Closed minds

My last post, Sinister Innocence, elicited a number of positive reactions which showed it touched a cord. I was also sent an excellent "open letter" addressed to Doron Isaacs written by Jonathan Zausmer which I would like to place on this blog and am awaiting permission from the author.

My letter to Business Day in response to Jonny Steinberg was not published. I approached Shaun de Waal of the M & G, a journalist/writer whom I respect, for permission to write an article for publication roughly along the lines of the post, Sinister Innocence, which I sent him for reference. (I pointed out that as it stood it was merely a guide to the form the article would take, that it was not suitable as it stood for newspaper publication). I reproduce below the reply I received:

"Hi Mike

I think I said that, as far as the comment pages were concerned, we'd want
to steer clear of Israel/Palestine unless there was something new to be
said. Drew's piece was a piece of colourful, analytical reporting from "on
the ground" in the West Bank -- and it wasn't in the opinion pages, so
qualified as a news feature.

What we don't want is more of the generalised, almost abstract debate about
the issues, the kinds of opinions that we've all seen before, which tend to
take up old attitudes and then turn into a ping-pong match of pro and anti.

Such pieces need to be anchored in specific events. They need to analyse
actual goings-on, new developments etc, in a hard-headed way, rather than
simply reproducing the usual rhetoric without a hook to the news. That's the
key thing.

I agree that the debate is useless, because it goes round and round --
witness the Kasrils et al correspondence in the letters pages. The news and
other pages will obviously reflect any fresh developments, and the opinion
section should, I feel, contain proper analysis of those developments. My
own feeling is that our comment pages in general should be more analytical
in relation to specific events rather than simply broad opinions on ongoing
issues.

Best
Shaun "


So far I have not responded to de Waal. But this weekend, Mondli Makhanya, the chief editor of the Sunday Times, published a long Opinion piece entitled "The never-ending face-off". (It can be accessed here. If this doesn't work try cutting and pasting http://www.monitoringsa.com/PDFS/2008_07_27_342496.pdf and if that also fails, write me - as a last resort please.

I reproduce my response to the Makhanya article below. I did not attempt to soften my sense of outrage, which some of you may feel is undiplomatic. But I am sick of the closed minds of Israel's detractors and don't believe a mutually civil dialogue can be established with the wilfully blind. I write to the press, not with any illusion of getting through, but simply not to allow vile slanders to pass without comment. It is a painful job.

To the Sunday Times:

“The primary intention of our visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories was to understand the reality…. We intend to be sensitive to the anxieties and perspectives that exist, and to use our visit to promote thoughtful discussion within and between our communities.”

These are two quotes from the Concluding Statement of the 23 member Human Rights Delegation which recently visited the West Bank and Israel. Within a couple of weeks of their return I’m aware of 4 public articles written by members of the delegation, the latest being Mondli Makhanya in the Sunday Times, 27 July.

In each Israel is targeted as primarily responsible for Palestinian suffering, which is dealt with in detail. Makhanya speaks (twice) of “diabolical”. He compares Israeli actions directly and indirectly to apartheid – only worse – and speaks of collective punishment and bulldozers. Palestinian hatred and intransigence is understandable in terms of Israeli “kragdadigheid”, clearly a bankrupt policy according to Makhanya. No alternative, except implicitly Jewish national (and possibly physical) obliteration, is proposed.

There is no mention of Israeli women and children blown to bits in buses, in malls and in family get-togethers. There is no mention of the liberated murderer, Sami Kuntar, who amongst other deeds killed a 4 year-old child by bashing her head against a rock, being welcomed home as a hero and role model. There is no mention of Israeli reservists being dismembered by the mob and having their body parts displayed for public approval. There is no mention of the systematic indoctrination of Arab and Palestinian children with the worst antisemitic propaganda since the Nazi heyday.

