I am in the midst of a medical break from blogging. But the current situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires another article to be posted here. My regular blogging will return some time after the New Year.
There are two traps that many people fall into when looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The first trap is the binary thinking trap. That trap divides people in the conflict into two fixed and disjoint groups: innocent victims and oppressors. Because the groups are fixed, innocent victims can never become oppressors while at the same time, oppressors were never innocent victims. And because the groups are disjoint, the people involved can never be both innocent victims and oppressors at the same time.
When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the term 'oppressor' could easily be replaced by the word 'terrorist.' A word of thanks goes to a pamphlet written by Jeff Harper from ICAHD.
However, using the word 'terrorist' can become problematic for Americans. That is because our war on terror pits people in the right uniforms who salute the right flag and serve in one of the several branches of our military against terrorists who are non-state actors who tend to dress informally. Such a perception ignores the definition of terrorism. The definition of terrorism is the threat or use of force on civilians to achieve political ends. We Americans might not want to recognize that definition especially when our nation threatened to unleash, and eventually did, 'Shock and Awe' on Iraq unless they replace their then leader Saddam Hussein. For when we did that, we were practicing terrorism. And it wasn't the first time that we practiced it.
Now what we see with the binary thinking trap when working in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that one side are always made up of innocent victims while the other side are always terrorists. Those spectators who favor Israel will see Israel as the eternal innocent victim and the Palestinians as the persistent terrorists while those who favor the Palestinians will see the roles reversed.
And that leads us into the second trap when viewing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the tribalism trap. Tribalism occurs when loyalty to a group, regardless of what the group is based on, goes too far. As a result a person's moral vision becomes compromised so that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. That kind of moral vision or sense of morality is called moral relativity. So for example, suppose Palestinians attack Israeli civilians after Israeli had just attacked some Palestinian civilians. Those who are too loyal to the Palestinian cause will rationalize the Palestinian attack on Israeli civilians while passionately condemning the Israeli attack. And those who are too loyal to Israel will see it the other way around.
The binary thinking trap is an overly simplistic view of people by putting them in black-white categories. In fact, that is its attraction. It gives us an easy analysis of the conflict so that we can focus on other things in life. And because it is an easy way to interpret the conflict, it provides a comfortable way of looking at the situation.
But the hazard in the binary thinking trap is that, in reality, its charm is really the rocks that shipwreck our ability to think. For rigidly dividing groups in a conflict into two disjoint groups is an example of a black-white thinking. And so falling into the binary thinking trap limits one's ability to think deeply and see the complexity involved in the conflict. For the complexity of the conflict reveals that both Israel nor the Palestinians are both victims and terrorists. And so overly simplistic thinking renders one unable to see the conflict for what it is.
The tribalism trap comes with its siren call and rocks too. What is attractive with tribalism is the appeal to loyalty. That is because loyalty is often portrayed as an important virtue to have. And so when we demonstrate loyalty in the face of adversity, we feel a growing sense of righteousness. And that makes us feel more important.
But the hidden hazard of tribalism is that the virtue hides how tribalism damages, or even destroys, our ability to be fair to all sides. That is because with tribalism one embraces moral relativity. Such a state may not be apparent to those who are tribal because of how loyalty is seen as a virtue and necessary for survival. But too much loyalty both is counterproductive to maintaining moral standards because one becomes blind to one's own immorality and puts the survival of one's own tribe at risk by creating unnecessary enemies.
What both traps have in common is that they are signs of a growing authoritarianism. We should note here is that authoritarianism is the other pandemic. Also, it is important to note that a black-white worldview is a characteristic an authoritarian personality type. On the other hand, one way to partially describe tribalism is to say that it promotes group authoritarianism. For in tribalism, one is demanding that those from other groups should automatically submit in various ways to one's own group without resistance. And what we should note about authoritarianism is its karma. That is the authoritarian ways in which one's own group acts toward others is the authoritarianism the group will visit on its own members.
Another point that should be noted about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the reliance on the threat or use of force. Such a reliance is called the rule of force. And though at this time the force is with Israel, Hamas and other Palestinians are practicing terrorism in ways that attempt to change the balance of power. For example, the Hamas atrocities of October 7th were partially designed to instigate the kind of Israeli response that would cause others to join the fray. Both fortunately and unfortunately, that has yet to come about. It is fortunate that others have yet to join the fray because the world has seen enough violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is unfortunate because, just perhaps, if the forces were equal, there would be more incentive for both to negotiate.
