Written by Bernard Weiner   

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

I had a fascinating email conversation over the weekend on the Middle East
conflict, and it seems worthy of reproducing here. Not just because of the
issues raised but because they encapsulate the difficulty of even agreeing
on what the central questions are.

Americans seem so locked into hardened political positions -- not just
Republican vs. Democrats, conservative vs. liberal, religious vs. secular --
that it makes the traditional way of dealing with difficult issues, of
finding some room for compromise closer to the middle, virtually impossible.
But perhaps this online debate offers some hope in this regard.

My correspondent -- an intelligent, politically-savvy, passionate
writer/editor  -- had sent me a tough anti-Israel article by British
journalist Alan Hart entitled "Zionism Unmasked: A fairy tale that’s become
a terrifying nightmare." I've read scores of similar articles over the
years, but Hart's was quite powerfully argued, and I decided to respond to
it. Here's what kicked off the conversation:

NO "DISAPPEARING" ACTS

To get the discussion started, let us suppose that everything (or nearly
everything) Hart says about the origins and early years of Zionism, and much
of today's brutal Zionist treatment of Palestinians, is true. What are the
policies you would advise to help ameliorate the situation, the
Israel/Palestine conundrum?

Should millions of Jewish Israelis be repatriated, forcibly or otherwise,
to...where? An uninhabited island in the Pacific? A country carved out
somewhere in Eastern Europe, with land donated by numerous nations? Where?
Similarly, many Israelis want the Palestinians to disappear and are hoping
that by treating them so cruelly, this will hasten their departure back
to...where? To Jordan? Egypt? Bantustans in the worst geographical
locations? Where?

It ain't gonna happen. Both sides are engaged in delusional thinking. The
millions of Jewish Israelis will not disappear on their own and cannot be
made to disappear by force, no matter how many decades are devoted to the
task. The millions of Palestinians will not disappear on their own and
cannot be made to disappear by force, no matter how many decades are devoted
to the task.

You may ask why the Palestinian should compromise on anything, since you
feel their claim is more justifed; Israelis might ask why they should
compromise, since they believe their claim is more just. But that reasoning
just keeps the destructive-loop in place and solves nothing. If my
assessment is a realistic depiction of where things stand today, how is it
possible to reach an accomodation that will permit both peoples to live
side-by-side, if not in peace (at first), then at least with some sort of
grudgingly-arranged toleration of the Other?

It seems to me that the art of political compromise dictates that each side
will have to give in order to get. The Israelis will have to end their
occupation of lands established for the Palestinian state, abandoning its
settlements in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem in order for a viable
Palestinian state to manifest itself. The Palestinians will have to
officially recognize Israel, which action would necessitate ceasing to send
missiles, rockets and suicide bombers into Israel. Israel might agree to
accept a limited number of "right-of-return" Palestinians back to their
ancestral homes but also would have to pay a fair real-estate price for
those hundreds of thousands of Palestinian who would not be welcomed back.
Jerusalem probably would become an international city, administered by the
U.N. or some other neutral body. Once Israel and the new Palestine were
established inside of secure borders, it would be easier to work out
treaties dealing with water-sharing, movement back and forth across the
borders for workers and others. Finally in this abbreviated list, since we
know there are Jewish Israeli and Palestinian factions who would be opposed
to any serious movement toward peace, both governments would criminally
prosecute those who use violence in opposition, and continue moving toward
peace despite whatever violence takes place.

I'm not pulling these potential solutions out of my hat -- or from any other
orifice in my body. By and large, all of these compromises, at least in
principle, have been accepted by both sides over the past decade or two, in
negotiations held in Oslo, Madrid, Camp David, etc.

The key to moving in the direction suggested by these already-agreed-to
compromises is for both sides to quit playing I'm-more-a-victim-than-you-are
game, to admit that the Other has some right on its side, and to not get
bogged down on who first committed which act of violence in the past.
History is valuable and never to be forgotten but when it comes to
diplomacy, it can also be a convenient trap to avoid doing anything
significant in moving the peace process forward.

Doing nothing, in my opinion, is to throw up one's hands and to accept the
ongoing sacrifice of yet more generations of children into the bubbling
cauldron of hate and despair that is today's Middle East.

That, in very brief summary, is my reaction to Hart's powerful piece of
writing. Let's see if we can achieve any solid resting spot both of us can
stand on in discussing this constantly volatile topic.

