159 lines
9.3 KiB
Markdown
159 lines
9.3 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
layout: post
|
|
title: "A potential solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict"
|
|
date: 2016-12-21 16:00:00 +0200
|
|
categories: politics
|
|
parent_link: /politics/
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
The Israel-Palestine conflict is almost as old as the end of World War Two.
|
|
And there doesn't seem to be an end to the conflict. With the war in Syria
|
|
on the border it certainly doesn't become easier to solve. I won't be able
|
|
to definitively explain the reasons on why this conflict is still looming
|
|
or how it came to be. Instead I will focus on how to move on from here
|
|
and what has to be changed or acknowledged and from whom to achieve progress.
|
|
|
|
## Double Standards
|
|
|
|
The first aspect is the demystification of Israel. In order to solve this conflict
|
|
it is necessary to view Israel as a regular state with regular state interests
|
|
and different parties with different interests. If you view it as God's country
|
|
or the country of the Jews than you won't be able to solve the conflict, because
|
|
then you can't properly criticize Israel. I will now explain what I mean with
|
|
that. It's called double standard.
|
|
|
|
Take any disliked dictatorship. For this example we use South Africa during the
|
|
Apartheid, because it fits quite well. If this dictatorship now occupies land
|
|
which belongs to another country and starts colonizing it (settling people in
|
|
the land), you would be quick to criticize it for this behaviour. Especially
|
|
if the people in the occupied area are treated worse than the citizens of the
|
|
occupying country. Now take the same behaviour but this time it's not a dictatorship
|
|
but a liberal democracy doing it. Would you criticize them in the same way?
|
|
You might say Yes but you won't. The reason is that you value a liberal
|
|
democracy with a ground positive value while the dictatorship has a ground
|
|
negative value before considering anything else. Therefore - in plain English -
|
|
a democracy has to behave more illegaly and/or has to be fucked up more, before
|
|
you will criticize it in the same way. That's because you fear damaging the concept
|
|
of a liberal democracy itself by criticizing a liberal democratic country for this
|
|
behaviour.
|
|
You probably know where this is going but imagine the democracy is Israel. All
|
|
of a sudden it becomes even more difficult for you to criticize it in the same
|
|
way you would criticize a dictatorship. That's because Israel is not only a liberal
|
|
democracy but also the Jewish state. Therefore you fear that by criticizing Israel
|
|
you criticize the concept of a Jewish state and are therefore antisemitic.
|
|
|
|
Of course this is not scientific and you can have another opinion than I do on
|
|
this matter but I think it is somewhat logical. The consequence is that many
|
|
people in especially Germany struggle with criticizing
|
|
Israel for such observable behaviour. In Germany another layer is added and that
|
|
is the historic responsibility towards Israel which adds another hurdle for criticizing
|
|
Israel.
|
|
|
|
This imbalance regarding the criticism of certain behaviour by states can be
|
|
especially observed by conservatives in Europe and the US. For them it is incomprehensible
|
|
how you could criticize for example the US and any criticism is assumed to be
|
|
a criticism of democracy. Similar patterns relate to free trade agreements
|
|
between the US and EU. Criticism of those is assumed to be a criticism of
|
|
free trade as a whole instead of the specifics in the agreement.
|
|
|
|
Weirdly this balance is completely inverted when it comes to the left political
|
|
spectrum. There it is predominantly Israel and the US taking the criticism while
|
|
more authoritarian countries like Russia and Iran are almost not criticized.
|
|
Doesn't that disprove my theory? No, it's just the other side.
|
|
|
|
Democracies and additional features like being a Jewish state or the sole democracy
|
|
in the Near East still have a positive ground value. But instead of allowing more
|
|
missteps and illegal behaviour, less is allowed, because these features are
|
|
viewed as role model features. This means a democracy is held to a higher
|
|
standard than a dictatorship - based upon expectation. You expect militant and
|
|
somewhat illegal behaviour from dictatorships. This makes their actions not right
|
|
but it is less scandalous than a democracy doing these actions.
|
|
The virtues of Israel and the US are therefore their downfall. By being model states
|
|
for democracy, they are under increased scrutiny, because the chances of correcting
|
|
such illegal behaviour are higher in a democracy than in a dictatorship. Therefore
|
|
it seems to be more efficient to criticize a democracy compared to a dictatorship.
|
|
|
|
These two main reasons for double standards should make it easier to understand
|
|
why there are so many problems even talking about the conflict. When people
|
|
belonging to different sides of the aisle talk with each other about the conflict
|
|
and Israel is criticized, they interpret the criticism differently which leads to
|
|
misunderstandings and accusations.
