Debating the Israel-Palestinian Conflict–Part 2

Continued from Part 1 of Debating the Conflict:

Claim: Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

Argument:

Israel has numerous, diverse political parties and conducts democratic elections. It has a robustly free press (though just recently, the Israeli government shut down “Al Jazeera,”  which could signal the typical first step of cracking down on a free press by an emerging authoritarian regime). Passionate public debates about policies occur routinely. The High Court ensures a balance of power and guarantees the rights of minorities.

Counterargument:

Democracy does not exist for the three million Palestinians under Israeli government control in the West Bank (or for the two million in Gaza over which Israel has responsibility for governing following its invasion). Israel cannot be a genuine liberal democracy as long as seven million Jews control seven million Palestinians. Most of the two million Israeli Palestinians would likely agree they are treated as second-class citizens whose acceptance by their Jewish compatriots is limited. The Palestinians living in the West Bank aren’t even citizens and lack basic human rights. Israel routinely violates international law, demolishes Palestinian homes, enforces collective punishments, confiscates land, and implements a system of legal discrimination against Palestinians, etc.

My Verdict: False

Sadly, Israel is not currently living up to its claimed status as a liberal democracy and can only regain the status of a true democracy by returning occupied territories and relinquishing its control over five million non-citizen Palestinians.

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: Israel is an apartheid state.

Argument:

Israel exerts control over the occupied West Bank (and now also over Gaza). Jewish settlers but not Palestinians living in the West Bank are allowed to use certain roads. Palestinians cannot travel freely and are subjected to numerous (at least 140 fully or occasionally staffed) checkpoints when traveling. They commonly face insurmountable hurdles when trying to obtain building permits for expanding families. Settlers run rampant in the West Bank and have murdered Palestinians with impunity.

(See A Day in the Life of Abed Salama-Anatomy of a Jerusalem Tragedy by Nathan Thrall for background info.)

Counterargument:

Apartheid was a distinctly South African system of racial discrimination. Israel has had no choice but to impose restrictions in response to terrorist actions and security threats. The two million Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship have the same rights as other Israelis (theoretically).

My Verdict: True for the occupied West Bank

Though we may quibble about the word, essentially Israel has established a system analogous to apartheid in the West Bank. It is unconscionable to accept this as a long-term solution to its very real security issues. This illustrates one way in which occupation degrades and destroys the occupier’s morality.

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: Palestinians are the victims; Israel is the perpetrator in this conflict.

Argument:

Israel has control over the West Bank and Gaza (even when it was not occupying Gaza, it enforced a total siege on Gaza). Israel has the upper hand militarily and has prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state while implementing severe restrictions on Palestinian rights accompanied by a myriad of examples of mistreatment of Palestinians.

Counterargument:

Jews, too, have a long h/o victimhood. Israel has been attacked by Arab armies, Palestinian terrorists, and is routinely ganged up on by other nations at the United Nations.  Let’s not forget that the current war in Gaza began with an atrocious attack on Israeli citizens who were slaughtered,  raped and taken hostage. There would be no need to demand a ceasefire if the war had not been triggered by the Hamas attack.  Israelis are traumatized too. Many of Israel’s neighbors do wish to destroy it and eagerly await an opportunity to hasten its demise. Israel is not as powerful as many imagine it to be. Without U.S. assistance, the recent Iranian barrage of drones, cruise and ballistic missiles might not have been fended off. Of course, there is an endless chain going back decades, if not millennia, of attack and revenge. One can always state an attack was justified due to the other side’s previous action which was also justified because of the previous injustice it suffered, and so on. The reality is that both sides have suffered terribly and both sides have been victims. Both sides have also perpetrated cruel injustices on the other. It’s time to focus more on ways to coexist rather than on past wrongs.

My Verdict: False

Any claim that one side is victim and in the right while the other side is an entirely evil perpetrator is outrageous and only perpetuates the endless cycle of death and destruction. Both sides are victims; both sides have legitimate claims and rights; both sides have deeply painful histories. It’s time to get beyond the blame game and recognize each other’s pain as well as each side’s own role in perpetuating the conflict.

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: The Two-State Solution is no longer a realistic option.

Argument:

Most Israelis have seemingly moved beyond the days of discussing a two-state solution. Many claim the Palestinians have rejected “generous” (in their eyes) Israeli offers for a Palestinian state e.g., by former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak. Furthermore, given the extensive network of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, envisioning a viable Palestinian state strains credulity. Many assert that it is naïve to believe Israel can make peace with its neighbors.

Counterargument:

Although a two-state solution does indeed appear to be a pipe dream in the current political context, there is no other more plausible long-term solution that is remotely acceptable from a moral perspective. A single democratic, secular state may be appealing in theory, but there is probably no realistic way such a state could replace Israel in the absence of a second Holocaust. A two-state solution could likely become a reality only if there is a radical change in leadership among all involved parties such that truly visionary leaders take the helm. It is even more naive to believe Israel can maintain its security through military might alone while continuing to rebuff any efforts toward a peace process.