There is also no mention that the Palestinians chose the path of confrontation and violence. Makhanya is right when he points to the comparative prosperity and normality of Nablus (and the rest of the West Bank and Gaza) prior to the Second Intifada. Separate statehood was around the corner – Israel had already offered most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

But the Palestinians (here also include other Arab-Muslim groups) did not especially want statehood; they wanted the destruction of Israel. Many members of the delegation will never “understand the reality” since they have closed their minds, and their pages, to most of that reality. History, I hope, will judge them harshly – as I do now.

Mike Berger

Sinister innocence

I recently attended a report-back meeting given by 4 members of the ‘human rights delegation’ to Israel, which returned a few days ago, to the Cape divisions of the South African Zionist Council and Board of Deputies.

The delegation comprised 23 people of diverse backgrounds with strong credentials in the activist community, in writing and the media and in the legal profession. Their intention was, and I quote, “Rather than attempting to bring solutions, or to spend our time here debating solutions, we came to learn, and to witness first-hand the suffering, pain, anger, human rights abuses.”

Any hope that, limited as those aims were, they at least included the whole human spectrum in Israel, we are told that “We came to support…a new and small movement of Palestinian-Israeli non-violent struggle.”

This makes clear what is quite apparent from both their itinerary and their subsequent communications, that some suffering is more legitimate than others. Less legitimate are the aspirations and concerns of the vast majority of Israelis outside a tiny activist group and the Palestinian population within their circle of moral concern.

In case I’m accused of overstating this, let it be said the delegation did pay a visit to Yad Vashem where some were, reportedly, deeply moved by the experience. The suffering of Jews in Europe is far too sanctified a topic to be ignored by Western “human rights activists”. No such inhibitions apply to real dyed-in-wool Western antisemites or to significant swathes of the Muslim community who scoff at the Holocaust while threatening a new one.

But, having paid their respects to the past our delegation got on with the business of reducing the 60 year struggle for survival of Israel and its 6.5 million Jews (mostly refugees and their descendents from the Holocaust or pre-and post-Holocaust persecution) mainly to an issue of Palestinian “human rights” and suffering. They could now safely ignore the eerie similarity (and purpose) between the pre-Holocaust campaign to demonise and dehumanise Jews and the current propaganda campaign against Israel in Islamic nations and communities and across much of the West.

Thus, while the delegation claims to be “sensitive to the anxieties and perspectives that exist”, that did not stop at least 3 of them from writing publically of their experiences. The reader will have no doubt what the general tenor of these articles were and who emerged the villain. My letter in response to Jonny Steinberg’s article in Business Day was not published (which was no surprise) but can be found on Solar Plexus (www://froggyfarm.blogspot.com).

To return to the report-back: I left after the meeting had been in progress for about two hours. The first hour, no less, was taken up by presentations from each of the 4 members present. They were heartfelt and articulate – and essentially old hat to anyone who had concerned themselves with Israel. Being “old hat” does not make them irrelevant; humanitarian concerns deserve to be taken seriously. There is good reason to support the efforts of those (including the delegation) who wish to improve relations between peoples in conflict and to alleviate suffering. If that was where it ended, I would applaud their efforts and commitment without reservation.

But that is not where it ends as the 3 highly selective articles and the report-back indicate. In so doing, either knowingly or unwittingly, they have contributed to the systematic propaganda initiative to isolate Israel and to undermine its legitimacy as an independent state. But, on the rather suspect assumption that all dialogue is useful, I will take the delegates commitment to “engage…with all our communities and constituencies” seriously.

I start by requesting them to discard the selectively narrow-focus lens they use to justify their position, and to accept that there is no such thing as an “Israeli-Palestinian” conflict in any meaningful sense. They need to start by acknowledging that the conflict in the Middle East has dimensions in both time and space, and in other ways as will become apparent.

At an absolute minimum there is an Israel-Arab/Palestinian/Muslim conflict to which should be added both the USA and the West as a whole. This conflict can be deconstructed further into frontline components like terror groups in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, supported directly by Iran and Syria, and less overtly across much of the Middle East, significant sections of the global Islamic community and even by elements in the West. Israel is, of course, supported by the USA and more ambiguously by some of the West. Nor is the conflict focussed exclusively on Israel, but is a wider challenge to the legitimacy and hegemony of the West.

