FOR PALESTINE - FOR ISRAEL Against the Curse of Violence

1. The Conflict
2. The Israeli Position
3. The Palestinian Position
4. The International Position
5. Misdeeds and Terror
6. The Israeli Responsibility
7. The Palestinian Responsibility
8. The International Responsibility

For Palestine - For Israel. Against the Curse of Violence

Rarely there is any newspaper edition not having to cover yet another façade of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet another suicide killing, yet another car bomb, yet another Jewish settlement in the West Bank, yet another assault on Arafat's forces, yet another game of words, yet another prolonging the peace "process"; yet another tragedy.

And what of it? Does the world listen more closely? Does the world care more intensely? Does it change the situation for the better? Hardly. Only in an ill-fated attempt to deal with the events surrounding September 11th have some come to think, seemingly, that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be at the core of the fundamentalist problem. Though I would not entirely disagree to the notion that fundamentalism is in part spurred by what is thought of Israeli politics, terrorism is something with a logic inherent to itself, and should not be elevated to support any kind of political discourse. The Palestinian question is a question of its own, and should not be exploited by those only seeking terror, nor by those intending to destroy Israel.

The Middle East area has a history. The conflict over the region goes back quite some time, maybe due to the geography of the region, and its position between the continents, making this place a thoroughfare for different peoples, rulers, religions and cultures. The area has always been changing its inhabitants, the borders of states and religions shifting over time. The current problem appears as a product of the decolonization of the Near and Middle East - of borders drawn artificially, of states erected artificially, of differences and dichotomies re-created, and reinforced, even created.

Strangely, and somehow tragically, though the conflict between Israel and Palestine seems to be of interest for the whole world, the world, as such, rather appears to more or less step aside, to take an observing role. Of course, there are attempts at (re?)conciliation, yet those always carry the strange air of non-involvement, of observation and mediation, just as if this was an unduly duty, an affair taking place at the ends of the world; yet they are happening at the very center of civilization, at a place where Europe, Asia and Africa meet, at the point where religions converge at a common center, Jerusalem; Islam, Judaism, Christianity all alike.

Is this conflict a private one? Could it possibly be? A private little war waged between Israel and Palestine? Something the world better not ought to see? Something that, nevertheless, like a forgotten child always tries to draw attention to it by further radicalization and outbursts of violence and unseemly deeds?

The US has, for quite a long time, tried to mediate in the conflict, Europe's role in that is much more recent. But is mediation enough? What is globalization about if not the globalization of "issues" formerly regional? The United Nations are the force of globalization: Their prospect, the only prospect making any kind of sense, is that of a future world government. In a global scope, as it has been propagated since the foundation of the League of Nations, and continued with that of the United Nations, in such a scope, there are no regional conflicts any more, there are no regional interests. The regional is the global, just as much as the global has to become the regional. One world, one mind, one soul, one heart, one bleeding heart.

That is not to say that the guilt for the "situation" at hand should be looked for somewhere else than in the region itself. Wronger things could not possibly be said. Blame belongs where the violence and the wrongdoings are occurring. It cannot be shared by the UN, nor the US. Yet still, after it is becoming more and more apparent that the solution doesn't appear to originate from regional soil, "outside", i.e. global agency, is becoming more and more a pressing issue. The Cold War against the Soviet Empire having ended, the UN should be able to see more clearly, to act more unitedly. The forefront of the UN, of course, has to be America, has to be Europe; both in unison. It is not the interests of America or Europe which are at stake here. It is democracy, freedom, humanity; America being the strongest symbol for that, Europe slowly growing into a form that could assume a similar task.

The task of this little essay cannot be to achieve any practical result, it cannot possibly achive what is the task of politics, it cannot even claim complete insight. Thus it can only be a reflection upon the problem as such: A reflection as biased and problematic as any other text written on the topic, some personal thoughts on the conflict as such, but first of all, a very personal fighting against windmills way too threatening, way too large, way too traumatizing.

December 11th/15th, 2001

Israel was created out of a former colonial empire, such as other states in the region emerged from the dust of various colonial structures. Especially in the wake of the Holocaust, there can be no doubt that the nation of Israel, which has suffered infinite times, does indeed deserve a homestead of its own, in the land populated by its people for thousands of years. The term Zionism has no place in a civilized world, and it is just a poor excuse for Anti-Semitist and Anti-Jewish propaganda.