ZIONISTS ARE IN CHARGE

Her reply:

[My response] must be pretty obvious by my newsletter postings and the
facts of the numerous international violations by Israel (in the hundreds),
the disproportionate amount of daily aggression against the Palestinians,
stealing land that doesn't belong to them, murdering and imprisoning
children. What are the Palestinians supposed to do: bend over and say "thank
you for killing my relatives and family? I'll never send another crude
rocket into Israel again? Thank you for taking what the international
community tells you does not belong to you? Thank you for stealing not only
our land, but our water as well? Thank you for bombing our schools and
hospitals? Thank you for cutting off crucial food and medical supplies," and
so on and so on.

I cannot imagine anyone over here in the U.S. allowing anyone to do a tenth
of what the Israelis do to the Palestinians without retaliating. There's not
a scintilla of equality going on in Israel, or here, since the Zionists now
have control over our country in not just foreign policy, media, education,
Wall Street, banking, every branch of government and military, you name it,
and why things are getting progressively worse, because of our partnership
and collusion with this mother of all monsters.

Now ask me how I really feel.

It's the injustice of it all, and even worse, that no one is doing a thing
about it above lip service....


STOPPING GENERATIONS OF HATE

I replied:

[Without responding to your over-the-top language about Zionist influence],
I share much of your (and Hart's) righteous anger. But, in a certain sense,
it doesn't matter any more who is more "right." These two peoples (who are
linked by their Semitic heritage and DNA) are locked, and have been locked
for more than 60 years, in a battle from which they cannot extricate
themselves, even if they wanted to. And neither side wants to; each thinks
that with a bit more violence, the Other will give up and slink off into the
byways of history.

So I come at this from a different perspective, trying to figure out a way
to stop the slaughter,  to give future generations of kids and grandkids, on
both sides, something other than permanent war and permanent hatred.

Yes, I know that disproportionate violence has been meted out by Israel  --
even to the point where an international commission determined that Israel
had committed gross war crimes in Gaza. That commission likewise determined
that the Palestinians had committed war crimes as well, but of a far less
deadly variety, by firing rockets into civilian towns in Israel. That
slaughter wheel keeps turning and the two parties seem incapable of stopping
it. Some outside agent, with some clout, will have to step in and help
shepherd the parties to the negotiating table.

...If I'm correct that no amount of violence/injustice from Israel directed
at the Palestinians will make the Palestinians give up the fight and vanish,
and that no amount of Palestinian retaliatory bombing and rockets will make
the Israelis call it quits and disappear, what options are there? Do those
of us who support the right of Palestinians to a nation-state all their own
say "just keep fighting, maybe 60 years from now you'll achieve your
victory?" That is an invitation to a continued regimen of slaughter, with
entire generations of young men lost on both sides, not to mention the
civilians who will die. What, in PRACTICAL terms, can and should be done?

There has got to be some way out of this horrific ongoing slaughter. Using
what both sides have agreed to in principle over the past decade or so, I've
proposed a scenario that seems to make sense. I'd love to hear, beyond the
anger and denunciations (valid though they may be), what your position is
about finding a way to peace in the region through that scenario or another
you might propose.


WRONG IS WRONG

My correspondent responded here point by point:

I share much of your and Hart's righteous anger. But, in a certain sense, it doesn't matter any more who is more "right."

How can you say it doesn't matter who is right? It does matter even if the lines seem to have blurred so dramatically. Right is still right and wrong is still wrong.
 
These two peoples (who are linked by their Semitic heritage and DNA) are locked, and have been locked for more than 60 years, in a battle from which they cannot extricate themselves, even if they wanted to. and they do not want to; each thinks that with a bit more violence, the other side will give up and slink off into the byways of history. 

The Israeli OCCUPATION is the problem, not the Palestinians. There would be no violence if the Israelis would end their occupation of land that does not belong to them.

So I come at this from a different perspective, trying to figure out  way to stop the slaughter to give future generations of kids and grandkids, on both sides, something other than permanent war and permanent hatred.
 
The only thing to figure out is for Israel to end the occupation and return the stolen land.

Yes, I know that there is disproportionate violence meted out by Israel...And that there has been indiscriminate violence in retaliation by the palestinians. that tit-for-tat slaughter.

It's not tit for tat violence. The Palestinians have nothing but crude rockets while Israel has the 2nd largest stockpile of nuclear and other weapons in the middle east. The statistics tell the truth on which side massive lives have been taken.

...wheel keeps turning and the two parties are incapable of stopping it.

What happened during the cease fire? The Palestinians kept and Israel broke it. Israel wants to eliminate all Palestinians one way or the other, preferably through violence.

Some outside agent, with some clout, will have to step in and help shepherd the parties to the negotiating table.

Israel won't allow it. There is no negotiating.

