and view the Palestinians as people who blow themselves up among crowds of civilians. Most Arabs view Israelis as inherently evil and confirm this view whenever the Israelis undertake military action against them (whether meant to be offensive or defensive). Western observers of the conflict also tend to see it through similar lenses: civilization vs. barbarism (for those who support Israel) or the oppressed against their oppressors (for those who identify with the Arab cause).
This approach leaves little room for compromise. How can one possibly compromise with barbarism or with oppression? The debate between the two sides is mostly limited to attempts at reinforcing one paradigm at the expense of the other. The Palestinians (and their supporters) attempt to strengthen the idea that this is really a struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. The Israelis, on the other hand, attempt to to strengthen the perception that they are victims of a culture of death among their neighbours.
This approach leaves little room for compromise. How can one possibly compromise with barbarism or with oppression? The debate between the two sides is mostly limited to attempts at reinforcing one paradigm at the expense of the other. The Palestinians (and their supporters) attempt to strengthen the idea that this is really a struggle between the oppressed and their oppressors. The Israelis, on the other hand, attempt to to strengthen the perception that they are victims of a culture of death among their neighbours.
The two sides certainly believe that they have good reason to attempt to sell their own paradigm to the outside world. However, they are surely wrong in actually acting within those paradigms and promoting them within their own societies. Wrong not in a moral sense but simply because neither paradigm offers any feasible solutions. When you are dealing with oppression and injustice the only solution is their total reversal (i.e. the removal of Israel from the map). When you are dealing with barbarism, the only solution is to defeat it, as it only understands the language of force. Anyone with the slightest shred of common sense would probably know that neither of these two outcomes can ever occur. Israel will not disappear nor will the Arabs give up their claims, however many times Israel proves its military superiority.
There are essentially two feasible outcomes. A continuation of the status quo is one of them. The other is a two-state solution. However desirable the other two (maximalist) outcomes may be, they can exist only in the realm of fantasy. All the efforts in the world will not bring them about. No amount of public moaning or suicide bombings will make Israel disappear. No degree of Israeli military superiority will make the Palestinians give up.
The only question is when we will move from the present scenario to the one envisaged at Taba and Geneva. Those outsiders who wish to advance the interests of either of the two sides or of both can only aspire to do so by making this happen sooner rather than later. They can achieve this best by making the heartbreaking but necessary switch from a paradigm based on their own perceptions of justice to one based on plain unromantic common sense.
3 Comments:
You are priceless, Piet. Your moderate tone but incisive commentary is very rare. I check your site every day (sometimes several times daily) but I know you are heavily constrained by limited time. Keep up the good work, even if it means writing just one comment a week.
You make a point which entirely grounded in common sense. Unfortunately common sense often tends to be lacking in a war. At the risk of "locking myself within my paradigm" I would be constrained to point out that it takes two to tango and that while Israel pulled out of Gaza (correctly in my view) and elected a government with an agenda for further withdrawals, her enemies saw this as a sign of weakness.
I personally think that the most realistic option is further withdrawals but in what is essentially a continuation of the status quo. What we are seeing is what has been called a "cosmic war" - and these wars don't end until one side is crushed (not necessarily realistic), or at least both sides are too exhausted to go on fighting and come to some sort of pragmatic agreement - along the lines of Israel/Egypt.
A very important part of a resolution would be that the western world starts treating both sides equally - and this is where media bias comes in.
Hmm, I appear to be in a somewhat pessimistic mood today...
Thank you so much Wild Knight and Deepdiver for your comments!
I'm not too optimistic myself about the issue being solved in the short term. The Palestinian track in particular is very very difficult. I recall Barak once saying in an interview that peace would probably not be achieved during the lifetime of the 1948 Palestinians, mainly because of the 'right of return' issue.
One of the reasons why I'm a great believer in the Syrian track, though, is that it would basicaly pull the rug from under the feet of most of the region's maximalists and make a general peace much easier.
As for the western world, I agree with you perfectly. The Western media has generally not played a particularly helpful role and has been a source of great encouragement for those who oppose peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home