Last week I attended a conference at the INSS called “The UN recognition of a Palestinian State and the New Middle East—Challenges for EU foreign Policy.” The conference was very well attended and included keynote speakers such as members of the Knesset, members of the European Parliament and members of PLO and Fatah. The conference was, to say the very least, eye-opening. The topic was supposed to be the EU’s foreign policy however, this was quickly sidelined and the discussion focused on negotiations and Palestinian statehood in general.
It became obvious rather quickly, that not only can Israelis and the Palestinians not agree on the terms of negotiation, they can’t even agree on the terms of the terms of negotiation. I left the conference feeling defeated and depressed but after some reflection, I realized that I did not actually learn anything new about international politics; the conference only served to put theory into reality for me. I also came to a personal conclusion that the beliefs I have; being pro-Israel as the land for the Jewish people and pro-peace/pro-establishment of a Palestinian state, are not contradictory beliefs. In the end, this conference only strengthened my convictions to help find a solution but made the path towards that solution both clearer and more difficult to navigate.
First I realized that Machiavelli was right all along. In chapter 15 of the Prince, Machiavelli articulates a new “effectual truth” that politics is a constant series of power struggles. This new truth brought a radically new definition of politics forward by articulating that the purpose of politics is not what the ancient political philosophers said it was (to be good or teach goodness) but rather to survive and maintain power by surviving and maintaining power through whatever means necessary. He states that all social and political interaction are fundamentally rooted in mankind’s psychological and material needs that result in a drive for power. In a more modern approach—all politics are politics of self interest and it is the primary goal of each state not to act on idealist convictions but to preserve their self-interest (which is most fundamentally security). This was reiterated constantly at the conference: the leader of the Opposition in the Knesset, MK Tzipi Livni articulated quite clearly that it is in Israel’s best interest to negotiate now (because the status-quo is not sustainable for Israel) not out of respect for the Palestinians. Palestinian Chief Negotiator Dr. Sa’eb Erekat said the same thing—he did not wake up one morning feeling sympathetic to the Israeli cause, it is in his people’s best interest to negotiate now.
If it is in both sides’ best interest to negotiate, what is stalling negotiations? (the million dollar question—right?). Well, it goes back to Machiavelli again—it may be in both sides’ best interest to come to a solution, but neither side is willing to give up what it sees as fundamental in order to maintain its state’s interest—in Israel’s case the fundamental security question and in the Palestinian’s case recognizing Israel as a state for the Jewish people. Both Israel and the Palestinians see the need to rely on their own arms and thus it is reasonable that both sides see it from their perspective and none-other—when each side sees the terms from one perspective, the fundamental language of negotiation is difficult to define. The most depressing realization I came to after the conference was that bilateral negotiations are going to be very difficult.
If we were in Machiavelli’s time, there would be no discussion—Israel would have just claimed the territory through conquest and there would be no more argument. But fortunately, our society has advanced—we have entered into a world where a stark realist, Thucydidean mentality (“the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”) is not the only way forward. We live in a world of Liberals—Lockean Liberals—who believe that certain unalienable rights exist for all mankind. I am one of those Liberals who believes that every person should be entitled to their rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” However, it is also important not to forget what Machiavelli said. That is why negotiations have to reflect the current reality. Both sides have to negotiate but that does not mean meeting half-way; if it were as easy as percentages, Israel should have to give up 30-40% while the Palestinians should have to give up 60-70% (I don’t mean in land, I mean in items on the negotiation table). Some would claim that’s not fair however it is “fair” based on all conventions of foreign negotiation and international norms of power.
I guess that makes me seem pretty heartless. But hear me out, yes my view is tinged by what I believe to be protecting Israel’s self interest but it is also tinged by Liberal views. I do not see the Palestinians as the “other” which is a huge advantage I have being an American. I think negotiations will be much easier and the solutions much more seamless if both sides had the same language (and I don’t mean Hebrew or Arabic). People have to stop hating the “other” and get to know each other. There is a fundamental reason why politics don’t look entirely like they did during Machiavelli’s time—it’s because now-a-days we have the ability to see the other side and our Liberal sympathizes shine through when we see people as people—we are less inclined to kill and we are more inclined to come to fair solutions and be more satisfied with the outcomes. You have to get people together, it is the only real way forward.
It is because of these two views I just expressed that for a very long time I felt like a traitor: was I a traitor to the Jewish people for sympathizing with the Palestinians? or a traitor to my Liberal upbringing to believe in the need for a strong Jewish state? However, now I don't think there is a real contradiction. I truly believe that on one level I can support certain policies of the Israeli government because, I see the real security threat and I see the need for a Jewish Israel. But I also see how the effects of these policies hurt people and I believe I can work on the ground level to make life better for people.
Ultimately, Israelis and Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, Christians and Arabs all have to get together in order to try and at least understand where the other side is coming from. Because even if a negotiation comes about in the near future—it will never be stable until people can stop hating and stop seeing people as the “other.”
No comments:
Post a Comment