Mind-State Solution

I'm not sure, but I think I have a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or at least another way of looking at it. It hit me the other day after I broke bread at Pat's Restaurant with some people connected to Americans for Peace Now, a leftist Jewish organization that actively promotes the two-state solution.

Now, you should know that whenever I hear the words "peace now," something inside of me cringes. I have never understood how Israel could make peace now with an enemy that hates her no matter what she does.

Over the years, I've asked this question of a number of people across the ideological spectrum: "If Israel dismantled all the settlements in the West Bank tomorrow, would it stop Palestinian hostility and violence toward Israel?"

I never once got a yes.

Why? I think it's because most people intuitively understand that dismantling settlements is not the same thing as dismantling hatred. The hatred that has been taught for years in Palestinian schools and summer camps, through television shows and billboards and in mosques is not just aimed at Jewish settlers but at all Jews and at all of Israel. This kind of hatred is too deep to be washed away by well-meaning gestures.

So I came to my Peace Now lunch with some apprehension -- and a lot of prejudice.

I can't say I connected ideologically with my lunchmates, but I did end up connecting emotionally. The reason was that I trusted their deep commitment to Israel and their sincerity in their search for peace.

There was something very Jewish about their attitude toward the conflict. First, the idea of hope, of never giving up. Where would the Jews be today if we didn't have hope?

There was also the idea of taking responsibility for our situation -- of not blaming others for our fate. Again, where would the Jewish nation be today without that character trait?

My peace-loving lunch companions are not naive. They know about the spread of Jewish hatred in Palestinian society, and they understand the fear many of us have that a Palestinian state could easily become a terrorist state. But they believe the ideals of peace and a two-state solution are so valuable to Jews and to Israel that it is worth pursuing relentlessly, even if it means paying a significant price.

It's this idea of paying a price for peace that made a lightbulb go off.

For nearly two decades, Israel has gone to one failed peace meeting after another with this question in mind: How much are we willing to pay for peace? In doing so, they have acted as if the Palestinians actually have something to sell.

Apparently, no one ever stood up during one of those meetings to say to the Israelis: "Wait a minute, you're not the buyers, you're the sellers!"

Why sellers? Because everyone knows that when Israel signs an agreement with an Arab country, it is capable of honoring it. On the other hand, it's no secret that the Palestinians, with or without Hamas, are in no position to deliver peace to Israel.

It follows that if any party should be selling, it is Israel. Yet, incredibly, it is always the reverse: The Palestinians are selling a peace they can't deliver, while the Israelis are buying a peace that doesn't exist.

Is it any wonder that all the peace plans keep failing? That groups like Peace Now keep banging their heads against the wall, hoping that more concessions from Israel will somehow bring us closer to that elusive solution?

The problem with pressuring Israel to buy peace through concessions is that it perpetuates the illusion that the Palestinians have something to sell.

What the peace process needs more than anything is for the Palestinians to be able to deliver their end of the bargain. Until that happens, any question of creating a Palestinian state is moot.

My solution? Have the sides switch roles or mind-states.

Israelis should act like "peace owners," and Palestinians should act like "peace buyers." With a buyer mentality, Palestinians will be more likely to make their own offers, rather than passively rejecting Israeli offers, which is what they often do.

As buyers, Palestinians would also learn that Israel needs a minimum security deposit: Stop teaching Jew-hatred to your children. Palestinians can't offer peace while they're teaching war. Tragically, the anti-incitement clause was the great ignored clause of Oslo -- so for more than 15 years, Palestinian society fell back on its habit of demonizing Jews, which contributed to the growth of terrorism and rejectionist forces like Hamas.

Israel is hardly blameless in this picture, and it has made its share of mistakes. But settlements or no settlements, the fact remains that the great majority of Israeli Jews have been more than ready to pay a huge price for peace, including evacuating most of the West bank.

Had the Palestinians been smart, had they taken more responsibility for their situation and developed a culture of co-existence, they would have long ago made Israel an offer it couldn't refuse. They would have called Israel's bluff and made the process real.

Instead, we've all been treated to the continuing and sorry spectacle of global diplomats parachuting into Jerusalem to coax adversaries into yet another round of the "let's play peace process" game.

Leading the latest charge is our new can-do president, who believes that a solution is possible if only the U.S. becomes more "engaged." He will soon learn that no amount of American engagement or Israeli concessions can undo the reality that for the foreseeable future, the Palestinians are utterly incapable of delivering peace to Israel.

All this, of course, is very sobering for those of us who fear for the future of Israel as a Jewish democratic state. Going forward, the one thing we can be sure of is that groups like Peace Now will continue to pressure Israel to make concessions, and people like me will lament that the whole process is upside down.

Comments

[misaacm]

Could be a long wait for the Palestinians to seek peace. I refer you to a recent interview on Al-jezerah with lead Palestinian negotiator Saab Erakat. He admitted that Ehud Barak offered the entire west bank during the 2000 Camp David negotiations but that Arafat would not allow Jewish presence at the Wailing Wall. Arafat, in contravention of the old and new Testament, said that Jews had never been present in Jerusalem. Dennis Ross made a similar contention, as did Bill Clinton.

