If you have written a diary or a comment on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the last few, I want to raise a question, try to engage in some honest introspection and see if people might think a little differently for a few minutes.
My question is why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict engenders so much more passion from so many people who do not take an active role in other conflicts and injustices around the world. The question also relates to the media which, even with respect to Dafur, never devoted the same attention as they do to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
When, by way of example, was the last time you reflected on the following conflicts?
Sri Lanka – Since July 1983, 70,000 Sri Lankans have been killed in a civil war between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers. The Tamil Tigers, who are classed as a terrorist organization in 31 countries, are fighting for the creation of an independent state in the North and East of the island. The Sri Lankan government formally withdrew from a ceasefire on January 2, 2008 alleging that the Tamil Tigers had violated the agreement over 10,000 times. On December 7, 2007, human rights organizations petitioned the UN Human Rights Counsel claiming indiscriminate attacks on civilians (including killings during aerial bombardment, shelling and claymore mine attacks). It stated that the Tamil Tigers were responsible for much of the civilian suffering and noted that a government-ordered withdrawal of the UN and virtually all international humanitarian agencies in September 2008 has drastically worsened the plight of the civilian population. Sound familiar? Daily Kos? Not one substantive comment or diary.
Congo – In 2004, Laurent Nkunda, a general in the Democratic Republic of Congo army rejected the authority of the government and retreated to North Kivu with a number of troops. From 2004 onwards, Nkunda’s forces began fighting with the Democratic Republic of Congo army. He was accused of committing war crimes in both 2004 and 2005. In 2006, Nkunda rejected the outcome of elections in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The UN peacekeeping head stated in 2007 that, "Mr Nkunda's forces are the single most serious threat to stability in the DR Congo." Thousands of civilian fled after a failed effort at peace in October 2008. On October 28, five RPGs were fired at a convoy of UN peace-keeping vehicles. Hundreds of civilians were reported to have been killed as of November 7. Human Rights Watch reported that "combatants continue to kill, rape, forcibly recruit children." I am probably not doing full justice to just how terrible things are: UNICEF stated in April 2008 that Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo "over the last 12 years has been one of the worst places in the world to be a child."
Kurds – There are estimated to be between 27 million and 36 million Kurds. 55% live in Turkey, comprising 5% of the population, and the balance in Iraq, Syria and Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, the Iraqi regime implemented anti-Kurdish policies and was widely-condemned by the international community, but was never seriously punished for oppressive measures such as the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the wholesale destruction of thousands of villages, the murder of tens of thousands of Kurds, and the deportation of tens of thousands of others to southern and central Iraq. In Turkey, there has long been tension between the government and the Kurdish population. A Human Rights Watch report claimed to document many instances where the Turkish military forcibly evacuated villages, destroying houses and equipment to prevent the return of the inhabitants. An estimated 3,000 Kurdish villages in Turkey were virtually wiped from the map, representing the displacement of more than 378,000 people. It seems fair to say that the international community has never really rallied behind the Kurds in a significant way.
Obviously, every situation is different and I am not drawing direct parallels between the above and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Still, these and many other wars go on, year in, year out, with almost a complete lack of interest from most of the people of have spent hours writing diaries and comments on this site on the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. And while some of the writers, such as myself, can claim a direct connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, most people writing here are – as is their right – picking it as an international cause that matters to them above most others.
I will confess here my interest (as I have before) and then attempt some introspection: I am an Israeli citizen who served in the Israeli army at the height of the peace process in the mid-90s. (It really was a time of hope. And I am not meaning to distract when I say that hope on the Israeli side was broken in large part by suicide bombers sent by Hamas at a time when Yassir Arafat appeared was unwilling or unsure whether it was a good move, tactically or strategically, to prevent such attacks.) I voted consistently for the Labor party because I believed and continue to believe in a two state solution. I do not rejoice at the death of Palestinian civilians, nor at the suffering of the Palestinian people. I would like to see a durable, sustainable peace for both sides.
Nevertheless, if I am honest, my desire for a two state solution and my support for it is not based on a deep-seated belief about the Palestinian right to self-determination. I will confess my belief that the history of the Palestinians could have been very different if the refugees had been absorbed by Arab countries after the 1948 war as were the Jews of Arab lands were in Israel. In addition, while we can revisit the fact that Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, one must remember the famous three "no’s" from the Arab world immediately after that war – no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. My desire for a two state solution is based on the reality that long-term occupation is impossible, that the occupation eats away at Israel’s moral fiber and military capabilities, and that it appeared as if there was willingness among the Arab world (those who once issued the famous three no’s) to reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence. Hopefully, the fact that my motivations are pragmatic, not idealogical, does not matter because the end result will still be achieved.