So, if this is the present, and the likely future, for the Israelis and Palestinians, and if we want to stop the bloodbath and give both sides' children hope and a peaceful future, what is to be done? Just denouncing the other side, which both the Israelis and Palestinians do regularly, doesn't contribute much to the healing process. It just keeps the fires stoked.

I don't know -- the international community. War crimes are still war crimes.

If I'm correct that no amount of violence/injustice from Israel directed at the Palestinians will make the Palestinians give up the fight and vanish, and that no amount of Palestinian retaliatory bombing and rockets will make the Israelis call it quits and disappear, what options are there?

What options were there with the Nazis? Eventually Israel will pay for its crimes and so will we.

...Do those of us who support the right of Palestinians to a nation-state all their own say "just keep fighting, maybe 60 years from now you'll achieve your victory?"

David against Goliath. They're very brave, braver than Americans.

That is an invitation to a continued regimen of slaughter, with entire generations of young men (not to mention the civilians who will die) lost. What, in PRACTICAL terms, can and should be done?


THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE:

Her response:

End the occupation. ... Nothing will be accomplished until Israel/U.S. ends their murderous, lawless occupation, and returns the stolen land to its rightful owners. It isn't complicated, it's the crux of the problem. If you don't believe it, ask anyone in the Middle East who is not part of the problem. Right is right and greed is and always will be wrong -- that is how I see it.

 
WHAT ARE THE BOUNDARIES?

My reply:

Ending the occupation is indeed the crux of the problem and was one of the
central required planks in the scenario I outlined. But I want to make sure
we're talking about the same thing. If "return the stolen land to its
rightful owners" refers to the occupied territories (Gaza, West Bank, East
Jerusalem), that seems to be eminently doable. Both sides in various
negotiations over the years have agreed to this in principle. But if "return
the stolen land to its rightful owners" refers to all of Israel, obviously
there is no hope for that scenario.


THE OUTRAGE IS BUILDING

Her response:

I was referring to the '67 borders. Most agree this would be fair, but it
isn't going to happen unless the international community intervenes. I don't
see this happening either, since the U.S. is going around deposing
governments, installing U.S.-friendly leaders and (what is it now?) 700
military bases and increasing in number? Who is going to fight ours and
Israel's superior weapons and military advantage? Maybe down the line China
and Russia with help from Latin America, Chavez...Iran. The Israelis will
never agree to give up the land they've stolen. They'll hold on until the
bitter, bottom, end, what and whenever it comes. The outrage is
building.


MAYBE CHANGE IS POSSIBLE

My reply:

Thanks for clearing up the border question. The situation does seem
hopeless, but sometimes at the most hopeless-looking times, significant
changes are possible.


...OR MAYBE NOT

Her response:

Maybe in an individual, but for the collective whole, the wheel turns
slowly and sometimes not at all. Today it's in retrograde motion thanks to
Zionist United States of Israel.

                                                      ******

And that's where we left the conversation. My correspondent, dedicated to
the proposition that Israel is wrong and must pay the penalty for being
wrong, seems resigned to a continuation of the conflict until Israel is
defeated.

To my mind, to get to a true peace, each side is going to have to give
something to get something. But, since neither side is capable or desirous
of making a peace, the international community in some fashion must
intervene and move them to the negotiating table for final talks. My
correspondent said as much.

As you can read for yourself, whenever I tried to move the online discussion
to how the parties can move toward peace, my correspondent wanted to stay on
the war crimes of the Israelis and the need for them to be punished for
their brutal behavior. I've heard something similar from Israelis when I
argue with them about the need for them to withdraw from the Occupied
Territories: "The Palestinians are brutal terrorists and can't be trusted;
they must be taught a harsh lesson for their violent behavior." It's a
closed blaming-loop that gets us nowhere.

I take two positives out of this debate. The first is that, even given the
heat generated, my correspondent and I can talk in civil, respectful ways to
each other. And the second is that both of us agree that Israel will have to
withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, and that unrelenting international
pressure will be necessary to get to that stage. Those are good starting
points for a serious negotiation. Israel wants security and recognition,
Palestine wants a secure nation-state and an end to occupation. There is a
pathway to peace there, if the will is there to find it and walk it to a
peace treaty -- or, at the very least, to a long-lasting truce.

Who will take the first step? And who will help the warring parties take
that first step? Perhaps, you, dear reader, have creative solutions worth
considering. #

----------

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D in government & international relations, has taught
at universities in California and Washington, and has written numerous
articles on the Middle East conflict (
www.crisispapers.org/weinerpubs.htm#essays ). A former writer/editor for two
decades with the San Francisco Chronicle, he now serves as co-editor of The
Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). To comment: >>
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it