Given sufficient military power, there’s always a military solution. The question is: Would it serve the political objective? Obviously, the IDF could crush Hamas under its boot heel. But that would not answer for policy.
As things stand, Israel’s policy is—or should be—simply to stand pat. Her enemies cannot destroy her, nor are they willing to negotiate in good faith. Thus they can be ignored unless they make a nuisance of themselves, in which case they can be slapped down, as has just happened to those Hamas rats. Admittedly this is not an ideal state of affairs for the Jewish state. But for Israel’s enemies, it’s even less satisfactory.
My eyes are too old and tired to be seen through, freshly. However...
This strikes me as the issue at heart, and perhaps Gabi or others can provide me with a little fresh eyesight: "It’s easy enough to say that most Israelis and Palestinians want peace. But I also know the majority don’t believe peace is achievable under the current circumstances, and don’t necessarily want to make the personal effort required to reach that goal."
The question in this American's mind is "Do they really want peace? And are they simply beholden to the recalcitrance of their political leaders?" Or, do they claim to want peace, but at the same time both sides' public endorse policies that are untenable to the other sides' public? If I'm an ethnic and/or religious Jew in Jerusalem, who claims to want peace, but enforce public officials and policies that the average Palestinian cannot support, am I contributing to the problem? And vice-versa.
You've asked a great question. Let's put aside the philosophical question of "what is peace" and assume that it is the absence of war. Consistent polling by institutes like the Israel Democracy Institute and the Geneva Initiative, as well as Palestinian public opinion polling, indicate that both populations want to see an end to the conflict. Where it gets more complicated is that the same public opinion polls over time indicate support for the two-state solution is declining and that positions are hardening on final status issues like territorial withdrawal, Jerusalem, etc. So even if you have a broad majority who want to live their lives in peace, getting there is more challenging and divisive than ever before. Yet, when Israelis are polled about whether they would support a process led by the prime minister (doesn't matter whether it is Netanyahu or someone else) that guarantees a two-state solution, those percentages go up. This suggests that many Israelis (and quite possibly many Palestinians, but this is a guess) want their leadership to take the lead. This creates a real dilemma, as the current leadership is uninterested in advancing a meaningful peace process. That is why I believe that the silent majority in Israel needs to speak up and demand that their elected officials think outside the box and start addressing the issues that can be addressed at the present moment. Obviously, given the lack of democratic process in the Palestinian Authority and the divide between the Palestinian national movement's two main parties (Fatah and Hamas), it is a steeper climb on the other side.
If there was a two-state solution that could be guaranteed by any Israeli prime minister, this conflict would have ended a long time ago. But there is not: The two-state solution is a mirage.
There are three reasons for this. (1) The factions in power on the Palestinian side don’t want a two-state solution. Not only does their ideology reject such an outcome, but they fear that the actual establishment of such a state threatens their position at the top of the heap. In the status quo they perceive a guarantee of their hold on power. (2) As a direct consequence of (1), the Palestinian people are powerless; so the fact, if it is a fact, that they want peace is more or less irrelevant. (3) The Israeli people get it. They know that however desirable it may be in principle, a two- state solution is unachievable without drastic changes on the other side.
But they also, broadly, want their 'side' to be in power once the peace happens. (i.e., hardening positions on final status)
Yes, they largely see themselves stuck behind poor leadership (not necessarily leadership hell bent on violent conflict)
Are there solutions to the present moment issues that are palatable to Israelis and Palestinians? That's the million shekel question, I guess. If we knew that answer, things wouldn't seem so intractable.
Everybody wants peace. But definitions of “peace” tend to vary. The Palestinians, for instance, envision peace within the context of a Palestinian Arab state, purged of Jews, stretching “from the river to the sea.” Well, the Jews can hardly be expected to share that vision. So the only form of peace possible is an armed peace: Si vis pacem, para bellum.
In a way, that Roman proverb expresses the logic of the Jewish state. For was not a principal reason for the founding of Israel to arm the Jews against their enemies?
It's very strange to me that my first exposure to the phrase "river to sea" was originally from early Zionist sources.
"For was not a principal reason for the founding of Israel to arm the Jews against their enemies?" This is certainly part of the equation, but the reasons for early Zionism stretch from the communist to the spiritual. The last 70 years have simply honed the justification for military needs.
Well, yes. That’s why I used the indefinite article: “a principal reason.” The course of events from the Dreyfus Affair to the Final Solution had a profound influence on the development Zionism, but you’re right that there were other factors in play, e.g. the ideology of nationalism itself, which was in the ascendant when the Zionist idea first took shape.
