The only way I'm able to make moral sense of the Israel-Palestine conflict is by looking at the shifts in momentum that occur between the two sides every few years.
Narrative 1: Israel elects some war hero who has seen the light, and decides that trading some land for some peace is the only way out of this mess. Then the Palestinian side rejects all offers, ends up fracturing into hardliners and reformers, and it becomes impossible to negotiate. Then some genius blows himself up in downtown Tel Aviv.
Narrative 2: Israel elects some war hero who believes in dealing with Palestinians in the most cynical, base manner. The hero makes it his mission to expand settlements, jail and assassinate Palestinian leaders, and impose blockades and sanctions everywhere possible. Palestine retaliates in kind with homemade rockets, and some luminary drives a bulldozer into a crowd in Jerusalem.
Real life is usually some mix of these narratives, but the point is that both sides all retain enough moral authority to scuttle a deal, cower to extremists, or take raw political advantage of the moment.
People embroiled in the conflict, Israelis, Palestinians and their surrogates, will come up with compelling arguments for why they have moral authority. And they're right in their own ways. But there is a larger morality in play-- world opinion, which is usually too distracted by people's own parochial interests until things become crystal clear. For someone to win, the morality needs to shift far to one side so that the world demands a settlement.
In comes the most promising change I've seen in years. Hamas and Hizballah have decided to take on non-violent tactics over blowing themselves up and launching rockets from the backs of camels. Witness the Gaza flotillas, or the heavy PR pressure they're laying on the world from all quarters. I've been waiting for this for years. Palestine has real, serious grievances, but they squandered all claims to them with endless petty, violent acts. This changes the game.
Narrative 3: The only modern, westernized nation in a vast region, the product of recent immigration, imposes strict conditions on its indigenous ethnic groups. The indigenous people, fractious as they are, jockeying for power in their own conflicts, respond with terrorism and self-pity. They end up jailed and oppressed. Until they change their approach, go non-violent, and win. Both sides end up coming away just fine. The powerful, western people retain power over their domain, and the natives win self-determination.
That's South Africa's story. The conflict and its resolution all happened within roughly the same time period as Israel and Palestine have been at it. The power dynamic is the same. The cycle of violence remained unbroken until the powerless changed their approach. It's really up to the powerless here.
Israel can make all the overtures to peace they want, but the peaceniks will always look like naive cowards to a plurality of their population. They will always risk a double-cross. At the same time, Israel's warmongers can make Palestinians miserable, but this only means they'll have less to lose.
Palestine can make Israel's life miserable with terrorism, but they won't win, and they'll suffer under more necessary restrictions to their movement. If they go for peace, Israel has little reason to go along with it. If the Palestinians do nothing, they'll be marginalized as their land slowly gives way to Jewish settlements, and their status as second-class citizens is secured.
The only way out of this dilemma is for those with little power to renounce violence and make a big stink about their situation to the rest of the world. That's exactly what's happening. I just hate to be on the side of the Afrikaners this time around.
No comments:
Post a Comment