Opinion
Stuck in the Middle
February 4, 2009 - 12:00amI hate the fact that I feel the need to defend the legitimacy of my ideas to you before I have typed a single, substantive sentence, but I’m afraid that such is the nature of the current discourse surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Discourse and discussion have become polarized into what feels like two distinct groups: those that support the state of Israel, and those that support the humanitarian Palestinian cause.
It’s lonely to be a person who feels like he can relate to both Israelis and Palestinians in the wake of the newest cycle of violence in the conflict. It’s even more frustrating to read columns that are painfully shallow in depth and unnuanced in their treatment of the recent hostilities.
Angry, one-sided Op-Eds and inflamed rhetoric make the very same mistake as those who utilize violence to solve conflicts. They assume dogmatic possession of the truth. They are insensitive. They encourage polarization, not empathy. They galvanize radicals on both sides and leave us moderates out in the cold.
It’s not just newspapers, American politicians and television news that are blind in their total acceptance of one side or the other: it has happened to my friends too. Many who strongly advocate on Israel’s behalf installed “Qassam counters” on their Facebooks so that every time I checked their profiles, I knew exactly how many rockets had been fired from Gaza into Israel. Likewise, supporters of the “other side” changed their Facebook pictures to images of the Palestinian flag and used their statuses to denounce Israeli tyranny or even the “holocaust” of Palestinian civilians.
I am a Zionist and I am an American Jew. I believe Israel’s right to exist is non-negotiable. Yet I assure you this does not prevent me from being critical of the Israeli government, nor does it prevent my heart from breaking at the loss of Palestinian civilian lives. Personally, I do not think violence was an appropriate response to the end of the cease-fire and the renewal of rocket attacks from Gaza. The popularity of Hamas within the Gaza Strip itself had waned by December, 2008. Gazans themselves had grown tired of the harsh economic consequences forced upon them by an extremely repressive Israeli blockade. Hamas desperately needed a boost in its popularity, and it found a political marriage of convenience with the Israeli government.
With elections for Prime Minister set in February, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni in particular were looking to establish their security credentials. The end of the cease-fire gave them a justification to react with force towards Gaza. Hamas popularity has sky-rocketed after the mini-war. How Barak and Livni will fare in February is yet to be seen. Wouldn’t it be ironic if this round of violence was what catapulted Livni, the Israeli candidate best suited to make peace, into office? But that’s a whole different issue. The main point is that Israel’s repressive blockade of Gaza was an integral part of the domino effect that led to the latest outbreak of violence. The use of demeaning checkpoints, the miscalculated use of force and the politics of fear are all things that must change if peace is to be attained.
Yet Hamas too deserves criticism. Hamas militants fired rockets into Israel and deliberately killed innocent civilians. I may not agree with Israel’s use of force in this round of violence, but I can see how it is justified. Israel acted to protect her citizens from rocket attacks that have continued over a period of more than two years now. In contrast, Hamas used its citizens, both to shield themselves from attacks and for political gain. It cloaked its fighters in residential neighborhoods and submerged its weapon caches under hospitals. Recent Hamas tactics are disgusting, and their rockets did pose a meaningful threat to Israeli civilian lives. There is no way around these points.
Many Israel-detractors argue that the Israeli military response was disproportionate. I’ve yet to hear or read a meaningful explanation of what that means or what a viable alternative would involve. Since when is self-defense proportional? How many Israeli civilians must die before it is OK to use enough force? How far must the missiles be able to reach? Is there some kind of formula Cornell hasn’t taught me? If a Hamas militant fires a rocket off of a hospital and kills an Israeli civilian, what should Israel do?
Both sides have exhibited varying degrees of despicable behavior and have made costly mistakes. I don’t mean to imply a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel, because there is none, but I don’t know how anyone can sanctimoniously criticize only one side amidst such senseless tragedy. What I do know is that until Israelis realize that electing leaders who advocate the use of force and settlement only boosts the popularity of Hamas (the militant party du jour) and perpetuates the cycle of violence, the violence will continue.
Until Palestinians demonstrate that they can demand from their government the recognition of Israel and publicly hold their government accountable for the perpetuation of violence, the violence will continue. Until the United States learns that it must be an even-handed negotiator and not Israel’s best friend, the violence will continue. Most relevant, until we students learn to be critical of both sides, respectful of each other (i.e. not stereotyping or prejudicing kashrut-observing American Jews or any group relevant to this discourse), and openly proud of our shared desire for peace, we accomplish nothing but the elimination of meaningful dialogue and the perpetuation of the violence that we so desperately continue to hope will one day cease.
So the rocket attacks have
So the rocket attacks have taken place for more than two years? Try eight years, with over 10,000 rockets and mortars fired into Israel from Gaza. Talk about getting your facts straight!
A fair point
The Shin Bet actually put numbers for rockets and mortars fired since disengagement from Gaza in 2005 at 5,700 and 4,000, respectively; that combined number is probably far over 10,000 if we were to go all the way back to 2001. 2000 rockets and 1600 mortars were fired in 2008 alone, and I meant to indicate that recently, Israelis have had to suffer better-made rocket attacks with more intensity, though this was ambiguous by my "more than two years" comment. It is a fair point to more concretely define the situation many Israeli citizens find themselves facing.
