On Israel/Palestine (with Poll)

Prelude:

Before getting into what is sure to be a contentious article, I wanted to offer insight into my perspective on this subject, rather than leaving it open for speculation.

I am a secular American Jew.  Which is to say I don't believe in Judaism, or any other religion. However, I was raised in the Reform Jewish subculture, Bar Mitzvah and all, so that is an indelible part of who I am. It would probably be more accurate to call the culture Hebrew, as Judaism is the religion of the Hebrews, but nobody uses that terminology anymore. Being raised in this culture means that I was indoctrinated in the morality of the Torah (old Testament to the Christians), and the idea that Israel is the "Promised Land".  As a Reform Jew, I was also taught to question everything I was taught, which is how I ended up Secular. I view my connection to Israel in the same way I view my connection to my Russian and Hungarian heritage; who I am has roots in these communities, but I am no more an Israeli than I am a Russian or a Hungarian. I am an American Citizen, that is my culture, and that is my nationality.

I'm a political nerd. I pay attention to national and international politics and get into debates for no reason other than it interests me. Most of my life I have been able to support Israel, and our alliance with them, without much of a quandary.  That has become more difficult in recent years with the policies of the Netanyahu administration involving colonizing the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the embargo of Gaza. However rational discussion on the topic seems near impossible as neither side will accept critique, admit faults, or recognize the valid arguments of the other. Any discussions which do take place usually devolve into nonsensical ethnic grandstanding which are irrelevant to the questions of sovereignty and peace. 

This is the motive for this article, to set a stage for more rational discussion. However small and unlikely my affect may be, it seems worth the effort. The next great world conflict is brewing in the middle east, and the excuses focus around Israel/Palestine, Israel/Iran, The US/Iran, Russia-Syria/the new Arab League, and the un-calculated influence of Turkey. Yet we can not have a rational conversation about most of these ignition points.

Right to Exist

Much discussion is made over the right of Israel and Palestine, each, to exist as nations. These conversations are consumed with irrelevant information.

It is taught, in the Jewish community, that the deal between Moses and God, made on Mt. Sinai, was that in exchange for providing the Hebrews with laws, protection and land, they would become an example to to the world of what happens when you do and do not follow God's law; "A Light unto the Nations". (This definition of "The Chosen People" took some serious mental gymnastics to reconcile with the Holocaust.)   The land portion of that deal is where the idea of the "Promised Land" originates, claiming that God ordered them to conquer and take Canaan. (1)

This may be useful for teaching Israeli children to have pride in their heritage, but it is irrelevant to international law.

The connection of the Hebrew tribes to the land called Israel can be demonstrated through Roman historical documents (2) and, more recently, the Human Genome Project. (3) However neither of these, alone, provide justification for recognizing Israel as a nation.

This surface area now know as Israel and the Palestinian territories was held by foreign occupiers, continuously, dating back to the Romans. In the late 19th century it was held by the Ottoman Turks, and during the early 20th century those occupiers were the British Empire. Beginning in the late 19th century, Theodore Herzl (4) published books and plays urging Jews around the world to return to Israel and build a secular nation. This was the beginning of the Zionist movement. Zionism is nothing more and nothing less than the desire to build, support, and protect a Jewish Nation State on the land now called Israel, AKA Israeli patriotism. (Note: Israel is not a theocracy in the way the US is not an empire)

During WW2, the British Empire, conned both the Jews and Palestinians by promising them both the same land in exchange for their support.  Inevitably, they renegaded on their promises to both of them, as colonial governments have a habit of doing to their subjects. Which initiated guerrilla resistance movements in both camps (today they would be called terrorist cells). The resulting conflict caused the UN to intercede in 1948 and declare 3 new sovereign nations, Israel, Palestine, and the city-state of Jerusalem. (5)

The following day 5 Arab nations attacked these new nations, stating their goal was to leave only 1 nation behind; Palestine. When the war was over Israel had gained some territory, Jerusalem and the West Bank belonged to Jordan (who changed their name to Trans-Jordan) and Gaza belonged to Egypt. Palestine had lost the war to their allies, and Israel had survived. (6)

To my mind, this is where right to exist as a nation is established for Israel. The people living on a plot of land fought for independence, won it, were recognized by The international body, and then successfully defended that sovereignty.

