If you look at Impressionist paintings up close, they look jumbled together. If you take a step back, you will see a beautiful painting. If you look closely, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a mess. Even if I step back a bit to clarify, it’s still confusing. The myriad factors, nuances, and effects of this conflict, including this war, complicate its mitigation and resolution.
Having worked for more than a quarter of a century at the Arava Institute for the Environment, where the campus of Kibbutz Keturah brings together Palestinian and Israeli students, scholars, and researchers, I often begin conversations about this century-old conflict. there is. I also teach conflict resolution at Bennington College.
Conflict exists within its own contradictions
Like the metaphor in this painting, this conflict, like many others, exists in its own contradiction. Despite its many conflicts and turmoil, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be reduced to a simple rubric:
For Zionists, this effort is a long-awaited homecoming. For Palestinians, it is an imperialist colonial invasion. The Zionist movement views its efforts as a reclamation of its claims based on the Jewish people’s historical connection to the land.
Because the Zionist movement was aligned with Britain from early on (i.e. the Balfour Declaration), Palestinians see Zionism as a foothold for Western imperialism in the Middle East. If we look back at almost everything said and done over the past 100 years, we arrive at very different perspectives, feelings, and perceptions of homecoming and invasion.
These contrasting impressions are at the heart of the conflict. The inability of the majority of Palestinians and Israelis to recognize the “reality” of the other is at the heart of why the two sides remain at an impasse. Recognizing this is essential to breaking out of the status quo.not easily achieved or maintained
“There has to be another way,” Akinoam Nini and Mira Awad sing together in the song they co-wrote. Jerusalem, borders, security, settlements, and refugees all need to be addressed, but these core issues cannot be separated from other important underlying and influential sentiments.
For example, in 1947, Zionists were willing to give up about half of Mandate Palestine by accepting the United Nations Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which divided Palestine into two states. One can only imagine a completely different history if both sides had agreed.
Still, this leaves out an important nuance. Whatever the Zionists agree to, they gain and the Palestinians receive. You are always more likely to act and sound more generous when you gain than when you lose.
A new story about two-state solutions
In the shadow of the recent war between Israel and Palestine, new talk has emerged of a two-state solution based on the Green Line of June 4, 1967. Previously, under Ehud Barak and then Ehud Olmert, Israel offered Yasir Arafat and then Mahmoud Abbas control over 90% of all of the West Bank and Gaza.
This condition was very merciful to the spirit of the Israelites. By Palestinian calculations, they had already lost 78% of Palestine in the 1948-1949 war, so they only provided 90% of the remaining 22%. Rather, in their eyes, it should have been provided 100%. 22% of them. These two orientations, 90% and 22%, are very different, each based on a practical perspective, but they have two very different starting points.
Palestinians and Israelis use twin Semitic words for peace: salam and shalom. However, there is a unique premise behind each word. Palestinians use salaam to demand justice. Because shalom in Israel is about security. The goal of peace may be the same, but different orientations affect how we approach it. The Jewish state carries the weight and anxiety of the Holocaust and centuries of persecution.
A horrific pogrom in Gaza border communities in October reignited that fear, causing more Israelis to weaken the idea of reconciliation with the Palestinians. For Palestinians, the pursuit of justice stems from a deep sense of victimhood, particularly with the loss of life and land in 1948-1949 (Nakba) and 1967. As 2024 begins, there will be massive destruction in Gaza and Palestine. Israel’s military operations in the West Bank further strengthen that framework.
Using the same word, such as “peace”, in a speech and in a joint statement or document does not mean that the words have the same meaning. In order to properly understand both, it is necessary to clarify these differences.
The same rift exists because both sides perceive themselves to be weaker and more vulnerable compared to the other. Palestinians consider Israel to be one of the most powerful and sophisticated militaries in the world, with support and assistance from Western countries, including the United States, the world’s most powerful military.
In Gaza, Israel continues to use its overwhelming force against them. At the same time, Israelis feel that their backs are against the wall of the Mediterranean Sea. They see not only Palestinians, but also the armies of many Middle Eastern countries.
There may be peace with Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states, but Iran has made it clear that it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Iran is building stronger and more sophisticated weapons, hinting at nuclear weapons goals, and using proxies in the north (Hezbollah), south (Houthis), and west (Gaza) to effectively attack Israel. .
The impression of being weak leads to a sense of victimhood. Israelis and Palestinians have a visceral and painfully legitimate claim to victimhood that needs to be recognized. This self-definition also creates obstacles. When the victim and perpetrator meet, it is very difficult to see the perpetrator as anything else.
Requiring both parties to recognize the victimhood of the other means that even if the conflict is asymmetrical, everyone’s agency means that they are also responsible for their own actions. It’s a difficult challenge for both parties. If one party were to admit that they were complicit in the other’s victim mentality, there is a risk that their own status as victims would be diminished. Victims take no chances.
The dynamics between Israel and Palestine – return versus imperial aggression, gain versus defeat, 90% versus 22%, peace versus security versus justice, weak versus strong, victimhood – lie beneath the surface of this conflict. They are difficult to reveal, but very important.
Michael Thomson, an alumnus of the Arava Institute, insightfully explains: “One of the most impactful lessons for me in these discussions was how to accept and try to empathize with other people’s fears without feeling like they compete with your own. We had guest facilitators speak about the dangers of thinking, “Yes, but…” and thinking, “What would happen if I said yes?” That approach is, as Dana Lasas, another Alava Institute alumnus, puts it, “one of the simplest yet most difficult concepts to implement.”
In the face of dangerous conflict and uncertain times, President John F. Kennedy said: No one knows whether it is time to ease the struggle. But if we don’t make every effort to test our hopes by action now, history and our own conscience will judge us even more harshly, and this is the starting point. ”
The author is a rabbi who teaches at Kibbutz Keturah and Bennington College’s Arava Environmental Institute.
