12 questions to consider when picking sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict
One of the most baffling aspects of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for an outside observer like myself is just how passionate partisans on both sides can get in support of their team. I’m not talking about the Israelis or Palestinians themselves, but people who seemingly have no skin in the game.
Broadly speaking, this means that whenever I see my fellow lefties get really worked up about what Israel have been up to I feel like a dick for not feeling the same level of emotional engagement. Perhaps my biggest worry is that despite all of the social-democracy I claim to like, just under the surface of my skin is a frothing-at-the-mouth Tory wanting to bring back the empire and (paradoxically) kick out the immigrants.
I’ve been trying to pick sides because if history and politics has taught us anything, any complex issue is best tackled when boiled down to a simple binary choice. So here’s a listicle of some of the questions that I’ve found myself asking again in recent weeks:
- Are deaths the only metric that count?
Unsurprisingly, one of the most common comparisons made when evaluating the conflict is in terms of number of deaths. Because the asymmetrical nature of the conflict, this inevitably means that every time the conflict relapses to all-out violence, the Israeli body count is a few orders of magnitude fewer than the Palestinian one.
On the surface, this is a compelling point, and it is indeed a beyond horrendous that entire families are being wiped out with bombs. But unless we’re going to take a strictly utilitarian approach to judging the conflict, then this leaves out a myriad of other concerns. For instance, Hamas doesn’t have a good track record with regard to women’s rights and I dare say we shouldn’t expect a hugely enlightened attitude towards gay rights, at least compared to more socially liberal Israel.
This might seem like an obtuse point: how can I equate people dying to rights for people who are living? Comparing these two metrics is obviously tricky, and definitely an Apples and Oranges situation, but these are the sorts of judgements that we (as ‘society’) make all of the time.
For example, take the age old “Freedom vs Security” inverse relationship. We could live in a society where the government has absolute control over everything we do, so life would be very difficult for bad guys. But we don’t: In order to maintain our free society, we accept an increased risk of terrorism in exchange for the various freedoms we enjoy. In other words, we implicitly accept that there will be a certain number of deaths, in order for society to function in this way.
(Another example is with massive construction projects: We still build projects like Crossrail, despite knowing that in such a big project that it is likely that at least a few construction workers will die in the process).
So should we look to other factors, and not just who is killing the most people when judging the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?
2. Which side has the strongest military? And is a just war being waged?
Another related factor is that in conventional terms, Israel has a much stronger military, and isn’t afraid to use it. The conflict has long been an example of asymmetrical warfare, as what is essentially a modern, first-world military takes on a more informally organised, less well equipped group.
One of the reasons the conflict has continued for so long is because it is essentially a series of reprisals for the previous fighting. The Israelis are kicking off because the Palestinians kicked off after being provoked by Israeli actions… and so the cycle continues.
If we look at the tactics used then judging them is complex. One position is that the Israelis have the moral high ground: Hamas is a terrorist group, firing rockets at civilian populations. Whereas Israel is professional army, directing its operations at military, and not civilian targets (even if it does with distressing regularity hit hospitals…).
The other perspective is, of course, that Hamas is using the only tactics it can owing to the asymmetrical nature of the conflict. Given that Israel is occupying and controlling land that it views as its own, isn’t it morally just that Hamas resist the Israeli occupation by all means necessary?
Ultimately, this argument goes back to the historical grievances on either side.
3. How much do historical and religious grievances matter?
The reason both sides struggle to find common ground is because they are essentially looking past each other, and fighting their own conflict. For many Israelis, the country is a historic homeland, which dates back thousands of years. And in any case, the shadow of the holocaust surely demonstrates the need for a strong Israel, to continue to provide a viable homeland for the Jewish people.
Meanwhile for many Palestinians, their view is that their historic homeland was taken from them in 1948, and they have been losing further ground ever since.
The land claims are also underscored by religious grievances — which complicates things. Conceivably, a land dispute could be resolved by swapping territory around until nothing overlaps. This has been done many times over world history to resolve different disputes — but the religious dimension complicates things as neither side is obviously going to give up the Temple Mount site (or, arguably, Jerusalem as a whole). Its pretty hard to compromise when both sides believe there is a divinely inspired book that legitimates their claim over a particular patch of land.
4. How do we draw a line between the historical grievance and the people currently living there?
There’s almost a philosophical question provoked by long running conflicts like Israel/Palestine or, say, Northern Ireland. People have long memories so whilst people living in places without conflict may find history largely irrelevant (I certainly don’t know where my great-great-grandparents lived), in places like Northern Ireland and Israel people will refer to perceived historical injustices like they happened last week — with the same anger that goes with it.
Surely though, at a certain point we have to divorce the historical grievance from the people living there? Most Israelis today weren’t born when the state was created or when the IDF has occupied more territory. Should the Israelis from today be blamed for creating the 1967 borders? Should the young Palestinians in Gaza be judged to be complicit with their older relatives who may have attacked Israel?
In many conflicts when they’re over, a fairly arbitrary line usually has to be drawn between “culprit” and “victim”. After WWII for instance, the allies obviously prosecuted the top generals… but how deep do you go? Do you fire the administrators further down the chain? What about the individual soldiers or the librarians who joined the Nazi party so they could get a promotion working in the library? The same thing happened after the fall of Communism in East Germany, after Apartheid fell in South Africa and in Iraq in 2003.
It’s essentially an argument over group rights and individual rights, and about agency: to what extent are individuals responsible for historical actions? Can we blame the Gazans of today for fighting back given many of them were simply born into an Israeli blockade? Can we blame Israelis for supporting the IDF given they never stole any land from anyone — and just grew up living where they live?
This is complicated when the descendants of people involved in conflicts also get actively involved themselves: If kids today join Hamas or enthusiastically enlist with the IDF, how much choice did they have? How much of this was a result of historical and political circumstances rather than some sort of zealous ideological conviction?