The status of the modern state of Israel has been put into question by its neighbors since its inception, and those seeking to destroy it building coalitions and preparing war, were seen as a threat to the country. The state of Israel perceives itself as an endangered country, surrounded by enemies bent on destroying it. There surely is some truth to that perception, but also a lot of paranoia, which again, through its manifestation, creates new tensions.

The country consists of vast amounts of desert area. Access to water is critical, controling watered valleys from higher, montaneous positions, is seen as a keen factor, just as important as access to the Red Sea by way the port of Elath. Israel controls its neighbors by controling strategical positions as well as strategical resources. The area of Israel is a contingent one, that of Palestine is split into different parts.

Furthermore, the democratic state of Israel opposes the non-democratic systems around it; providing it with ample self-justification for undertaking certain measures. The religious component, the promise of the promised land, may still play a role, if only subconsciously or in the minds of religious fundamentalists.

It seems that most Israelis do want peace, but still there is (partly justified) fear and paranoia. Giving up control of the occupied territories would mean to indeed give up control, to surrender to an uncertain future: That may be seen unwise and unsound by some, especially by those believing that there can be no bond of trust established between Israel and the Arabic nations. Israeli politics has never been a politics of trusting its neighbors and trying to weave bonds: It has been a politics of distrust, of self-isolation, of fear, of favoring radical and short-term solutions over more long-term ones.

Israel appears deeply divided politically. Democratic countries may have their differences of opinions between their political factions, but still, when it comes to a common consensus, and especially foreign politics, most countries, be it Germany, the US, France or the United Kingdom, appear to be more united than divided. In Israel, this consensus seems to be very fragile, if existent at all, making a shift in government a shift in foreign policy. And as it must seem impossible to gain peace with Palestine, any government aiming for this seems doomed to failure, and will be put out of power. The radical forces bound to more violent actions then will not create peace either, dooming them to failure again. With fragile coalitions and ever-shifting constellations of power, there is rarely one common goal to be followed, it seems.

December 15th, 2001

Palestine now is a country which is not a country. It is a country within a country: Its existence is only possible at the grace of Israel. The Palestine territory, the Gaza strip and the West Bank, as well as parts of Jerusalem, is divided. The territory is becoming smaller year by year as Jewish settlements (outlawed by the UN, criticized by the US and the International Community) continue to be erected in Palestine territory. Israeli armed forces control central paths of access.

Palestine has no military, it has a police force granted by the grace of Israel again. It has a president who, by Israel, is claimed to be in total control, but whose control, again, is subject to Israeli control again.

Palestine is not only subject to control by Israeli occupation: It is even more so controled by other Arabic and Islamic states trying to exert their influence, mostly via terror organizations. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and others don't seem to be interested in the prospering of Palestine but more in the destruction of Israel. This may help those bent on revenge against Israeli occupation, but it doesn't help the case: This is seen time and again, when cease fires are agreed upon by the governments and terrorists undermining those by commiting their horrendous acts of violence.

Palestinians do seem to want peace, but they seem to be tired by the ongoing occupation as well as by the reign of terror ushered in by outside agents.

Palestine, in order to function, would also need a democratic government, and a free press; both things Arafat doesn't seem to be able to foster. It needs access to water, the same water that Israel needs, and protection, the same protection that Israel needs.

December 15th, 2001

The International Community at the moment seems more or less perplexed about what to do. There is no solution visible for the question at hand, the only possible option, the action which would usually be taken in such a situation, sending UN peacekeepers into the area and monitoring the situation on both sides, seems impossible: This option has for long been vetoed by the US, and Israel doesn't have any interest in this either.

There is not much to gain in the area, peace may seem impossible. Every attempt at mediation so far has failed, even the Oslo peace accords seem to be out of the question right now, Camp David has been a desaster, both sides seem to have chosen the wrongest possible path to follow - what possible initiative could bring a change?

Can Europe be a stronger mediator than the US? What Europe? Which country? There is no Europe, yet, and Germany, which has made attempts at reconciling the two parties, doesn't really have anything to say: All European countries can do is talk, there is no real unity behind, people like Sharon do not listen to Javier Solana. Words do not seem enough here.

Thus it will have to be the US: But the US has lots of other commitments, and a war on terror to fight. And the Arabian countries? They seem to have lost their faith as well: Thus it seems that there is a private little war going on indeed, for what could possibly be achieved by intervening? There is no partner for dialog any more.

