I’m very interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is such a mess that I rarely hazard an opinion about it. So I was very interested to see an article this morning in Al Jazeera America, Analysis: Israelis Not Ready for Two-State Solution. It is by an Israeli journalist, Dimi Reider, and it is calm—and sad.
His analysis is that the Israeli people are not ready for a two state solution to the conflict. They claim to be for one, but this is mostly just theoretical well wishing. When asked about things like land swaps, which would be necessary for any deal, they disagree. What’s more, public opinion goes down the more an actual plan comes into focus. So it really comes down to the fact that the Israeli people would like peace, but they really aren’t willing sacrifice anything to get it.
Even worse, Palestinian attacks on Israelis end up hurting the poor almost exclusively, “those who would use public transport and shop in outdoor markets.” Thus, the power elite have no reason to want a settlement to the crisis and the poor are angry about the bombings and so become more nationalistic.
The situation on the Palestinian side is far worse. They have largely learned that violence only makes their lives harder. So Palestinian nonviolent protest—never a minor form of political involvement (not that you would know it from western press coverage)—has greatly expanded in recent years. But this puts them in a Catch-22 situation. If they engage in violence, it will make things worse and will not lead to a negotiated settlement. But if they do not engage in violence, there will be no pressure on the Israeli government to do anything and so it will not lead to a negotiated settlement.
The status quo is generally all right with the Israeli people. And so the Israeli government can stand by and allow more and more illegal settlements in Palestinian land—each one of which only makes a final settlement harder. Historically, conflicts like that between Israel and Palestine would have been resolved with a genocide. But with the eyes of the world watching, Israel can’t do that. (I’m not suggesting that Israel is especially bad here; they are the more powerful group; I don’t think the Palestinians would be any different if they were the more powerful group.) But it is hard to see the constant trickle of illegal settlements as anything but a slow motion genocide.
Given all the problems, I think a solution to this situation will take outside help. This is one of the great tragedies of the Bush Jr administration. We gave up a great opportunity to push for an end to this conflict. Instead, we invaded Iraq. So in addition to all of the bad consequences of that war, the opportunity costs were probably even worse. I see the Israel-Palestine conflict as a local infection that poisons the politics of the rest of the region. It seemed like Kerry was interested in addressing the problem. But he’s shown far more gusto for bombing Syria. I have very little hope for the future when it comes to the whole region, and this Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular.
Afterword
For the record, Al Jazeera America is excellent. Its news coverage is broader and less hysterical than any of the American outlets. And it never wastes my time with stupid coverage of things like Ariel Castro’s suicide.
Here’s a shot-in-the-dark suggestion you can take or leave. I’ve never been able to get much into "graphic novels." Anything involving making superheroes deep bores me, and while most are about real-life subjects now, the superhero ones turned me off the genre.
As with many things, however, I may have been a snob on this one. "Maus" is as good as advertised. and there’s a guy, Joe Sacco, you might check out. He’s an ex-Portlander (oh, wait! Wiki says he’s still a Portlander, put a bird on it!)
Sacco has two books about Gaza, "Palestine" and "Footnotes In Gaza." "Palestine" won awards; I was more hooked by "Footnotes" (it’s a detective story, and I love those.) The thing he does most beautifully is convey the sense of a place and the people living in it without condescending by making them noble or nefarious. They’re just people, in war zones, and they have stories to tell. Sacco tells them, draws them, and draws himself (most unflatteringly); he doesn’t pretend to be uninvolved.
The Gaza books of his are the ones people buy the most, as that’s such a contentious subject, but my favorite of his is "Safe Area: Gorazde", about the Balkans. And while it’s not strictly his book, Sacco’s 50 or so pages of illustrations for Chris Hedges’s "Days Of Destruction, Days Of Revolt" are stunning even without Hedges’s text (which ain’t bad, either, but Hedges can be a bit of a downer.) I thought those illustrations were comparable to Dorothea Lange’s Dust Bowl photos.
So I was a snob against "graphic artists," and now I’m not. That’s the point of that screed.
@JMF – I did read the 9/11 Report graphic novel recently. I think it is a surprisingly good format for serious subjects. For one thing, most nonfiction books are too long. They are too filled with padding. This especially comes out with magazine features that become books. They were usually good features because the author had 20-30 thousand words of material. Pumping it up to 100,000 words doesn’t add anything. So what the hell: pictures! And a lot of the artists are really good.