"The main point is that
"The main point is that Israel’s repressive blockade of Gaza was an integral part of the domino effect that led to the latest outbreak of violence. The use of demeaning checkpoints, the miscalculated use of force and the politics of fear are all things that must change if peace is to be attained. "
First, Hamas was firing rockets while the Gaza crossings were still open, so the "repressive blockade" (which Israel allows huminatarian aid through, even during the middle of a war), didn't lead to any new violence. As the commenter above writes, Hamas has been firing rockets for a long time.
Second, there were no "demeaning checkpoints" before the Palestinians sent wave after wave of suicide bombers into Israel to kill Israelis on buses, in pizza parlors, at Passover seders, etc. Since the institution of checkpoints, suicide attacks have dropped dramatically. What would a non-demeaning checkpoint be, except an open door? You also fail to mention that Israelis are subject to such "demeaning" treatment too; try going through your day in Israel without having to walk through several metal detectors and searches. Is this not demeaning?
"What I do know is that until Israelis realize that electing leaders who advocate the use of force and settlement only boosts the popularity of Hamas (the militant party du jour) and perpetuates the cycle of violence, the violence will continue."
This makes no sense. It has been proven time and again that gestures of goodwill and peace from Israel have only been met with more terror and violence from the Palestinians. You can't negotiate with someone who wants to kill you; you can only placate them so they'll kill you tomorrow instead of today.
Rockets, Checkpoints, and Negotiation
1. It is hard to argue that the blockade does not severely diminish the quality of Palestinian lives in Gaza. This isolation, when combined with the most recent cycle of violence, has served to boost Hamas' popularity.
2. Clarification -- the sentence with the checkpoints meant to imply a broader focus which also took the West Bank into account. A fair point to argue that some checkpoints should indeed exist in order to prevent the suicide bombs that terrorized Israels, but if you look at the sheer numbers and locations of checkpoints in the West Bank, I think you'll find that they are not all necessary -- many serve to prevent Palestinians from traveling in the West Bank itself. This cuts off Palestinian cities from each other and makes it very hard for the Palestinian economy to improve. Certainly Israelis are subject to demeaning treatment as well -- my whole point is that both sides are suffering as peace continues to elude us.
3. Palestinians don't want to kill "you" or Israel; Hamas does, and I take aim at them in my column. But the sentence that you have omitted which follows the one you quoted calls on Palestinians (i.e., not Hamas or Gazans) to elect a government with whom Israel can negotiate and whom they will hold accountable for violence. I don't imply that you can negotiate with someone who wants to kill you, nor is that a position that makes sense to me. What I do argue is that Hamas approval ratings have increased due to the recent cycle of violence. With Palestinian elections coming up in the summer, this is extremely important for the peace process and future Israeli-Palestinian relations as Hamas as it currently defines itself is an obstacle for peace.
The whole point is political power
Jacob,
There is little point in fighting over which side is responsible for this current little brush fire. Instead, what needs to be addressed is the great disparity in the sides involved. Israel is a wealthy, stable nation with a powerful, high-tech military. We all can agree that "Palestine" is anything but. Millions of Palestinians lack citizenship in any country, and will probably continue to indefinitely. Both history and common sense will tell that armed resistance is the last recourse of powerless people.
Whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, Israel is, in the minds of Palestinians, the enemy, and for good reason. Any possible action by Israel, if it truly desires peace in Gaza and the West Bank, must fit within this fact. Israel cannot just assert its military, social, and economic force against Palestinians, and expect anything to change. This indeed presents the critical dilemma, defense without making the situation worse.
Israel holds all the cards in this dilemma. And perhaps it's in an un-winnable bind. But as both an atheist and a person who despises the hypocrisy of the powerful in such asymmetric conflicts, I cannot morally abide the great prosperity of Israel against the people it itself displaced. The Palestinians are not America's problem, nor the Arab states, nor the UN's. They are Israel's problem.
If there were indeed no people in a land, Zionism would be an acceptable idea. Unfortunately, the very idea of a Zionist state demands the exclusive power of the Jews over any other people within its borders. Otherwise, there would have been no need to expel the Palestinians. As an atheist and person who values free, democratic governments, I fear any such state that demands a religious oligarchy.
I desire neither of these options, but it seems to me that the conflict will continue with the Palestinians being the only true losers, or Israel will ultimately be swallowed up by its neighbors, almost certainly with a horrid massacre of its Jewish population. Let's not mince words: A two-state solution would be a disaster, as Palestine would not have the resources to construct a stable infrastructure, and Israel would still appropriate the best land, resources and water anyway. What I would see, and I accept this will never happen, is indeed a one state solution. These people deserve a stable government, a real home, a real livelihood, a real voice. Integration would be extremely difficult, and Israel would have to own up to the fact that its history started with the displacement of people, and probably lose its Jewish majority. But where else are the Palestinians going to go? Israel is as much their home as it is now to the Israelis. But such a gross inequity cannot continue to exist with any hope of peace and stability. In the end, we're talking about living in peace. Two states might be separate, but they would not be equal.
Best,
Thomas Riehl