The Hamas attacks of October 7th and the ensuing siege and invasion of Gaza have created stark divisions in opinion across the world. The USA, with its long history of Israeli military assistance and unconditional support, is seen by much of the developing world as hypocritical and having a double standard. Those nations believe that Jewish influence in the USA is a major determinant of policy. Even the European nations, who generally follow the American lead in such matters, have begun to strongly oppose the continuing bombardment and isolation of Gaza.
The debate about how Israel should respond to the attacks is fraught, as accusations of antisemitism and islamophobia inhibit freedom of expression. The weight of history is so powerful that civil discourse is almost impossible.
I would like to try to frame the basic conflict between Israel and Palestine in terms of the two opposing narratives. I believe both have merit, which is why there is little hope for a peaceful solution in either the near or long term.
The Palestinian narrative goes something like this:
There were only about 24,000 Jews (< 1% of the population) in Palestine at the beginning of the 20thcentury. The Zionist movement started a mass migration with funds from wealthy Jews, and the British turned a blind eye to illegal immigration throughout the period of the Mandatory Palestine (from the end of WW1 up to the UN resolution in 1947). The British and other WW1 allies had promised Jews and Arabs independence to gain their support during WW1.
The UN resolution that recommended partitioning Palestine was made without Arab or Palestine agreement and was influenced primarily by the British. The USA used its economic power to coerce nations into voting for the resolution. The UN had no authority to actually implement those recommendations and the recommendations were in violation of the stated UN position that all such decisions should be guided by self-determination of the populations.
The partition gave a much greater percentage of Palestine to the Jews than their percentage of population (which had already been artificially increased by hyper immigration) would justify. The Arab/Israeli war of 1948-49 resulted in Israel taking over 70% of Palestinian land, much of which had been vacated by expelled or fleeing Palestinians (over 700k) during the war. The 1967 war, in which Israel did a pre-emptive strike on Arab nations, resulted in all of the West Bank and Gaza coming under Israeli control with an additional displacement of 500k Palestinians. Israel began settling those territories, a clear indication of their long-term goal of colonizing all of former Palestine.
The most important concept for Palestinians in the conflict is a ‘right of return’ for all Palestinian refugees. This right has never been offered by Israel. The increasingly right wing tilt of the Israeli government and expansion of settlements, as well as the financially-motivated neglect of Palestinian rights by other oil-rich Arab nations created the conditions under which a terrorist group like Hamas was the only remaining Palestinian champion. Terrorist acts are historically the only recourse for an oppressed people in an asymmetric military struggle.
The Israeli narrative goes something like this:
The Jewish diaspora has suffered untold centuries of oppression, pogroms and, ultimately, an incomprehensible genocide during WW2. The history of worldwide antisemitism, genocide and displacement justified the creation of a state for Jewish people in their historical homeland. The UN, the post-WW2 body tasked with creating conditions for a more peaceful world, passed a resolution for creating such a state and a majority of nations approved it.
Since its declaration of independence, Israel has been attacked or threatened with attack on numerous occasions by other Arab nations and by terrorist groups financed by Iran and other bad actors. The lands that Israel has occupied, settled or put under military control are critical and strategic areas that have the potential to threaten Israel’s very existence and/or its citizens.
Israel has made significant efforts to negotiate with the Palestinians, even offering to create a two-state solution with the great majority of the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians have refused to negotiate in good faith. Moreover, it is difficult to imagine the disparate Palestinian contingents lining up behind and faithfully observing any agreement.
Israel’s responses to Palestinian terror attacks and intifadas are legitimate self-defense and are as measured as possible given the dense concentration of people in Gaza and the West Bank and the use of civilian shields for terrorist operations.
In my view both of these narratives have merit and deserve careful consideration. And sadly, they are almost impossible to reconcile. The Jews deserved a homeland after the horrors of WW2 genocide but the Palestinians didn’t deserve to lose their homeland in the process. Like so many tragedies in the history of humankind, there is ultimately no good guy or bad guy. And like so many conflicts, the future is unlikely to offer a peaceful resolution. And even more sadly, the consequences of this conflict are likely to manifest themselves in even more horrible events in the years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment