The Gaza war is a heartbreak. For those who see the grisly images of suffering innocents, for those who love Israel, for those who love peace, for those who hope for the ever-elusive two-state solution, for those who have a heart — it is a heartbreak.
It has a sickening familiarity for those who have followed the Sisyphean ups and downs of the so-called Arab–Israeli peace process for many years.
I have more questions than answers about Gaza. Is Israel’s use of force disproportionate to the provocation? Can anyone define “proportionate” in these circumstances? What might Hamas hope to gain and will it? Did this really start with the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel? (Of course not. It is attached by blood and bone to a much longer history. Do you know the story of Sampson and Delilah? The bit where Sampson brings down the Philistine temple? Did you know that “Palestine” derives from “Philistine?” Did you know that the Philistine temple was in Gaza? Perhaps that started it?)
I’ve started seeking answers to some of my questions from people who know more than I do about the specific historical, legal, political, military issues, but I can’t yet wrestle what they’ve told me into a coherent news story. So, this morning, I’ll fall back on my own small device for explaining the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It’s called Parallel Realities. I wrote a long weekly series for the Strib under that name in 1991 and turned it into a 1992 book, “Parallel Realities, a Jewish/Arab history of Israel/Palestine.” The main device was simply to acknowledge that the key events of the long history look differently and have different meanings depending on which side of the ethno-religious divide is telling you the story, or which side has your sympathy. Most of the time, it’s not the facts that are in dispute, it’s the meaning, and really, it’s the context — which facts you choose to emphasize, and which to leave out.
Right to exist
In explaining the current heartbreak, those who sympathize with Israel often emphasize Hamas’ denial of Israel’s right to exist. (Another question: How exactly does a country acquire the right to exist? How did our country, any country? And who is empowered to challenge or question this right? And why, when a country’s right to exist is debated, is that country usually Israel?)
Those who sympathize with the parallel Palestinian reality emphasize the statelessness of the Palestinian people, the encirclement of Gaza, enforced by Israel, which makes it impossible for Gazans to develop an economy, leaves them poor, hungry, oppressed and desperate for a way to strike back at their oppressor.
(Switch back to a pro-Israel perspective and you will hear many things that the Arabs generally — more specifically the Palestinian Arabs, most especially those who choose to follow the leadership of terrorist Hamas — have done to bring upon themselves their current plight. And so it goes.)
In the introductory chapter to my little book, I quoted I.F. Stone, the legendary iconoclastic journalist of the 1950s and 60s, who wrote: “Stripped of propaganda and sentiment, the Palestine problem is simply the struggle of two different peoples for the same strip of land.”
Too simple an explanation perhaps, but not by much.
Two monologues
Anyway, until I figure out something a bit more up-to-the-minute to report from the front, I offer a link to that opening chapter, posted in 2002 by PBS to provide historical background for a likewise heartbreaking “Frontline” documentary called “Shattered Dreams of Peace.”
The device of the chapter, which is titled “Dialogue of Two Monologues,” is to intersperse some of the main themes of the two realities, so you can see how they talk past each other. The double narrative runs out just before the Oslo peace process, another breakthrough that didn’t quite finish breaking through.
The link is here.
By the way, if you read it to the bottom, you’ll find my old, obsolete Strib email address as a way to order a copy. If you would like to communicate with me about a copy, please use eblack [at] minnpost [dot] com.
If you decide to follow the link and want to comment about the chapter, please come back here and, for the sake of peace, please try extra hard to make your comments civil and substantive. Thanks.
Thank you Eric for trying to provide an unbiased perspective. There are some of us out there who are tired of the rhetoric and recriminations coming from both sides and just hope for a fair, balanced peace in the Levant.
Parallel realities, that’s right, BOTH sides in this conflict are wrong. Yet, our government spends all of its time and international foreign policy credibility trying to point the finger of blame and on the other side providing excuses. There will never be a solution in picking sides in this dispute. Never. Ever.
I’m just waiting for Eric’s two-sided story about Hama, myself.
Joel–
Exactly how is Hamas different from the Stern Gang and the Irgun? Read Bennie Morris’s history of the 1948 war (recommended by Eric) for some good context.
Eric–
I’m afraid that I.F.Stone’s “….the Palestine problem is simply the struggle of two different peoples for the same strip of land.”
is not an oversimplification — it simply states the root of the problem; the rest is detail (to quote Hillel).
The fact is that there are too few people on either side who really want a two state solution.
Israel has never acknowledged any proposal that would allow for a viable Palestinian state, since that would require the complete abandonment of all West Bank settlements, the internationalization or partition of Jerusalem, and some sort of a corridor linking Gaza and the West Bank.
The more moderate Palestinians would restrict Jews to a few enclaves based on pre-1948 settlement; many if not most regard Israelis as interlopers to be expelled as soon as possible.
