Elizabeth Allen, a fellow SAIS alum of mine, reflects on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and past posts at Brains Like a Shoe on the subject.
Last Sunday, I caught a discussion on TV between CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and a scholar at the Wilson Center, Aaron David Miller, who served as an advisor to the State Department on Mid-East affairs between 1978 and 2003. The first thing out of Miller’s mouth – that “no one ever lost money betting against Arab-Israeli peace” – was a good quip. It’s difficult to dial down the tensions when talking about one of the most frustrating topics in international politics today.
Most people would agree that a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a worthy, and all-too-pressing, goal. But it seems to me that a dispute will almost certainly emerge if one ventures to be more specific. The political quagmire that currently exists in the territories of the Holy Land (heightened again by the events of this past week) is unlike any other conflict in the world today, at least in its ability to attract the attention (and inspire the anger and moral certitude) of millions of onlookers. And yet, despite the benefit of heavy international commentary, there exists no common interpretation of the problem at hand, and no common agreement about the kind of responsibility that should be borne by each of the myriad players involved (be they local, national, regional, international, multilateral, paramilitary, or non-governmental). When one adds to this a consideration of the historical suffering of both Jews and Palestinians, coupled with the profound fear within each group of collective demise, the political quagmire is only further heightened: It is an existential crisis of the first order.
The subject of Israel and Palestine has been on my mind quite a lot recently. The release of the explosive Goldstone report in late-September was followed a month later by a flurry of excitement (and some controversy) surrounding the new lobbying group J Street and the advent of its first conference here in D.C. While these occurrences were enthusiastically mentioned here at Brains for a Shoe, I admit that I found myself less-than-excited about the kind of long-term political breakthroughs that they portend (if any).
It seems clear that amid the ongoing rage surrounding this conflict, there seems to be a growing impulse in certain quarters to want to speak in calmer ways to one another – to put down some of the rhetorical molitovs. In the age of Obama, this drive to “disagree without being disagreeable” has gained a new kind of currency that holds out promise for greater understanding and a bit of relief. But of course, it should go without saying that there are limits to the kind of politicking that this new attitude can achieve. Last month’s Daily Show interview with two peace activists (which got praise on this blog) was enjoyed by so many viewers precisely because it said so little, because it approached political problems through humanitarian appeals and platitudes. Likewise, the arrival of J Street onto the DC lobbying scene seems to have been heralded more for what it symbolizes, than for the (often murky) substance of what the group actually purports to stand for. “Pro-Israel, pro-peace” may be a great slogan, but what it means in terms of actual policy – especially to the many new fans of the group – has not been all that clear. (A great illustration of this confusion can be seen here, although recently the group’s leadership seems to be working to better clarify its positions.) All this is to say that, especially for those of us who live outside the territory in conflict, perhaps it behooves us to temper the impulse to cling to cathartic sloganeering. Emotional appeals will bring more people into the fold of the cause (whichever “side” you find yourself on), but it’s a poor substitute for the kind of day-to-day attentiveness to the political slogging that manages conflict and creates bureaucratic compromises.
