Thinking about the Middle East is a sure-fire way to induce a headache — and, if you’re more than a disinterested witness, a heartache, too. Wise people will, therefore, seek to avoid thinking, will instead take such new information as comes their way and immediately squeeze it into familiar categories, categories that we have, over the years, come to take pretty much for granted. These convenient file-folders of our minds offer us substantial benefits not only of time but also of intellectual and emotional composure.
What are some of the more common things American Jews take for granted when dealing with the Middle East, more specifically with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? Some are so familiar as to be banal: The Jews are entitled to a secure state of their own; the Arabs have been hostile, often murderously hostile, to a Jewish state; Israel is a robust democracy, where civil rights and civil liberties are well-established; Israel truly wants peace, but Palestinian extremism and Palestinian disarray have meant that it has no partner for peace; exercise by the Palestinians of their right of return would doom the Jewish state, would mark the end of Jewish sovereignty; the Israel Defense Forces are constrained by a strict code of ethics, live within a doctrine called tohar ha’neshek, the “purity of arms;” Iran poses an existential threat to Israel.
These are not idle propositions, picked up somewhere along the way. There is at least some truth to all of them and there is much truth to most of them. They add up to a neat and even convenient picture. Often, they go together with the conviction that until the next cataclysmic event, the status quo is acceptable; that the nations of the world, including the Europeans, have little use for Israel; that much of the popular criticism of Israel is rooted in antisemitism; that Israel is too often judged by a double standard; that Israel needs American Jews to speak out resolutely — and in one voice — in its defense. Together, these add up to a truth so familiar it resists re-examination, to what seems to suffice as a whole truth. (That, by the way, is the main reason conversations and debates on Israel/Palestine are so very boring: It’s all been said already.)
The difficulty is that there is no whole truth. What there is is an uneasy truth, a shifting truth, a messy and disruptive truth. It is not a familiar and convenient truth.
Take Jerusalem, for example. Jerusalem is today a divided city. To speak, as we have for so many years now, of Jerusalem as “eternal and undivided” is to pretend, is to make the wish father to the claim. Or take the status of Israel’s Arab citizens, more than 20% — one in five — of Israel’s population. The government itself has time and time again acknowledged the very significant discrimination they experience, has time and again promised (and failed to deliver) urgent efforts to repair the gaps. But the gaps remain, providing daily insult and injury to the Palestinians, challenging Israel’s claimed robust democracy.
When you’ve created what amounts to a closed system, it is easier not to acknowledge information that challenges what you believe — especially when what you believe is neither foolish nor false. And when your closed system is lavishly endorsed and supported by prestigious organizations, it becomes harder still to accept that the truth is actually complex, that all its pieces do not fit easily together. If this is true regarding fairly esoteric issues such as whether Jerusalem is in fact a united city or whether Palestinian Israelis are getting a fair shake, it is all the more so when it comes to the core issue of peace.
Over the 42 years that Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza, its quest for peace has run hot and cold and lukewarm, too. Israel includes some number of people who oppose any withdrawal from the West Bank and a much larger number of people who find the current status quo tolerable — and if tolerable, then preferable to the uncertainties that any peace agreement would necessarily entail. No sane person endorses “peace at any price,” but there are many people who oppose a peace of inherently uncertain price. Among these last is Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has now offered a settlement freeze that was melting at birth, the freeze of an ice cream cone on a broiling July day. Neither the liquefied freeze he has put forward nor the peace negotiations he has proposed enhance Israel’s security, advance an end to the conflict.
To say that is not to say that the Palestinian Authority (much less Hamas) is angelic; far from it. Wrongs and rights tumble all over each other in Israel and its next-door neighbors. Together, these add up less to a whole or even a coherent truth than to a persistent tragedy.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Is Steven Hawking’s Decision To Boycott Israel a Boon to BDS?
Alas, Poor GOP: 3 D.C. Scandals That Weren't
Forced Out by Nazis, Grandmother Returns With Family to Germany
Mother of Jewish Teen Killed on Brooklyn Bridge Speaks Out
You've successfully signed up!