Both sides are really hoping that somehow the other will go away.
Not pretty, but there it is.
Eric
Many questions, few answers. Let me try a few:
How does a country gain the right to exist?
Generally by force, just the way we did (yes America) when we beat the crap out of the Indians and took their land; and when we were attacked by the Axis in WWII. I guess that “right” is the way the world is run – should be no surprise here.
I doubt when that “right” is applied to countries it usually refers to Israel. I could give you many examples (like the one above) — and also like England in WWII. They decided thaey too had that right.
Most importantly you ask: “What has Hamas to gain by their actions?” I can answer that quickly…NOTHING. Rosa Brooks in a brilliant op-ed piece recently explained the Hamas actions in one succinct word: STUPID.
In fairness, she applied that word to some of Israel’s actions as well, but STUPID just about sums it up. For a misguided idealology paid for by their own Palestinian people, Hamas has embarked on a no win strategy that at its base is just plain stupid; and that would be somewhat amusing, if it had not turned so terrible and deadly.
The conflict has moved beyond the sphere of Palestinian secular nationalism into stateless religious fundamentalism.
There is no end game even if Israel defeats every opponent on the battle field. Any peace treaty signed without Hamas (or whatever the fundamentalist organization that morphs) will not be worth the paper it is signed on. It will be rejected by the radicals, just like the current cease fire document. Any Palestinian leader who signs it will be a sitting target.
American and Israeli goal is to find a Palestinian dictator like Mubarak who will butcher the Palestinians into submission. And that is why Hamas is so popular because the ordinary Palestinian sees through this totally.
Arab leaders like Mubarak, Hussein and Fahd are viewed as nothing more than American stooges. Any peace treaty sheparded by them is totally useless. Their day has come and gone. Iran with its asymetric warfare is totally undermining those regimes. It is only a matter of time, I believe when one of those countries (my guess Egypt ) becomes the next Pakistan.
And when that happens, Israel will regret the day it did not deal with Hamas and settle this. Just like it regrets the day it did not deal with a more secular PLO and settle this decades ago.
There is much to be gained from a historical dateline reminding the reader of the chain of events that have created so much inhumanity and misery exacting pain; rained down crisis and controversy on this small strip of land shredded now beyond what is acceptable in the process.
And in all fairness I do wonder… should “terrorist” as used as a prefix/adjective with Hamas, be consistantly used for both sides now; or not at all?
“Terrorist” as a label has been used too often lately by this nation even as it attempts to justify its own invasions of smaller nations. Once any more powerful nation invades another samller nation and justifies that act as “killing the terrorists”, he indicts himself by his own complicity; by his own unacceptable terror rained down on another?
It has been reported this morning/late last night, that Israel before turning what is left of Gaza City and its adjoining neighborhoods to rubble, the Israeli military preemptively warned the Palestinians to leave their homes about to be bombed. Many did leave waving white flags of surrender. Once in the streets, they were shot down. Now that’s what you do rally around and applause Bachman, Dayton, Coleman Franken etc.? Enough already?
Martin Buber, Jewish philosopher, poet and honest human being, recognized the rights of the Palestinian to exist…he had it so right years ago. But no one was listening.
Footnote: another historical perspective is on realnews.com by Eric Margolis and editor Paul Jay. Historical perspective has many histories and so many small truths…reject or accept as one chooses.
Like a stopped clock near its time, Raj Maddali is almost right: the Arab peace treaties, so far, haven’t been worth much of anything.
The notion that the (understandable, albeit pointless) thirst of the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza for lebensraum and the (unforgiveable) thirst for innocent blood will be slaked by some sort of peace treaty and splitting the difference, though, is demonstrably flawed.
The Hamas aspiration is to murder all of the Jews (not just of Israel); that’s not exactly a secret. I’ll be very interested in what compromise the terrorist apologists would suggest — half? A quarter? 76%?
Apologists for either side brings none of their people any closer to solutions.
I quote verbatim from the Hamas Covenant (Charter) of 1988.
Hamas founding charter
Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant states the following: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslem).
Article 22 claims that the French revolution, the Russian revolution, colonialism and both world wars were created by the Zionists. It also claims the Freemasons and Rotary clubs are Zionist fronts.
So…will someone please explain HOW we can deal with that? And this was written 20 years ago. If Hamas “speaks” for the Palestinians, there can be no peace ever.
…almost forgot…to thank you, Mr BLack, for the link to your invaluable “time-line” on Frontline. Finally ventured out in the cold to replenish the ink in my printer in order to copy…most valid link included…so now I’m almost out of paper?…
Oh, I agree, and given the history of support for antisemitism coming from Minnesota, it’s the Final Solution that is, I think, to be avoided.
That said, I do hope that you’re not suggesting that the the Hamas blood thirst is some sort of disputed issue.