Erakat endorsed this point of view and declared he would never compromise. If "moderates" like Erakat don't accept the legitimacy of Israel (which they don't) how can Israel make peace? Peace to the Palestinians, indeed most of the Arab world, is just a chance to reload.

I wish it were different, but its not. Until Arabs accept the existence and legitimacy of Israel, within any boarders, peace in unattainable.

[msfsi]

Do you have link? I'd be vey interested to read it. I will look forward to it.

[chaos4700]

I encourage people to go down this thread and see msfsi addressing misaacm's misinformation from MEMRI. Good work man! This is why I as a white American have taken it upon myself to learn Arabic -- we're being lied to so often here, in the West, and we need more people who can set the record straight. Of course after only a couple of semesters I can't really handle anything more sophisticated than a rudimentary conversation, myself, but it's a start I suppose.

[DavidSkye]

You still pushing the "generous offer" story, Misaccm? What did Hitler call that strategy, the Big Lie?

Unfortunately, even Shlomo Ben-Ami, Barak's chief negotiator and Israeli foreign minister at the time of Camp David, has admitted that the truth was rather different: "If I were a Palestinian I too would have rejected Camp David."

Here's some background on the Camp David negotiations from the Palestinian perspective, for those who would like to learn more--
http://www.robat.scl.net/content/NAD/negotiations/neg_camp_david/robert_malley.php

[misaacm]

The link is here. http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

Ignore DavidSkye, when people bring Hitler into the conversation, you know they don't have anything to say. However good or bad the offer on the table was, Arafat didn't make a counter offer, instead he started the war he had been planning all along.

[Oraneem]

Although kept anonymous by Suissa, I was one of the people associated with Americans for Peace Now "breaking bread" with him at that lunch he mentions at the beginning (the fish was delicious!). As engaged in the lunch as Suissa appeared, after reading this I wonder if he was actually present.

Also at the lunch, and for some reason also kept anonymous, was Ilan Paz, a retired Brigadier General in the Israeli military who served as Head of the Civil Administration of the West Bank from 2002 to 2005. Somehow, the insight and perspective from a man with nearly 30 years Israeli military experience and a known Israeli expert on Palestinian affairs, was not something that David Suissa cared to include in this article. Instead, he chose to develop a concept that was rolling around in his head.

Paz believes, as APN does, that if Israel is to have a future, a two-state solution is a must. The notion that Israel can afford a wait and see attitude is far too dangerous. Paz said this many times in my presence, and certainly at the lunch with David Suissa.

I'm buying that. If Suissa doesn't, maybe next time he'll buy lunch!

David Pine,
Regional Director
Americans for Peace Now
www.peacenow.org

[chaos4700]

Well obviously Suissa wasn't listening to you and obviously, he's not interested in genuine solutions or justice for all parties involved...

[DavidPine]

Ears have opened in the past you would think were permanently closed. Sometimes it takes time :)

[msfsi]

Thank you for bring this to our attention David. It certainly puts this article and its author in perspective.

[DavidPine]

You're welcome -- Ilan Paz is certainly not just a guy "connected" with Americans for Peace Now!

[HelloFunnyWorld]

Hello David Pine,

Nice of you to set things in their proper perspective. Thanks. May there be Peace in our time.

[Doctor Nick]

I thought this was a fair and balanced article until I got to this part:
"Why? I think it's because most people intuitively understand that dismantling settlements is not the same thing as dismantling hatred.... This kind of hatred is too deep to be washed away by well-meaning gestures."

Putting all the onus on the Palestinians to start loving the Israelis, before there are any well-meaning gestures, is completely unrealistic. While some of the Palestinian hatred of Jews is due to indoctrination and propaganda (and vice versa) there is no doubt some basis in Palestinian history and lived experience. It is precisely BECAUSE it would be so much easier for Israel to dismantle the settlements than to reverse decades of socialization that the onus is on the Israelis to make a "well-meaning gesture" first.

"But settlements or no settlements, the fact remains that the great majority of Israeli Jews have been more than ready to pay a huge price for peace, including evacuating most of the West bank."

I am skeptical of this, based on the last election, the stated motives of Sharon et al. for the Gaza Israel, etc. Settlement expansion continues unabated even today, the Israeli equivalent of the constant rocket attacks Palestinians launch form Gaza. Israelis sometimes talk a big game about how much they were willing to give or would give up, but have never made an offer that most objective observers would consider fair.

[HelloFunnyWorld]

Well written article on a 60 year problem.

Your solution: "Have the sides switch roles or mind-states." Perfect. #1. With your first step being for the Arabs to: "Stop teaching Jew-hatred to your children." Again. Perfect call. #2.

In the interest of sincere efforts for Peace in Our Time:
Refer #1 above - Yes the sides could switch roles. i.e. switch their thinking, their "mind-states", as you call it. But there's a huge imbalance here, between both the sides. One you have not addressed. An imbalance of just about everything.