|
|
|
|
It is important to note that so far the occupied people are not part of these
|
|
two sides. Because for them it doesn't make a difference why they are oppressed
|
|
or who does it. They suffer regardless.
|
|
|
|
Therefore it is necessary to eliminate the double standard before trying to solve
|
|
the conflict. This means all parties participating in talks about the conflict
|
|
must agree to only judge the actions, which are verifiable, and not other
|
|
non-materialistic features like being a democracy.
|
|
|
|
## Ground support for Anti-Israel hate
|
|
|
|
This brings us to another important point. The Palestinians are not angels.
|
|
There is real hate towards Israel which in huge parts is truly antisemitic and
|
|
doesn't want to stop until Israel is destroyed. But this is not godgiven and nobody
|
|
is born with this hate. So how did it develop and why does it continue to build?
|
|
|
|
This question is truly hard to answer comprehensively. Therefore I will focus on
|
|
a few points which can serve as an example. I my opinion the best way to try
|
|
an explanation is to take a newborn in the Palestinian territories and to follow
|
|
this person all the way to adulthood. Because to solve this hate it is key to
|
|
understand how innocent newborn babies can become terrorists or at least Israel
|
|
haters.
|
|
|
|
A key factor for this is obviously some level of indoctrination and propaganda.
|
|
But propaganda can only work if it is based upon some base level of unhappiness.
|
|
If the social situation in the territories would be fine, the propaganda against
|
|
Israel would be very powerless. Why go protest against those who give you bread
|
|
and a good life?
|
|
|
|
But more importantly than propaganda are real experiences. Children who lose their
|
|
relatives by military attacks from Israel, whatever the reason of those, will have a
|
|
negative view of Israel. Palestinians who observe unfair treatment by Israel
|
|
regarding criminal justice, water supply or other things will have a negative
|
|
view of Israel. Palestinians who don't have enough to eat will lay blame on Israel.
|
|
This is without propaganda. The propaganda can now use this ground negative
|
|
view and turn it into hate by providing simple answers on why those things happen.
|
|
|
|
Israel has no real chance to win in any of this, because as the defacto controllers
|
|
of the area, they will be held responsible for what happens regardless of behaviour
|
|
from the Palestinian authorities. Israel is routinely facing criticism for the
|
|
blockade of Gaza but they always claim that they don't block food from entering
|
|
the area. If that is so why do people hunger there?
|
|
|
|
The answer are the Palestinian authorities. They are radicals and have an interest
|
|
in keeping the Palestinians unhappy about Israel. Whenever they can fuel the
|
|
negative views of Israel - for example by unfairly distributing the food supplies
|
|
and laying the blame on Israel - they will do it. On the other side the right
|
|
wing Israelis also have an interest in unhappy Palestinians. A bad social situation
|
|
and regular military crackdowns fuel the anti-Israel hate which then can be used
|
|
as a reason to increase the settlement and military spending. Those two groups
|
|
surely don't really cooperate but their interests align for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
## Leaving the cycle
|
|
|
|
This leads to a cycle of violence, settlement, illegal behaviour and even more
|
|
violence. The only way to exit this cycle is by criticizing the illegal actions
|
|
of Israel very openly and forcefully demand an end to more settlement, while also
|
|
criticizing the radicals on the Palestinian side. The moderate and left on both
|
|
sides must unite, stop the cycle in Israel by elections and then start mandatory
|
|
peace talks.
|
|
|
|
The solution however won't be a two state solution. This is not feasible. It would
|
|
just leave the radicals on either side in power. Instead a unitary state which
|
|
is binational should be realized. In such a state there should be no second class
|
|
citizens and the constitution should consist of unchangable principles like
|
|
democracy, equal rights and fair representation. That way a solution could be
|
|
found to prevent a discrimination of then-minority Jews by then-majority Muslims
|
|
and vice versa. Only by embracing diversity it will be possible to solve this
|
|
conflict.
|
|
|
|
The state should be designed as a federation with large autonomy to the different
|
|
areas to allow multiple cultures to exist in parallel. That way gay people
|
|
in Tel Aviv, orthodox Jews in Jerusalem and very conservative Muslims in Bethlehem
|
|
could live peacefully together. Due to the importance of religion for discrimination
|
|
in that area, all major religions should be represented in an equal way to not
|
|
give any religion the advantage over another.
|
|
|