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.

Recently, I heard The New Republic’s literary editor Leon Wieseltier speak to a small group of students about Israel and Palestine. “Both parties seem to have defined ‘peace’ as being worse than what they already have,” he said.  He went on to describe the current status quo as one in which both groups (or at least the more radical members of both groups) have been able to maintain their most fervent dreams and maximalist positions, so much so that compromise is now seen as committing ideological treason.  Surely he is right, that the need for a post-ideological phase is upon us.  But it occurs to me that if Israelis and Palestinians, collectively, need this, then so, too, do those of us who exist outside the conflict.  It seems so obvious and simple to say, but perhaps it bears saying explicitly, especially given the tone and tenor of the way in which so many people talk about this conflict.  As Wieseltier put it, the Israelis are not innocent, and the Palestinians are not pure.  In the midst of anger and advocacy, I find it helps to remember such things.

In any case, a few interesting links:

The first comes from the New York Review of Books, which recently published a superb article (Which Way for Hamas? November 5, 2009) that tries to capture some of the ideological and political challenges that Hamas is confronting in the midst of becoming a governing entity.

The second is a short video (see below) that shows the hardships posed by checkpoints in the West Bank.  The video is unique in that it tries to demonstrate what such checkpoints would look like in a city like London.  I share this video to emphasize that committing ourselves to a kind of post-ideological phase is no excuse for neglecting the very real human suffering that continues to animate this conflict.

Ctrl.Alt.Shift Film Competition Winner: No Way Through from Ctrl.Alt.Shift on Vimeo.

(Matt Cardy/Getty Images)

On this Halloween weekend, I have been catching up with some reading in between watching the Gators take down the Bulldogs and partaking in some of the weekend festivities.

Here are a few items of interest and a few interesting pieces I have collected over the last week:

• In yesterday’s post, I mentioned the great coverage that the J Street conference received. Before the conference, a former AIPAC and Israeli embassy official Lenny Ben-David questioned “Why do so many Arabs contribute to an organization that purports to be ‘pro-Israel?’” A friend of mine, Rebecca Abou-Chedid, wrote an exceptional response in Foreign Policy to the distasteful accusations that her donation, because she is of Lebanese descent, “clearly indicates that…[her] dollars must be intended to advance some pernicious anti-Israel agenda — and that J Street must be the vehicle for those aims.”

• Ken Silverstein has ‘Six Questions for Desmond Travers on the Goldstone Report.’ Travers was one of four members on the UN fact finding mission that produced the report. A retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces, he discusses the criticism and reaction to the report.

• Concerning another issue of international justice, the Confirmation Hearing of Bahr Idriss Abu Garda, a Darfuri rebel leader, continued this week at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. He is being tried for attacking an African Union peacekeeping base in 2007.  His defense lawyer is making  the case that the AU base by that point in time had lost its protected status under international humanitarian law and had become a legitimate military target. Bec Hamilton is also following the case.

• Michael Kevane writes a post taking on the claim by J. Stephen Morrison and Jennifer G. Cooke at CSIS that ”Lack of consensus within the [Obama] administration has confused potential partners who have for some time seen the United States policy as hostage to zealous domestic pressures (emphasis added).”  It’s always amazing to me how much clout some people think that the Save Darfur Coalition and other Darfur organizations and activists have in the creation of U.S. policy.

• Fighting continues in Yemen, as The New York Times highlighted this week.  The paper also ran a great story this morning on the country’s unsustainable addiction to qat. The blog Waq al-Waq notes the better late than never acknowledgement by the U.S. State Department of the Yemeni government’s conflict with Houthi rebels in north Yemen.   A Yemeni humanitarian aid worker in an Emirati paper wrote a moving essay about his experience over the last few months: “I never thought I would be trapped in the place I call home, but all I can do is try in my own way to help those who have lost everything and pray that peace comes sooner rather than later.”

• Lastly, I continue to follow the rumblings surrounding Egyptian presidential elections in 2011.  The big questions, of course, are (first) will Hosni Mubarak run again;  and (second),  if not, will his son Gamal take his place.  This week, the noted Egyptian historian and philosopher Mohammed Hassanein Haikel expressed the common opinion of most Egyptians whom I know –  Gamal is “unfit” to be the next president.  He added, “They tell us we have elections, but is it a coincidence that the president’s son is portrayed as the most worthy to be the leader of Egypt?” Laura Rozen at Politico and others commented about intriguing statements from both Amr Moussa, the current head of the Arab League, and Mohamed El Baradei of the IAEA regarding their interests in running in 2011. Al Ahram Weekly (an English language state-owned newspaper) though ran a “news” story revealing that most ordinary Egyptians aren’t concerned about rumors or even who there next president will be.

Part two of this important, and at times incredibly funny, conversation can be found here.

It’s great also to see how much coverage the J Street conference received this week.  The New York Times today reported:

J Street has only a small fraction of the resources and membership of more established pro-Israel groups, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and it remains unclear how potent it will be in presenting itself as an alternative. Nonetheless, it has had great success in quickly becoming a major reference point in the complicated debate over President Obama’s Middle East policy as well as the more emotional issue of the appropriate role for American Jews in supporting Israel.