Nor did the “conflict” start with the “occupation” of Palestinian territory, but in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries when a desperate Jewish national movement in the Middle East came into direct contact with a newly burgeoning Arab nationalism and Islamic religious revival. It commenced with guerrilla warfare and progressed through large-scale military operations. When this failed, emphasis was laid on terror widely directed against Israel and global Jewry. With the 1948 and, more especially, the 1967 war with the loss of the West Bank and Gaza, the newly emerging national consciousness of the Palestinian Arab population could be put to good use.

By keeping the Palestinian-Arab population isolated from their kith and kin in the surrounding Arab states and in refugee camps in “the territories”, the war could now be presented as “struggle” against a colonial occupier rather than a war of annihilation against the Jewish state. The Palestinians became simultaneously prime breeding grounds for militant terror groups and symbols of a brutalised, oppressed people.

Together with the emergence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, the economic and military strength of Israel could be offset by fanaticism, small-scale but potent weaponry, by what one commentator calls the “tyranny of close quarters” and by a huge propaganda campaign against the “apartheid state” of Israel. It was also necessary to enlist Israeli Arabs to the side of their ethnic and religious kin and make maximum use of the democratic freedoms enjoyed in Israel to undermine Israeli resistance. The problem was to keep Israel entrapped in the West Bank and Gaza morass.

That turned out to be simple: make sure that any offer to settle, as in 1999/2000, would be rejected, preferably on as many grounds as possible. Ensure that Israelis know that concession of territory is simply a step on the way to ultimate extinction, while going through the pretence of bona fides for the rest of the world. When Israel bails out of Gaza keep the rockets raining down while the world shrugs, but squeal loudly when Israel retaliates by partially closing the border. If Israel does not close the border tightly enough, then attack the border posts so that the Gazans can be presented as real victims. Ensure that there will always be new grounds for grievance, which of course can only be settled by terror disguised as resistance. Maintain a systematic programme of antisemitic indoctrination and glorify Jihad as a cultural ideal.

Such measures are more than sufficient to scuttle any realistic Israeli peace movement and ensure that Israel keeps its military presence in the West Bank.

But propaganda and local tactical violence can only work if the population goes along with it. As the pain of being kept hostage to the idea of liberation and the destruction of Israel bites and realisation seems to remain as far distant as ever, even the most indoctrinated, angry population rebels. The sight of prosperous and largely defiant Israel, while humiliating and infuriating, also poses the question of whether the strategy is working.

Such doubts can be combated by renewed propaganda, by the supportive efforts of Western sympathisers and by terror directed at dissidents, but only to a point beyond which it becomes counterproductive. Victories, even the release of murderers like Sami Kuntar, may temporarily raise the hopes of falterers but without more tangible signs, the whole strategic edifice is vulnerable.

This where the peace initiative may hold out some hope, but it is precarious indeed. Palestinians will not get what they hope for and what propaganda has held out as their right. Israel will not move back to its 1967 borders for totally legitimate security reasons (amongst others). It will not allow the free return of refugees and will certainly think carefully about surrendering sovereignty over even part of Jerusalem. There will be no glorious leap into independence, but a grindingly slow movement towards a Palestinian state still partly dependent on Israeli goodwill. Extremists (on both sides) will do their best to keep the pot boiling.

With the realistic possibility of an Iranian nuclear device the potential to upset any possibility of a peaceful resolution is enormously amplified. This development holds out the prospect of a return to a conventional military threat, magnified by the spectre of a nuclear conflagration. The precarious balance whereby the advantages of demography, geography and fanaticism on the Arab-Islam-Palestinian side are offset by the military technology and skills of the Israelis is seriously destabilized.

