With the election out of the way, some parts of the blogosphere that I could hardly bear to read are becoming interesting again. There is an interesting post over at Crooked Timber where Henry Farrell asks why it is so difficult to have even remotely rational discussions on the subject of Israel. Matthew Yglesias raises an interesting point:
At the end of the day, whether Israel ought to start removing far-flung settlements first or whether the Palestinians ought to start disarming militia/terrorist groups first is not really the grandest clash of principles one can imagine. But people on the pro-Israel side think the Palestinians are lying about their ostensible position and really seek the destruction of Israel. People on the anti-Israel side think the Israelis are lying about their ostenisble position and really seek the destuction of Palestine. Both sides can marshall some non-trivial evidence for their point of view. But it’s impossible to have a reasoned debate if you’re not willing to accept that the people on the other side really mean what they say they mean. The rules of the “civil discussion” game simply require that you take your opponent to be arguing in good faith and not acting as a screen for some other nefarious agenda.
In response to both that and the main post, I wrote:
This is an interesting problem, because it is not a physical impossibility for someone to actually have a position which is a screen for some other nefarious agenda. Once you get to the point where you can credibly suggest that the other side is just engaging in propaganda instead of real peace talks, it isn’t obvious that you shouldn’t point that out. Israel believesthat it got there with the Palestinians either two years after Oslo, or after the rejection of the Clinton proposals. Palestinians think they got there after Oslo and the things that they contest forced them to engage in the first intifada (especially the settlements). Once the debate has broken down to that extent, the question is: what can you do (short of genocide on one side or the other) to bring it back? My guess is that (whichever side you are on) you have to climb down from your own hugely divisive tactic AND do so at such a time where the other side does not or cannot immediately respond by increasing the potency of their hugely divisive tactic (which makes you look like a fool and contributes to the idea that the other side is really just proceeding after their nefarious agenda.)
In the spirit of Henry’s original post, I think it would be interesting to think about why it is so difficult to even have a discussion about solving the problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians (much less actually solving the problem).
Well, I think that the commentator calling himself “Giles” over on the CT thread put it best. The Israel conflict really is comparatively small-scale, and so when people focus on it as opposed to any other conflict around the world of similar scale, you start to realize that folks are using the I/P issue as a peg on which to hang a whole lot more.
Leftists seize on it because its an issue of evil Capitalist white oppressors who slaughter people of color for fun and profit. Christian fundamentalists seize on it because it sets the stage for the return of Jesus. Islamic fundamentalists, because its unbelievers who rejected the Prophet occupying the land of Al Aqsa. Some racists take the approach of evil Jews oppressing the Palestinians like they have oppressed people throughout the world with their evil financiers. Other racists take the approach that there’s a bloodthirsty brown hoard that can only be ruthlessly be crushed, because that’s the only way you can deal with Them. And so forth.
Notice, though, that in none of the above cases is the main grievance about Israel. When people talk about Israel, they are, nine times out of ten, talking about something else.
I agree with much of Andrew’s comments. The fact that, on the ground, both sides are stuck in the historical/religious righteousness of their perspectives and cannot cooperate long enough to make compromises that would ensure their future survival is truly sad for both Israelis and Palestinians. BUT, for the people of the U.S., it really doesn’t matter. It’s two small groups of people fighting over a very small piece of real estate.
Where this conflict does make a difference to the U.S. is where the interests of those committed to fighting for or against White Capitalistic Oppression/Anti-semitism/the Christian Second Coming/Jihad/Racism (name your ideological stance of choice) and those simply interested in U.S. control of Middle East oil work together to drag us into World War III in the Middle East.
Why its hard to have a discussion.
Probably becasue the main participants do not seem very motivated to find solutions, and purposefully poison discussion with their own rhetoric. A lot of discussions start with at least some of the premises of one the existing sides in the conflict, and discussions continue from that point (in addition to the other agendas point discussed at length already above).
Since neither side has much interest in resolving the conflict, the basic framework of debate is guaranteed to create difficulty in having a decent discussion.
And I think the participants are also aware of this, which is why they spend so much time on the semantics and rhetoric of the debate (for example, refusing to use the other side’s words to describe basic geography).
For example, to pick on the Israelis (only because picking on the Palestinians tends to be easier), I do not see how there can be any decent discussion of a solution if included in the framework is the Israeli religious claim to the land (God gave us the deed and the Arabs are squatters). And yet will any ardent Israeli supporter ever put that aside in any discussion?
Probably becasue the main participants do not seem very motivated to find solutions, and purposefully poison discussion with their own rhetoric.
Dmbeaster shoots and scores.
The fact is both Sharon and Arafat derive their power and continued hold on that power from an ongoing conflict.
As we’ve recently seen in this country, the politics of fear is a winning strategy.
I agree with dmbeaster on this. History is a vendetta. The honest truth is that we don’t have the vaguest idea about what actually happened 1,000 or 2,000 years ago. We do know a few of the things that were written about it. And they’re just clubs to beat your political opponents with.
The problem that the U. S. has in being an honest interlocutor in this area IMO is that we believe that the Israelis are sincere in negotiating and we suspect that the Palestinians may not be. When Arafat dies and the door for new negotiations opens for however brief a period, we should strongly encourage the Israelis to take some positive step unilaterally. If the Palestinians fail to reciprocate, we can let that be our benchmark.
Since neither side has much interest in resolving the conflict, the basic framework of debate is guaranteed to create difficulty in having a decent discussion.
Nonsense. Are you seriously claiming Barak had no interest in resolving the conflict?
