Breaking Bad

To many, the resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli deadlock is simply not achievable in anything less than the passage of many more generations. Despite the near-universal global support for a two-state separation, the U.N. General Assembly’s open embrace of Palestinian representation, the intensity of feelings on both sides –“messianic” to put it mildly – and the physical encumbrances along the way are huge barriers to a sustainable answer.

The burning issues include what to do with a city that is Holy to both sides, with shrines, temples, structures and venues intensely sacred to Muslims, Jews… and, of course, Christians. Or the plight of the “refugees” stuck on the wrong side. Perhaps it is the “Jewish settlements” (one is pictured above) on the West Bank that continue to be approved in what is clearly destined to be Palestine under anyone’s map of the future. Maybe it’s Hamas’ addiction to lobbing missiles and rockets to keep the hatred and the war alive, supported by extremists with cash and arms all over the Middle East.

But if Israel continues to hold large sections of Palestine and its Muslim residents within Israeli territory, is Israel really the “Jewish state,” a homeland to those who fled one of the most horrific spans of genocide in human history? Or is it just a country with deep and widespread ethnic, cultural and, most of all, religious diversity? Could Israel actually lose its essential and magnificent “Jewishness” over time?

This more abstract overview was considered by an American Zionist in an August 8^th Huffington Post editorial from Robert K. Lifton, former President of The American Jewish Congress and Israel Policy Forum and co-Chair of The Middle East Project of the Council on Foreign Relations. Here is an excerpt from that piece:

“I am afraid once more for the future of the Jewish people. I am afraid that if Israel chooses the wrong course that choice will endanger all that you have succeeded in building and all that you and we dreamed of and worked for. After the 1967 victory, a pattern of ambitious nationalism has emerged in Israel, for some inspired by messianic belief, that seeks to encompass the territories inhabited by Palestinians. This is a policy that advocates continually increasing settlements in those lands. As it stands today, even the deal offered to the Palestinians by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008 would require that some 100,000 settlers move out of their homes, with all the pain and strife that would bring. Such a wrong course based on religious nationalism puts Israel in danger of losing its singular Jewish character and starting down the path of a bi-national state…

“And do not be fooled. Israel will not be able to continue as a Jewish state once it encompasses the Palestinian land and people. Announcing that Israel is a Jewish state, even pressuring the Palestinian leaders to say that it is a Jewish state, will not assure that it continues as a Jewish state if a large part of the population is Palestinian. That growing population will not forever be denied voting rights. The history of South Africa has demonstrated how the nations of the world can force a country accused of apartheid to change its behavior and grant voting power to a large disenfranchised population. And if that point is ever reached, Israel will pay a very heavy price. I am concerned that Israel is already experiencing the beginning of an international isolation. The alliance between Israel and the United States is built on strongly shared democratic values. If Americans see those values as eroding on the Israeli side, that alliance will weaken. Despite all their wishes, pro-Israel American Jews will not be able to defend Israel.”

While the hardline Likud Party leads a coalition government, there is a very significant segment of Israelis who strongly believe that the two-state solution is indeed the only viable path. The problem remains the powerful commitment of those on the extreme right who are willing to fight to the bitter end, die if they must, to hold on to every square inch of occupied territory… believing that compromise will generate nothing more than what the U.K. Neville Chamberlain government was able to achieve in pre-WWII compromises (“appeasement”) with Adolph Hitler’s Nazi Germany. Is peace in our time realistic? Can the United States remotely recapture even a portion of its lost power and influence over global affairs without such a solution? Exactly how can this be done with so many violent people opposed to the obvious path?

I’m Peter Dekom, and this tiny area has more influence on the future of human co-existence than anywhere else in the world.