Innocence and ignorance in those purporting to speak from positions of moral authority and superior education on matters carrying enormous implications for the lives of others, can be lethal and morally abhorrent – especially when based on wilful denialism. There seems to be little point to serious dialogue with those who simply refuse to seriously acknowledge reality. The result of the articles already published by some delegates is to further demonise Israel and advance the diplomatic-propaganda agenda of her enemies. This will make peace more remote.

Nothing I have said suggest moral blamelessness on the part of Israel. Nor does it imply that Israel has always made the best choices and has not contributed to the present situation. It is unlikely that the current multi-pronged and existential pressure on Israel has come about entirely through the conscious, deliberate actions of a coherent Arab leadership, though undoubtedly conscious planning has played a role. To a considerable extent both “sides” are gripped in a complex Prisoner’s Dilemma in which rational strategy on the part of each guarantees a sub-optimal outcome. Furthermore, given the circumstances, one can reliably predict that Palestinian suffering will continue and that some Israelis will act in a manner which is morally repugnant.

The point of this article is to argue that the kind of reductionism reflected in the writing and actions of the human rights delegation is to Israel is not simply mistaken: it is seriously destructive and morally dubious. If and when this stance is repudiated (even tacitly) it will be possible to search for some common ground. At present this prospect seems fragile.

Mike Berger

Small flames: a response

Jonny Steinberg wrote a one-sided and misleading article in Business Day 17 July headed "Small flames of empathy in a wind of subjugation" (http://www.monitoringsa.com/PDFS/2008_07_17_326926.pdf). David Saks responded with an effective letter on 18 July and I have just submitted a letter of my own, reproduced below. It only scratches the surface of the issues raised in Steinberg's article but it is the best one can do under the circumstances.

"Jonny Steinberg’s verbal brilliance obscures the intellectual and ethical poverty of his piece in Business Day, 17 July (Small flames of empathy in a wind of subjugation). Does he imagine that only his small band of self-styled progressives and activists are capable of feeling empathy or that the ordinary Israeli kid, compelled to police the West Bank, enjoys the dirty work of survival?

Steinberg assures us that he was “moderately well informed” before leaving on his deliberately selective tour of the West Bank/Israel but where is that is revealed in his writing. Where, for instance, does he ask why it was necessary for the Israelis to go to the extraordinary expense and trouble of creating a “vein-like network of roads” for the exclusive use of the settlers, whereas Israeli Arabs are free to travel where they like within Israel?

If he had enquired, he would have discovered that it was because the young Palestinian boys with “bullet belts slung over their shoulders” had murdered over a 1000 Israelis in the early years of the Intifada, and that Jewish settlers in the West Bank would suffer a similar fate without the roads, checkpoints and barriers.

Ah, says Steinberg (and his clones) at this point: “if the Israelis simply vacated the West Bank this “subjugation” would not be necessary. The hate, systematically incalcated into the minds of Palestinian and many Arab and Muslim children of the region, would dissipate and peace would descend on the Middle East”.

Would that were true. The Israelis tried to leave in 1999/2000 when the West Bank had been prospering economically, growing by leaps and bounds demographically and with its health and mortality figures showing the benefits of cooperation and relative peace. The answer was the Intifada and its consequences.

They cannot leave because Hamas, Hizbollah, Iran, and others less overtly, have made it clear that any “retreat” on the part of Israel is but a step on the road to total “liberation”. Or does Steinberg’s information conveniently end before he reaches this point in the narrative?

Steinberg’s perspective is revealed in his last paragraph where Israelis are implicitly enjoined to nurture the “little bridges being built”, not simply out of a common humanity, but because when American dominance happily ends they may need the supposed goodwill of their enemies.

Jews have suffered the tenderness of strangers for more than 2000 years of statelessness, which is precisely the reason why Israel was created. Steinberg may wish to reflect further on this while he enjoys the hospitality of the City University of New York."

Mike Berger

The Islamic Agenda?