Other than "We're not perfect, either", what does this column do to move the ball forward? Almost eleven years ago, I sent you a thought piece, called the "3-Year Plan", which you said in a February, 1999 column "makes straight the crooked path", but didn't pursue. It would still work today, especially given the disarray in the Palestinian camp and the US frustration in tryng to get a hand on the puzzle.
I thank Leonard Fein for the lovely phrase, "[speaking of] Jerusalem as “eternal and undivided” is to pretend, is to make the wish father to the claim".
One might extend this thinking, and speak of Israelis "making the claim father to an [asserted] right", such as the [asserted] right [asserted by Jews] of Israel to be a "Jewish state". Such a claim, as a wish, is entirely understandable. However, such was never a "right" in the contemplation of the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate or UNGA Res. 181, no one of which spoke of population transfers. Undoubtedly, as an Israeli wish, it motivated the actions -- together often described as "ethnic cleansing" -- which Israel took in and after the 1948 war as a result of which 750,000 Palestinian non-Jews found themselves outside pre-1967 Israel and unable to go home (collectively, usually called the Palestinian "refugees").
And when we think of "claims", should we not think about "pre-conditions" to negotiations?
In the discussions of negotiations, Israel has often said that it wants no "pre-conditions".
Is Israel's insistence that Jerusalem shall forever be Israeli and undivided (whatever that means now, when the Israeli-defined Jerusalem city limits have been so far expanded since 1967) a "pre-condition"? Or merely a "stumbling block", as if to say to the Palestinians, "Yes we will consider the issue of re-dividing Jerusalem, but be warned that we won't consider it seriously or without exacting a very high price." A "warning", but not a "pre-condition"? A "stumbling-block" but not a "pre-condition"?
In the discussions about whether to talk about "peace" with Hamas (with whom Israel talks, somehow, about prisoner exchanges), Israel demands that Hamas recognize (before talks start) that Israel has a "right to exist" as a "Jewish state". But wouldn't a concession of this sort by Hamas be part of a peace treaty? And isn't Israel, therefore, asking for part of a peace treaty in advance, that is to say, isn't it imposing a "pre-condition"?
Isn't language wonderful? And isn't a just and lasting peace as far away as ever?
Why not giving palestinians rights to open private casinos, bingo rooms, and lotteries on their reservation lands ? It works in the States.
I agree with Mr. Fine's observation that most political discussion about Israel is boring because the positions on both sides are well-known and simply repeated ad infinitum without resolution. But, the entertainment value of our conversation must take a back seat to issues of independence, safety, right-to-exist, etc.
Mr. Fine's solution, not surprisingly also adopted by the Palestinians and their supporters, is for Israel to offer unilateral concessions until peace is achieved. Mr. Fine mentions the example of Jerusalem, which, as far as he can see, has been decided ("Jerusalem is today a divided city", he writes.) There's no need for negotiations to address that issue, he implies, since it's a fact on the ground.
The "inconvenient truth" might just be that the Israeli position is not unreasonable and that concessions need to come from the Palestinians. That's not a popular argument amongst liberals, since it suggests that those portrayed as impoverished and under-privileged underdogs have, rather, the power and the ability to change their own circumstances in a peaceful manner.
"No!" the liberals chant, we must excuse their behavior and hand them our tributes to buttress our self-delusion as moral and ethical people, albeit on the backs of those who will pay for our largess with their lives.
Mr Fein's assumption is that one could do something that would "advance an end to the conflict". It is a mistaken view. The conflict is not a normal (rational) conflict. In a normal conflict, you have grievance "a" and grievance "b" and grievance "c" ("a + b + c = conflict"). By solving "a" and "b" and "c", you end a normal conflict. However, the sum total of all the grievances against Israel does NOT define the conflict ("a + b + c < conflict"). It is not a normal, rational conflict. Actually, it's rather obvious. All the grievances that you hear on an everyday basis (occupation, refugees, settlements, etc) came into existence AFTER the birth of the conflict. All these grievances are the result of conflict - not the definition of conflict.
