By Ira Sharkansky
JERUSALEM–Responses to my column on negotiations for a prisoner swap indicate it is time for comments about relations between Israelis and Palestinians.
“The question I have is what has Israel done to make it completely out of the question for any enemy group to ever think of capturing an Israeli soldier again and using him as a pawn for negotiations. The price to them should be too high. . . . ”
“How stupid and dishonorable of the Israelis military to permit Hamas to play cat and mouse with Israel. . . . ”
“Call Hamas’ bluff. Either allow Israeli doctors visitation with Shalit or proceed on the assumption that Shalit is dead. And if Shalit is alive and well, demand his release within 24 hours or – an attention getting device perfected by the Nazis –we shoot 10 Palestinian prisoners for every day Shalit is held in captivity, starting with the most ‘high profile.'”
“. . . wouldn’t it be wonderful if the dis-United Nations or the U S would withold aid until Shalit was released or at least visited by a reputable organization?”
The issue is too complex for sentiments like these. Israelis and Palestinians have lived as hostile neighbors for 130 years, if one begins their history with the onset of “modern” Jewish migration to the area. Jews have been invaders in the Palestinian narrative, and Arabs have been cruel barbarians in the narrative conceived by many Jews. For some, the term “Palestinian” is controversial in the extreme, insofar as it portends their victory in the national struggle. A Muslim student writing a thesis about his community struggled with the terminology of “Israeli Arabs” or “Palestinians with Israeli citizenship.” Remembering the arguments about “Colored,” “Negro,” “Black,” “Afro-American,” and “African American,” I told him that each person should name himself as he feels most comfortable.
“Palestinian” with or without modifiers can refer to Arabs living in Israel as well as those looking in from outside. Terminology by itself will not determine the outcome of the national conflict.
I am not about to express the cop out from controversy with the claims that “Some of my best friends are . . .” or “Some of my best students are Palestinians.” They might be true, but do not keep me from recognizing the cultural barriers between us and them, or the problems caused by their violence.
With all that happens, it is not a conflict appropriate to Nazi-like ultimatums. And we should not expect the United States or other major countries to line up on our side and use their power to force concessions from the Palestinians. It is in the nature of international politics that those countries express support for the Palestinians, but they have not used their power to solve anything as Palestinians wish.
The IDF and police spend considerable effort teaching their personnel to avoid excessive use of force. I was part of that effort when I served as Private Ira in the army’s Lecture Corp. In the nature of the IDF, I was often introduced to my audience as Private and Professor Ira. At the conclusion of one lecture to a training class of the Border Police, a recruit raised his hand. “Professor,” he said, “You should know that some of us like to hit people.”
Even the most antagonistic Palestinians have a human face on Israeli media. Some are interviewed frequently, and speak in decent Hebrew that they picked up during earlier stints in Israeli custody. Some appear to be uncompromising in their antipathy, but others are reasonable in the extreme as they present their view of whatever is the current topic. Israeli interviewers, and commentators explaining the clips from Arab media are neither fawning nor hostile.
The two communities know one another well. People speaking for one or the other have agreed to disagree. They can be disagreeable and threatening, but the conversations go on.
Individuals my age and older were spoiled by the nature of World War II. Being a total conflict in which the allies pursued the goal of “unconditional surrender” did not prepare the way for the much more common variety of “limited wars.” That has been every other armed conflict involving democracies since the 1940s. Von Clausewitz’s epigram, “War is the continuation of policy by other means” sums up the concept. Limited war employs violence in the pursuit of goals other that total surrender. Policy, or politics, is warfare without violence.
Limited war is especially relevant to a conflict between neighbors, where the weaker has the political backing of co-religionists with considerable power in international forums. Those forums do not rule the world, but they are taken into consideration. The norms of the stronger party also figure into the situation. Palestinian have noted that they are lucky in dealing with Jews. Any other enemy might have been ruthless enough to destroy them.
So we are stuck with one another, and our issues that resist solution. Many Israelis and Palestinians agree in principle to “divide the land,” or to “divide Jerusalem,” but there remain the problems of where to divide them, and what will happen to the people left out of their homeland by the division. There is also the small but especially knotty problem of the Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary, plus the pedestrian issues of who controls what water, regulation of sewage and waste disposal, the allocation of telecommunications frequencies, which powers of self defense might be allowed a Palestinian state, and what will happen with Gaza currently in the hands of people who are hostile in the extreme to Israel and to other Palestinians. The proportions of each community that adhere to one or another posture are not altogether clear or fixed. Polls typically find a majority of Israeli Jews agreeable to a two-state solution and a substantial number of Palestinians wanting to live at peace alongside Israel.
Compromise for the sake of peace is more firmly rooted in the Jewish population. Large majorities of Palestinians have supported violence, including suicide bombings directed at civilians. There are Israeli Jews who view the Palestinians as Amalek, and accept a Biblical mandate to purge them from the Land that God deeded to His people. Majorities continue to say that the Gaza operation was justified, and successful.
Neither the hostility nor the conflict is total, but conditions may produce a great deal of unpleasantness. Many Jews who wish for an accommodation applaud their government’s capacity to be tough when appropriate. That does not mean that they ascribe to complete devastation of the Palestinians or their aspirations.
Not black and white. Get used to gray.
*
Sharkansky is professor emeritus of political science at Hebrew University.