YES- tomorrow, Our Fearless Leader/Demon-Child is scheduled to arrive in the nation of Israel… perhaps you’ve heard of it (small country on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean, that we give copious sums of financial assistance to, and has within land it occupies, the largest number of stateless people on the planet…)
Yes, this is a difficult situation, undoubtedly (only a complete fool, would think otherwise). But I don’t believe it’s an impossible one… It could be that we’re making this somewhat harder than it really is. Consider what a tough time we have even talking about this, but I feel that’s unfortunate, because perhaps a solution can be found by just talking through this, in a reasonable way.
So, first- what exactly is “a solution”? I feel a good working definition, is that it’s a compromise point that both sides are able to get to, and enough people on both sides are willing to get to.
It turns out that there are compromises that both sides are able to get to (I’ll describe some, shortly). It’s the “willing” part, that’s the real challenge…
Suppose I were to give you a choice: you could either, A- have everything exactly the way you want, or, B- have some things the way you want, but other things would be not quite how you’d prefer them to be. Well, naturally people are inclined to choose A…
And that, right there, is what the discord in the conversations on this topic, mainly stems from.
Indeed- for if the terms of the deal are to be tilted in one side’s favor, then this must be justified, somehow. And so one way to demonstrate that your side is more deserving than the other, is to excessively dwell on the wrongdoings of the other side (often, with wild exaggerations), and downplay the wrongdoings of your own side. So in this hyper-polarized, infinite dialog-loop, you have one side laying all the blame on the Israelis (with the settlements, and all the other bad stuff that they do), and the other side laying all the blame on the Palestinians (with the terrorism, and all the other bad stuff that they do…)
But, maybe, both sides, might be partly to blame…?
If we bring things back to reality, and stop exaggerating (it really isn’t necessary, when the truth is plenty bad enough), and take in all the facts objectively, it becomes pretty clear that neither side has earned the privilege of having everything exactly the way they want (but, each side does deserve to have some things as they want…)
In reality, option A doesn’t exist, because it is impossible for either side to have everything their way (on account of there being the opposing desires of the other side). So actually, the 2 options are, B- have some things the way you want, but other things would be not quite how you’d prefer them to be, or C- have this miserable stalemate drag on unto eternity (so given those choices, B seems a lot more appealing now, right?)
And now to get more specific, as to possible compromises: when there is an honest, genuine interest in having there be the best possible outcome for both sides, then reasonable solutions follow naturally. If this problem seems too dauntingly complex to deal with, then why not simplify it, by perhaps imposing certain restrictions (such as, disallowing anything involving gross human rights violations), which then narrows down the range of possibilities. Such a prohibition would thus preclude particularly unsavory measures like forced mass expulsions, but, what options would not be ruled out by this? Well, how about this one: Palestine gets East Jerusalem, Israel gets West Jerusalem, and each side is granted full access to all of the religious sites in the city that are sacred to them. (Fun Fact: The name “Jerusalem”- Yerushalayim, in Hebrew- translates to “City of Peace”… auspicious, maybe?)
Another issue that’s rather thorny, but resolvable- the “right of return” for “diaspora” Palestinians: on the one hand, Palestinians who had been forcibly removed from their homes should be allowed, in principle, to come back to Israel with their families. However on the other hand, there are upwards of a million Palestinians vying for return, and as Israel is a tiny and already very densely populated country, it would be nigh unto impossible for it to accommodate such a massive influx. Thus, what if the requirements were to be made more stringent- like needing for there to be some tangible proof (i.e. old deeds) to confirm that the applicants for return had been forced from their property (rather than having left voluntarily, as was actually also the case for many of the present diaspora Palestinians). In this case, the numbers of returning Palestinians may only be in the thousands, which would be feasible for Israel to accept.
An argument commonly made against granting the right of return for any Palestinians, is that to do this without also compensating for the billions that were stolen from Jews who had fled to Israel from Arab countries, would constitute an asymmetric application of justice in this regard. But another way to look at this, is that if Israel were to allow in diaspora Palestinians without the expectation of reciprocity in this matter, then this may be seen as a purely gracious act on the part of Israel. From what I gather, Israelis don’t actually harbor any serious hopes of ever getting back that stolen wealth, whereas the right of return is a fervently held desire of the Palestinians. What is a primary concern for Israelis, is security. And so, corresponding magnanimous gestures that the Palestinians could make, could perhaps be… that the Palestinian Authority stop incentivizing terrorism through financial rewards, Hamas officially recognizes Israel’s right to exist, teachers such as these who indoctrinate their students to hate and be violent, are fired… things along these lines. These sorts of displays from both sides are sorely needed, because of the scale of the history that must somehow be offset, and so deeds such as these could help to counter the mistrust, and increase the willingness to compromise.
One final example: it is widely understood that the settlements have complicated the matter of drawing the boundaries of the states, for a two state solution. Israel may prefer to annex “Area C” of the West Bank where the settlements are mostly located, however the Palestinians maybe would also rather hang onto this region, and in addition, have all of its Jewish residents be evicted from it. But, whoops- can’t do that, as we’ve declared any & all mass relocations to be “off the table”… So- what if Area C was not withheld from the Palestinians, and all the Jews living within it were essentially granted an “amnesty”, with the option to remain living where they are as citizens of the new state of Palestine (possessing full rights, protections, and privileges equal to that accorded to all Muslim and Christian Palestinians…?)
I’ve heard it said that proposals like these have already been put forth, but were rejected. But if those rejected proposals were actually the best possible ones, then the fact that they were rejected, doesn’t make them wrong- all that was wrong was the decision to reject them (which can be remedied by just coming to a different decision now).
Not buying any of this? OK- so, what alternatives make more sense, in your estimation? (I’m all ears…)