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.

The "Tiger Mother" is back, now looking at culture vs. success in America

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201402141000

We know Chua definitely doesn't pull punches, and controversy increases sales. But just as her last book was a "cautionary tale" of the cost-benefit of raising kids a certain way, this new book (wrote with her husband) is not a "this is how you should do it" lesson  for success in America. It presents a certain formula that led to seemingly positive outcomes for some groups, as well as the pro-con implications of that approach. It can be misused, doesn't guarantee results, and is not appropriate for all situations.

First of all - every culture has segments who are flying high and some who are struggling. Anecdotes aren't really useful (John Roberts types thinking that racism is no longer a problem because Obama became president), and I think the authors are more interested in comparing group averages/medians and proportions. They think academic/economic success is America is tied to being an "out-group" with strong ethnic pride and a chip on the shoulder to succeed. Like some Asian immigrants were used to being at the top of their native societies, but have to start from scratch in America. So they push their kids hard to excel in school and return to prominence. But once the immigrants have been here for 3-4 generations (like some Irish, Chinese), then they start to lose that drive, assimilate (for better or worse), and lag behind more recent immigrants. Unfortunately, when you compare lower-income recent Chinese and Latino immigrants, the kids of the Chinese families are doing a lot better in the US - despite both of them coming from similar socioeconomic backgrounds in their homelands and filling similar social niches in the US. So something may be going on there.

Also, cultures like Jews and Mormons may feel that they are a "chosen people" destined to be great, yet could be misunderstood and not accepted in mainstream US culture (getting less and less so). That also motivates them to succeed, "prove the haters wrong", and may manifest itself in disproportionate representation at elite colleges and workplaces. I wonder if they showed data that Jews and Mormons who are more devout/culturally aware do better than those who don't, to see if heritage is really the driving force. But of course extremist, fundamentalist Jews and Mormons are not doing as well in the US, as they likely eschew mainstream education and careers. Similarly, I wonder if the authors have looked at LGBT Americans. They may also fit the mold of a proud, fairly successful out-group. However, it may not be their differentiating sexual identity that is driving the success, but rather the fact that they tend to come from more educated/wealthy backgrounds, and live in urban, progressive environments with a lot of social mobility and economic opportunity?

Lastly, cultures/families that promote delayed gratification/strategic thinking/discipline also seem to be correlated with better economic outcomes. This is kind of parenting 101, but if families can get kids to "buy into the program" that short-term pain is worth it for long-term gain, then the kids may embrace the benefits of studying, piano practice, etc. I haven't read this book, so I am not sure if they are claiming that some cultures on average promote these behaviors more than others, or if it's even possible to collect that data.

However, the authors don't really talk about the blue-bloods in America who may not fit their model at all, yet remain quite successful (Bill Gates, Rockefeller types). In that case, wealth-class-environment are a much bigger driver than cultural background and customs. You give someone with any race/ethnicity/background the upbringing that George W. Bush had, and that person is going to be pretty successful. I am not sure if I can say the same if Bush, Paris Hilton, or other "legacy babies" get swapped into a single-mother family in East LA or Flint. So the authors call out the difference between cultural pride and misguided sense of entitlement. The former may motivate a person to strive harder and "live up" to the high expectations of their heritage, while the latter may make a person lazy and arrogant. Personally, I think pride is a dangerous tool that historically has led to more harm than good. Humility and social awareness can also motivate people to do great things for others, while also profiting personally.

A thesis like theirs can easily be misconstrued to imply that some cultures are simply "better" than others. I really don't think the authors are going there. It's not like we can just decide to "act Jewish," and next generation our family will do as well as the Zuckerbergs. Some cultures are clearly struggling in America, and a greater emphasis on education, discipline, etc. would definitely help. But that may not be enough for many families who are burdened by the physical, emotional, and psychological disadvantages of poverty, geography, racism, macroeconomics, etc. That could partly explain why some recent African immigrants (esp. Nigerians) are on average doing a lot better in the US than many African-Americans whose ancestors were slaves.

And they also raise the question - what is the downside of this approach? As we probably know first-hand, it can be hard to live with parents who have a chip on their shoulder and skewed perspective on success. Like what was depicted in the Tiger Mom book, it's often not a very fun childhood when you're only getting "you're not good enough, no dinner if you mess up your piano recital, you have to be a doctor," etc. And it can be both good and bad for society if we raise kids who are obsessed with individual academic/economic success, yet may not be as concerned with other priorities like being a good person, citizen, neighbor, etc. History has shown us many times that people who feel they are a chosen race end up doing bad things to others. Fortunately US laws and social norms generally prevent that from happening, but I can envision problems associated with groups who think they are superior. Real/perceived discrimination against them is no excuse to embrace exceptionalism. "All men are created equal," remember?

What it all boils down to for me: I would hope that humans try to strike a balance between encouraging academic/economic success (especially for groups with a history of struggles), while not becoming single-minded, arrogant pricks in the process.