December 16th, 2001

There can be no justification for terror. Killing civilians on purpose is never an option, it is unethical, and it doesn't achieve anything either, nothing but death and bitterness. Can the Palestinian terror be said to be some kind of a resistance movement? Should a nation which is oppressed not possess the right to resist the enemy?

There is a fine line between terror and a resistance movement. Terror is violence for the sake of creating feelings of fear and vulnerability. A resistance movement, on the other hand, doesn't have to be violent, on the contrary, resistance most often only succeeds when it is non-violent, depending on the situation of course. The degree of resistance, the methods that should be employed, are mostly determined by the result that has to be achieved, by the position of power, by who the oppressor is.

Israel may be a troubled democracy, but it still is a democracy. A democracy has to be fought differently than a dictatorship. I would not have any quarrels about violent resistance against a fascist or communist dictatorship, as long as the resistance is not directed against the civilian population. But in a democracy, society is a civil society: Wherever you attack, you do not attack a dictator, you attack the people. A democracy has a different consciousness than a dictatorship, resisting an oppressive democracy mostly means to present the issue in a democratic way: To beat the system, you have to use it. If a democracy like Israel is oppressive, this is often due to an error of judgement, not to the nature of the state.

Slavery and racism in the US were fought in a non-violent way. The Blacks (with some solitary exceptions) didn't revolt violently, they made use of the system. The Civil Rights movement led by Reverent Dr. Martin Luther King was not a Black movement - it represented issues of the Black community, but mostly, its focus was to correct some wrongs in the consciousness and state of the democracy in America: Problems in a democracy arise when there isn't enough democracy; you can "heal" a democracy by taking part in the democratic process, by fueling the system and moving it in the right direction by forming pressure groups, parties, etc.

Democracy as a civil society distastes using violence - but if hit by acts of violence, it will strike back. Using violence against a democracy undermines the cause behind the fight, violence discredits the cause, and as the democracy will feel justified precisely because it is a democracy, it will not listen to violence but fight it, and mistake the violence for the cause.

If you are resisting an oppressor, you should be certain that there is just one direction of resistance - and that you are in control. Inviting mercenaries or suicide bombers or terrorist organizations controled by someone else means losing that control. But if you are the leader, you nevertheless will be seen as the figure of control. Fighting for a cause in a democracy can only be done by uniting forces, not by segregating them into resistance cells; resistance has to be political, not military.

Once the violence is not any more the focus of attention, the misdeeds of the opponent will become clear to the democracy as well as to the International Community. Israeli settlements in Palestinian area are illegal, they mean an intrusion into the domain of others, they constitute a case of robbery, robbing land from a nation already poor. Blocking entry paths to Palestinian towns and cities and obstructing the normal flow of business is such an intrusion as well. Responding to gunfire by helicopter attacks is an unjustified escalation and disproportional use act of retribution. Substituting talking with shooting is unforgivable also. The Palestinians do not have to resort to violence: Their case is strong, but it is destroyed by the constant acts of terror not battled sufficiently by the Palestinian President.

Everybody is responsible for their own actions. The terror is not Israel's fault, it is the fault of the terrorists, and it may be the responsibility of the Palestinian President to control it if he is given the necessary means, and not deprived of them. There can be no justification for the terror, but there can also be no justification for Israeli settlements in foreign territory and for the ongoing occupation of foreign lands. To play a game of who started what first doesn't help the situation - neither is it wise to listen to lone suicide bombers who only want to disrupt the cease fire agreements.

December 16th, 2001

Israel has a responsibility to end a situation which has become more and more unbearable: It has to end the occupation, it has to start living together with the other nations in the area, not apart from them. The reason for that are not the suicide attacks, not terrorists like those of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the likes. Israel doesn't have to act because of the violence; the violence is the work of criminals, it is no political utterance and shouldn't be elevated to those levels.

Israel has to act because it's the right thing to do. The war is over, Israel won. The threat is gone, Israel is the strongest military power in the region. The economy needs cooperation, not confrontation, war, as always, is bad for business, everywhere: It destroys opportunities, and those pesky weapons producers and arms dealers are not the majority in the business world. War hurts the economy, and if the economy is hurt, there is no social system, there is no democracy.