Myles, in another post tried to portray himself as a person somehow looking to cross a bridge to obtain a peacefull solution. Then here he goes back to square one in mouthing the same “Hamas wants to destroy Israel” talking points.
If Myles wants to go in that direction I’ll be happy to point out many Israeli actions that have nothing to do with Hamas wanting to destroy Israel, but rather quite the opposite.
Using Hamas charter has become one grand obustication.
Both Israel and Hamas seem content to dehumanize and kill the other. And Joel Rosenberg you take pleasure in dehumanizing Minnesotans by calling them anti-Semites. This is all hateful posturing for further violence and disaster for Israel and Palestine. I say, put down your swords and your angry words because you are both embodiments of the same evil and terror.
“Stripped of propaganda and sentiment, the Palestine problem is simply the struggle of two different peoples for the same strip of land.”
Wrong quote, Mr. Black. Sheikh Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with the Nazis and the Arabs followed. From the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas and Hizb’Allah, and the Der Sturmer-like anti-Semitic media pouring out of the Arab and Islamic world, it is not simply land. If it were, there would have been no rocket attacks against the Jews when Israel unilaterally left Gaza in compliance with the precept of “Land for Peace” and the Palestinian Arabs would have commenced their civil society.
It is *not* simply about land.
It is about Muslim imperialism and gutter, murderous Islamic Jew-hatred. Read the Hamas Covenant. You cannot negotiate with neo-Nazi Islamists.
Nachman Ben Sholom Ber
So what if the Palestinians collabarated with the Nazis. I can, if that is where you want to take the discussion, point to several nasty collabarations by America and Israel.
So what if the Palestinians say nasty things. I can point to nasty things said by say , Churchill, Moshe Dayan, Golda Meir.
We’ve heard the same old stories over and over again.
I just posted in response to Eric Black’s article.
http://tinyurl.com/gavins-response
Let’s try this again.
Sheikh Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, collaborated with the Nazis and the Arabs followed. From the Muslim Brotherhood to Hamas and Hizb’Allah, and the Der Sturmer-like anti-Semitic media pouring out of the Arab and Islamic world, it is not simply about land.
It is about Muslim imperialism and gutter, murderous Islamic Jew-hatred. Read the Hamas Covenant. You cannot negotiate with neo-Nazi Islamists.
The objective of Israel is to be left alone. The objective of the Jihadists is to annihilate Israel and murder Jews.
That’s quite a difference. Get it now?
Nachman Ben Sholom Ber
Same old story, with a new variable (“to be left alone” ) in the infinite loop.
Once I promise to show inconvenient quotes by Israeli leaders, that one goes away.
How nice this (“to be left alone”) sounds. But there is a big elephant in the room. It is called the disposession of Palestinians from their lands.
Gavin Sullivan
Very well written piece. You are part of the new bloggers who are not afraid to question the well massaged status quo arguments presented to us by the organized elites in this country.
People like me are now getting heard because of the outlets like yours which are pointing out the blatant one sidedness of the coverage
in our country. Blogs are poking fun at the holier than thous and people are reading them
If Eric Black asked me the same hypotheticals I would have been happy to provide him detailed answers. But then will they publish it ?
It’s pretty easy to be a pro-Palestinian propagandist — all you have to learn is to say, “So what?” and then change the subject.
Hamas calls for the murder of Jews (whether or not they’re Israelis or Americans) and does its damnable best to carry it out? So what? Maybe David Ben Gurion said something mean about Arabs.
76% of the Palestine Mandate was chopped off and given to the loser of the war for Arabia as a consolation prize? “So what?” Why on Earth should the Jews expelled from Arab lands (the lucky ones, compared to those who remained) not have to move aside to accommodate the descendants of the Arabs who foolishly listened to the Grand Mufti and fled after the founding of Israel, thinking that they’d return as conquerors?
During more than a quarter century that Judea and Samaria were under Transjordanian rule and Gaza under Egyptian, there was no hint of some sort of moral imperative that they should become an improbable and unsustainable “Palestinian” Arab state — which would be the first such in history. “So what?”
Yawn.
The old broken pro-semitic baiting record. Repeat the same old falsehoods over and over again.
A 45rpm record that has a scratch in it.
Eric–
Has anyone explained how Iranian rockets are smuggled into Gaza through Egypt?
As another part of the converging realities, I’m reading My Father’s Paradise (by Ariel Sabar), an account of the Kurdish Jews in Iraq.
Another reminder of the realities of life of Jews in Arab countries in the 19th and 20th centuries (yes, there is an Arabic word for ‘pogrom’).
You know, reading the actual history of Jews in Arab countries might persuade one that the millions of Jews that fled from Arab countries to Israel actually had some good reason. Whoda thunk that?
The actual number is about 750,000.
And, like European Jews, the reasons were a mix of economics and safety.
One of Sabar’s observations was that is was the poorer Jews who left Iraq first.
Nothing is simple.