5. Who started it?
I’m going to contradict myself. Though we have to consider where to draw a line between current events and past, there is the legitimate question of who started it.
Whilst I’m not qualified to go into the details, I think it is fair to say that both sides will have completely different, and equally valid explanations. (I wrote about how historical explanations can be both contradictory and equally valid here.)
Ultimately there are too many factors to consider to be able to draw any definitive explanation of the conflict beyond a dry description of what atoms existed in what position at what point in time — but you need many more layers on top of that to form an explanation.
6. How much of prior events can be successfully backtracked on?
So let’s look forward. The conflict would end tomorrow if all of the Palestinians gave up and moved to Jordan and Egypt. Or if the Israelis decided it wasn’t worth the hassle and disestablished the Israeli state. Unfortunately things don’t work like that.
If we want to find a solution we need to figure out what ground can be conceivably be conceded by either side, so a compromise/peace can be reached.
Obviously Israel as a state isn’t going anywhere — sorry anyone who has the simplistic view that Israel doesn’t have the right to exist. As it has been around for 50 years and has the backing of a huge swathe of the international community, it is something its opponents is going to have to learn to live with. In any case, if you start debating “rights to exist” then you get back into the historical grievance and line-drawing dilemma outlined above.
More realistically, to give one example that comes to mind, various peace plans over the years have made references to the 1967 UN borders in the region, borders that Israel says it cannot retreat to because then it would be able to provide adequate security. It is also in these regions that Israel has created what have become known as “settlements”: Though it would involve turfing (mostly innocent) people out of their homes, conceivably ground could be conceded here. “Justice” and “Peace” are not always synonymous in the international system.
Another example would be in Gaza — which Israel has been blockading for a number of years. Could it conceivably allow Gaza to open up to trade and movement of people and so on?
Any peace plan is going to have to find these points of compromise, whilst hoping to hell that nobody mentions anything contentious like the status of Jerusalem, or pretty much anything.
7. Which side better supports progressive values?
This is a question that I alluded to earlier, when asking if death was the only thing that counts. Now as I say, whilst I don’t have any skin in this game I am a big fan of things like liberal and social democracy, human rights, the rule of law, feminism and secularism. I dare-say you might be too.
So perhaps rather than trade-off comparisons about which side is worse at these various things, it is a better question to ask which side would be better at advancing these inherently good things?
And this is where — despite being a lefty — I often fall foul of some people on the left. By my reckoning, Israel actually has something going for it in terms of womens rights and democracy. It certainly seems better able to deliver on a number of these things.
Of course — it isn’t all one-sided. Obviously there are, umm, some human rights issues with its treatment of the Palestinians and in terms of secularism, can a state that is by its very nature aiming to be Jewish ever be secular?
Essentially, it is very, very complicated.
8. Which side is it within our national interest to support?
Imagine you were the British government, or any government for that matter, how would you pick a side? The obvious questions is which side winning would better be in your interests?
Israel on the one hand is fairly progressive and democratic. But by supporting Israel you piss off a lot of middle eastern countries, which have the natural resources that we crave.
Even if we’re evaluating this as individuals, do we not have to implicitly consider what the implications are for our way of life? What if there was another oil embargo like there was in 1973? Whilst many of us would probably claim that we’d support the right side (whoever we judge that to be) out of principle regardless of all sorts of consequences, I’m fairly sure that if we ended up in a situation where the lights weren’t working or if shops didn’t have enough food we’d find ourselves questioning how committed we are to whichever side is our cause.
9. Who benefits from either side winning?
Similarly, it is worth examining who benefits from either side winning. Back in the Cold War, whilst there weren’t any direct exchanges between the two superpowers, there were a number of proxy wars fought in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and countless other places. The thinking was that letting the other side win/gain influence would negatively harm the other side. For America the fear was that losing in Vietnam would mean the whole region would go Red — for the Soviets it was exactly the opposite.
So a good question to ask in Israel/Palestine is who would be the beneficiaries and losers if either side were to win/lose (or be strengthened/weakened). To do the analysis would be time consuming — but it is an important question to ask.
10. If you were in the same situation as either side, would you view their actions as just?
Imagine you were an Israeli citizen, hearing news every day of rocket attacks and perhaps even seeing rockets fly over your head. Could you be blamed for wanting the IDF to deploy all of its resources trying to stop it?
Now imagine you’re a Palestinian, with your every day life impeded by Israeli blockades and military strikes. Could you be blamed for thinking that maybe Hamas are doing the right thing after all?
11. Am I applying the same scrutiny to the claims on either side?
The trouble with a conflict like this is that misinformation is everywhere. Be it from the IDF’s incredibly slick PR operation, or from leftists looking for every vague scrap of evidence to further criticise Israel. Is it possible to know what is really going on?
For example, one common claim is that Hamas use civilians as human shields, whereas Israel have a professional army. So why do Amnesty International claim there’s no evidence for Hamas doing this but examples of Israel doing it?
Why do my Israel-supporting friends always seem to retweet things that make Hamas look bad, and why do my Palestinian supporting friends always retweet things that make Israel look bad? Can we truly know anything about what is going on?
12. So is it possible to identify clear “good” and “bad” sides in a long running conflict like this?
No. The more I think about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the more of a post-modernist I become. Both sides are tied to ideologies, histories and narratives that are almost completely distinct from the ones they oppose — whilst I’m not one to reject the notion of there being such thing as an objective reality, you’ve got to admit that it is almost the case that both sides have developed their own sets of facts.
This is what is going to make solving the conflict so tricky. And whilst obviously I don’t know how to do that, I hope I’ve asked some interesting questions we should take into consideration when trying to figure it out.