That having been said, I have read comments by Jews and non-Jews alike on this site about the State of Israel. My view of Israel is emotional. This is the only country on earth where a Jewish person can celebrate a Jewish holiday and not have to take a day off work. The national holidays are the Jewish holidays. This is the only country where Hebrew is one of the national languages (the other being Arabic). Among all of this, the country manages to accommodate those who want to sit on the beach on Yom Kippur and those who want to pray in synagogue. And Israel’s non-Jewish citizens are granted equal civil rights under the law. Yes, there remains much work to be done to ensure they are granted equal rights in practice, but Israeli Arabs vote and have Knesset members, they have newspapers and television stations, they have religious freedoms and the vast majority of them would never consider leaving Israel to move to a Palestinian state when one is established. In sum, while I recognize the fact that Israel was and is a safe haven for the Jewish people, I also believe that Israel embodies the Jewish people’s right to cultural and political self determination in the same way as the Palestinians and any other nation. (If that concept bothers you, then we should discuss more because I view that right of all peoples as pretty basic.)
When I read many peoples’ comments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on this site, it seems clear that they are emotional about the Palestinians in the same way that I am emotional about Israel. And while I am pragmatic about the need for a two state solution, I get the feeling that many of these people are not really all that bothered about how Israel might look in 20 or 30 years time. I am not just talking about the comparison – now over-used – regarding what the U.S. would do if rockets hit it from Canada. I am talking about the possibility of being surrounded on all sides by rogue, terrorist sub-states, supplied freely with missiles by Iran and Syria, and lobbing them into every Israeli city all the time. Now, people might make the argument that Israel’s existence would not be threatened by that. But I guess it depends on what you mean by "existence." The country is 71 miles wide at its widest and 9 miles wide at its narrowest, so pretty much all of its population can could already be hit by missiles from Gaza, the West Bank or Lebanon if the people there chose to fire them. For example, it would be pretty easy to take out a 747 flying into Israel’s only international airport.
Now, I don’t need the Palestinians to buy in emotionally to Israel’s existence in the same way that I do. I certainly do not buy in emotionally to Palestinian statehood in the way that they do. But I do need the Palestinians to recognize as a pragmatic matter that Israel exists and to say so in a loud clear voice, and not only in English, but also in Arabic day-in-day out, in their schools, over the radio and on television. There needs (in fact, there needed) to be some effort to socialize the population towards moving to a new reality. For me, the biggest statement that the Palestinian leadership could have made during the peace process would have been to speak to their people and say that the time had come to build a state with Israel as its neighbor. A state with democratic institutions and learning and science. The election of Hamas in Gaza ended that possibility. When you think about it, I don’t think that I am asking too much. This is something that Israel’s politicians have said for years about the Palestinians. I admit that it took them a long time – far longer than it should – but now the majority of Israelis and their politicians believe in a two state solution as a strategic goal, including dismantling settlements in the West Bank as was done in Gaza. However, in moving towards that goal, it makes about as much sense for Israel to negotiate with Hamas as it would have done for the United States to negotiate with Al Quaida. The point is that there is no common desire for mutual coexistence. Unlike the Palestinian Authority for whom peace is a strategy, peace for Hamas is just a tactic to enable it to implement its true strategy.
So back to people’s passionate emails over the last ten days. I wonder whether some of the people who make demands of Israel and none of the Palestinians have, themselves, deep in the hearts, accepted that Israel should exist in the same way as Italy or Egypt or the United States exist. If they did, then at the same time as criticizing Israel – often justifiably – I think that they would shout out loudly to the Palestinian’s leaders that they need to do more. And they would not only shout that out now, but they would have been shouting it out for the last three years and the ten before that. The Palestinian people cannot elect Hamas after a full withdrawal from Gaza and then expect that Israel will even know how to move forward towards Palestinian statehood. (And remember, the blockade only started after Hamas was elected). Similarly, why are the same people not shouting loudly at the surrounding Arab states? Shouldn’t Egypt be pressured, and pressured, and pressured again to control its border? Do you know any other border in the world where rockets can be smuggled in through tunnels without the sovereign state that should control the border doing anything about it? Shouldn’t the Arab world as a whole work to settle permanently Palestinian refugees – not as a means to deny them a state in the West Bank and Gaza – they should have their state, but because their situation is wrong and has been perpetuated cynically for a length of time unsurpassed by any other group of refugees in the world?
Finally, if you are passionately anti-Israel at the moment, please ask yourself if you exhibit the same passion when Palestinians kill Palestinians. I only ask because the world has not demonstrated any real interest when it has occurred in the past. During the first intifada, an estimated 1,100 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces and 160 Israelis were killed by Palestinians. In addition, according to the Palestinian Human Rights Monitor, an estimated 1,000 Palestinians were killed by Palestinians as alleged collaborators, although fewer than half had any proven contact with the Israeli authorities. Similarly, what goes on within Palestinian society – Hamas and Fatah fighting, and Hamas killing those that oppose its regime in Gaza – seems to be unworthy of discussion by those that decry Israel. But I think that the nature of the future Palestinian state is probably the most important debate that can be had among those that are supporters of Palestinian statehood. If people think that it is paternalistic to advocate for democracy and to dictate the form that Palestinian statehood should take, they are entitled to that opinion. But they should then ask themselves if they are true supporters of a Palestinian state or if they are just indifferent to the neighbors that Israel will have on its borders. And that brings be back to the initial question as to why the Israel-Palestinian conflict seems to engender more passion on this site than any other international conflict.