Reflection 1

One of the most fascinating experiences for me this week was Tuesday’s panel on Pillar of Defense at the IDC Herzliya.  This panel, combined with our other encounters this week, have really brought home for me the necessity of compromise and pragmatism in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. 

The panel illustrated just how complex the situation with Gaza is, and both how difficult and how necessary it is to have flexible policies.   Israel is in a situation of asymmetric warfare against Hamas, in which terrorists shield themselves inside their own civilian compounds after targeting innocent Israeli people.  Moderator Boaz Ganor demonstrated the inescapable problems of the conflict when he explained that, in fact, “there is a problem with the term asymmetric warfare in and of itself.”  It is interesting to see that in some ways, Israel is at a military disadvantage because of its legal and moral constraints, while Hamas has no qualms about doing anything to achieve its goal.   

These complications resulted in an impossible situation, in which the only solution was a moderate policy.  If the Israeli military did not retaliate against Hamas, it endangered its own citizens, and sent a message that terrorist attacks would not elicit punishment.  On the other hand, if Israel retaliated in any way, they would inevitably harm civilians in Gaza; not only morally reprehensible, but an easy target for international disdain.  Israel was forced to choose what is arguably the lesser of two evils.  In the end, many found the operation to be the right call, such as Michael Schmitt of the US Naval War College, who thought that Israel’s restrained air strike was astonishingly successful, with an unbelievably low casualty rate.  However, it was not perfect by any means.  Jessica Montell of B’Tselem questioned the proportionality of 9 of the over 1000 air strikes.  The strike may have been the lesser of two evils, but it was still problematic.  Can something be the right call, but not a total victory in all areas?

I believe that Pillar of Defense illustrates that when it comes to Israel and Palestine, the right call is never going to be a total victory in all areas, for all sides.  In this operation, the Israeli military compromised complete deterrence in order to spare Palestinian lives, and allowed for some casualties in order to protect its people.  From the reading, especially Shelef’s explorations of evolutionary change, I learned that throughout Israeli history, political parties would compromise their “fundamental” values in the name of political pragmatism.  For example, Right-wing parties began to shift their claim to Israel from the Transjordan, when it became clear that this was unrealistic, and these demands would result in no state at all. 

I see echoes of this in the current negotiation situation.  To begin with, both Netanyahu and Abu  Mazen stubbornly refuse to really negotiate with one another because they fear compromising political support at home.  Netanyahu will not compromise, swallow his pride, and freeze the settlements so that Arafat will speak with him.  Conversely, Abu Mazen refuses to come to the table without preconditions, even though once a solution was reached, the settlements would end anyway. 

Our archeological guide Danny Herman, and some other Israelis, express a pessimism that seems to be permeating the society regarding the possibility of compromise.  One could argue that this is part of the problem, too.  One thing that everyone seems to agree is necessary for peace is “good will”—which doesn’t seem to be present.  Many Israelis seem to be disillusioned with the Palestinian’s genuine willingness to compromise, because as they see it, the Palestinians have been offered deal after deal, and keep turning them down in the hope of a better one.  While both sides have missed opportunities to compromise, I can’t help but look back at the Partition Plan.  The Jews agreed to a much less than perfect plan.  They did not turn down the offer and hope for a better deal, because something was better than nothing.  While occupation is terrible and the Palestinians have a right to a state, in my opinion, beggars also cannot be choosers.  If they keep rejecting offers in hope of a better one, the Palestinian leadership may be faced with a situation where there isn’t another offer at all.  And if the Israeli government cannot take the moral high ground and make their own concessions, regarding most of East Jerusalem and freezing the settlements, peace may never be achieved.