I’ve been a member of the Daily Kos Community for a long time. I started coming here as a reader back in 2003. By April 2004 I posted my first Diary. It was one of those short ones that now-a-days gets a "this is a comment, not a Diary" comment, except back then nobody commented on it. Over the rest of 2004 I posted about half dozen Diaries. On January 1, 2005 I posted my first Diary about my longtime research project, Jack Abramoff and the Culture of Corruption. Since then most of my Diaries have been on that subject. I guess you would classify me as one of those writers here who mainly sticks to a specific subject—a Dkos specialist if you will.
I’m often tempted to weigh in on other issues, but I’ve found my Abramoff Diaries to be a great way to advance my research, sharpen my understanding and expand awareness of a subject that is way too easily lost in the din of the issues of the day. So I’ve disciplined myself to keep to the focus I have chosen, but occasionally I am drawn into another discussion.
This is one of those moments.
It’s time to say a word about that I/P situation...
The word I wanted to say is: talk
.
Let me explain.
Like many here, I have been reading the back and forth Diaries about the latest events in the ongoing conflicts in the Mid-East. Like many on progressive sites, I have not engaged the conversation. I have not taken a stand. I thought the Diary on the rec list Sunday by David Mizner (The I/P Conflict is Simpler than You Think) was on point and challenging. In response to that Diary, I thought that I needed to weigh in on the issue as a regular voice on this site.
There is a lot to discuss when it comes to the history and myths that inform and propel this conflict. The back and forth on these discussions usually comes down to which stories you choose to focus upon and which talking points you accept without researching the facts. It is easy for a comment thread to get harsh—with flames and invectives flying back and forth. This is especially easy to do here in America. One reason is because we (as a group) are generally ill-informed about the rest of the world and when we do know something we tend to force it into the "good guys" verses "bad guys" filter that dominates our National discussions from politics to sports to pop culture.
We want to identify with a "side" and call it "good" or "evil". This desire is the simple frame that George W. Bush and the Republican Party have exploited for years.
It is simple to blame everything on Hamas.
It is simple to blame everything on Israel.
It is easy to overlook the fear and suffering of some Israelis living under the very real fear of a random rocket.
It is easy to overlook the massive suffering, fear, terror, humiliation and hopelessness of Palestinians living in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem.
It is easy to go to our corners and scream at those who embrace a different "good guys’ verses "bad guys" frame to understand the I/P conflict.
The truth is complicated, and yet, as David said, it is also simple. It is a fact that the Palestinians are under the military domination of Israel. And that fact is irrefutable. From this fact grows a thousands myths, tragedies and deep, deep misunderstandings.
One hundred years ago, this type of political situation—military domination of the locals—was common. All over the globe people migrated to land and claimed it as their own. They worked the land. They made it yield resources. They prospered and created a strong future for their decedents and other immigrants who would follow them to the land. In time, the immigrants became the new locals and the former locals were forced to surrender and adapt or face removal and/or destruction. This was not an unusual situation a century ago. In fact, it was how must of the people of the world were governed. And they were usually governed by Europeans or people emulating the pathways to power followed by the Great Nations of Europe. The name for this system was Colonialism. Sometimes the people who immigrated to one of these colonies rebelled against a European Power and declared their independence. And then, some of these new Nations got into the Colonialism game in their own right.
Regardless of the route one took to becoming a Colonial power, it was common during Colonialism Era to view the rights of the people who lived in the land before the colonizers arrived as unimportant. When the locals resisted newcomers, the response was often brutal. Think of King Leopold II and the Congo as an example. A report in 1904 cited over 3 million people killed by just this one colonial effort (and the horrors unleashed by the Belgians continue to this day). Or think of the treatment of Native Americans in our Country or research the history of the British Empire, or the Dutch, or the Japanese, or the Portuguese. Not surprisingly, Colonialism was a much better deal for the colonizers than it was for the people who were occupied.
So, throughout the history of colonialism, occupied peoples everywhere fought back and there were horrible crimes committed on all sides. From Charles Gordon to the Charge of the Light Brigade to Wounded Knee to ____________ (fill in the blank) the history of Colonialism was a history of resistance and reprisal, a history of exploitation and exceptionalism. By the end of World War I, the Colonial system was on its last leg, but it still had enough juice to craft several time bombs for the planet in the Treaty of Versailles. The map of the modern world traces its roots in the lines drawn as the Victorious Powers of World War I divided the spoils. This event is a major root of the current I/P conflict as well as many, many, many other problems across the globe.
In the years leading up to World War II many colonies fought for their independence. A wide variety of tactics, with varying success were tried (as for me, I am big fan of the tactics employed by Mahatma Gandhi). By the end of War it was clear that Colonialism had run its course and that people everywhere were entitled to the right of self-determination. In a global turning point, this was viewed as a basic human right. Much of the early work of the UN was focused on how to insure this right for the people of former colonies. Sometimes this idealistic process worked. Sometimes conflicts broke out as colonial powers tried to hang onto to their "possessions" or fractions emerged to battle for control of these new States (factions that were often backed by a former Colonial power or a new colonial power like the Soviet Union). Into this mix the State of Israel was born. It was not a traditional colonial State, but I think it is fair to call it a colonial hybrid—a neo-colonial state in a post colonial world.
