This is an ad-hoc collection of questions about the above article that have been raised in various discussion groups, with answers to the same.
Note added Dec 29, 2002: I recently posted a link to this article with a request for comments to Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (see the mailing list archives). SPME describes itself as for scholars of diverse academic disciplines, faith groups, ethnic backgrounds, gender orientations and national origins who support Israel's right to exist within safe and secure borders, living in peace with its neighbors.
Although the article clearly complies with these guidelines, the reaction was almost without exception vitriolic, including overt, repeated and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to have me banned from the list. Professional historians on this list uncritically promoted Israeli views as incontrovertible fact while rejecting other equally plausible views as mere propaganda. One list member ("Peter" <pe791te@mail.com>) enrolled me on his anti-Arab hate mail list. Another accused the historian, Benny Morris, of forging documents to support his position, apparently based on no more than an article critical of his conclusions but not of the evidence they are based on.
Such non-scholarly tactics suggests that the article squarely hit the nerve it aimed for. The article diagnoses the root cause of this conflict as the ideal of the Jewish state, which is by definition, discriminatory against non-Jews if only in name, and clearly and overtly discriminatory in its mistreatment of 1947 refugees and to a lesser degree of its Arab citizens to this day. The same accusation applies with equal if not greater force to the ideal of the Islamic State held by the opposing side.
The rhetorical tactics employed by this group of "scholars" are stereotypical of similar debates around the globe. The word "peace" has been warped into an Israeli euphemism for abject and uncritical acceptance of the discriminatory ideal behind the whole conflict. Criticism of Israeli policies is rebutted with accusations of anti-semitism, apparently forgetting that Arabs are semites too. And both sides accuse the article of ignoring Middle Eastern history, or ignorance of the same, when its main point is that the history of this region has no examples of reconciliation and cooperation, so it offers examples of other histories that do. And both sides reject even the possibility of a middle ground that is equally supportive of, and critical of, both sides.
If reputable scholars (to be gracious) openly resort to such tactics, is there any wonder that Palestinian refugees are so frustrated that they'd die to bring about change? Is there any wonder Israelis are so fearful of an Islamic resurgence that they'd do absolutely anything to prevent it? So on and on it goes...
A Win-win Approach to the Middle East Conflict argues that since other conflicts arising from grievances just as deep-seated have been resolved through reconciliation and cooperation, Arabs and Israelis could do it too.
|
| This table of mutilated skulls from the Rwanda genocide shows where win-lose confrontations lead in the end. |
However reconciliation is not likely. Palestinians seem determined to recover everything lost to the Israelis in the 1947 war and will accept 1967 borders only as a tactical ploy. The Israelis seem equally determined to maintain or extend 1967 borders over all objections. Such win-lose stalemates often culminate in the elimination of the losing side as in the Rwanda genocide[1].
Yes to both. It supports both Israel and Palestine, rejecting the obvious fallacy that the only possible position in a conflict is choosing one side or the other. In a win-win resolution, both sides win, compromising on non-essential goals such as the desire for a discriminatory religion-centric state to gain truly essential goals such as the peace and prosperity of both sides.
It is equally anti-Israeli and anti-Palestinian. Israel is wrong in insisting on the colonial Zionist ideal in a vehemently anti-colonial world and in its insistence on a discriminatory pro-Jewish, anti-Islamic state. The Palestinians are equally wrong in insisting on the equally discriminatory ideal of a pro-Islamic, anti-Jewish state.
In other words, both sides are wrong in that they are engaged in war, which is by definition a time when all sides do terrible things to each other; things that are "wrong" by any rational definition. And both sides are right within the warped context of a war, in that both sides are fighting for what they believe is right. The problem, of course, is that both sides' beliefs in a discriminatory outcome is precisely the root cause of this conflict.
Absolutely, and by design. This region's obsessive focus on its history; the long and bloody litanies of who did what to whom when, is what is causing this conflict. It causes both sides overlook the fact that other regions, with equally bitter histories, learned to overcome their differences by embracing diversity as a strength. MidEast history only provides abundant reasons for continuing the bloodshed but absolutely no clues for a solution. Isn't it time both sides stopped competing for the historical high ground and started viewing diversity as a strength instead of a reason for more conflict? Hasn't there been enough of that already?
