ShivaX
4981
Oh without a doubt.
That’s how authoritarianism usually works at the end of the day. In Israel it just happens to actually be mostly true.
It also suits the purpose of both Hamas and people like Netanyahu, so neither side is really interested in that dynamic changing.
Defence money and lots of it. Peace would be better for the average person, but the people in charge not only profit monetarily but also politically from conflict.
Ask yourself why Israel continues to settle occupied territory in defiance of international law and knowing absolutely that it makes peace less and less likely? If you desire peace, why do that? It doesn’t make Israel more secure, it actually steadily increases the chance of violent confrontation.
If Israel was treated the same way as South Africa used to be treated, peace would probably be a better option.
But right now, I doubt it.
Israel transparently wants to keep the West Bank as part of Israel, and they want all the Palestinians who live there to be no longer there. Everything else — seizing of land and resources, building of Israeli settlements, destruction of existing Palestinian homes and towns, participation of the military to facilitate all of those things— is just a means to that end.
Sadly I think you are correct.
In the sixties and seventies, into the eighties even, I was squarely in the camp of Israel. Terrorists needed to be stopped, no peace was possible with people who routinely massacred civilians and took hostages or hijacked airplanes. I still feel pretty much the same about terrorists (of any stripe), but I have developed a bit more understanding I think of the context. I cannot blame the Palestinians as a group for resisting what they with reason see as colonial occupation, just as I cannot blame Israelis for demanding a safe haven, a nation where they can finally be free from the horrible treatment the so-called Christian world doled out to them. (Under the Ottomans at least Jews tended to do rather better than under the Popes).
When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. Partly due to their own internal issues, but largely due to the application of overwhelming political, economic, and military force backed by external powers, the Palestinians have wound up as maybe the last truly colonized population, with few means of effective resistance. That does not justify lobbing rockets at houses, in my mind, but that’s also from the perspective of someone who doesn’t face the stark reality that faces Palestinians. That reality is they either roll over and be treated as second or third class occupants of a land to which they at least arguably can claim an equal share, or they spasm out in violence that while self-destructive and incapable of accomplishing anything in the long run, at least provides the illusion of agency.
The power is with Israel, hence the responsibility to fix things is theirs as well.
It’s a problem that has been entirely overt since at least 1967, and I think it’s a study of how things degrade if you choose to simply ignore a structural problem for half a century.
It has been a destabilizing force in all of that time, and it has cost all of us far more than it would have if we had forced some kind of resolution.
I don’t think we neglected it out of malice. We remember the holocaust, Israel is a democracy, it was the Cold War, and the Arab neighbors were intent on reprosecuting a war they had already lost, so there have been very good reasons to protect Israel.
I just don’t think we were realistic about what tolerating the occupation would lead to.
Timex
4987
The leadership of the Palestinians is also plagued with massive corruption, and they effectively rob their own people.
I don’t really understand what this point has to do with the discussion. Certainly the Palestinian leadership is bad, but I don’t think that works as justification or even mitigation for Israel’s long term policies and actions.
Palestinian corruption isn’t causing Israel to continue to illegally settle the West Bank and oppress the Palestinians in ways that have nothing to do with security.
Sharpe
4990
The problem continues to be that NEITHER the Palestinians nor the Israelis are doing the necessary for lasting peace. We can argue about the relative weight of blame (I tend to view the Israelis as more to blame at present due to their greater power and never-ending settlement policies) but honestly that’s irrelevant at this juncture. NEITHER side is doing the minimum that would be necessary to even start moving towards peace, which would be for the Israelis to firmly end settlement expansion permanently, and for the Palestinians to demonstrate some stability, honesty and restraint in their government (ie no more rocket attacks etc.). And that would just be the start - like step 1 of a 50 step process.
And the reality, neither of those things is going to happen. And it’s not just a matter of “will” IMO - at this point given the realities of the structures of their societies and political organizations, neither side is even capable of doing these things. Can you imagine an Israeli government who firmly ended settlement expansion permanently? If the PM was not assassinated in reality, the PM’s party would be assassinated politically. And can you imagine a Palestinian government that was not corrupt, was functional, and also stopped with the rocket attacks and other aggressions? If Hamas tried to show restraint after an Israeli provocation (and given the realities of the occupation, provocations are infinitely recurring), their own supporters would throw them out. And on top of that, the Palestinian government in the West Bank has been in existence for what, 30+ years? Has it been competent and non-corrupt in even one of those years?
I mean, yes, I tend to blame the Israelis more b/c of the occupation and the settlement policies and their greater position of power. But really neither side is truly coming to the table. And in fact, neither side is capable of coming to the table. There’s been too many years of occupation, too much violence, fucked up political structures, ad nauseum.
It’s not a solvable situation. Period, full stop.
abrandt
4991
Note that this is almost word for word a line people use to argue that Ukraine is corrupt so it is okay for Russia to have invaded them.
DoubleG
4992
I think the power discrepancy between these groups is so vast that any “both sides are to blame” take is a bad read of the situation. Israel is the only actor here.
Israel is the only one that can meaningfully set conditions for peace.
The magnitude of the disparity between the two parties in terms of actions, wherewithal to act and range within which to act is so great here, that I think it’s like saying “neither the Sioux nor the United States are doing the necessary for lasting peace.”
Sharpe
4995
Arguing about blame is pointless; I even feel Israel should get the majority of the blame. The point I’m making is that peace is not going to happen, EVEN IF ISRAEL SUDDENLY STOPPED BEING A-HOLES, and even that step is impossible. I mean, I want Israel to stop the settlement expansions, end the occupation and so on, but even if that happened, peace would not magically occur. First, that first step by Israel is impossible under the current political system. And then, a whole bunch of additional steps, each of them also politically impossible, would have to happen.
My view is that the current situation is completely screwed and we need to either completely disengage, or if we want to try to help, we need to think about completely different solutions. The old two state idea is dead, Jim.
Also, my view is that the US disengaging from Israel is the only idea with even a snowflake’s chance of getting Israel to take the first steps, which are necessary to even open the door for further steps.
Nobody is saying peace would magically occur. We’re saying it would be a huge step, a necessary first step, for any path to peace. You can’t demand that the occupied people stop resisting as a necessary first step, because that’s just capitulation. Israel is the aggressor, and Israel should end the aggression.
Yes, I completely agree with that.
Timex
4997
Because any peace process would involve Israel working with the Palestinian leadership.
The Palestinian leadership would have to be capable to function effectively.
As a small example, you can look at the corruption that exists in the Palestinian security forces. This largely prevents their functioning effectively as a security force, which then means that if Israel turns security over to the Palestinians, they can’t actually perform the required duties.
This is a pretty marvelous and impregnable Catch-22. Palestine is a failed state because of Israeli aggression, and Israel can’t end its aggression because Palestine is a failed state!
Security in the West Bank is mostly of concern to Israel because there are a bunch of Israelis living on stolen land in the West Bank, terrorizing the existing population there in their spare time. Maybe if those people weren’t actually there, security cooperation would be less important? What sort of security cooperation do we think Israel has had with the security forces of Syria or Lebanon over the past 4 decades or so?
Timex
4999
But no, because they have historically launched attacks on Israel from there.
If the Palestinians cannot secure the region, Israel is kind of screwed.
They have done so even while being occupied, so apparently occupation doesn’t work. It’s not at all obvious that occupation by Israel yields greater safety for Israel than they would have without the occupation. Plus, the occupation is, well, wrong.