I reprint below a piece entitled "Islamic Imperialism" written by Willie Paterson, an ardent Christian supporter of Israel. We owe a great deal to the courageous and steadfast support of our Christian friends and I am delighted to welcome them to SOLAR PLEXUS.

There have been critics from within the Jewish community claiming that progressive Zionists should shun the support derived from Christian groups. The reasons they advance include the purported "rightwing" political stance of such groups or alleged religious agendas underlying such support. Sometimes, I suspect it is simply a visceral dislike of the religiosity displayed by some of the more vocal of the Christian evangelical churches.

I don't find any of this convincing. I disagree mildly and sometimes profoundly with the views of many Jewish Zionists, but recognise that were I to insist that every supporter of Israel share my world-view I would find myself confined to a small and ineffectual coalition of fellow conformists. Thus we should welcome every supporter except where their actions or words are so ethical dubious or dangerous to clearly disqualify them. I certainly don't find this amongst the Christians I have been in contact with.

That does not mean that I necessarily agree with everything that our ally and friend, Willie Paterson, has written. I am not sure, for instance, that every more towards improving ecumenical relationships is a covert strategy for undermining the West, though we should not be naive about such matters. The main issue is how to differentiate and combat political Islam while not lapsing into irrational Islamophobia.

While readers ponder this, they may also consider the "Quote du Jour" representing leftwing thought within Israel and outside. This position was discussed more fully in my previous post "Liberal heart, neocon brain" and seems considerably more naive and dangerous than most writings coming from the Christian Zionist camp.

These are issues we should discuss further on this blog. But in the meantime, here is Willie Paterson's article after very minor editing:

Islamic Imperialism.

“The United States and the West cannot win the war against radical Islam merely with the most sophisticated military strategies. Winning requires understanding the role of shari'a and the Muslim Brotherhood in developing a global ideological and political movement supported by a parallel "Islamic" financial system to exploit and undermine Western economies and markets. This movement is the foundation and the major funding source for the political, economic, and military initiatives of the global Islamic movement.” (FrontPage Magazine.com, 14 June 2008).

The Western world underestimates the power of radical Islam. In the political arena Islam are either over-represented demographically or use it as a platform to foster radicalism. A case in point is the Israeli Parliament which because of its democratic nature has Arab representatives in the Knesset, some of whom abuse those democratic privilegies to advance their radical ideas. Pressure is building up on the South African Parliament to abolish certain religious holidays which are dear to the Christian Community.

In the financial market the Islamic demand is for segregated services. Most mainstream banks in the Western World have an Islamic Banking department. Does that mean that any religion has the right to their own brand of banking. If not, for what reason does a minority group have that right or is it just another instrument towards the dream to establish a caliphate.

On the religious front ecumenical relations are fostered in the name of peace. This is contrary to the Koran which only acknowledges Islam as a religion. Religious leaders should study these covert agendas more closely.

The SA human rights delegation to Israel should also be monitored carefully. Consisting of strong Muslim influence, this delegation could be hijacked to portray their particular views. It is so that every peaceful avenue must be exhausted to solve political issues, but we must be aware of hidden agendas.

And this is not cynicism, we have to see the world as it is. We are caught in the crossfire of a fierce ideological war.

It is time for the Western world to take note of the often perceived small, but highly successful steps towards Sharia law or a world of Dar al Islaam.

Willie Paterson

Liberal heart, Neocon brain

Gershom Gorenberg, a liberal modern orthodox Israeli, and Haim Watzman have an excellent blog entitled SouthJerusalem. They sound like the kind of intelligent, sympathetic people one would like to know and they have put their money where their mouth is by emigrating from the USA to Israel. Gershom is the author of a challenging article (see here) in Prospect UK, a general middle-of-the-road intellectual UK magazine.

In it he argues for a stronger liberal-dovish Israel-Jewish lobby in the USA, reflecting the position of the majority of American Jews according to Gershom, to counter AIPAC which he labels rightwing. He claims, possibly correctly, that they would reflect an Israeli reality which seeks dialogue with Israel's enemies on the basis of a two-state solution and the usual set of compromises advocated by moderate peaceniks.

He sounds plausible and I much prefer the tone of his writing to the xenophobic and paranoidal ring which afflicts so many rightwing (mainly, but not exclusively, religious) commentators. Despite this, I suspect he is guilty of a great deal of wishful thinking with potentially catastrophic consequences for Jews and Israelis specifically. In a comment (accessible here) I said the following:

"Gershom confuses his desire for a kinder, juster world (which most of us share) for analysis. He believes labelling people as left/right or neocon/liberal is helpful in itself; it isn’t. He contrasts “shortterm security needs” with “longterm peace”. But if you don’t have the essential shorterm security the longterm is irrelevant. And who says, that “concessions”, justice, kindness will contribute to peace against opponents (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran for instance) who are interested in your destruction, not your friendship? Of course justice, kindness and magnanimity can be pursued for their own sakes and not for the political dividends they bring - but that is another matter. What does Gorem say to the argument that the political situation demands a decisive Israeli (Western) military victory, the end of 2-state hopes, the extension of Israel to more defensible borders, expulsion of all those not willing to live in peace in a Jewish Israel and hopefully a raprochement and even cooperation with neighbours who understand Israel is there to stay and that it would be more rational to get along. This would require USA (and Western) longterm commitment of course, and that may be the biggest stumbling block. As much as my heart is liberal my head is a neocon - with some imagination I hope."

This deserves a couple more qualifications. It is entirely possible, indeed desirable, to combine a fairly hardline (realistic) political stance with a liberal, non-racist personal orientation. The political and personal are two different realms. It is not too difficult to understand that the Arab-Muslim threat to Israel arises out of political, cultural and other contextual historical and current realities and does not reflect some intrinsic evil in either the people or in the Islamic religion.

That does not make the threat any less real, and thus my political stance is extremely realistic.

Shlomo Aveneri (in Haaretz) points to the multiple dimensions and incredible complexity of the so-called Israel-Palestine conflict which makes any prospect for a comprehensive resolution highly improbable. But, drawing on examples from the ethnic conflicts in Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia and Kashmir, he argues that there is a role for conflict management.

By that he refers to the mix of diplomatic, economic, scientific and other initiatives aimed at reducing the intensity and likelihood of violence while allowing slower processes of cooperation, improved security and political advance to move the parties closer to a viable peace.

Whether this is any more realistic than the hope that empathy and concessions will make dialogue possible is, in my view, dubious. I suspect that at some time it will become apparent both to Israel and the USA (and the West in general) that a decisive military victory (however that is defined) must precede any political resolution. But that recognition cannot be indefinitely delayed without rendering success more difficult or even impossible.

But to reiterate: a realistic political posture does not require uncalled for brutality or racist and xenophobic attitudes. That demeans us and certainly does not advance our interests.

Mike Berger

The Darkling Plain

I've been off-air for a while but not dormant (from "dormir" to sleep (French) see also dormitory etc). The title of this post is taken, as many of you will know, from Matthew Arnold's famous poem "Dover Beach" written in 1867. The final stanza is reproduced in the Quotes du Jour alongside.
They are amongst the most intense and moving lines of poetry that I know and perhaps the most painful part is that in considerable measure they are as true today as they were nearly century and a half ago. Of course, they have been widely used by others and readers may find the following Wiki link interesting - click here.

Before I go further click here for a short but excellent summary of some of the implications of the Hamas-Israel truce and related negotiations. At the end of this blog I list further sites where good information and analysis can be found.

Part of the last week I've spent dealing with one of the issues raised by the poem; namely, the relationship between personal and political truth. This question has always resided in my semiconscious and was sparked into activity by the book entitled “The Vocabulary of Peace: Life, Culture and Politics in the Middle East” by Shulamith Hareven written way back in 1995. The author was both a Zionist and a universalist but, above all, a powerful and poetic writer widely recognised in Israel and abroad. She died in 2004 aged 73 years. Her voice is that of the Israeli liberal left but is much more grounded in experienced realities than the more ideological and fanatic members of the Peace Now movement and other similar organisations.