The Palestinians are descendant of tribes that have lived in this region as long as anyone else. The first time they ever had a recognized nation when the Roman's changed the name of the region after the exile of the Jews.  The second was the UN declaration in 1948, and they have been an occupied people ever since. First by the Jordanians and Egyptians, and then by the Israelis who took the territory in the recurring wars. They were recognized in 1948 via the same methods and political circumstance as the Israelis. They have fought for independence ever since. Israel has been unable to force or convince them to submit to the authority of the Knesset. They have an identifiable culture and an elected government of their own. They have chosen the hardship of the fight for independence over the ease and comfort of surrender. They are an independent people desiring independent rule.

I believe this combination of factors legitimizes their right to a nation. As advocates of democracy and liberty, how can we not support their right to self determined sovereignty?

But, in truth, these arguments over who has the right to exist are pointless. Both of these peoples exist, they are not going away, and the only peaceful way to resolve this conflict is with an agreement both sides can accept. 

Criticisms

The following criticism of both sides are not just a list of things of which I disapprove. They are also the primary obstacles to peace.

Palestine:

The Palestinians target civilians in attacks that serve no strategic purpose other than disrupting the society with fear. (6) They use civilian women and children to launch these attacks. The fact this violates the rules of war is not the point. What kind of a person sends a civilian to kill a civilian without even an identifiable, practical goal to be achieved? How can anyone ally themselves with that sort of callous disregard for life?

Hamas has refused to buy energy from the Israelis because they don't like Israel. And political infighting prevents purchases from other sources. (7) Adding to the misfortune of their own people. There are other examples of Hamas and the PA making choices that were detrimental to their people's health and economy.  One has to wonder if they are incompetent or simply desirous of a desperate population because comfortable people are less likely to fight.

The codified desire for Israel's destruction makes a peace agreement impossible. In fact the Hamas Charter states that peace is unacceptable. (8) How does taking peace off the table serve the interests of the Palestinian people?

Israel:

The embargo of Gaza punishes children and innocents, and is disproportional to the damage Hamas has done, or is capable of doing. Nor does it stop rocket launches or bombings, which continue. The comparisons to the Nazi ghettos are hyperbolic, to be polite, but conditions in Gaza are unacceptable for the progenitors of western morality, and victims of western immorality, to be causing.  (9)

Call it settling, colonialism, or just pain theft, pushing Palestinians out of their homes and then moving Israelis in is unacceptable behavior. This practice has been escalating in the West Bank in recent years, and, honestly, I am offended that my government and mainstream media and Jewish community organizations have had no condemnations to make. Why would anyone make peace with someone who is currently violating them? (10)

In addition to being cruel and impediments to peace, these Israeli policies violate the most basic principal of Judaism, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow." (11)

Self-Interest

There is no scenario where the Palestinians defeat the Israelis in battle, unless that scenario includes self-annihilation as well. There is also no scenario where the Israelis can eradicate the Palestinians or annex all of their territory without descending into their longest and most costly war and losing most of their allies, including the US if they were to attempt genocide.  Continuation of the status quo means more suffering for the Palestinians and the Israeli's, both at home and in international politics.

Peace means improved health, stability and profit for both peoples. Polls show the majority of both peoples want a negotiated peace (12). Yet neither of their governments will budge on the issues most preventing the achievement of peace.

Both of these governments gain money and power due to the conflict. So, while it is in the self-interest of the people to have peace, it is in the self-interest of the governments to have war. And the bloodshed and suffering continues for no other reason than an unspoken, unintended, "conspiracy" of betrayal, in which codependent actors perpetuate a system that empowers them to protect the people from the suffering their anti-symbiosis creates.

Outside Influence

Parties from all over the world support either side of this conflict (13, 14). Individuals, organizations, and governments pouring in money and weapons, and supplies and political support to a cause in which they have no practical stake. There is no overwhelming strategic value to that piece of property. There are no special resources. Not even oil. The Mediterranean and the Suez would be just as accessible if this conflict had been settled one way or the other in 48 or 67. Our cold war policy in the Arab world would likely have remained the same as well, with all that implies. The wars between the Arab nations and Israel may have had to do with pride and influence, and some territorial power issues as well. But the continued efforts from outside to subsidize and perpetuate the conflict, have no rational or strategic value.

