What is it about this Israeli/Palestinian situation?

The Moebius Strip image was inspired by the January 5, 2009 Daily Show by Jon Stewart. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=213378
This one-sided surface was immortalized in an Escher poster available from:http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/A29.html

What is it about this Israeli/Palestinian situation?
What is it about this Israeli/Palestinian situation that makes it so difficult to resolve? that makes it so difficult for opposing sides to even discuss in the same room? that inflames passion to such an extent that people on extreme opposite sides deny facts that are obvious to everyone except those who share their extreme positions?

Some issues are not resolved through violence. Alexander Hamilton did not resolve his differences with Aaron Burr by participating in a dual that resulted in his death. Nation states can be militarily defeated as was the case in World War II and in the Gulf War. Thatcher’s action with the British military in the Falklands in the 1980s appeared to resolve the issue (at least it has not been in the news in the past two decades.)However, when ideology is involved as is the case when the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” is now used, it appears that military might or oppressive dominance of one people by another does not work over the long-term. Even though the United States and its allies won what appeared to be a quick victory in Iraq, the conflict drags on. Even though the United States and its allies won what appeared to be a quick victory in Afghanistan, the conflict drags on and after seven years, the Taliban have actually been gaining strength in some parts of the country.

The situation in Palestine/Israel can be characterized as follows:

Israeli security requires Palestinian freedom. Palestinian freedom requires Israeli security. Palestinians must share the land with Israelis. Israelis must share the land with Palestinians.

This kind of conundrum will never be resolved with violent military force whether sophisticated weaponry supplied to Israel by the United States or crude missiles or suicide bomber vests supplied by Iran or Al Qaeda. I am not a pacifist. I believe that there are situations where violent force can and must be used to end a conflict. However, when there are ideological differences that involve competing underlying claims with a legitimate basis, then it is unlikely those differences can be resolved by violent force. Even this definition is problematic because there are Nazis today who believe that Hitler’s claims about Aryan superiority are valid and they would support another Holocaust. This is a small minority of the billions of people who inhabit this planet and most of the world with ethical principles would condemn such ideas. Most countries would punish anyone who acted on their ideology that states another group deserves to be killed. Treating others with dignity and respect is part of what we usually think it means to be civilized and our religious ideologies and institutions mostly teach treating others with dignity and respect.

Some Israelis and some Palestinians refuse to accept the conundrum stated above. Some Israelis want all of the land from the Jordan River to the Sea. The hundreds of settlements in the West Bank suggest that the Israeli government may want all of the land from Jordan to the Sea. Some Palestinians want to drive the Israelis into the sea and create a Caliphate. Some Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel because they believe that recognizing Israel means accepting the oppressive controls that Israel exerts in the West Bank in the name of security. Some Israelis and American citizens refuse to recognize that there is a group of people called Palestinians and instead use the word Arab. In fact, some people believe that if you use the word Palestinian, as I have throughout this blog, then you are against Israel and there is no basis for talk about our differences. Listen carefully to the comments of the Israeli Möbius Strip Crowd and you will find that they refuse to acknowledge criticism of Israel or that those folks who inhabited the land (and especially not their descendants) when Israel was created (whatever name you call them) have legitimate grievances.

Powerful Jewish groups (AIPAC) and Christian fundamentalist groups threaten any politician or academic who criticizes Israel or who advocates that Palestinians have legitimate grievances. The Israeli public relations apparatus is alive and well throughout the American media and throughout the established world of politics in Washington, DC. I marvel at the depth and breadth of this public relations apparatus. However, when any PR campaign masks underlying realities or denies underlying realities, actions and decisions will be based on propaganda. Remember, my fellow Americans, the propaganda that Hitler used in the 1930s committed sins of commission that at the time were swallowed by the German public. The Israeli PR campaign is much cleverer in that it creates sins of omission that even today are swallowed hook, line and sinker by the American public. However, the affect is the same. Contrary opinions are silenced and the propaganda becomes the reality even if it omits important realities that would lead some or many to reach different conclusions from the propagator.

As an American citizen, I am outraged that politicians or academics are prohibited from criticizing the Israeli government or from saying that Palestinians have legitimate grievances. Although it may not be known to the American public, there are certainly some and probably many Senators and Representatives who were sickened by the Israeli invasion of Gaza. I don’t know how many and I would never identify the names of those that I know wanted to vote against the resolutions in the House and Senate. The suppression of criticism of Israel and support of Palestine resulted in a lopsided vote this past week with only 5 nays in the House and none in the Senate. AIPAC, the Christian fundamentalists and the secularists who share their views have the right and obligation to lobby, but their desire and their action to crush free speech is dangerous to our democracy.

As an American citizen, I am outraged about the suppression of free speech for politicians and academics. Suppression of free speech by politicians and academics must be condemned and changed. Some elected officials have explicitly said that if their constituents will provide support for their free speech by replacing the money that they get from organizations like AIPAC, Christians and secular people who share the view that Israel has the right to do whatever she wants in the name of security, then they will speak out. Politicians also want to hear that there are constituents who agree if not with their views then at least in their right to speak their minds without threat of annihilation. Many academics have been denied tenure (for example, Finkelstein at DePaul in 2007) solely because of their criticism of Israel and their advocacy of Palestinian causes. Several politicians have been defeated when they came up for re-election solely on the basis of their views about the Israeli/Palestinian situation. President Elect Obama was smeared as a radical and innuendos were made about terrorist inclinations because he associated with Professor Rashid Ismail Khalidi when he was at the University of Chicago over a decade ago. How can Americans make these kinds of charges against one another? If politicians and academics cannot speak their minds or meet with professors who do speak their minds, then on this issue our country is in deep trouble. Most Americans are oblivious to this dangerous suppression of free speech. How can we as Americans address this issue? Frankly, I do not know. But if President Obama is ever to make progress on this mess in the land called Holy, we must replace silence with public debate.