Philosophical Perspectives on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict
If you are reading this, chances are you already have a multitude of pre-existing opinions about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. After all, is it not the case that almost everyone, with even the slightest interest in international affairs or politics, finds themselves on either side of this entrenched and visceral conflict? A great deal of intellectual reflection and debate has already been cast on this particular conflict. I do not wish to comment on what has already been said. The aim of this essay is not to trace or outline the genesis of the conflict as a historical process, nor to take an ethical or political stance on what is ‘right or wrong’ or engage in utilitarian bullet biting, that is, deciding on an approximation of what is ‘true’. The main motivation for discussing this particular set of issues, which together form the ‘Israeli/Palestinian Conflict’ is to look inwards, to analyze what role this conflict takes in the Global system, to attempt to identify just why this particular conflict is so important to us, more so than the various other unresolved conflicts that litter the World. Also, I wish to propose an analysis of the Israeli position as being a sui generis case, unique in that its problems arise not from the application of religious extremism, nor repressive and aggressive attitudes to the Palestinians, (not that these are not applicable to some extent) rather, the source of the continuation of conflict is brought about by an excessive democratization, of the conflict of a truly modern democratic state. Finally I will comment on why the conflict remains unresolved in relation to what I have discussed.
Firstly, I want to cut across the ideological and symbolic dividing lines between left and right. I do not adhere to any of them, or more correctly, I adhere to all of them. This might seem like a callow surrender to relativism. This is not the case, nor is it a nihilistic approach. The problem is not that its ‘hard to decide’ which side is right or wrong, because there is a lack of justification, or of information. Rather, if we have an unbiased eye (or the best approximation) we find an excess of moral justification, an excess of facts and events which serve to justify those involved. Like wise, truth is not something which is hard to come by. If you spend long enough looking at either position, then you quickly find that both sides are right, or could be well argued to be right. Of course there is a blur and manipulation of information, spin and outright lies. Yet this conflict, with its intensive and diligent media coverage (over many decades) means that even through the aberrated lens of the media, we have enough information to forge some fair approximation of truth, perhaps to an unprecedented degree. Instead, the true difficulty is born of an excess, an excess of justification, facts, events, and information. But it seems, especially in the West, we find it all too easy to navigate the excess, to arrive at a concrete ideological position. This is because we do not truthfully engage with this excess. For Jews, Muslims, we can offer an obvious reason for not confronting this excess, an identification with a common or related religious or racial identity, the same reason why we might automatically stand by our blood relatives, taking their side in an argument: Its not that we have looked at all the facts, its just that my brother/sister etc is my blood, so I stand by them (even when we know they don’t always get things right). But why has opinion in the rest of the Western World become so polarized? Why is the common opinion not one of difficulty, but instead, one of vitriolic certainty?
The truth is that we have allocated this conflict a very specific position in the global structure. It seems that the conflict is important to us, not in the traditional sense of being either an obvious threat to global security (in itself, the region is small, with a relatively small population) nor is it an area rich in resources (unlike the rest of the middle east) even the argument that it is religiously important is a tentative one, much of the force behind the anti Israeli movement is actually secular, and the importance of Zionist or Christian lobbies in the United States, is often over played. We might be tempted to argue that the reason why the conflict is so important is because of the levels of violence involved, or its status as an unresolved ongoing conflict. This is not a good argument, the Kashmiri conflict; for example, a factor in the wars of two large populous states, India and Pakistan, is both long running (tracing back to their independence as nation states) and have been extremely bloody. There are of course numerous other conflicts, many long running, most violent with significant death tolls. And to use the Kashmiri example again, which now involves two nuclear powers; there are more potentially destabilizing conflicts out there as well. Yet if we are honest, they do not have the same level of importance to us. An objection that might be raised at this point could be something like this: ‘The conflict is important because it is the cause of so many other global issues, such as international terrorism.’ This argument would be a question begging one; it already assumes the importance of the conflict. The origins of Islamic terrorism are contentious; few would trace it back to this conflict, and most have it originating in Egypt (in its modern form). It is not to be doubted that the conflict is important, but the real question is why is it so important? The answer might be somewhat unexpected. I propose the answer is this; we have incorporated this particular conflict into the global structure, and it serves a symbolic and ideological role within the overall structure. We have appropriated a particular conflict to serve a particular function in the global system. This might sound slightly paranoiac. I do not suppose that there is any particular conscious decision to use the conflict in this way. Yet the conflict has been co-opted to serve a utilitarian function. We have distanced ourselves further from the real, the actual state of affairs, which is complex, fragmentary and incomplete, and instead have created a symbolic real, one of clear cut ideological distinctions, a sanctioned and complete history, a conflict that we can invest in in, that can become fantasy for us, a ready made controversy. It has become an interactive game, which serves as a proxy war, one we don’t have to inhabit, or even fight, but one in which we can pick sides share in its victories, and its defeats. If we are liberals, or conservatives, we can pick our respective positions, (pro-Israeli, pro Palestinian) and use it as a ground to crystallize our own ideological and political opinions, but more than that, it becomes a field of investments for revolutionary energies, which can participate in a symbolic and partially fictionalized reality, and by doing so We are able to vent the violent potential of these revolutionary energies without fear of them disrupting or damaging our own socio-political systems and structures. Thus, mostly, our opinions and views are not truly altruistic; they are in reality selfish investments. Its not that we do not care, it’s rather that we care too much, but care about a symbolic reality that is easier to grasp, and we don’t seem much interested in penetrating to the real underlying complex issues, in which we would find it hard to support fully any particular perspective (if one could be differentiated).
We have become like the Olympian Gods, looking down on the Greeks and Trojans, intervening in (if not creating) antagonisms and conflicts, not because we are obligated by compassion or love, rather, in an age of decadence and excess, we find a perverse interest in the twists and turns of this particular conflict. Hidden beneath the constant shift of surface effects, we never move beyond the symbolic real, to the underlying ground, which reveals our own investments and involvements. The conflict has become ‘Fetishized’. There has become a perverse obsession with this conflict, it serves simultaneously as an ongoing political drama (tragedy) as well as a testing ground for new weapons and tactics, a factory of images, almost pornographic in their intensity. A Nietzschean reading might suggest a secularization of the an existing religious pre-occupation, from the religious fixation on the Holy Land which reached its height during the Crusades; and this fixation has merely been secularized, a case of the West not being able to get over its fascination with this particular stretch of the Near East. There may be some truth in this, but it is a somewhat naive interpretation of Nietzsche, it does not go far enough in diagnosing the underlying problems. A true Nietzschean assessment can only come through an engagement with democracy, which will be attempted in the next section.
Israel is a fully functioning democracy. It is as least a competent democracy as may European states, more so than Russia and the new democratic states of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Yet from a certain ideological position, it is often demonized for being a tyrannical and imperialistic aggressive regime. The argument goes that Israeli democracy does not extend to Palestinians. This is a bad argument, Israel’s sovereignty does not extend to the Palestinian territories, it would be like arguing that American democracy does not extend to Mexico, you would not expect it too. But an articulation of the argument might be that the Israeli state is hypocritical, it is internally democratic and liberal, yet beyond its borders it becomes Imperialistic and aggressive. I do not buy this argument. I do not deny that Israel has acted excessively in its treatment of external forces and peoples, in some circumstances (that is, more so than it needed to). But I would argue that in doing so it is not being undemocratic or hypocritical. Rather, it exemplifies democratic values, and this is part of the problem. I spoke of Israel as being a sui generis case. What I meant is that it exists in a unique way, it is held up to lofty moral and legal standards, yet is still in the process of solidifying its existence as a state. Not a single democratic state could claim to have met any of the standards that Israel has been held to in their formation and solidification as Democratic states. The democratic stability of the great states of today was founded on war, genocide, racism, and slavery. There was either the formation of a democratic state out of an established non democratic state, or as was the more usual case, democracy that did not extend to all elements within the state and those external to it. Yet Israel emerged with a sense of being a universally democratic state, it could not do what democratic states did during the Second World War, which is, justify excessive use of force (use of nuclear weapons, carpet bombing German cities) because their enemies were fundamentally undemocratic, and threatened their very existence as democratic states. Israel, even surrounded by aggression from Arab states, has diligently kept to the modern democratic idea of not engaging in total war, of not completely destroying at any cost, the existence of those aggressive organizations and states opposed to them. This problem goes deeper. Israel is not able to mythologize its origins in the same way that others do, given that it was founded as a democratic entity, yet through undemocratic means (essentially imperialistic) a curious event occurred, Israel became guilty of being ‘illegitimate’ in the sense that its actions in founding itself are called ‘criminal’ or ‘illegal’ and this is because it is a democracy, if it had been a revolution, or conquest, it would not be called criminal or illegal , these terms would be incommensurable, not applicable. When we observe Israeli aggression, we are engaging in a kind of moral hypocrisy, but also, we should be surprised by how restrained Israel actually is, that is not to justify all its actions, but if you look at the history of any other state, you rarely find such restraint or concern for such things as civilian death tolls, holding fire on targets in civilian areas etc. Of course in an ideal world, or even a better world, things would be better. But it is due to Israel’s status as a democracy that the usual process that happens when a strong force meets a weaker one, the total annihilation of the weaker, has not occurred. Because it is fundamentally incapable of completely destroying its enemies and using absolute and indiscriminate force, Israel is forced maintain constant intervention to maintain its position of dominance, it is incapable of reaching a complete and total act that could allow for the emergence of a lasting peace, the result is that it has been characterised as excessively and persistently aggressive.
To attain peace, usually one of two things must occur, the absolute victory of one force, which can dominate and dictate terms, or two equal forces, tired of attrition warfare, realize they longer have the capacity to continue, and through a kind of atrophy, are unable to sustain the energy required to continue conflict. The result is a peace which is more mutually attractive. Undoubtedly the former method is most common. Yet Israel is not able to do this, not because it is unable in terms of military capability, rather, its democratic nature prevents this from being a serious possibility. Also, we would not want this type of peace to emerge, given that it would be catastrophic for the Palestinians. Nor would we want the latter to occur, that is, for symmetrical warfare to achieve a hard fought stale mate, which would be extremely damaging for both sides. In a sense, something approaching the status quo is probably the path realistically likely to achieve the least amount of violence and bloodshed. I say realistic, because, despite concerted efforts from both sides, the standard peace process seems unlikely to achieve peace. It is too much to expect both sides to just cease engaging in the conflict, without a revolutionary act to bring about a genuinely new ground on which to establish peace. This is because, even though both sides know the narrative of peace (the two state solution) neither is able to fully bring this about, even when it seems close, something always goes terribly wrong. This is because even if it seems like the symbolic reality comes close to ordering itself in such a way that peace becomes possible, the fact is that the underlying historical and morphogenetic forces are not aligned or subdued, or dominated in such a way that an evental site emerges, in which peace could emerge and exist, at the level of the real. And those forces are generally reactive, facilitated by a democracy which is essentially reactive (here the Nietzschean reading is made) in as much as these forces react to events rather than create them, and are riddled with a spirit of ressentiment. Even the peace solution, of two states, is symbolic. It is a very Western solution, the idea that all that is needed is the establishment of state structures, as if this would immediately dissipate the reactive forces that fuel the conflict. Unfortunately, a real peace can not be brought about by the small steps approach. How may conflicts have been resolved this way? Very few, if any. The status quo is a kind of peace in its self, periodically eruptions of violence and death. It is in no way a happy peace, for either side, but it is better than the total subjugation of the either side by the other, or a war fought between two sides of comparable military capability. This is because if the weaker party suddenly acquired new found strength, it would not create a situation similar to the M.A.D of the Cold War, forcing peace through threat of apocalypse. The reactive forces would most likely force an even deadlier and devastating conflict. We cannot escape history. Nor can we continue to overlook our own investments in this conflict, which are far from disinterested.