The reliance on the use of force is authoritarian in nature. And such a reliance logically follows the authoritarianism that involves the binary thinking and tribalism traps. In addition, the rule of force invites a seemingly forever king-of-the-hill battle that results in each side succumbing to military defeat and/or moral suicide. And the moral suicide that is experienced in how a side attacks its enemies can be similar to the moral suicide in how a side eventually treats its own members.
What is a common theme in all that has been discussed thus far is authoritarianism. And though it would be overly simplistic to reduce the cause of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to that of being authoritarianism, authoritarianism looms large in how the conflict is both perceived by both insiders and outsiders and reacted to. That is because with authoritarianism comes the expectation of hierarchical relationships between those who are in conflict. Those who are on the upper side of the hierarchical relationship will view their position as being merited and those who are on the lower side of the hierarchical relationship can feel morally outraged at the injustices that are visited on them.
Regardless of the self-declarations made by either side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the path that has been rejected by both sides is the rule of law. The rule of law views all sides as equals, as having the same rights. The rule of law holds all sides accountable to the same laws and standards, laws and standards that are based on all sides being equal and having the same rights.And the rule of law allows outsiders to hold the warring sides accountable to those laws and standards that are based on equal rights for all groups.
With both Israel and the Palestinian terrorists using the atrocities of the other side as an excuse for their own atrocities, it is apparent that neither group, nor their allies, are promoting the rule of law. And so here will be a modest proposal for the beginning of a just and peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That the the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC would use the same international law in judging the actions of the U.S., Israel, and the Palestinians that it has used to judge others who have been charged with committing crimes against humanity. And whatever actions that the ICC finds as violating international law will be corrected by the guilty party without the threat or use of force.
'You may say I'm a dreamer.' Maybe so. But the above proposal will allow the world to identify those who favor the rule of law from those who merely claim to follow it. Distinguishing those who favor the rule of law from those who prefer the rule of force will perhaps allow us to identify the warring sides of the global conflict that mankind has forever been battling. That war pits those who favor equality and democracy against inequality and authoritarianism. And in an age when WMDs are inevitable, because technology is a whore, at least the above proposal will distinguish those whose first priority is the survival of mankind from those who are all too willing to sacrifice the world because they refuse to share power and wealth. And perhaps the ability to make such a distinction will temper our own desires for any kind of tribalistic conquest.
One final point to be made is that for as long as Israel's Occupation against the Palestinians is in place, talk of a two-state solution is disingenuous. For with Israel's Occupation of the land comes the continuing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the land followed by an annexation of the land. And atrocities are being committed to achieve that ethnic cleansing. With the West Bank, where settlements along with how Palestinian communities are divided by those settlements and their highways, a viable Palestinian state has become not just a mirage or even dream; it has become an impossible dream. After all, if Israel dismantled the settlements in Gaza because of the expense of protecting them, what could possibly motivate Israel to even consider dismantling the settlements in the West Bank?
Talk of the Two-State Solution is merely camouflage for land theft for as long as the Occupation continues. And that goes back to the form of Modern Zionism that has taken. That form says that the Jewish people are to have ownership the land from the river to the sea. That doesn't necessarily exclude the allowance for there to be Arab citizens in Israel. Zionism, for them, provides a formal equality only with their fellow Jewish citizens of Israel. It is an equality declared by Israel's constitution but not an equality that is actually practiced. And it never could be for as long as Israel is defined as being a Jewish state. For that definition means that Israel must take official measures that will keep the Arab population in check in order to preserve a vast Jewish majority.
Both the Jews and the Palestinians deserved a homeland in order to be protected from past abuses. That is true even though European Jews have historically suffered more than Palestinian Arabs. The choice for a homeland that both parties could have selected is a binational, democratic state. But by defining Israel as a Jewish state while there exists Palestinians in the land, both as citizens of Israel and noncitizens who are living in the land that Israel seeks to annex, results in Israel being disqualified as being a democratic state. For the state of Israel does not equally belong to all of its citizens. This is a point that Jeff Halper makes when he distinguishes a democracy from an ethnocracy.
The same would be true if Hamas's goal of creating an Islamic republic in the land from the river to the sea became reality. And though the Israel's Zionism is more palatable than Hamas, it becomes more and more comparable to Hamas and its efforts to create an Islamic republic, as Israel continues to both slaughter innocent civilians in Gaza and forcibly, including the use of deadly violence, annex land in the West Bank.
No comments:
Post a Comment