It is now the time of year when, in the spirit of many honored traditions, we wish each other…
Peace.
Yup, sure would be nice… the harmony and prosperity that naturally follows when resources are diverted from harming each other, to helping one another…
So- how are we going to make this come about?
The most prominent holiday of this season celebrates the birthday of someone believed to be the messiah- a being capable, through divine magic, of delivering peace.
I feel it’s perfectly fine to pray for the coming of the messiah (full disclosure- I do so myself, although I’m less sure as to the exact identity of this being, and I’ll just leave it at that).
But I also feel that it’s OK to talk about how to achieve peace, as well (to “cover our bases” so to speak, just in case the messiah is not scheduled to arrive in our lifetime). However, regarding one particular conflict, there’s a general reluctance to talk about it, because it too often leads to “pie” *. Well, I’d like to suggest that rather than decide to not talk about it (which is effectively letting discord win, over peace), we instead just talk about this more sensibly.
And so, what makes the most sense?
The most sense, would be the best possible outcome for both sides, given the present circumstances. And I believe that this optimal point lies in the so-called “middle ground”: the acrimony in these discussions (which eerily mirrors the actual stalemate that the two sides are locked into “IRL”), primarily stems from each side preferring a final arrangement that is tilted away from the centerline, in their own favor. And so they relentlessly bash the opposing side, so as to to make their opponent out to be as undeserving as possible.
But the plain truth (that I’ve literally decided needs to be stated more), is that neither side has been perfect angels in this conflict. And therefore each side has, in a sense, a “karmic debt”… which they pay back, in what they give up in the compromise that is made for peace.
So- what might be one such solution?
How about this:
1. Both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, officially renounce terrorist violence, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
I don’t think that’s asking too much.
2. The sovereign and independent nation of Palestine is created, comprised of the land that is known today as “the occupied territories”, at the 1967 borders of these territories.
3. All Jewish settlers residing within Palestine are granted an “amnesty”, and are permitted to remain, as full citizens of Palestine.
Wait- what the fuck, Sandra?!? Those goddamn Jews are in Palestine ILLEGALLY!! They have no right to remain there!!!
Well, OK, but… perhaps the Palestinians can see this as an opportunity to be magnanimous.
Or, alternately (getting back to the karmic debt), it could be regarded as a concession made as a collective expression of their sincerest remorse for the blood of countless innocent victims of terrorism, and a sign of their commitment to henceforth refrain from wanton deadly violence. (And no, I’m not kidding.)
The negative fallout from terrorism should not be underestimated. For any who might need a reason to be opposed to terrorism, beyond the most obvious (that it takes innocent lives, of course), I present to you the words of Menachem Ben Yakov:
We tried giving them land and got missiles on our heads and terror tunnels in our backyards. Your dismissal of history allows your fantasy to flourish. Feel free to experiment with your own children. Consider ours off limits.
So… is Menachem a bigot? Or, is he greedy for more land? Seems to me (from what he states very plainly), that he’s concerned for the safety of his children. And, is he concerned because of imaginary delusions, or, because of a great many horrible events that have actually occurred (and thus cannot be ignored, what with the whole “reality-based” & all that…)
What I realized from my dialogue with Menachem, is that in order for those like him to be amenable to the creation of a Palestinian state, something monumentally impressive must happen, that can convince them that this would not pose a security threat. So, perhaps the Palestinians being willing accept the Jewish settlers as fellow Palestinian citizens, might be one such noble gesture, that could have the desired effect?
Or, maybe it wouldn’t… But, that actually doesn’t really matter- because the true underlying reason for my proposal of this amnesty, is that the forced removal of hundreds of thousands of people, is tantamount to ethnic cleansing (and, yes- regardless of whether their current status is “legal”. It’s essentially no different from the basis for our opposition to the deportation of the millions of illegal immigrants in our own country… which is, our inability to stomach the undertaking of the large scale, militarized operation that would be required to round up and deport such massive numbers of people.)