Refer #2 above- We all hate this or that. For one reason or no reason. But keep things in perspective.
In this Conflict, teaching this sort of thing, maybe a response to real harm done. Also, in an effort to protect one's Life, hate could come from knowing first hand, that some one who controls so much of your daily life, hates you & is not going to stop making the rules, & always in their favour. There's that imbalance. Again.

And your statement - "the Palestinians are utterly incapable of delivering peace to Israel." This is so disparaging. So demeaning. Then, how on G-d's earth are your ideas to be used??

As well, your comment re Mr.Obama, "he will soon learn" - was just as bad.So gauche.

Back to the drawing board, David. Your good idea needs some help.

[TammyKnowsBest]

Suissa is balanced towards Israel and humanizing them instead of equally humanizing both sides who equally hate each other. Israel has wiped Palestine off the map, I would hate the enemy if I were Palestinian.

[DavidSkye]

Suissa writes, "If Israel dismantled all the settlements in the West Bank tomorrow, would it stop Palestinian hostility and violence toward Israel?"

Of course violence would go down if you ended a 60-year military occupation. But it's worth mentioning that over the years many times more Palestinians have suffered and died from Israeli violence than the reverse. Suissa might ask, "Would settler violence towards the Palestinians end?" I'm not sure.

But Suissa's more interesting point is the one about hostility. Palestinian hostility will not end until Israel and the Jewish community acknowledges and apologizes for what it has done.

The German people acknowldged their role in the Holocaust and are making reparations even today. But it hasn't ended the hostility of many, even most, Jews. (Think of Daniel Goldhagen.) Now consider that Israel has to this day never formally recognized the Nakba, much less even attempted atonement.

[zaz33]

DavidSkye - Excellent ponts especially mentioning how Germany acknowledged it's past pursecution.

[algemeen]

Most solutions from the Israeli side never acknowledge the hundreds of thousands of Palestinean who became refugees as a result of Israeli/Zionists groups who forcibly removed Palestinians from their homes in what is now Israel. If THIS issue is ever addresses in a 100% fair and non biased manner then maybe just maybe there will be resounding "Yes" to a one/two state solution.

I don't see what the problem is with a democratic bi-national state but I guess when the Isreali's stop looking at the Palestinians as the "swart gevaar" (a term white South Africans used for the impending Democracy-Google it) then that option might have a chance.

[lightningbolt]

It's not just Palestinian society that has been brainwashed to hate Jews and non-Muslims in general. Almost all Muslim countries brainwash their people to think like that. That's what autocratic governments do when combined with a fundamentalist right wing religion, they brainwash their people and create an enemy so that those people have something to focus on instead of focusing on the human rights abuses and war crimes of their own governments.

[shotei]

Wonderful post.
If only the world understood that the hatred has penetrated too deep in the Palestinian society to vanish with gestures, things might improve.

[Wozzeck]

"My solution? Have the sides switch roles or mind-states."

Perhaps you might try this yourself. Instead of intellectualizing from a Pro-Israel perspective, imagine that you are Palestinian surrounded by the rubble of your destroyed house in Gaza with your water cut off and short on food.

[HelloFunnyWorld]

Hello,
We were about to log off and read your comments. Nice one.
Right on. And funny too. Bet Mr.Suissa loves it.

[JanetBW]

Have you ever thought that the hatred that the Palestinians have for Israeli Jews is totally reasonable. I'm sure that if it were Presbyterian who had stolen their land, made them into refugees, regularly bomb them and continue to oppress them that they would hate the Presbyterians. Israelis have to give the Palestinians not to hate them because Israel is the author of the problem not the Palestinians. If Israel had accepted the Arab peace plan then they would have security instead they grab more land.

[pgmark]

Yes from an Arab point of view But as the saying goes there are 3 sides to every story.
Yours - mine and the truth.
If you want peace forget yours - mine and be able to see the truth.
Until then it is always the same one sided arguement.

[shotei]

If the Arabs had accepted the Partition Plan, Palestinians would have a state. If they had chosen to negotiate with Israel after th war in 1948, Palestinians would have a state. If they had accepted Israel's offer to negotiate peace after 73, Palestinians would have a state. If Arafat had accepted Barak's offer back in 2000, Palestinians would have a state. If Palestinians saw the withdrawal from Gaza as a first step towards statehood and peace, Palestinians would have a state.
It seems pretty clear to me who missed all the opportunities.

[msfsi]

What was "offered" to the palestinians in 2000? What did they reject? what went on in the negotiations? What did these mean for the settlements? Why was there a proliferation in settlement activity before, during and after the negotiations?
Why should the palestinians have accepted a clearly biased partition resolution from foreign powers of their homeland? The resolution offered a european immigrant community that were one third of the population and owned only 6% of the land, well over half the Mandate of Palestine.
If the Gaza withdrawl was aimed at "first steps towards Palestinian statehood" then why did Dov Weizglas state the following in Haaretz in August 2004. "What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e. the major settlement blocks on the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns . . . The significance [of the agreement with the US] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission . . . and the ratification of both houses of Congress."
Do you think Palestinians don't read the Israeli papers?