Israel is a democratic country. It should make use of that: By showing what a brilliant institution democracy is. The occupation tells the opposite story, making democracy itself a hated institution. But democracy is the only thing that could bring Israel and Palestine together: Israeli democracy has to shine as a beacon of light, it has to be the guiding force for other people in the region trying to establish truly democratic systems.

The enemy of democracy cannot be fought only with military power, he has to be fought with democracy itself. Arafat may not be the best possible person to talk to, he may not be a friend of democracy, he may not be a friend of Israel. That doesn't matter. He has to be put to the negotiating table, he has to be made clear that violence is no solution, that those criminals undertaking violence are not part of the solution but part of, if no the entire problem.

Arafat has to be respected, his authority strengthened, while at the same time, he has to be pushed into a position where he finally has to say what it is he wants, and what not; he has to stand to his word. Israel cannot achieve this by destroying him. It needs Arafat as a partner, a difficult partner still, but the only one at hand.

Israel also has to show constraint: An eye for an eye, that means nothing else than taking appropriate action instead of overreacting. If there is a lone assassin, that doesn't justify the invasion of an entire town. That doesn't build trust, it destroys it. Furthermore, Arafat may foster the violence, he may not be that keen on stopping it. But he also has to be given the means; and as Israel is the controling power, controling the entryways, having the military, having access, it's not just Arafat's responsibility but Israel's also to crack down on violence. If Arafat is supposed to exert control, he has to be given control; if not, the entire blaming game is just a farce.

December 23rd, 2001

Of course, the Palestinian people are wronged by the occupation. But that cannot ever justify violent action. The suicide bombers and assassins are criminals, they are those keeping both nations hostage. They are not helping against occupation: They've succeeded in prolonging the situation at hand, and in worsening it.

Usama bin Laden doesn't speak for Israel. He doesn't give a dime about Palestine, he doesn't give a dime about Islam. He is a fanatic without morality, his only religion is violence and unreasonable hatred, he is a cold-blooded killer, a plague, in league not with God but with the forces of darkness, if you pardon my pathos. Same holds true for Saddam Hussein - both violent dictators holding the world hostage, spoiling the Muslim world with their hate whose only source is their greed and egomania. If Palestinians choose those as their allies, they make a pact with the devil, literally. Same for Hamas, same for Islamic Jihad and the likes.

Israel is the only ally Palestine has to be looking for. That may sound strange, and even insane. But Israel and Palestine share a peculiar problem: They indeed share the land, they share the resources, they share even their paranoia and pain and suffering.

"For Palestine" has to mean "For Israel". There is no Palestine without Israel, there is no Israel without Palestine.

December 23rd, 2001

The world is involved. America has been involved since the beginning, it has always tried to make some sense of the situation. Clinton has been an honest broker, yet his attempts seem to have been unwanted, so it can be seen as no surprise that George W. Bush puts some more pressure on both sides now. There is no time to be wasted any more: Negotiations have to come to a successful end.

September 11th enters this equation in one way, and one way only. Terrorism has shown its true face of evil: It has shown that it is not part of politics, that it is not part of religion, but that it stands outside civilization and religion. Terrorism must not be given a reason to cloak and butter its existence with. Terrorism isn't the consequence of what's going on in the Middle East - terrorism preys on the situation, it's like a virus, a tumor even. There's no reason for it, it creates its own system of reasoning, or rather, anti-reasoning. Now more than ever it has to be made sure terrorism has no further excuses for its continued existence.

What's at stake is the outlook for the United Nations, for a future global democracy. It's an international issue, yet both parties have also to be given some room to breathe. Sending peacekeepers into the region may not be the right choice, it would be the exactly wrong signal, alleging that Israel, as a democratic state, would be unable to solve that issue. There is no need for peacekeepers. There is, however, a need for continued pressure on both Israel and Palestine. Israel has to be judged as any other state, just as Palestine. Arafat is no hero, he is no saint. He has been using the violence to his favor, that's becoming clear now. He could have stopped some of it, not all, a long time ago.

The International Community has to apply pressure to the region: A productive pressure that would make clear that peace and understanding are the only solutions acceptable.

December 23rd 2001

continuing thread:

• Sharon's Cry for War
• The Victims of the Hardliners
• Perfides Spiel ueber die Rechte Bande - die FDP, Möllemann und Karsli (1) (in German)
• Double-Talk Politics
• Ende des grausamen Spiels? (2) (in German)
• Der Möllemann war's (3) (in German)
• Ein Nachwort zu Möllemann (4) (in German)