April 13, 2005
"We should have taken Uganda"
My position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has wildly vacillated throughout my short life. I have gone from a being a former Evangelical who thought that the Jews deserved all of Israel including the occupied territory because God had given it to them in the Bible to a vigorous defender of the Palestinians who saw their terrorism as an almost justified response to Israeli strikes.
As of late I have lost almost all of my sympathy for the Palestinians' plight (they have no one to blame but themselves for not having their own state) while at the same time increasing my sympathy for the Israelis not a bit. The fact of the matter is that while in some way my views have become what one might call increasingly nuanced, a more accurate description is that they have become increasingly indifferent. The reason? They are pretty well explained in this Atlantic article which lays out the demographic reality of the Holy Land. Unless they want to get serious about making babies, the likelihood of maintaining a viable Jewish state is decreasing on a daily basis.
But even assuming that a comprehensive settlement could be reached, Israel's long-term prospects are bleak. The late Faisal Husseini, a moderate PLO official and a scion of one of Arab Jerusalem's great families, said, "I worry about today. But the Israelis should worry about the future." Today the Palestinian cause is fragmented, and its people are exhausted. Israel, on the other hand, negotiates from a position of unassailable military strength. But the Zionist enterprise has never been able to transcend the demographic and geographic realities that have haunted it from its inception. Regardless of the moral opprobrium one might attach to either party, the seeds of the all-but-unsolvable Palestinian-refugee problem were sown when Israel recognized in 1948 that it couldn't function with a vast and hostile Palestinian population (indeed, even the relatively small number of Palestinians who remained in Israel after the war for independence lived under military rule until 1966). Today Israeli Arabs (that is, Palestinians living within Israel's pre-1967 borders and in East Jerusalem) have one of the highest population-growth rates in the world (among Israeli Arabs in the Negev, specifically, it is the highest), and they now make up about 20 percent of Israel's population; demographers project that they'll compose nearly a quarter of the population by 2020, and as much as 30 percent by 2050. (These figures don't count the approximately 150,000 Palestinian noncitizens, drawn to Israel largely by the prospect of higher-paying jobs, who live there illegally.) Such large antagonistic minorities have historically engendered conflict and calls for binationalism, which would further weaken the Jewish state.
And this all points to my other conclusion about the conflict: The creation of the state of Israel was a bad idea from the start that has always faced difficult odds at succeeding.
I've never studied the issue in-depth enough to have an informed opinion on the matter. It does seem like both sides act rather reprehensibly most of the time; I have a bit more sympathy for the Palestinians simply because they are the ones without power, but that still does not justify terrorism. In an ideal world, the two could simply co-exist in the same space, but that's naive in this case (although such naive dreams have much to recommend them if only everyone could accept them as possible; see John Lennon, "Imagine"). Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the real problem is extreme fundamental religion. Both sides are so devoted to their conflicting religious identities that no resolution is possible short of apostasy by at least one side. The whole situation seems like a case study in the dangers of dogmatism. Combine that with the Israelis' unwillingness to elect a moderate (they practically require their leaders to be war-mongers) and a resolution appears impossible.
Btw, I'm ecstatic to see you posting again. Thanks for helping out. I hope that when the rest of us return to regular posting (at least ludwig and I, sleepy might be lost to World of Warcraft forever) you won't suddenly disappear.
Well, as I understand it, Orthodox and Hasidic (sp?) Jews in Israel are the most fervent supporters of a Jewish state today. But Zionism itself was secular in origins and opposed by believing Jews at the time. To this day there are certain orthodox rabbis (a very fring element to be sure) that strongly oppose the state of Israel b/c they see it as an effort to create a secular fulfillment of messianic prophecy.
The Palestinian movement also claims (as I understand it) to be about a statehood for an ethnic group (whether such an ethnic group even existed before Jews began to settle the land is up for debate). Remember, in 1948 25% of Palestinians were Christians (the number has dropped to something like 3%) and Christians remain an element of the Palestinian leadership.
I am not in any way denying the centrality of religion to the conflict (hell, I am pretty much a neo-con which makes obliged to always blame radical Islam). But to boil it down to religious extremism would be far too simple in my mind.
I didn't get to read the article (subscription-only), but I would raise an objection to the thesis 'Isreal as a Jewish state is doomed due to low birth-rates'. On the contrary, hard-core Isreali nationalists have shown the capacity to recruit marginalized Jews from impoverished countries and then place them in the new settlements.
I certainly agree that the Palestinians have supported the wrong leadership and made all kinds of moral and strategic errors, which could lead one to the conclusion that they 'deserve' their lot. However, if we are to condemn expansionist nationalism (and I believe that for the sake of world peace, we must), then the Palestinians still have justice on their side. In the end, Zionism is a 19th century ideology--totally out of place in the contemporary world.
One quibble: You say that the Palestinians have only themselves to blame for not having a state. The only person to blame was Arafat. Isreal had offered land to Palestine twice before (consisting of parts of the West Bank), and both times they were rejected. Arafat didn't just want an autonomous Palestinian state; what he wanted was the West Bank, Gaza, and a large portion of Isreal itself.
I don't know if the Isreali offers were palatable in other respects, but I know that Arafat was an unreasonable, duplicitous, and incompetant negotiator that, according to many close to the situation, made things for his "countrymen" worse during his leadership.
d, What I meant was that by allowing Arafat to lead them until his death they have no one to blaim but themselves.
Yeah, I know that's what you meant. Arafat has been a disaster, and I just wanted to shout about him a little.