The Incomparability of Israel-Palestine
Peace will come
I was watching philosopher Slavoj Zizek’s statement on the recent crisis in Israel-Palestine, when I was somehow reminded of one of his old jokes.
This river here is the official geographical limit between the Balkans and Mitteleuropa. So, beware! On the other side: Horror, oriental despotism, women get beaten, get raped, and like it. On this side: Europe, civilization, women get beaten, get raped, and don’t like it. — Slavoj Zizek, from Liebe Dein Symptom wie Dich selbst
I’ve been watching and reading a lot about the conflict, and something that comes up constantly is the idea of incomparability. Both sides seem to take extreme offense at the slightest whiff that their suffering is being equivocated with the other.
For supporters of Israel like Sam Harris, the nation is a tiny island of liberal order in a sea of the sort of brutality you would expect to see in the medieval period. Hamas hides behind their civilians like a human shield, since it gives them a tactical advantage over an Israeli military with some desire to follow the rules of war. The reverse would be absurd, as the recent targeted slaughter of Israeli civilians demonstrated. Hamas bombs and terrorizes innocent civilians, and likes it. The Israeli Defense Force bombs and terrorizes innocent civilians, and doesn’t like it.
For Palestinian Ambassador to the United Kingdom Husam Zomlot, Israel is the oppressor, and Palestine is the oppressed. In a repetition of the 1948 catastrophe, when Palestinians like his ancestors were forced out of their homes and crammed into the tiny Gaza Strip, Israel has demanded that the one million residents of Gaza City move south to make room for the counter bombardment and potential ground offensive. Once again, Palestinians have adapted to accommodate their neighbors. He claims his sister has had to fit over a hundred Gazan refugees in her house meant for seven.
According to Zomlot, Israel’s aggression and failure to recognize the nationhood of Palestine has been the greatest barrier to a peaceful two-state solution. Hamas is ultimately a symptom of Israel’s policy of raiding, occupation, and oppression, and as such it’s their responsibility to resolve the conflict. Without respecting the Oslo Accords and ending its support for the settlements and their militias in the West Bank, peace is not possible. Palestinians are not in control of the situation, they are not secure, they are not recognized, and their basic needs are not being met, and as such comparing them to Israel makes no sense.
The thing is that these two positions are not actually mutually exclusive. They are, however, inaccurate. For one, Israel is no stranger to massacres. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir used to keep a portrait of settler Baruch Goldstein in his living room, a man who single-handedly shot 29 worshippers to death at the Cave of the Patriarchs in the West Bank. He apparently visited Goldstein’s grave, a sort of pilgrimage site for extremists, on his first date with his current wife. He was also involved in the campaign of harassment that ended in the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an extremist Israeli upset about the Oslo peace agreement.
Yet, the failure of the peace process is not entirely Israel’s responsibility. Hamas was founded on the slogan that “death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” As such, it initiated suicide attacks throughout the peace process and long after, leading to Israel taking a hard right turn and electing Benjamin Netanyahu, who would eventually appoint extremist ministers like Ben-Gvir as part of his coalition.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization in turn failed to suppress the terrorist elements in their country, which led to the eventual election of Hamas and a brief civil war ousting them from the Gaza Strip. PLO leader Yasser Arafat failed to rein back terror attacks stemming from his own organization, allegedly funding or even ordering them. His inability to make concessions or counter offers during the negotiation process, when combined with provocation from Israel’s Ariel Sharon, helped lead to the Second Intifada and the collapse of any peace agreement.
Endless oceans of ink have been spilled over whose fault it is that whatever part of the peace process failed. At a certain point, it stops being helpful. Given that the extermination of any group is unacceptable, the two sides are eventually going to have to come together to reach an agreement. Pointing fingers, ignoring the pain of the other side, and failing to take responsibility make that harder. Even worse is the media blaring out the message that peace is impossible.
Peace will come.
A few issues need to be resolved for a settlement to work. Israelis need to feel secure that something like the raid that happened earlier this month can never happen again. Refugees, i.e. most Palestinians, must be given opportunities to find a home and the sense that they have a future. The policy of settler colonialism in the West Bank needs to end and Palestinian lands must be integrated in a way that makes them economically viable. The state of siege in the Gaza Strip must end.
Right now, Israel-Palestine is de facto split into three Israeli-controlled enclaves: Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank. The most popular solution involves two states, with easy access between Palestinian and Israeli-governed areas. The benefit of this arrangement is that it satisfies both peoples’ basic desire to have an independent nation-state with rights to internal security and self-determination.
The difficulty is in arranging a set of borders that makes both Israelis and Palestinians happy, while also maintaining peace between two independent countries with a long history of war and unfulfilled and mutually incompatible dreams. The two countries may never truly trust each other, and extremist provocateurs from both sides will pose constant threats throughout the process. It also codifies and continues the structural problem that Israel is a much larger and wealthier nation with a vested interest in swallowing up the smaller Palestinian frontier. Gaza and the West Bank are not functioning states, their ruling classes are not democratic or even popular among the people, they have not demonstrated an ability to reconcile their differences, and Israel is already effectively in control over all of their territory.
The alternative is a one-state solution: a unified liberal democratic country where Israelis and Palestinians have equal status. This would probably have to come with some sort of right of return for Palestinian refugees and an integrated military. The advantage here is that it essentially reflects the status quo while providing complete access to the country and a legitimate form of conflict resolution for both parties.
There are a few disadvantages. For one, it effectively means the destruction of Israel in the minds of many Jews. Israel is seen by many as the realization of the zionist project: a homeland for the Jews. Integrating the Palestinian people into Israel means ending its status as a Jewish state, and provides a sense of insecurity as they would have to share their neighborhoods with people they had formerly been at war with. The fundamental fear of Jews all over the world is being once again subjected to the pogroms faced by their ancestors. The worst-case scenario would be a Rwanda-like situation where Jews are killed by their own neighbors out of revenge for a near century of oppression. These arguments, among others, naturally reflect many used by supporters of apartheid South Africa.
The effective integration of Palestinians is another issue. Palestinians would be wary of disarming and leaving their tight-knit communities out of fear of being swallowed up by the Israeli settlers. Integration between the two security forces would be extremely fraught, but also necessary to avoid a return to the militia wars prior to 1948. Although access to opportunities and life, in general, would be much better than it is now, Palestinians would inevitably face incredible barriers making their way in bureaucracies and an economy built by Israelis for Israelis to keep Palestinians under control. Most members of the unpopular Fatah party would probably fail to win in free elections and many Jewish politicians would lose their seats to new Arab politicians, making it unpopular among both ruling classes. Despite these difficulties, my personal view is that the one-state solution is the best way forward.
Regardless of what solution leaders arrive at, the current framework of incomparability is untenable and unproductive. The positions of Palestinians and Israelis are extremely different, but they are equally interested in reaching a lasting peace based on self-determination and mutual respect. The people are tired of war, and it shows in the fact that there has not yet been a ground invasion and Hamas is currently releasing hostages.
