I mean you’re basically just restating the “official party line” internationalist position on Israel/Palestine as it’s been since 1967. Nothing you say is really wrong, but it’s also not realistic. Maybe that’s not an impediment to you, but it is an impediment for the Palestinians because it gives them a false belief that they will ever enjoy an agreement along those terms.
No real disagreement other than pointing out the obvious, which is that rocket attacks and Palestinian-on-Israel violence inevitably puts Israel in a position in which restraint becomes less politically popular.
As much as I’ve criticized Israel and the pro-Israeli lobby over the years, I’ve always simultaneously believed that some Palestinian ‘leaders’ see value in perpetuating war and will go to great lengths to pick fights with Israel. As I’ve said in a previous post, I’d rather Israel use their world-renowned intel capabilities to clean out that hornet’s nest, as opposed to striking what are clearly civilian targets. But what would be even better is if Palestinians began taking out more of their own trash.
They probably won’t do that, though, because there’s just absolutely no trust that Israel will in any way elevate their existence beyond the miserable ones they have now, which makes Palestine fertile ground for terrorist recruitment.
I understand what you’re saying, but I also feel that if my position is not wrong, but is nonetheless “not realistic” because of Israel’s commitment to a particular course of action, then that means that Israel’s course of action is wrong.
I think it’s important to keep focusing attention on that, rather than just glossing over it with a shrug. I don’t see how advising people to just shut up about this fundamental injustice because it’s allegedly some kind of “impediment” to the Palestinians is benefiting anyone or anything except the Israeli hardliners’ commitment to maintaining the oppressive status quo.
No argument there.
Right and wrong don’t likely arrive us at a solution so to speak. Look at our role in helping to negotiate the Good Friday Agreement, a core reality in situations in which both sides have competing rights, duties, interests, desires etc is that it’s very likely some or both parties likely have to give something up to get something they ultimately want. It is also likely it won’t always be a symmetrical thing.
Take an example from the business world, say you have a contract with a company you do business with, and they end up owing you say $5m. There is no real doubt this is what you are owed, but they assert various reasons they shouldn’t have to pay you the full $5m, and refuse to do so. They offer to pay you $4.5m. Now, depending on the specifics involved, there are companies that would never agree to do that. But in other situations, getting 90% of what you are owed, and not being tied up in years of expensive litigation–that maybe because the other party has much deeper resources, you’re never even guaranteed to win because they have better attorneys and can withstand funding the litigation indefinitely, that 90% may be the best you’re going to get. It’ll never change that you got screwed out of $500,000; but it is better than getting screwed out of the whole $5m.
If we take a stance like we did in helping the Good Friday negotiations, our job is really to find what path can both sides live with, and that path likely doesn’t go through things that Israel will just never agree to as a matter of fact. There were red lines the British had with Good Friday, that they were never going to concede, and vice versa, you have to work around those. Maybe some of those red lines are “wrong”, but such things are not typically settled along lines of rightness and wrongness.
If I have a general sum-it-up position, it’s that I understand Israel’s need to show strength, but it will probably have to be the bigger man in this fight, if you will. If this conflict is to end, they’ll have to show more restraint even when that’s hard. There’s never been a better time than now to try that approach. Pan-Arab nationalism isn’t what it was in the 1960s-80s. In fact Arab leaders share the same concerns of having to fend off religious extremists.
The danger is that the longer this conflict persists, you could have either a resurgence of ISIS, or worse, a form of ISIS that seems ‘safer’ and gains some sort of political legitimacy on the ‘Arab street’. I don’t see that as a possibility right now, but who knows what the future holds.