Israel and Palestine: Diplomacy at work

I do not believe that the resolution of the issues between Israel and Palestine lies with the ascendancy of more moderate political leaders. The closest to being resolved the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has been was at the Oslo Accords in 1993 with Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin. Arafat was not exactly a hardliner, but he wasn’t a quite moderate either. Rabin was politically moderate, even too moderate, according to some.

Although the Oslo Accords did not ultimately result in an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, it did precipitate a Nobel Prize shared by Arafat and Rabin (and Shimon Peres). Two years after the famous handshake between the two leaders on the White House lawn, Rabin was assassinated by a radical right-wing Israeli who did not approve of the signing of the Oslo Accords. In this case, moderate, or fairly moderate, political leaders were able to make some progress in reaching a settlement, but were unable to reach a final status.

In 1972 when President Nixon made a diplomatic visit to China, it was looked at as very uncharacteristic of him as a politician because he was known as being very conservative and anti-communist. His reputation was what allowed him to make that visit successfully and help to thaw relations between the United States and China without public backlash. No one questioned whether he was sympathetic to the Communist cause because he had such a strong reputation for conservatism and anti-communism.

President Reagan took advantage of a similar situation to help end the Cold War when he nurtured a positive relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan had a track record of being conservative and his motives and allegiance to democracy were not brought into question when he acknowledged that the Soviet Union was no longer an “Evil Empire.”

It may be that it is not moderates, but more partisan political leaders who may bring about the settlement of final status issues between Israelis and Palestinians. Moderates are subject to criticism and accusations of being too soft or conceding too much during negotiations, whereas more partisan leaders have secured stronger reputations with their constituents.

Response to Josh Singer's Israel Apartheid NYT Article Review

An op-ed published in the New York Times last month compares Israel’s policies toward Palestine and Eritrean and Sudan refugees to South Africa’s Apartheid. Israel has been engaged in ongoing disputes with Palestine over whose land it rightfully is, and countless people have died for this cause over the course of the past 65 years. Josh’s blog even notes the barrier fence at the West Bank separating Palestinians from Israelis. The fact of the matter is that Israel has made every effort to guarantee its security. It releases very limited information regarding its military, and even refuses to admit that it possesses nuclear weapons (it is generally believed that they have about 100 warheads). Israel has ensured that it would be a formidable opponent on the battlefield, but that is not what matters in a propaganda war. The op-ed argues that peace is the only way to end this war, not the use of force or the threat thereof.

Josh argues in his blog post that it doesn’t really matter whether or not people think Israel is an apartheid state because Israel will continue to do what it is doing to keep its people safe regardless. In reality, it matters quite a bit whether or not people think Israel is an apartheid state. South Africa saw in the 1980’s,  “possessing nuclear weapons may deter foes on the battlefield, but it doesn’t help you win a propaganda war.” According the the op-ed, delegitimization is Israel’s soft belly and apartheid is the buzzword to make it happen. Israel may not be able to just ignore the opinions of other states and continue doing what it is doing. Certain members of the EU have already begun to divest and boycott Israeli banks and other business. According to the finance minister even a partial European boycott could cost Israel 20 billion shekels (about $5.7 billion US). Even the new generation of Palestinians understand that stones and suicide bombers are the weapons of yesterday. They understand that the most effective weapons are boycott, divestment, and sanctions. The op-ed closes with: “As anyone who has bought a “Gucci” bag in a Bangkok market can tell you, it’s all in the label.” Even if it is not empirically true that Israel is an apartheid state, all that matters is that it gets labeled one.