I do not see how there can be any decent discussion of a solution if included in the framework is the Israeli religious claim to the land (God gave us the deed and the Arabs are squatters). And yet will any ardent Israeli supporter ever put that aside in any discussion?
Yes, they will. The view you describe is probably held by a minority of Israelis, and an even smaller minority of Israeli supporters.
I think that Bush and Blair are going to split over this issue.
Keep in mind that the central dispute is over something quite concrete: land. But the land interacts with the concept of Israel’s legitmacy as well. Several hundred thousand Palestinians left in 1947/8 either out of fear of Israeli gangs or under the assumption that the mighty Arab armies would soon crush the nascent state. Either way, they’d be back soon. As it happened, Israel triumphed and didn’t invite the refugees back, took or destroyed their homes, and built a modern and powerful democracy. They repeated the procedure in 1967. Apparently a great number of Palestinian guerillas and terrorists are descendents of the original refugees. These people want their land back, and they may also want to drive Israel into the ocean. My understanding is that less than 200 Palestinians have taken compensation because to do so, they’d have to recognize Israel.
Andrew’s comments may explain something that has puzzled me for a long time, namely why otherwise skeptical fellows like Yglesias and Juan Cole accept Palestinian talking points without demur.
Both sides lie a lot and about major issues – e.g., the Israelis say they didn’t chop up the West Bank after Oslo, and that they need every inch of the planned barrier path for security; the PA says there was a massacre at Jenin, that Arafat abandoned terrorism, and that Jewish doctors are infecting Arab babies.
Even bloggers who avoid the temptation to simply attack one side, often get snarled by counterfactual talking points. Finding out the actual facts takes more time and patience (and perhaps more objectivity) than most people have. And end of the day, there are no easy answers to this one.
Much easier to pontificate, hurl blame, and feel self-righteous.
Leiter or another philospher of language could probably write a better post, but here goes.
What is a conversation? [is is war by another means?] What is the point of talking? What is the goal of having a dialog? [is it to achieve the goals of war, without bloodshed? or is it to cause war to break out?]
In the context of the I/P conflict, it’s pretty clear that a vocal minority on each side honestly wishes for the destruction and/or removal of their opponent. I can understand, then, how everything which is said by any advocate for either side is viewed, by many people on the other side, through the prism of a pending war.
In this context, a conversation is not an exchange of ideas. Instead you could argue that the very purpose of the conversation is to create the climate which allows one side or the other to justifiably use force against the other.
As any lawyer should know, words alone can have power, if wielded in a certain way. Separating the exercise of power from the earnest desire to discuss solutions is a non-trivial exercise, especially when there are those who wish to demonize/trivialize the latter group, in order to build support for military solutions.
Francis
I can think of several contributing factors:
1. Both sides have built up a version of history in which they are blameless victims and their opponents are monsters.
These versions of history are sufficiently fact-based in either case to make a lot of people feel justified in holding their existing position. Palestinians can feel genuinely aggreived about having been shoved into squalid refugee camps for the last half-century. Israelis have good reason to worry about attempts to exterminate them as a people. The dark fears of both sides aren’t fantasies, they’re based on historical experience.
2. Both sides are avoiding dealing with violent minority factions who can and will use force to prevent progress (Hamas and those like it on the Palestinian side; the settlers on the Israeli side). It’s unclear that the leadership on either side can safely move against the extremists. Note that Sharon has been threatened with civil war for even considering pulling out of Gaza, and we’re talking about him giving up the West Bank as well?
This re-inforces point 1, as no Israeli or Palestinian leader is likely to admit that their reason for not negotiating is that they’re afraid of their own people. So, in response, they have to find another excuse.
What Kevin said.
I’d like to hear about more ideas for addressing the dark fears directly. Maybe we aren’t thinking big enough. For example, why couldn’t the Palestinian Authority encourage the settling of Jews in the West Bank, but as Palestinian Jews, not as Israelis. This would help get across that the desire for a Palestinian state is all about self-determination, not about ethnic cleansing. Before you all tell me how this is unrealistic, yes I know. That doesn’t stop me from thinking about it, or hoping.
On Israel’s side, I think there needs to be a separation of security from sovereignty. Security is a big issue in the West Bank, so Israel should have troops in there, but subsidizing settlers to plant themselves in harm’s way is nuts. End the subsidies, and start closing down the more militarily exposed settlements. Start drawing up plans and timetables for tearing down the walls and allowing full access to the Israeli economy again. When Palestinians feel that doing business with Israel is more important than killing Israelis, to the extent that they will police their own extremists, then we’ll have peace. It doesn’t seem impossible.
I’d like to see an acknowledgement from all the nations that attacked Israel that they contributed to the Palestinian refugee crisis. I’d like to see a compensation fund set up with money from all the nations involved, Israel included.
I don’t know what to do about the Right of Return. It’s up against all sorts of fears, demographics even more than terrorism. But it seems that Israel could handle a modest increase in the Israeli Arab population, if they are willing to take citizenship and swear loyalty. Okay, a vastly watered down Right of Return is not exactly a big idea, but if we could get even that far, it would mean we were in a different era.
I’d like to see some process like the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that was used in South Africa. A joint Israeli-Palestinian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, offering full amnesty to those on both sides, but only in exchange for full confession and full disclosure.
Full disclosure: I am basically pro-Israeli and think that the Zionist settlement movement was not sufficient provocation for agression against the settlers or the wars against Israel. At the same time, I feel that all sides in the conflict (including the British and the US) have much to atone for, and that peace is a necessity, not just a convenience.