Peace in the Holy Land?

Vice News video series on the killed teens, rockets, and air strikes

Op-ed on the difference between wanting peace and being willing to compromise with your enemy

This is obviously not a new story, but I think Keret raises a good point regarding attitudes and conviction about the peace process in mainstream Israel. I think a lot of people on both sides would like "peace", but what they really mean is justice/vengeance/possibly genocide on the Palestinian side, and winning (or at least preserving their many advantages) on the Israeli side. But it's very scary if Israelis take a passive attitude towards peace, like it's not something that their hard work will achieve. It will either happen or it won't - or much worse - it can only come from Yaweh.

How about the people on both sides (especially decision makers) who are willing to give things up and help the other side for peace? Are they labeled as out-of-touch doves? Clearly peace benefits all parties except the bigots, zealots, and hawks on both sides. I really hope they are the minority, but unfortunately they have a lot of institutional power.

Let's dispel some myths though:

1) Israel is the only free society in the Middle East. Israeli Arabs do enjoy a much better quality of life and more rights than Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, but they are clearly 2nd class citizens. Do you think they would be treated fairly if they were on the verge of overtaking ethnic Jews in the voting base? Israeli actions in the West Bank are clearly undemocratic and actually illegal/war crimes in some cases.

2) Hamas is an existential threat to Israel. Even if Hamas' primitive rockets and suicide bombers had murder rates on par with their "heyday" during early 2000's, it would take them 8,000 YEARS to kill just 1/3 of Israeli Jews (2M at a rate of 250/year). Yes, it is unacceptable for your neighbor to try to kill your people every chance they get, but security measures like the Wall, checkpoints, and now the Iron Dome (even with 15 sec smartphone alerts) are so effective that the chances a rocket kills someone or a suicide bombers gets through are almost nil. Obviously Israel should remain diligent and prevent Hamas from acquiring more powerful weapons, but they don't have to over-react to each murder which only exacerbates the violence cycle.

3) Israel has the moral high ground because its forces are less barbaric than Hamas. Clearly Israeli society is more developed and peaceful than the Palestinians', but we're not exactly comparing apples-to-apples. In an asymmetrical war, the disadvantaged side has no choice but to turn to barbarism. That doesn't absolve them of guilt, but it's a pretty weak argument for Israel to say, "At least we try to avoid killing civilians; that is Hamas' explicit goal." Their marketing materials here. Israel still has killed way more kids than Hamas could ever dream of. Maybe some of that is due to Hamas' human shield strategy, but still - no one forced the IDF to pull the trigger (and to their credit, sometime the IDF does abort missions if the civilian presence is too great). But they often value the chance of hitting their target greater than the kids who were in the way. And that is something that most civilized societies would discourage. Still, I think the world is immune to the images of grieving parents and charred remains. Apart from Amnesty Int'l and whatnot, no one is outraged by Palestinian deaths anymore. So both sides should abandon this futile approach.

---

I was thinking about the following proposal, and others have likely presented it already. Hamas is a big obstacle, or at least their military wing (i.e. the difference between Sinn Fein and the IRA), to a prolonged ceasefire. Israel can't defeat Hamas/Islamic Jihad/etc. militarily without breaking many laws, killing thousands, and isolating themselves internationally, so why don't they incentivize Palestinians to do it - hopefully peacefully? Israel has punished all of Gaza for their political choices, with a crippling (and illegal) embargo and occasional air strikes/invasions - causing terrible poverty/social problems on par with Afghanistan. Therefore, why can't Israel enter into a binding contract with the peaceful portion of Palestinian society:

Get Hamas to disarm/disband and have Gaza form a unity gov't with Fatah. Stop the weapons smuggling and dealings with Iran. Allow int'l inspectors to enforce that. If they do, then Israel will 100% lift the embargo, donate billions in development aid/jobs/services, and allow a partial return of West Bank property to Palestinians with legit claims. If the Palestinians violate the contract, then Israel has the right to go back to the status quo, and vice versa.

Both sides have reasons why they want/need to continue the killing: Israel to protect itself and defeat Hamas; Hamas and its supporters because they have nothing to lose - life is so shitty for them they might as well resist to the death. Take both of those reasons away, and then peace becomes the rational option. But as the Keret op-ed suggested, this will require both sides to take a risk and give up something that they hold dear (the right to resist for Palestinians, a military stranglehold for Israel). Of course this is 99% unlikely, since there is so much entrenched distrust/hatred, on top of the segments of their societies that actually like the status quo. Add to that the religious extremists who believe that their side has divine claim to all the land and a mandate to wipe out the other side.