Religion. The influence of religion on the symbolic meaning of a city, actually just a couple of old structures in that city, has perpetuated this conflict.  It is the reason the Israelis wont part with or share Jerusalem, and the reason the Palestinians want it. It is the reason that American Christians and Persian Muslims are willing to get involved in a battle that has nothing to do with them. Because their religion says there is a sacred building that God has a particular interest in, in that city. And so the infidels who don't believe in quite the same god cannot possibly be allowed to live there in peace.

The Quartet, the US, Russia, EU and China, have laid out a 'roadmap for peace' which they undermine by subsidizing the warring parties. President Lincoln used to ship food and medical supplies to the south till General Grant convinced him it was prolonging the war. The war ended soon after that stopped. We tell the Israelis to stop building and the Palestinians to stop bombing, and then we, and the quartet, give them billions to perpetuate the status quo. 

This is because even the slightest mention of forcing the hand of one or both sides to concede to this demand or that immediately sparks passionate voices attacking the critic absent facts or reason. And the ears attached to those mouths are non-operational. So the lesson of arrogance and close mindedness contained in the story of Babel goes unlearned by the cultures who teach it, and our politicians find themselves backed into a corner where they cannot end a bad policy without risking policies they are more interested in.

In the early days of this conflict Russia was backing and training Syria and Egypt. Which is how the US became 'natural' allies of Israel at a time when McCarthy and Hoover were accusing every Jew they could find of being communists. The Cold War ended 21 years ago, as that situation became less serious for or country, the Israeli lobby became more powerful. (Very similar to the Cuba lobby situation) Now the internal political value of the alliance far out weighs the actual strategic value for our country.

The same situation, in reverse, exists for the parties backing Palestine. They backed the Palestinians as part of power plays involving exploiting cold war politics; keeping up the price of oil, distracting the Western Powers, keeping their sugar daddy feeling a need, etc. But now that they have sold their people on evil America and evil Zionists, they can't just turn around and make a deal with the devil for peace and profit. Especially for those like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Yemen, Venezuela, etc. who predicated their ascension to power on fighting the evil US/Israel Imperium.  Even though the continued conflict is actually interfering with their economic and social progress by diverting resources and time into a conflict that serves no national interest, the personal interests of those in charge are best served by fanning the flames.

Most of the money the US spends on foreign aid goes to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. A significant portion of that resulted from bribe money agreed to in order to get peace treaties signed. If there is no conflict, they might not receive that money anymore.

And the lesson of "We reap what we sow." goes unlearned by the cultures that teach it.

Conclusions

The obvious, rational, political solution is a three state solution, with Jerusalem as a city-state. But I don't see that happening because passion, not logic, rules the discussion. And corrupted self-interest, not civic duty, rules the governments.

The middle east contains the last theocracies on earth. In the place where theocracy began. Corrupted by money, power, and hypocrisy, neither the religions nor the governments can survive much more self-destructive behavior in the information age.  As it dies it flails about like a wounded beast, causing mayhem and destruction. When organized religion no longer influences governments and cultures, we shall have a more peaceful, stable world. But it will not go gently.

How to influence these societies, now, so that they are divorced from their religious passions, I do not know. But so long as sacred hearsay is considered more valuable than rational agreement, there will be war. Because self serving, corrupt leaders will use that passion to manipulate people into sacrificing themselves for an illusion of glory covering for organized crime.

Long term change for peace would require gaining leverage against corrupt governments. Only two things influence politicians, money and exposure. It seems unlikely the battle lines are going to change on the money. The peace movement would have to take up the mission of exposing to the public both governments' actions to impede peace. It must be focused on both governments, or the message will be perceived within the battle lines and achieve nothing. And it must be about how their actions are counter productive to peace, and therefore the people, while they personally benefit. A sustained campaign dedicated to demonstrating the best interests of both peoples are aligned with peace, will have the effect of motivating change.

If you have access to the soap box. And in the information age, that is not such a difficult thing.

"Free your mind, and your ass will follow."

- George Clinton