This means discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, gender, class or any other reason but proven criminal behavior. The term is binary and depends only on existence, not severity. The mere appearance of terms like "Jewish" or "Islamic" in connection with state policies is sufficient evidence of a discriminatory state, regardless of how many rights are granted to or withheld from the parties that are discriminated against.
A recent public opinion poll found that more than one-third of Israelis favor the transfer of Arabs from Judea, Samaria and Gaza to neighboring Arab countries. That figure may rise or fall in response to specific events in the months to come, but one thing is now undeniably clear: the transfer solution is a serious proposition that can no longer be ignored.Saying the Unspeakable
Herbert Zweibon; Americans for a Safe Israel
History provides examples of only three stable outcomes for deep-seated conflicts such as this: extermination, relocation, and integration.
Outright extermination is (thankfully) not a likely outcome, except for collateral damage in an CBW or nuclear war. The Jewish experience as a victim of genocidal policies of the Nazis makes them quite unlikely to seriously consider it. Although extermination under the euphemism of "Throwing the Jews into the Sea", has been the explicit goal of some Islamic states at times, it is unlikely that they will ever acquire the means of doing so.
This leaves only two plausible alternatives, relocation (e.g. separating the populations into two or more discriminatory states) and integration (e.g. integrating the Jewish, Islamic and Christian populations into a non-discriminatory secular state). Either approach could "work" by reducing the daily provocations that lead to hostility. This article advocates integration because it works better, in the following senses.
Relocation assumes that the belief-systems that perpetrate the violence would be not just be aggravated by relocation. However the violent separation of Pakistan from India shows that quite the opposite is likely. The geographic separation of Gaza and the West Bank mirrors the separation of India into East and West Pakistan with India in the middle, which soon disintegrated into even more conflict between three mutually hostile states. Israel would never agree to the creation of a truly independent, hostile Islamic state within its tiny borders, and would insist on "security provisions" that would undercut the economic viability of the new state. Forcing millions of refuges from Gaza and the West Bank into neighboring states is even more unlikely in view of the devastating impact this would have on neighboring regimes and their resistance to the same.
The integration option only becomes imaginable when both sides embrace it, not as a negotiating ploy, but as their wholehearted goal. As unlikely as this may seem in present circumstances, the examples in the article show that reconciliation and integration has succeeded in other conflicts that were just as severe.
Absolutely not. The only similarity is that the two proposals advocate a unified state. The difference is that I advocate unification as the destination of a voyage of discovery during which BOTH sides adopt attitudes of reconciliation and cooperation and discard attitudes of resistance and confrontation. In other words, the proposal begins with a growing number of individuals on both sides changing their minds, following by learning to trust that the change on both sides is genuine and not just a politically correct negotiation ploy.
Qathafi's proposal is that a pro-Islamic Palestinian majority would dominate and discriminate against a pro-Jewish minority within a unified state. This clearly won't happen without overwhelming force. Worse yet, given the demographic differences, this would merely replace today's pro-Jewish discriminatory state with a pro-Islamic discriminatory state; the same poisonous ideal that has fueled this conflict to this date.
Absolutely not. Powell proposes the democratization of Arab countries. My proposal addresses only Israel/Palestine, and advocates their gradual unification within a non-discriminatory secular state as the outcome of a journey of discovery during which individuals on both sides learn to trust that both sides have relinquished resistance and confrontation in favor of reconciliation and cooperation.
No. Although I was an unquestioning admirer of Israel until quite recently, and have considered visiting or even moving there at various times, I'd never seriously consider it. Israel is a "Jewish State", which means it is a state that discriminates against non-Jewish atheists such as myself.
This is a partial list of readings from my bookmark file that were most helpful in changing my former pro-Israeli understanding to one that is equally supportive and critical of both sides.
[1] Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda by Human Rights Watch. The strategy and tactics of the Rwanda genocides should be required reading (by zealots of either side) to see what win-lose confrontations can lead to.
[2]The Roots of Muslim Rage by Bernard Lewis (Atlantic Monthly, Sept 1990) provides rational, if incomprehensible, answers to every American's eternal question: 'Why do they hate us so much?'
| Last modified March 28, 2004 | © Copyright 2003 by Brad Cox |