Perhaps, it's easier to pretend that it is a normal conflict. It gives the pleasant illusion that things can be worked out through a wise policy. But it is an illusion. Mr Fein can criticize the "settlement freeze", and his criticism may or may not be well-founded. However, it is a mistake to think that a particular change in policy will "advance an end to the conflict". First, one has to define correctly the cause of conflict (the right diagnosis), and that has not happened yet.
Nimrod Tal - I really think that one can argue with Mr Fein, reject his analysis, criticize his ideological position, AND at the same time one can be polite and respectful. Actually, the Talmudic literature has a good saying in this respect: "Ha-malbin pnei chavero be-rabbim ke-illu shofekh damim" - shaming a fellow man in public is likened to shedding his blood (i.e. it is an act of violence).
Anyway, Mr Fein, the real issue facing the Jewish people is how to continue our collective experience under the circumstances of permanent conflict. There are moral questions, emotional questions and more. It's not the first time in Jewish history that we face issues that cannot be solved. The pressure on Jewish communities in the Middle Ages was also a multi-generational issue for which no solution could ever be found. And does anyone have a solution to the terrible crisis of assimilation and the loss of Jewish identity in today's Diaspora?
Nimrod Tal - My argument is that the conflict in NOT normal. In other words, I understand that the conflict cannot be defined in terms of grievances. A rectification of a grievance does not lessen the intensity of conflict. On the other hand, it seems to me that Mr Fein does perceive the conflict in terms of normality. The conflict, in his eyes, is defined in terms of specific grievances; moreover, he seems to believe that Israel can address these grievances and "advance an end to the conflict".
Actually, many thinking, western observers assume that there is a solution to all conflicts, and they hold Israel responsible for finding a solution since she is perceived as the stronger side ("she holds all the trump cards"). It's hard (or even impossible) for them to notice the high motivation of the supposedly weaker side to continue the struggle even after "utter defeat". The truth is that the weaker side has not really been defeated, because the motivation to continue the struggle is actually a clear sign of strength and self-confidence in ultimate victory.
I know that it's asking for too much, but just to review the school textbooks or to follow TV programs or to read poetry written in the Palestinian society would clarify their very high motivation to continue the struggle - and their firm belief "in the ultimate defeat of Zionism". At the very least, one should just look over the very poetic Palestinian national anthem ("Biladi"), telling of the "volcano of rage", "revenge and endurance" and the "determination of my nation in the land of struggle".
Vince,
The underpinnings of Islamic Fundamentialism in the Palestinian territories (especially in Gaza) would never tolerate institutionalized gambling.
Mr. Fein, I go out of my way to read you because, not only are your essays thought provoking and informative but you also reminds me of Noah, except that you have the courage and generosity to try and make the obvious be taken into consideration. Thanks.
Comments on events and circumstances in the region are all well and good but, unless they are able to bring into focus some constructive way out of the problems there, they cannot rescue the situation from whatever inevitable catastrophe awaits it. War is bad and people are stupid. OK, so, what else is new? Both sides have their own take on the situation and simply complaining about their behaviour has not much modified or changed that overall position. Nor, indeed, the conflict process itself. Navigating a route out of this increasingly hazardous maze has fallen foul of so many tripwires and pitfalls that now might be a good time to stop and consider for a moment what options, if any, might still be left open to us. We can go on much as before, bewailing the crisis and pointing out to of each set of combatants the error of their ways. We can look on helplessly as things go from bad to worse, feeling in our bones that no end other than some future cataclysm, bringing ultimate ruin to both sides, must finally terminate the matter.
Or, we can utilise those very aspects inherent in the situation that today so confound and cripple every effort made toward a closure of this conflict.
It all rather depends on how we go about it.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
'There are always possibilities.'
