Solving the Middle East Conflict: It's Not About Israel and Palestine
I was watching television for the first time in a long while some weeks ago, when I saw something that upset me quite a bit. It was a demonstration in Los Angeles, where "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel" protesters were yelling epithets at each other. It was not the protests which upset me; it was that the journalist quite offhandedly referred to each of them as "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel". Why do we have to pick sides in this stupid conflict? Why can't we all be on the same side — against senseless violence?
I don't like writing about the Middle East in general. It is much too depressing and all too confusing. People literally spend their whole lives trying and failing to understand the conflict there.
I'm not too interested in historical debates. The Israelis may say their ancestors were there first and the Palestinians' ancestors stole their land. But any historical argument from the Palestinians today is essentially the converse. I'm not in any real position to judge the validity of these claims.
The important thing is to look to the future. What do we ultimately want to have in the Middle East? I think we all know the answer: we want a stable region where people can live in peace without killing, maiming or abusing one another.
How to accomplish this is ultimately another issue. Does a state called "Israel" have to exist in the Middle East for this to be accomplished? Probably not, although the only way to guarantee peace without Israel would be to deport or murder every Jew in Israel — hardly the ideal solution. Ideally, Israel would become a pluralist, multicultural state accepting of Arab and other minority ethnic groups; alternatively, Palestine, Lebanon and other neighbouring states would have the full control of their territory and the full international recognition they need to prevent terrorism.
I don't know what you would call either of these two positions, but I doubt either of them is strictly anti-Israel or anti-Palestine. Ultimately most of us want peace to prevail in the Middle East. It is just too bad that most of those with the actual power in the Middle East seem to have the exact opposite desire.
It is true that ultimately we will have to take certain positions on the actions of the actors in the Middle East. Those disapproving of Israel's ridiculous and inhumane foray into the Gaza strip are likely to be called anti-Israel; those disapproving of how terrorists in the Gaza strip and other Palestinian territories are likely to be called anti-Palestine. But is it not possible to condemn both acts of aggression and violence, regardless of which "side" is supposedly in the wrong?
When we view the situation in the Middle East as a zero-sum game — one where Israel or Palestine has to win, and the other has to lose — we can never realistically attain peace there. Peace can only be reached when everyone realises that it is in everyone's interest to treat one another with mutual respect. As idealistic and impractical as this sounds, the right position on the question of the Middle East isn't whether you support Israel or Palestine; it's whether you support the right of every person to live in peace and without fear of oppression, or whether you don't.
(Infernal Ramblings is a Malaysian website focusing on current events and sociopolitical issues. Its articles run the gamut from economics to society to education.
Infernal Ramblings is run by John Lee. For more, see the About section. If you have any questions or comments, do drop him a line.
Comments
Thoughts? Comments? Discuss this and other ramblings at the forums.
(Alternatively, contact the author privately.)
| Related comments from forum thread "Solving the Middle East Conflict: It's Not About Israel and Palestine": | |
|---|---|
|
ocho-onda
Member Posts: 1 IP Logged | Posted at 6:33:54 am Feb 7, 2009
Hi John, I appreciate your views on the Palestine/Israeli conflict and may I say that though the root cause of the issue may appear complex, the solution is quite simple and possibly achievable provided all parties can look forward and like you have suggested, nothing positive will result from either side's continued harping on the past - on who did what to whom. "Does a state called "Israel" have to exist in the Middle East for this to be accomplished? Probably not, although the only way to guarantee peace without Israel would be to deport or murder every Jew in Israel — hardly the ideal solution." You may be surprised to know that there are many Jews, especially Orthodox Jews who are and were against the forced formation/existence of an Israeli state because it runs counter to God's instruction as dictated to the Jewish tribes,in their disobedience to God's commands as stated in the Holy Torah scriptures. I had posted my take on my blog earlier. Please have a peek when you get the chance. :-) Cheers. http://ocho-onda.blogspot.com/2009/01/will-george-mitchell-make-peace.html#comments |
| Last five replies (0 comments not shown): | |
|
jeremiah liang
Member Posts: 2 IP Logged | Posted at 11:19:28 am Feb 24, 2009
I agree that the Israel-Arab/Palestinian crisis is a very complex problem. There are several ways to appoach the problem and achieve a solution. A complicated problem requires a complicated analysis with a simple but profound solution. 1. Reexamine the simplicity of the political solution: a two-state solution simply requires that each state recognises and respects the existence of the other. All other tactics to obstruct this process reflects an indirect denial of real peace. For example, if Singapore/Indonesia refuses to recognise Malaysia as a legitimate country, why bother talking about a truce or lasting peace with them? Wiser to prepare secretly for the coming attack. 2.The diplomatic solution is now offered by President Obama. He is likely to convince Iran and all the proxy elements of the Arab world to lay down their arms for peace. But this peace won’t hold because it is merely diplomacy laced with great rhetoric from an ambitious world leader. Read his inaugural speech: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” This means a voluntary disarmament which will eventually be a prelude to rearmament. An unclenched fist can easily become clenched with a nuclear bomb later on. 3. Lastly on the question of who is right or wrong. I suggest we heed Jesus’s advice to judge a tree by its fruits. How many Jewish and Arab friends do we personally know from both sides of the issue to be able to know the truth of their lives in this region? Finally, we should learn to see the problems of the Middle East from the perspective of a Martian who has no vested interest. Which party in this conflict is unreasonable, barbaric, illogical and religiously extremist? Maybe, he will say both parties are equally so. But ask him further, show him the history of this conflict which extends to Abraham’s relationship with his two sons Isaac and Ishmael and you may arrive at a truly objective view. |
|
mimi fakhira
Member Posts: 4 IP Logged | Posted at 3:27:50 am Jun 3, 2009
You're right. It's not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about finding a solution and living peacefully with each other. |
|
Caewil
Member Posts: 2 IP Logged | Posted at 12:13:31 am Oct 17, 2009
Examining this from an objective viewpoint, we have two or more parties in competition over limited resources. Some of these resources take a tangible material form such as arable land, water and other raw materials. Others, such as the possession of Jerusalem or Israel's ability to carry out military operations in occupied territories without hindrance can be considered cultural, political and strategic resources. As such, since both sides are unwilling to identify with each other, any gain for the one results in a loss for the other according to each's victory conditions. For example, a two state solution which was fair to the Palestinians would result in a significant loss of territory for Israel. The losses would be both material and strategic. Materials such as arable land and water. Strategic due to a loss of access to Palestinian airspace and increased difficulty in conducting land-based military operations. A Palestinian state with actual power would be a significant military threat to Israel in the case of a regional conflict, thanks to the porous nature state borders. Logistically, fighting a well-organised guerrilla war on their own territory as well as a conventional war on another front, would be a complete nightmare. As such, Israel cannot accept a Palestinian state, even a peaceful one, without jeopardizing it's own security. In my opinion, a two-state solution is completely impossible. The only acceptable option would be some form of federation. An option which is politically unpalatable to both sides. |