I often wonder if the Israelis were left holding the bag after the tides of history changed. Colonialism was all the rage leading up to the aftermath of the WWI, showing up in a country with some "other" people living in it and setting up shop was just the sort of thing Europeans did. Suddenly Europe is being compelled to stop bumping people out of their homes by an increasingly powerful (and hypocritical) US propaganda machine, and the founders of Israel just happened to be left picking up the check after everyone else bounced. Now they're facing criticism through a lens none of the earlier powers had to face up until this century.
Granted, I'm not mentioning what passes for "colonialism" today in some academic circles, as this is really just about showing up where somebody else lives and finding ways to take ownership.
I have always thought of Zionism as much more of a post World War I era ideology when there was a big push to create ethnically homogeneous nation states out of the ashes of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. Israel and Zionism did not actually get off the ground until after World War II however, and that point sentiment was shifting towards things to then new multi-ethnic version of what we know as today's European Union.
In particular there was also somewhat pronounced split in European Judaism. Some of the key figures in the creation of and the development of European Union were European Jews like Simone Veil and other who did not emigrate to Israel(Veil was a survivor of Auschwitz). Second the Western occupation authorities in German where very unhappy actually with Zionist advocates for emigration. Lucius Clay, Jean Monnet and others wanted to rebuild the Jewish community in Germany as part of a reformed Germany not have the remaining community that survived the Holocaust pickup and leave for Israel. The Allied armies actually made a big point of reopening the synagogue in Cologne as soon as the Nazi German army was defeated. In fact the Cologne synagogue re-opened well before the fall of Berlin. In turn Jews in Israel essentially excommunicated the Jewish community remaining in Germany after 1945 although this was later reversed decades later.
I've spent time in both Jerusalem and Amman, speaking with Palestinians who do not believe what you say they believe. They tell me that they, and most of the people they know, support a single state, whatever it may be called, in which they and their families are free citizens, protected under the law. They may be the minority, but they don't think they are.
Hence my question above. None of the people I spoke to have engaged in fighting, bombing, etc. But do they support policy that result in violence? That's a question for someone who has spent more time than I have, who has more of an intimate knowledge of the mind of the public.
That’s a fair point. But then most Germans never raised a hand against the Jews between 1933 and 1945. I will concede that the question of responsibility, shading into guilt, is a sticky one. Still, history gives us examples that help to answer it.
In this context, I'm not so interested in historical examples. Nor am I interested in responsibility, shame, or guilt. I'm interested, in this specific set of circumstances, in learning if those who profess to want peace don't in fact create the violence because they desire policy outcomes that are untenable to the other side.
" “Picture several concentric circles”: At the center are the most psychopathic and bloodthirsty true believers — the jihadists who “wake each morning yearning to kill infidels and apostates,” many of whom “seem eager to be martyred in the process.” Then there is a larger circle of Islamists who enter the political arena to impose a theocratic order on society by means of the ballot box. Beyond that is a wider circle of conservative Muslims who may well support militant Islam financially or philosophically, but lack the zeal of their brethren. “Finally, one hopes, there is a much larger circle of so-called moderate Muslims.” (Regarding this last group, Nawaz sensibly prefers the label “liberal” Muslims, which, unlike the insipid and imprecise “moderate,” denotes a concrete set of values.)"
To transcribe this over to a segment of modern Israel, you could point to violent street groups in the bullseye, the next ring occupied by people who prefer for the state to act out violence against the "Enemy." Around this circle you'd have their apologists. Finally, there's a ring occupied by people who quietly vote to assist, as they experience the benefits of people who do violence for them. That last circle I think needs to be addressed by people seeking peace, as they're the most natural allies and would have the most potential influence on the rings further inside. This visual dartboard of extremism can likely be applied to any violent political movement.
Now, your question of what size each of the circles is: that's going to require polling data more extensive than I believe exists. I'm happy to say it looks like the readers of CG have done some homework here.
This assumes that there’s some kind of silent majority in favor of peace, and that if it could be mobilized, peace would follow. History, alas, refutes this pleasing vision.
Power flows naturally to those who have no reservations about using it. Liberal democracy, broadly conceived, is a system designed to prevent this from happening. Thus Israel, though it possesses the power to destroy its enemies, moderates its response to attacks like the one we have just witnessed.
On the Palestinian side, however, there’s no such moderating system in operation. Those with the fewest inhibitions have the most power, and there’s nothing to stop them from wielding it. I’m perfectly prepared to believe that a majority of Palestinians want peace and would be willing to compromise with the Jews to obtain it. But that majority, assuming it exists, has no power, nor any way of obtaining it except by violent revolution.
That’s why a peaceful end to this long-running conflict remains an illusion.
Given sufficient military power, there’s always a military solution. The question is: Would it serve the political objective? Obviously, the IDF could crush Hamas under its boot heel. But that would not answer for policy.