Mr. Belmont--it is unfortunate, indeed, that the Palestinians have not fared well in the wars they and their proxies have waged against the Israeli state that set the Palestinian national community in harms way, not in 47-8, not inot in 1967, not in the Al Asqa intifadah and not in the Hamas rocket campaign against Israel's southern population, and that, often, israel has ungently, decisively, and even cruelly, responded to the wars that the Palestinians supported or initiated. Not incidentally, the state of Kuwait and the state of Jordan both supported mass campaigns of "ethnic cleansing," so-called, during or following hostilities against their national leaderships initiated by or supported by resident Palestinian communities. I believe that resident Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait in their entirety.
Therefore, far from supporting your conclusion that the foundational bona fides of Israel are fatally compromised, your observation (and unobserved context) better support the conclusion that the Palestinians might rethink their enthusiasm for initiating wars that they have yet to muster the ability to drive to successful conclusions.
No doubt you would reject this conclusion. Little doubt that the Palestinians will initiate further hostilities premised on this stance. So true, little doubt that at some point in the future you will be able to repeat your accusations.
My post had been erased. Ab two mo's ago i tried to post several time but my posts never so light of day. Is this going to continue? And no one willing tell me that!Ok, i can see why!
Vince, I agree with Zach that Islamic fundamentalism would not permit the construction of casinos and such.
But long before the Gaza war of 2008 and the rockets being fired at Sderot, it occurred to me that the most wily thing Palestinians could do to challenge Israel would be to construct luxury hotels with Jewish chapels and kosher restaurants by the sea, where Israelis could come for marriages and divorces by on-staff non-orthodox rabbis. (Sort of like Reno used to be before no-fault divorce.) Why go all the way to Cyprus? There could also have been Saturday supermarkets and flea markets where Israelis could come and shop.
That would have outfoxed the frummie fundamentalists! Israel would have finally had to confront the question of what it actually means to be a Jewish state, not just racially but in terms of the beliefs and practices of their secular majority and the non-orthodox Jews of the world. Imagine Conservative or Reform rabbis being recognized as legitimate in biblical "Eretz Yisroel," but only outside the boundaries of the "Jewish and democratic" State of Israel. What a (badly needed!) debate that would inspired!!!
What about the idea of extending the boarder of Jerusalem eastwards? Isreal then (rightly, I believe) retains most of the current city areas but Palestinians can at least claim a capital in Jerusalem? Possible
(There may be some solution to the problem of Jerusalem but none to the anti-Semitism of Balkas.)
Well, name calling of a person or what that person says, does, or writes does not shed a ray of light on any of above-listed activities. Yes, some sites have solved my 'antisemitism'. Ha'aretz, j'lem post, truthdig have stopped publishing my posts. And even this site at one time wld not publish about 7-10 posts i posted ab two mo's ago.
However, with new editor, i have been posting on truthdig for the last two weeeks.
Most of the white 'jews' have no connection with shemitic peoples of canaan or arab peninsula. Nor do they like shemitic christians, muslims or mosheists/talmudniks.
Can one imagine a white 'jew' of n. america marrying an yemeni, ethiopean, bearded orthodoxian,ugandan, iraqi, et al? Only if devil made her/him do it!
What ever Israel is, it is not a democracy, or a place where it residents have freedom. it has one class of Citizen and one class of Jew every one else is a stranger (goyim-meaning not like us) and only the orthodox are real jews. On that simple premise the country will become a failed state when the orthodox outnumber the non orthodox jews
I wish Mr. Fein would hold the Palestinians & other Arab nations to the same or even similar standards he holds Israel. It would be quite embarassing. Israel would win by default. While it has more than its' share of issues it left its' adversaries in the dust back in 1948, both figuatively and literally. It is the only democratic and pluralistic society in the Middle East. Perhaps I am totally naive with an acute sense of amnesia but when was the last time a Palestinian or other Arab openly spoke critical of his/her own government's policies? Perhaps Mr. Fein knows. I don't!