Nevertheless, despite my respect and admiration for her book I felt it failed to recognise the gap between the personal and political and thus failed to do justice to the multi-dimensionality of the Middle East reality. I have written an article entitled "The darkling plain" to explore further my thoughts on these issues and have submitted it to Ferial Haffejee of the Mail and Guardian. Her response has been positive and without an absolute commitment at this stage, the paper is seriously considering publication. I won't post it on this blog before I have a clear answer but in time it will appear.

As an "activist writer" in defense of Israel in the the local media I am the recipient (sought and unsought) of numerous items relating broadly to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and related political questions. I find much - certainly not all - on both sides of the fence to be shrill, selective, and often just banal. Some of it is counterproductive (at least as far as I am concerned). Excessive negative rhetoric prompts me to question the motives and judgement of the writer.

The "big issue" for many supporters of Israel is: how does one retain one's humanity while at the same time acknowledging political realities and remaining commited to a cause? I

I cannot give a formulaic answer to the question but believe that Israel will be better served by honesty and even criticism (especially if informed and thoughtful) than blind idolatry. I would be interested in the views of others.

Nevertheless, we simply cannot turn a blind eye to the hatred that is being disseminated by the Islamist camp - to see a recent article by Matthias Kuntzel on the phenomenon click here. Is this part of Islam in general? I don't know the answer but do accept that elements within Islam can be used by extremist groups to justify hatred. However, I see little to be gained by making the whole of Islam (with its 1.5 billion adherents) our inevitable enemies. Rather focus on the extremists, isolate them from the body of Islam and encourage the religion to move toward greater enlightenment and tolerance.

For the more scholarly readers I recommend the following items

The New Post-Zionist Historians by Yoav Gelber published by the AJC in 2007. It is a substantial (36 pages), critical but scholarly look at the writings and assumptions of a number of post-Zionist (anti-Zionist would be more accurate) historians. Those interested can write to me directly and I will send them the pdf file. I suggest you have broadband.

An interview with RS Wistrich on Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture published by the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs in July 2008. For the internet version click here.

In addition, I strongly recommend the following sites to keep yourself informed on Jewish-Israeli-Palestinian affairs on an on-going basis:

Daily Alert

British Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM)

Jewish Israel News Service (JTA)

In addition to these sites one can directly log into the Israeli media which generally have good on-line publications. I would also draw your attention to a new UK publication with a conservative bent, Standpoint. It would be interesting to compare this with Commentary (USA mainly Jewish in orientation), The New Republic (USA, general) and Prospect (UK, general).

Finally, I would be interested in reviews or suggestions regarding other material (books, articles etc) that move beyond propaganda to deal in a non-academic but intelligent way with Israel and the Middle East. Please send in your contributions.

Mike Berger

Intractible Conflict

Intractable conflict is a subspecies of “cultural persistence”, that is, cultural patterns that recreate themselves across time over extraordinarily long periods.

Intractable conflict is especially interesting since there are real costs to the protagonists. Nevertheless, certain conflicts seem to go and on despite the obvious disadvantages and pain that they cause those closely involved. The Israeli-Palestinian stand-off is a current example. It has been going strong for a century or so and resolution seems elusive.

There are a number of obvious factors contributing to the longevity of this particular conflict. For instance, despite a number of military losses, the Palestinians have not been decisively defeated in the full sense of the term. They have not been dispersed and incorporated into the populations of other nations but exist in substantial numbers on the borders of Israel or as enclaves (refugees) within the boundaries of a few host nations like Syria and Lebanon. Their numbers have substantially increased rather than diminished. Thus the two protagonists still stand eyeball to eyeball, and elements within both camps still hope for the decisive victory for which they have striven.

