Resolute.
Resurgent. Depressed.
Allow me to identify for you three states of mind
that describe the interested parties in the latest skirmish in what has become
known, simply, as “The Conflict.”
The first
term, “Resolute,” refers to the mainstream attitude of the Israeli people. According to their narrative, Hamas is the
sole aggressor in this battle, having provoked the fight by rejoicing at the
capture of three Israeli teenagers, lobbing rockets indiscriminately at Israeli
land, and refusing the Israeli invitation to stop the bloodshed early on. The Israelis have long stopped waiting for
international support for their plight; quite the contrary, they expect to be
condemned internationally simply for acting in self- defense. And this means that they feel the need to be
supremely focused on that very task.
Such focus is seen as especially important in this latest round of
violence. Israelis cannot help but
notice how difficult it has proven to locate and destroy Hamas’s tunnels. But the fact remains that the IDF continues
to have the upper hand when it comes to military might. So the Israelis have steeled themselves to a
lengthy conflict in which the tunnels are destroyed, one by bloody one, at
whatever the cost. The mood of Israel
will remain resolute until its government has satisfied itself that it has
eradicated the short-term threat from these tunnels and has a plan in place to
deal with Hamas as a long-term threat.
The second term, “Resurgent,” refers to the attitude
of the Palestinian people and especially their sense that ultimately, they will
come to control the land formally known as Palestine. When polled, the majority of Palestinians report
that they are “winning” the war against Israel, and very few believe they are
actually “losing.” Just as the Israeli
partisans are shell-shocked about how difficult it is to uproot the tunnels,
the Palestinians are thrilled that their forces are putting up such a
formidable defense. What’s more, Palestinian partisans believe
that they are winning the public relations battle around the world and are
actually beginning to make inroads with the American media, perhaps for the
first time. According to the Palestinian
narrative, the IDF is mowing down children and other non-combatants at a
ridiculous rate, one that is completely out of whack with the threat that
Israel is facing from the Palestinians.
As more and more pictures of dying children are covered by the media,
the Palestinians feel that their cries for freedom are beginning to be heard. It is just a matter of time, they believe,
until they are liberated and so is the land known to them as Palestine.
The third term, “Depressed,” refers to the attitude
of those among us who seek a two-state solution in which a majority Jewish state
will survive adjacent to a majority Palestinian state in peaceful
co-existence. At present, that prospect
seems unlikely. We look at the
situation as it stands now and envision a new generation of Israelis and
Palestinians who are raised to hate each other and can think of nothing more
ennobling than fighting in a war against their Semitic “enemy.” We look at the extremists on both sides, and
ask ourselves: how are we ever going to have a two-state solution if they are constantly
doing their best to destabilize it? We
see all the passion on the ground for a solution in which either one people or
the other will control the disputed land – and both sides appear to believe
that their side will carry the day. And
then we listen to the advocates for the two-state solution, and they seem so
measured, so lifeless, so … what is the word? … depressed.
My friends, we are approaching a very critical point
in this conflict. Are we looking at a
situation where the two sides become increasingly extremist, militant, and
willing to incur deaths and casualties in support of the “greater good,” and
where ultimately we will know peace only after witnessing a war of Biblical
proportions? That outcome is certainly the expectation of
Hamas – don’t take my word for it, read their Charter: http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jps/1734.pdf.
Or are we looking at a situation where the moderates
of the world come together and accept that paying casual lip-service to the
idea of a two-state solution won’t get the job done? Rather, they must become passionate advocates
of such a solution. And that requires
replacing the tired rhetoric that two states represent the only FEASIBLE solution
with arguments that two states represent the only JUST solution. In other words, the two-state solution must
become the preferred choice of the young, vibrant set – those who are
passionate about justice and fairness -- and not merely that of their war-weary
parents and grandparents. This will only
happen if enough young people from the two sides are able to engage in ongoing dialogue
opportunities with one another. Difficult? Yes.
Impossible? Not at all.
As long as the support for two states is tepid and
grounded in mere pragmatism, we as a species will continue to get what we’re
getting now – heartache for the would-be peacemakers, and blood and machismo
for the partisans. Once, however, we begin
to equate two states with justice, then and only then will peace have a
fighting chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment