It’s complicated
I’ve been avoiding following the news too closely recently. I haven’t watched Obama’s speech(s), and instead got just the bits and the pieces of how it was perceived from different sources. I haven’t watched Netanyahu’s speech at the Congress, but at some point I thought that perhaps I should. And I did. And my first thought afterwards was that it had been a mistake.
I know the person, he says nothing new, really nothing, so I’m hardly surprised with what I hear. I realized that even more than the content itself, it was what I saw that actually disturbed me. It really felt like those rallies – mostly remembered for tyrants speaking to riled up crowds - that somehow managed to upset me to the point of writing this post. Though, it’s not only that the medium is indeed the message – the serving and the substance complemented one another.
But the proletariat don’t wear suits and ties. Rather, watching the two houses of US leadership cheering to these words and standing up to clap every other minute, every other sentence, as if it was a prerecorded audience in a sitcom show, I have to say I’m seriously concerned to think this is my Prime Minister.
Condescending over the Arabs as a whole and the Palestinians in particular, presenting a distorted, militaristic interpretation of reality, offering a purely hypocritical view of the things to come he is essentially (once again) blocking any possible chance to resolve this conflict, effectively battling to preserve the status quo of Israel as an occupier, and no less, possibly paving a highway to a violent conflict towards September.
After all, had he really, genuinely been committed to peace – rather than merely an armistice as his words would actually imply in the better case – he should have been able to give the exact same speech in front of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Obviously, not only they wouldn’t cheer him, but these words would never sound as peace to their ears. Not because this is not what the Palestinians would like to hear, but simply because Netanyahu’s speech amounts to an overwhelmingly obvious oxymoron. One that has been most vividly evident when he was speaking about the need to defend peace – and defend by guns and tanks. In fact, I can’t really think of a better way to illustrate the deep, underlying mistrust that Israel brings to the so-called negotiations table.
This absurd – though, indeed already hackneyed by now – goes on to assert that security for Israel, the occupier and by far the most powerful nation in the region, depends on the demilitarization of the future Palestinian state. Yes, security is indeed important, and demilitarization is an idea that more countries around the world should consider. But if Israel demands the ability to defend itself why should the Palestinians be devoid of the same ability, especially when their counterparts are bluntly expressing their distrust?
So, no, I’m not trying to suggest that peace between Palestinians and Israelis should be based on some balance of terror, as if it is even possible. But positioning Israel as the victim and exploiting the Holocaust – yet again – to suggest that the only way to achieve stability and so-called peace is by terrorizing the other side and creating military deterrence are all deeply perverted understandings of mutuality and trust that are in the core of a genuine and honest peace process.
Frustratingly, I find myself almost parroting myself and others. Yes, all of this has already been said – and so are Netanyahu’s words – merely recycling. But, Sisyphean as it might be, I think it’s important that more people realize that the Israeli nationalist camp, as materialized in this speech, is not offering any viable solution. Instead, Netanyahu’s words resonate outside Israel, in the chambers of the ultra-conservatives around the world, but also the increasingly growing right wing movements.
But if I am to look at the bright side, perhaps if more people, ordinary people – Israelis and Palestinians alike – realize the shared sense of urgency projected by speeches of this kind (and the policy that matches them), they would be mobilized to find the path towards one another on their own, regardless (or because) of extremist rhetoric.
So far, it proved half true – people have been mobilized but for the wrong cause. The more citizens on each of the sides felt pressured, unable to lead normal life – by recurring curfews or by exploding buses – the more they were willing to act. However, the first to realize and exploit that on both sides were the militants, falsely leading people to believe that violence can only be overcome by more violence.
When people on both sides become tired of this senseless situation they grow indifferent, accepting the reality and leave it to the opportunists to set the tone, not only on their behalf, but also on their expense. At this point it would therefore take an even greater effort to convince Palestinians and Israelis to try and reach for those on the opposite side, to overcome and counter the convenient, addictive alienation that has plagued both peoples and only contributed to systematic stigmatization and demonizing.
And like other historical revolutions, perhaps the most important lesson the uprisings across the Middle East carried was that wide solidarity and popular mobilization can win anything – and first and foremost the pandemic apathy that has been branded as ‘stability’ in order to maintain it.
Nevertheless, acknowledging that leading normal life is a common interest and an opportunity – in fact, the only one – for a future that is better than the one we could achieve separately would enable us to trade the conflict my generation inherited from our parents’ with a far better – and yes, safer – place to live and leave for the next generations. Any other option would only guarantee more misery, more despair.
This is not to replace tackling the core issues, which are undoubtedly a serious challenge. It is about building the foundations, from the grassroot level. Israelis, those who have perhaps rightfully grown to hate politics (and yet hold a firm, often vocal political position), should be asking themselves how many Palestinians they know personally – and why is that so.
Palestinians should be asking themselves the same question. The answer is obviously, this is how we were educated and brought up. We don’t need to hate the other side. No, we know that there are normal people – ‘good’ Palestinians and ‘good’ Israelis, as to differentiate from a dominant villain image. In fact, we have much more interest in Brits, French, Italians, even Indians (though it’s another question how well we really know people from these countries). But if we are to take these examples, I’d bet there are more (percentage-wise, of course) French with friends, or acquaintances, or business partners from the UK, and even more Indians who personally know Pakistanis.
The benefit, when commonly acknowledged and not conditioned, is clear to all. So, how about starting with the most commonly used social tool? Yes, Facebook. Type in some Israeli or Palestinian city and you might find a number of people with whom you have friends in common. Befriending one or two of them commits no-one to nothing, but might allow a limited-if-unique glimpse at the life of people from the other side of the Green Line – one that might reveal some common interests and perhaps even opportunities for cooperation. As virtual as it may be, Facebook offers a unique venue to engage in an informal dialogue which could perhaps act as a springboard for further acquaintance.
It’s time for both peoples to acknowledge the vested interests they have in urgently bridging the violent divide that’s nurtured by manipulative scaremongers (and Hamas’ leadership in Gaza included) and threatens to suck us all in, and there’s no way to do that without getting to know the real people on its banks – to voice your own personal side of the story and listen to others’. Consider it an invitation to a digital blind date.
http://www.facebook.com/ido.liven