Then, of course, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been incorporated into the agendas of various regional and global groups. For some regional players the conflict has strategic value of various kinds by mobilising public opinion behind a specific party or individual or by deflecting popular criticism or serving as a bargaining chip in dealings with other powers and rivals. In the web of regional interpersonal, intergroup and interstate rivalries the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has instrumental value over-and-above its direct emotional significance for their neighbours.

As much as this is true regionally, it also holds at a global level. Israel plays a significant part in the American presidential election for instance, and the candidates take great care in establishing their support for the Jewish state. This deeply riles those, like Mearsheimer and Walt, who resent the concern for Israel displayed by mainstream politicians and their supporters. They attribute this to the devious machinations of the “Jewish-Israeli Lobby” and, while this lobby has certainly been effective, their success is based upon many shared values as well as strategic concerns between the USA and Israel.

There is little doubt that the conflict has also played a role in shading the relationship between America and her allies. This is difficult to quantify since it is but one strand in a host of differences between the Old World and the New as well as between the Third World and the West. The conflict is certainly outweighed by other more direct strategic interests and differences, but can play a complicating role.

Besides these obvious factors which make the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so convoluted, I would argue that a significant part of the problem is that it has become widely institutionalised and woven into the very fabric of institutional and individual lives, both at the local and global level.

Locally it is obvious. The IDF exists primarily to defend itself from the threat posed by the Palestinians and their backers. The IDF is a major and constant factor in Israeli life. Quite apart from its military function it serves to integrate and unite the very diverse elements which go to make up Israeli society. Similarily in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon, as well as elsewhere in the region, specific organisations (eg. Hamas, Hizbollah and may other lesser groups) receive their justification and validation through the role they play in the so-called “resistance” to Israeli aggression. This provides a cover for self-advancement and enrichment through a host of borderline or outrightly criminal activities.

Similarily, at a global level, many leftwing (and a few rightwing) groups justify and define themselves through their stance in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian question. Personal advancement and self-publicity can be achieved through an activist posture relative to the conflict. Such groups become part of a de facto network of pro-Palestinian organisations and in this way become self-perpetuating. They also block resolution by polarising debate and by encouraging extremist postures.

Besides opportunities for status, prestige and even material advancement (and I have not even mentioned the importance of economic activity associated with what may be broadly termed the “military-industrial complex” according to Eisenhower) offered to protagonists on both sides of the conflict, the dispute also serves various psychological needs. These include the need for meaning and purpose, for self-validation and for venting personal frustration and anger into acceptable channels of social activity. This probably plays an important role in creating recruits for terror groups and for motivating both the vociferous leftwing opponents and, to a lesser extent, even the defenders of the American-Israeli axis.

This brief survey both understates and overstates the nature of the “institutionalisation” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It would be possible to advance many more examples of its influence and involvement in economic, political, social and personal spheres than I have offered here. But at the same time it is often just one, sometimes a small, component of many other causal factors and does not always play a determining role in deciding the course of events. It may also be argued that the same analysis could be applied to any conflict or political issue of some magnitude. I would not dispute this- see for example, Tibet, China, the Sudan and so forth.

But it would be hard to argue that the intertwining of the Middle East conflict with the existence and fates of individuals and collectivities of various kinds, both regional and global, does not add to the difficulty of resolution. Thomas Friedman (in the Sunday Times this week) and others also point to the fact that the whole Israeli-Palestinian situation has acquired a kind of emotional inertia and is in danger of simply perpetuating itself unless sufficient energy is devoted to its resolution, notably by the USA. Be that as it may, I believe it is more than simple inertia - that the conflict suits the agendas of many people and groups on both sides of the divide and also that resolution is feared for the unexpected and anticipated problems which could follow in its wake.

In the long run intractability cannot be good. The conflict is a potential longterm existential threat to Israel, it is a recruiting tool for extremists and terrorists, it creates misery and hatred amongst millions of Palestinians, it distorts Israel’s foreign and domestic policies and is a polarising force in global politics. We should not give up on Peace.

Mike Berger