Israel and Palestine are consumed by cyclical violence that feeds upon itself as each combatant uses the aggression of the other as rationales for its own, only to see its own actions used as rationales for aggression against itself. Both sides understandably and predictably claim that they cannot allow the transgressions of the other to stand unpunished, arguing that a failure to do so only renders their own position incompetent and emboldens their enemy.
The cynic in me is tempted to ask if there really is any merit in salvaging the situation, actually. Both sides have squandered any integrity, pride, or honor by their despicable behavior and treatment of the other. Sometimes I almost wonder what it would be like if the world built a wall around Israel and just let them all duke it out in perpetuity.
Alas, I know this is an inhumane and counterproductive to the ideals of civilization and morality and would ultimately only end up bloodying the rest of our hands with the irresponsibility of the actors in that theatre. Yet if we can't wall them up in their own disgust, what is to be done?
Someone has to get the last shot and someone has to suffer an unanswered attack. Perhaps some agreement could, in theory, be reached whereby a final day of attacks was permitted by both sides, a sort of preemptive retaliation and retribution served contiguously. Even if giving each side a day of open-season on each other were plausible, it likely would fail to serve its purpose if, say, Israel takes advantage of it take out 50 targets with 3 or 4 non-combatants nearby. Obviously this isn't going to be an option.
We could follow the current path and just hope it fizzles out on its own. The problem with this sort of fade out is the lack of leadership and intentional deployment of ideals and actions that are needed to make a peace agreement stick. The fire might fizzle but would leave behind a tinderbox ready to go up in flames at the slightest spark.
The problem needs leadership. Both sides need leaders who are willing to do what it takes to move past the violence into peace. The problem is that one side it going to have let the other get in an unanswered shot, perhaps more if it comes from the palestinians. Why would I suggest that Israel needs to be willing to let Palestinians attack them without retribution? Because someone has to do it and the Israelis are the best suited to be capable of it.
We can take racist arguments and suggest that Palestinians are incapable of controlling themselves and thus it falls to Israel to do so. Or we could spin it and point out that since both sides have squandered their reputations over the course of their conflict, there is much to be gained by taking the difficult and costly yet ultimately necessary and productive steps to bring peace. Or we could hold Israel responsible for starting the problem in the first place and expect them to lead in the clean up of the messes that they've made. Or perhaps it is because a logistic analysis reveals that Israel has the infrastructure and command and control systems in place to control the population better than Palestine and the rather worthless and ineffectual Arafat. There are other reasons, of course, and which one we choose doesn't really matter. It doesn't even really matter if it is Israel that does it or not. But someone has to take the lead.
Turn the other cheek is the moral choice. Should Israel find the strength needed to chart such a course, it would be rewarded with support from the Palestinian and Arab street. As it stands, the Arab street implicitly supports and endorses aggression in the name of Palestine because Israel has provided no reasons not to. But if Israel could show that it is more concerned with fixing the problems of the region (a cooperative problem that is Israel's problem as well as others') rather than just its own interests, it would immediately garner the support of the street and Palestinian inspired violence would lose its broad public base rather quickly.
Of course I am not suggesting that Israel just roll over and take the murder and destruction of its people that some in the Palestinian camp desire. But I am suggesting that the alternatives of mutual destruction or self-sustaining violence aren't alternatives of any merit. Rejecting them undeniably leads to a conclusion along the lines I have tried to present here today.
For the sake of all people, in Israel, in Palestine, in the rest of the Middle East, in the rest of the world that suffer from the lesion that festers on the east coast of the Mediterranean, I hope that Israel (or Palestine, if they can produce a leader for themselves, which would be grand) can do the honorable, pride, and ultimately only thing that it can do to avoid destruction.
Posted by Nutrimentia at June 18, 2004 12:42 PM | TrackBack