As things stand, Israel’s policy is—or should be—simply to stand pat. Her enemies cannot destroy her, nor are they willing to negotiate in good faith. Thus they can be ignored unless they make a nuisance of themselves, in which case they can be slapped down, as has just happened to those Hamas rats. Admittedly this is not an ideal state of affairs for the Jewish state. But for Israel’s enemies, it’s even less satisfactory.
My eyes are too old and tired to be seen through, freshly. However...
This strikes me as the issue at heart, and perhaps Gabi or others can provide me with a little fresh eyesight: "It’s easy enough to say that most Israelis and Palestinians want peace. But I also know the majority don’t believe peace is achievable under the current circumstances, and don’t necessarily want to make the personal effort required to reach that goal."
The question in this American's mind is "Do they really want peace? And are they simply beholden to the recalcitrance of their political leaders?" Or, do they claim to want peace, but at the same time both sides' public endorse policies that are untenable to the other sides' public? If I'm an ethnic and/or religious Jew in Jerusalem, who claims to want peace, but enforce public officials and policies that the average Palestinian cannot support, am I contributing to the problem? And vice-versa.
I don't know the answer...so I'm asking.
Skip, I asked Gabi. His reply:
You've asked a great question. Let's put aside the philosophical question of "what is peace" and assume that it is the absence of war. Consistent polling by institutes like the Israel Democracy Institute and the Geneva Initiative, as well as Palestinian public opinion polling, indicate that both populations want to see an end to the conflict. Where it gets more complicated is that the same public opinion polls over time indicate support for the two-state solution is declining and that positions are hardening on final status issues like territorial withdrawal, Jerusalem, etc. So even if you have a broad majority who want to live their lives in peace, getting there is more challenging and divisive than ever before. Yet, when Israelis are polled about whether they would support a process led by the prime minister (doesn't matter whether it is Netanyahu or someone else) that guarantees a two-state solution, those percentages go up. This suggests that many Israelis (and quite possibly many Palestinians, but this is a guess) want their leadership to take the lead. This creates a real dilemma, as the current leadership is uninterested in advancing a meaningful peace process. That is why I believe that the silent majority in Israel needs to speak up and demand that their elected officials think outside the box and start addressing the issues that can be addressed at the present moment. Obviously, given the lack of democratic process in the Palestinian Authority and the divide between the Palestinian national movement's two main parties (Fatah and Hamas), it is a steeper climb on the other side.
As always, thank you for the follow through.
If there was a two-state solution that could be guaranteed by any Israeli prime minister, this conflict would have ended a long time ago. But there is not: The two-state solution is a mirage.
There are three reasons for this. (1) The factions in power on the Palestinian side don’t want a two-state solution. Not only does their ideology reject such an outcome, but they fear that the actual establishment of such a state threatens their position at the top of the heap. In the status quo they perceive a guarantee of their hold on power. (2) As a direct consequence of (1), the Palestinian people are powerless; so the fact, if it is a fact, that they want peace is more or less irrelevant. (3) The Israeli people get it. They know that however desirable it may be in principle, a two- state solution is unachievable without drastic changes on the other side.
I think that I am understanding Gabi to say:
Yes, broadly, they all want peace.
But they also, broadly, want their 'side' to be in power once the peace happens. (i.e., hardening positions on final status)
Yes, they largely see themselves stuck behind poor leadership (not necessarily leadership hell bent on violent conflict)
Are there solutions to the present moment issues that are palatable to Israelis and Palestinians? That's the million shekel question, I guess. If we knew that answer, things wouldn't seem so intractable.
First things first: "Skip"?
Autocorrect strikes again. ...
Everybody wants peace. But definitions of “peace” tend to vary. The Palestinians, for instance, envision peace within the context of a Palestinian Arab state, purged of Jews, stretching “from the river to the sea.” Well, the Jews can hardly be expected to share that vision. So the only form of peace possible is an armed peace: Si vis pacem, para bellum.
In a way, that Roman proverb expresses the logic of the Jewish state. For was not a principal reason for the founding of Israel to arm the Jews against their enemies?
It's very strange to me that my first exposure to the phrase "river to sea" was originally from early Zionist sources.
"For was not a principal reason for the founding of Israel to arm the Jews against their enemies?" This is certainly part of the equation, but the reasons for early Zionism stretch from the communist to the spiritual. The last 70 years have simply honed the justification for military needs.
Well, yes. That’s why I used the indefinite article: “a principal reason.” The course of events from the Dreyfus Affair to the Final Solution had a profound influence on the development Zionism, but you’re right that there were other factors in play, e.g. the ideology of nationalism itself, which was in the ascendant when the Zionist idea first took shape.
I often wonder if the Israelis were left holding the bag after the tides of history changed. Colonialism was all the rage leading up to the aftermath of the WWI, showing up in a country with some "other" people living in it and setting up shop was just the sort of thing Europeans did. Suddenly Europe is being compelled to stop bumping people out of their homes by an increasingly powerful (and hypocritical) US propaganda machine, and the founders of Israel just happened to be left picking up the check after everyone else bounced. Now they're facing criticism through a lens none of the earlier powers had to face up until this century.