My Verdict: Undecided but hopefully false

Unfortunately, a realistic assessment may indeed lead to the conclusion that a two-state solution is no longer within the realm of possibility. However, it is crucial to hang on to some hope for such a outcome as the alternative could very well be the demise of the State of Israel within a few decades and/or continued suffering of Palestinians. Those who dismiss this solution must think hard about what alternative vision for the future they see. Instead, Israelis have placed their heads in the sand and opted to ignore the issue. Would a future without a two-state solution include a state of Israel and, if so, would such a state deserve our support or our condemnation?

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: Israel has no choice other than to maintain control of the land from the river to the sea.

Argument:

Many Israelis feel so threatened by their neighbors that they insist they must maintain complete military control of both Israel and the occupied territories. Israelis often claim they have offered a two-state solution to the Palestinians in the past, but such offers have been rejected. When Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas terrorists took over.

Counterargument:

Many Palestinians argue that no sincere offer to establish a sovereign Palestinian state has ever truly been on the table. Israeli governments have approved the establishment of Jewish settlements in the West Bank which ensure a lack of contiguity between Palestinian-controlled areas and thus undermine the feasibility of any future state. No serious effort to pursue peace has been made by an Israeli government in over fifteen years. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza was unilateral, not coordinated with the Palestinians, and left a power vacuum in its wake, which left it primed for takeover by extremists.

My Verdict: False

There can be no justification for the ongoing occupation and control of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza; no justification for denying another People its legitimate rights. Occupation will destroy the occupier as well as the occupied. It must be a priority for Israel to return occupied lands and ensure Palestinians are granted their legitimate rights. Of course, the Palestinians must also ensure Israel’s right to exist in peace.

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: There are no innocent Palestinians as the overwhelming majority support Hamas.

Argument:

Polls do indicate majority support for Hamas among Palestinians. For example, polling by Khalid Shikaki from November 2023 found that 57 % of Gazans and 82% of West Bank Palestinians believed Hamas was right in launching the October 7^th attack.

Counterargument:

Polling questions are notoriously susceptible to manipulation. There is a tendency to rally around the flag when under attack so the 57% figure might actually be construed as low. Hamas has (clearly falsely) denied committing atrocities during its attack and polling also demonstrates that most Palestinians do not believe such acts occurred. Thus, any support for Hamas has a different meaning for Palestinians than what is assumed by Israelis. The only alternative leadership for the Palestinians at this time is the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority which has lost all credibility among Palestinians as it seems to function as a puppet-like, security contractor for Israel in the West Bank.  If a real alternative that offered the hope for peace and the opportunity for Palestinians to get on with their lives became available, surely the poll numbers would be quite different. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of Israelis supported the war in Gaza at the time of that polling. From a Palestinian perspective, having witnessed their cities turned to rubble and thousands of men, women and children killed by Israeli forces, they could be expected to conclude that Israelis support the perpetration of state-sponsored terrorism against them. Palestinians could similarly argue that there are no innocent Israelis as most are past, current, or future IDF soldiers. As former President Obama has stated, “nobody’s hands are clean,” but that, by no means, justifies the indiscriminate killing of civilians by either side.  When we lump all Palestinians into the category of terrorists, it is identical to the antisemitic lumping of all Jews into the category of Zionist oppressor. When Israelis accept or even celebrate the deaths of Palestinian civilians, when they laugh at images of buildings being blown up in Gaza, it is no different than when Palestinians dance on rooftops and cheer in the wake of terrorist attacks. In both cases, the ‘other’ has been dehumanized. This is also toxic to the perpetrating side as it leads to their descent to the level of monsters/terrorists who have sacrificed their morality. It is a basic element of the international humanitarian law that civilians must not be targeted in war. Targeting innocent civilians is what terrorists do.

My Verdict: False

There is a myriad of reasons why Palestinians might express support for Hamas, but that does not justify labeling them all as terrorists. Killing civilians is wrong. Killing children is wrong. If we cannot agree to  that, we have lost our moral compass. In the same vein, terrorist attacks on civilians such as the October 7^th assault are never justifiable.

What’s Your Verdict?

Claim: Resistance by any means is justifiable. Self-defense by any means is justifiable.

Argument:

Some pro-Palestinian supporters may believe that resistance by any means is justifiable in opposing an unjust, powerful state. Some pro-Israel supporters may believe that any means of self-defense is justifiable in response to heinous terrorist acts committed by groups which openly call for the nation’s destruction.

Counterargument:

The ends do not always justify the means. The ends, in fact, may become pointless, if in the process of achieving it, we choose to sacrifice our humanity and morality.

My Verdict: False

We cannot let our tribalism lead us to destroy our own humanity.

What’s Your Verdict?