In the creation of Israel, the rights of the Palestinians were never given serious consideration. This was the original failure and it is still waiting to be resolved. Myths, quickly obscured reality. The phrase I remember as a boy growing up in the 1960s was "A land without a people for a people without a land." But there were people in the land and they still deserve a right to self-determination. It is a right they are still denied as they live under military control and occupation.
I do not think anybody could refute the reality of this military control of Palestinians by Israel, but I suppose that some will try. Still, it is a reality that must be dealt with if peace is ever to become possible. The current denial of this reality places everybody on all sides in physical and moral jeopardy. As a result, this conflict seems hopeless, but it is not. I am certain that peace is possible.
We were close to a peace deal eight years ago. President Clinton handed George W. Bush a tremendous opportunity to build on the negotiations and close the deal. The process was not perfect, but progress was being made. Bush blew all of that up. He embraced Aril Sharon and Israeli extremists who had made common cause with Palestinian extremists to destroy any viable pathway to peace. Bush enabled the extremists on both sides to seize power and unleash eight years of bloodshed and terror.
And this brings me back to the Word I wanted to say with regards to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and that word is: Talk.
Talking, discussing, dialogue, also known as negotiating: these are things that Bush does not do unless you promise to agree with his chosen outcome first. It is a trait that he shared with his partner in Peace Process destruction, Ariel Sharon. It is also a core belief of the modern conservative movement and a bad idea that is widely accepted in American politics on both the Right and the Left.
This twisted belief is that we do not talk with our enemies. We can not have discussions with adversaries unless they make concessions first, unless they submit to our point of view. More than any other core belief of Bush and his disciples, this refusal to talk, discuss or negotiate with adversaries is the root of his many failures.
It will be impossible to revive the Peace process without getting adversaries to the table to talk. This should not be feared, it should be encouraged.
Somehow, Bush and the Republicans have made a "virtue" out of refusing to talk with your adversaries. Amazingly, this false "virtue" has been embrace not only by Conservatives, but also by many Progressives as well. It is insane.
I hope that President Obama with discard this false "virtue". In the campaign he took heat for bolding stating that he was not afraid to negotiate with our adversaries. That is how it should be and what we should expect of our leaders.
When is comes to reviving the peace process, everybody should be invited to the negotiating table without pre-conditions. And by everyone, I mean all the key players. I think talks should include all of the folks involved in the conflict. This means that representatives from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas should be at the table. Peace will not be possible by excluding them. It is time to get over the fear of negotiation. This is what being an "honest broker" is all about. It is having all sides know that your bias is for a solution and getting all sides to be heard. This is the only pathway to peace and we should encourage it.
For those who recoil in horror at the idea of talking with your enemies, I encourage you to shake off that fear. I will also point out that even Bush has quietly embraced the idea. The reason the "surge" in Iraq had any success at all was because the core strategy was that we needed to talk with our adversaries. Over in Afghanistan the current pathway to peace seems to involves negotiations with the Taliban—you know, the people who helped attack us on 9-11 and who still protect Osama bin Laden. If we can talk to elements of the Taliban about peace in Afghanistan, then I think representatives of Hezbollah and Hamas can be part of a discussion about resolving the I/P conflict.
The extremes in a conflict are fueled by fear. And when the weaker side in a conflict has their fear fueled by hopelessness it leads people to embrace twisted justifications for acts of terror. A comment by Ncjim in a recent I/P Diary summed up why a revived peace process is the only way to end the cycles of violence:
Well the Hamas movement is fueled by desperation.
Remove the desperation and you will destroy Hamas.
Peace is the only way to remove the desperation and that is only possible through negotiations. As things stand now (and for the last eight years) the bias is on not talking. And because not talking is seen as a "virtue" it is always easy to find a way to stop talking. If the bias was shifted, if talking was once again a virtue, then peace would be possible. All this requires is leadership.
The basic outlines of a deal have been known for decades. The Palestinian People need to be given their right to self-determination. Israel needs peace with their neighbors, including a viable independent Palestine. This can only occur through hard negotiations that involve all the players.
More violence only guarantees another cycle of violence. The current campaign in Gaza will only add to the pain and start new cycles of violence. Hamas was created when a past effort to finally destroy the PLO was the bright idea of the day. It did not work. Eventually courageous people in the PLO and in Israel learned how to talk, how to negotiate. It was hard and not easy. Extremists on both side continually tried to stop any negotiations. In Israel they assassinated a Leader who dared to talk with the PLO. On the Palestinian side, extremists blew up folks in pizza parlors. In Sharon and Bush, especially Bush, extremists everywhere found a willing ally in ending negotiations.
The greatest fear of these extremists is the return of serious negotiations for peace. I hope Barack Obama embraces a peace process that includes everyone and that he gets everyone to the table. I hope he stops the extreme nonsense of preconditions as a requirement for adversaries to start talking.
I hope we can all lose the fear of talking to people who disagree with us. It is the first step to realizing our shared humanity.
The cycle of violence only creates more violence. If Hamas is weaken or destroyed, a more extreme group is waiting in the wings to take their place. Rinse. Repeat. Rinse. Repeat.
Enough.
We must lose our fear to talk with our enemies.
That is a change I can believe in.
Cheers.