Israel, Gaza, and Avoidance of Reductionism
For several months, now, I've been avoiding making public comments on almost anything related to the Israel/Gaza debacle because I, myself, am very conflicted about the issues. Indeed, the ONLY thing that's really clear to me is that there's no good side and damned few good guys in this bloody and tragic spectacle. There's only victims. A shocking and historically tragic number of victims. And a lot of political leaders around the world who are unwilling to take a meaningful stand … not necessarily because they're “Zionists,” or “pro or anti-Israel or pro or anti-Semitic.” Rather, it’s because this situation is very complicated, and in almost all cases there's a lot of risk and at the national level no discernible percentage in becoming involved in this international drama.
Meanwhile, polities around the world who likely don’t understand the politics and dangers of sanctions on Israel are rising up to protest the ongoing murder and violence. In response, political leaders of virtually all countries are suppressing the protests. So along with the United States, protests in support of Palestinians are springing up at universities not only in Australia and Europe, but in many countries in the Middle East that are generally assumed to be predisposed to support Palestine. Officials in one country after another, however, are limiting or prohibiting demonstrations.
While there are no notable good guys in this conflict, there of course are bad guys, with Israel's hard right being the worst among them, followed closely by the militant Hamas. Biden has one foot in the 'bad guy camp' for failing to explain his reticence to stop the arms flow to Israel. But I believe that the complexity of his political situation is very much unrecognized and under-appreciated by his detractors, and that he also has one foot planted firmly in good guy territory. Furthermore, I'm not ruling out the real possibility that through private negotiations he and his administration have done far more to limit the carnage than we're aware of.
Be that as it may, my inner conflict is not about who is right and wrong, or whether the USA should continue to support Israel with arms. Those questions are easily answered: both sides are wrong, and of course the US should have stopped sending any offensive weapons early on in the war.
My conflict, rather, hinges on two other points.
First, the protests seem to purposely ignore the elephant: that the right of Israel to exist CANNOT be in question in any meaningful sense. That's not an expression of political preferences, or what should be the case. Rather, it's merely a statement of what is possible. The dissolution of the Israeli state is simply not within the realm of practical possibilities. It will not and cannot happen absent global destruction. For that reason, it's uselessly inflammatory and silly to rationalize justifications for slogans such as ‘River to the Sea,’ because that language is highly threatening and only flames the fan of Israeli nationalism … which is, at this point, what “Zionism” really means, right? Is it really so unique or unnatural for Israelis to react violently and strongly to their own destruction?
I don't believe it is, and the hackneyed justification that destroying Israel because Palestine was destroyed and ‘turnabout is fair play’ is irrelevant in this situation. It's clear to me that no matter how one feels about Israel's right to exist, short of some nuclear conflagration Israel will persevere.
Which leads to the next point: that a two-state solution is the only reasonable resolution to this conflict. Anything else means the utter obliteration of Palestine and a thoroughly genocidal diaspora of Palestinians … or an escalation of the conflict to a much more deadly and dangerous regional, or maybe global, conflict in which both the United States and greater Europe would almost certainly be allied with Israel.
To my second point: the rhetoric I’m hearing in the protests seems not to focus on pushing for a two-state solution. If anything, it seems to assiduously avoid it. Instead, the focus is on “divestment,” presumably on the grounds that it is a symbolic step that can be taken at the individual university level, with the goal of forcing the institutions to publicly consider sanctions against Israel. The ultimate hope, I assume, would be to foster a public reaction that at some point would serve to discourage Israel’s bloody campaign to conquer and destroy Palestine.
Even given enough time … the kind of time that was available in the effort to end South African apartheid, but which surely doesn't apply in this case … the hope that divestment might have any real economic impact on Israel is unrealistic for a number of reasons. Meanwhile, a student “victory” such as the much touted concession by Brown University to consider divestiture of a small portion of its endowment portfolio at a regents meeting next fall – is meaningless in the short- or even medium-term.
All of which is to say that there is an undeniable and appropriate sense of horror and urgency about the ongoing slaughter in Gaza. Protest, even disruptive protest expressing wild indignation, is an absolutely appropriate and commendable response to the kind of slaughter happening in Gaza. What is not appropriate, however, is the refusal of protestors to accurately and honestly name and articulate their real ambitions and goals. And if that goal is anything other than ardent promotion of a two-state solution, pro-Palestinian activists need to be clear what it is, and provide some reason to believe that it can be achieved without destroying our entire world.
World Politics Review 20240501 “Daily Review: Pro-Palestinian Protests, and Crackdowns, Spread Globally.” https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/daily-review-palestine-campus-protests/
CNN 20240426 “What is divestment? And does it work?” https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/