So perhaps we can take this particular requirement- that any ethnic cleansing of any population whatsoever, is strictly “off the table”- as the “starting point” (since I feel that achieving peace without any mass expulsions, would be the very best out of all possible eventualities), and then (working backwards, in a sense) just try to come up with the strongest arguments in support of this, so as to persuade enough people to accept this ideal (and so, through this process, we end up with the ideal…)
If my arguments thus far haven’t been sufficiently persuasive, then, let’s attempt another approach: a positive incentive offered to the Palestinians, that can help motivate them to agree to the proposal. An incentive such as…
4. The implementation of a right of return and compensation policy, for diaspora Palestinians.
Good Lord, are you positively out of your dang fool mind, woman?! Many of these so-called “diaspora” Palestinians left voluntarily, because they were told by the armies of all the surrounding Arab countries that were to attack the fledging state, that they could just saunter right back in, after all the Jews had either been driven out or massacred!!!
Well, OK, but… perhaps the Israelis can see this as an opportunity to be magnanimous.
Or, alternately (getting back to the karmic debt), many Palestinians were indeed forcibly removed from Israel when the country was founded (yes, some left voluntarily, but nevertheless many had in fact also been forced out). And so what more appropriate way to make up for driving people out, than letting them back in?
But alas, “it’s complicated…” (of course, because if it wasn’t, then this probably would have been solved by now). But if we simply give up on account of this being difficult, then (pretty obviously) we’ll never get anywhere.
So one complicating factor, is that Israel is a tiny and already very densely populated country, and thus it simply isn’t feasible for it to take in as many of these diaspora Palestinians, as the Palestinians might like. And a second conundrum, is that it is actually true that not all of these exiled Palestinians had been forced out (many were, yes, but not all…)
So, how to resolve… hmm, well- perhaps there’s some compromise, that we could come up with that can be applied to this? Like have there be… a vetting procedure? I.e. there could be a screening of the Palestinians seeking return, and preference given to those (and their descendants) who possess some tangible proof of having been forced out (like say, deeds to their lost properties). And Israel also ought to be able to disqualify applicants with violent criminal records (because when granting rights to one group, the rights of another group shouldn’t be sacrificed. And Israelis have a right to safety, and letting people with violent histories into their country, clearly increases the risks to their safety.)
And so with some restrictions imposed, we can perhaps get to that “Goldilocks zone”- not flat zero (one extreme), and not upwards of a million (the other extreme), but, maybe a number in like the manageable thousands-ish range, that Israel has some realistic chance of actually being able to accommodate…?
Of course I’m aware that my suggestions are somewhat, unconventional… However, the standard approaches clearly aren’t working too well (otherwise, one of them probably would have yielded peace by now). Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that the actual solution may very well be, as they say, “outside the box”.
And, lastly-
5. The division of Jerusalem, with East Jerusalem going to Palestine, and West Jerusalem going to Israel. And all Palestinians and Israelis shall be allowed full, unfettered access to their respective holy sites, throughout the entire city.
Oh that’s just rich- now she wants to divide a city between enemies, sheesh!
No, no, no, NO, NO! NOT divide between enemies- divide between friends- BECAUSE THAT’S THE WHOLE FRIGGIN’ POINT HERE. We come up with some proposal, write it out on a piece of paper, get the leaders to sign on the damned dotted line, and then, “bada-bing, bada-boom”- the two sides are no longer enemies. Thus peace, in a way, is a collective state of mind… it’s what happens when enough people on both sides finally decide to start thinking of the other side as friends, rather than enemies (i.e., Germany and France, so, YES, it IS possible…).
So, if peace will come about when enough people choose to accept it, and, we (literally) have at our fingertips a tool that can propagate ideas very rapidly and widely…
OK- I’ll admit any day of the week, that I haven’t had a whole lot of success thus far with this endeavor. But if anyone else should happen to have something that they feel makes more sense (a solution- along with the supporting arguments that can convince enough people to accept it- that is genuinely as fair and beneficial as possible to both sides), then by all means, please share it. Because the reward, if you are correct, is peace.
Season’s Greetings.
“We are one family, cousins and kin…” (My rabbi recites this poem at every Shabbat service.)
*I’d just like to point out, that it is indeed possible to discuss this topic in a sane manner, as is shown by the comments to prior I/P diaries (i.e., this one , and that one…) Yea, it sure was cool to hear the acknowledgments from the community that these fatalistic assumptions had been wrong, because as with anything else, views should adapt in the face of contradictory evidence…
And then my alarm clock rang.