Granted, I'm not mentioning what passes for "colonialism" today in some academic circles, as this is really just about showing up where somebody else lives and finding ways to take ownership.
I have always thought of Zionism as much more of a post World War I era ideology when there was a big push to create ethnically homogeneous nation states out of the ashes of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. Israel and Zionism did not actually get off the ground until after World War II however, and that point sentiment was shifting towards things to then new multi-ethnic version of what we know as today's European Union.
In particular there was also somewhat pronounced split in European Judaism. Some of the key figures in the creation of and the development of European Union were European Jews like Simone Veil and other who did not emigrate to Israel(Veil was a survivor of Auschwitz). Second the Western occupation authorities in German where very unhappy actually with Zionist advocates for emigration. Lucius Clay, Jean Monnet and others wanted to rebuild the Jewish community in Germany as part of a reformed Germany not have the remaining community that survived the Holocaust pickup and leave for Israel. The Allied armies actually made a big point of reopening the synagogue in Cologne as soon as the Nazi German army was defeated. In fact the Cologne synagogue re-opened well before the fall of Berlin. In turn Jews in Israel essentially excommunicated the Jewish community remaining in Germany after 1945 although this was later reversed decades later.
I've spent time in both Jerusalem and Amman, speaking with Palestinians who do not believe what you say they believe. They tell me that they, and most of the people they know, support a single state, whatever it may be called, in which they and their families are free citizens, protected under the law. They may be the minority, but they don't think they are.
I would just note that actions speak louder than words.
Hence my question above. None of the people I spoke to have engaged in fighting, bombing, etc. But do they support policy that result in violence? That's a question for someone who has spent more time than I have, who has more of an intimate knowledge of the mind of the public.
That’s a fair point. But then most Germans never raised a hand against the Jews between 1933 and 1945. I will concede that the question of responsibility, shading into guilt, is a sticky one. Still, history gives us examples that help to answer it.
In this context, I'm not so interested in historical examples. Nor am I interested in responsibility, shame, or guilt. I'm interested, in this specific set of circumstances, in learning if those who profess to want peace don't in fact create the violence because they desire policy outcomes that are untenable to the other side.
I find that the mental model of concentric circles around bad actors tends to help me picture the groups involved in this sort of mayhem.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/10/sam-harris-maajid-nawaz-islam-book/
" “Picture several concentric circles”: At the center are the most psychopathic and bloodthirsty true believers — the jihadists who “wake each morning yearning to kill infidels and apostates,” many of whom “seem eager to be martyred in the process.” Then there is a larger circle of Islamists who enter the political arena to impose a theocratic order on society by means of the ballot box. Beyond that is a wider circle of conservative Muslims who may well support militant Islam financially or philosophically, but lack the zeal of their brethren. “Finally, one hopes, there is a much larger circle of so-called moderate Muslims.” (Regarding this last group, Nawaz sensibly prefers the label “liberal” Muslims, which, unlike the insipid and imprecise “moderate,” denotes a concrete set of values.)"
To transcribe this over to a segment of modern Israel, you could point to violent street groups in the bullseye, the next ring occupied by people who prefer for the state to act out violence against the "Enemy." Around this circle you'd have their apologists. Finally, there's a ring occupied by people who quietly vote to assist, as they experience the benefits of people who do violence for them. That last circle I think needs to be addressed by people seeking peace, as they're the most natural allies and would have the most potential influence on the rings further inside. This visual dartboard of extremism can likely be applied to any violent political movement.
Now, your question of what size each of the circles is: that's going to require polling data more extensive than I believe exists. I'm happy to say it looks like the readers of CG have done some homework here.
This assumes that there’s some kind of silent majority in favor of peace, and that if it could be mobilized, peace would follow. History, alas, refutes this pleasing vision.
Power flows naturally to those who have no reservations about using it. Liberal democracy, broadly conceived, is a system designed to prevent this from happening. Thus Israel, though it possesses the power to destroy its enemies, moderates its response to attacks like the one we have just witnessed.
On the Palestinian side, however, there’s no such moderating system in operation. Those with the fewest inhibitions have the most power, and there’s nothing to stop them from wielding it. I’m perfectly prepared to believe that a majority of Palestinians want peace and would be willing to compromise with the Jews to obtain it. But that majority, assuming it exists, has no power, nor any way of obtaining it except by violent revolution.
That’s why a peaceful end to this long-running conflict remains an illusion.
I'll make sure Gabi sees this question. I don't know how he'd answer it.
See, now we're gettin' somewheres!
I meant endorse, not enforce. Blame IT for not providing an edit button.