Thoughts on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Peace Process

I wrote this a while ago as an answer to a question on ask.fm. Sadly, the question and answer are still just as relevant today as when they were written.

So what is your take on the conflict in Israel then? From what I can tell is that neither side is truly innocent. I guess I could say I am on the side of the people who are affected by the conflict but are not directly involved.

This is going to be a rough answer, cause I'm going to be honest. It's also going to be a rough answer, a messy answer, because any attempts to "flatten" the situation only cause more harm, and because the situation is messy.

I'll start with the bottom line though - There's not going to be peace any time soon, or at least more than there is. To add to that, there isn't going to be peace because people don't want there to be peace. And to add to that - that there isn't going to be peace is too often used as an excuse to ensure there will not be peace in the future as well, which is criminal, if you ask me.

Ok, time to unpack all of that, right? I will refer mostly to the Israeli side, because my knowledge of it is far superior, but from what I know, things aren't that different on the Palestinian side.

"Those who wish for something must also wish for its requirements", Immanuel Kant had said. You can't wish for a house on a certain territory without also "wishing" or accepting that the land is going to get occupied - "You're going to have to break some eggs to bake the cake", to put it colloquially.
Everyone purportedly "wants peace", but they want the peace to "just happen", without giving up anything for it, which isn't truly wishing for peace, if one must give something up for it, right?

Some would argue that the demand for concessions is in itself the issue, that people should be happy with how things are right now. These people are essentially saying "There is no need for peace", and are arguing for the status quo, which is often peaceful, and beneficial and desired by many people when it's peaceful, but it's not peace. Everyone here doesn't want peace, to put it bluntly.

And then we have the whole "This was our land 2000 years ago!" "This was our land for the last 400 years!" "You attacked us first, tough luck!" - You know what all of these are? Reasons to not make concessions, reasons to not make peace.

Many people say they do want peace, but they can't trust the other side, which is indeed a necessity for peace. They say "I'll make concessions, but then they'll back out on theirs and there will be no peace, and we'll be left without what we agreed to give up on." - Sadly, that is true, but that will always be true. But both sides also have people, often religious, where even if God came down and told him there'd be peace eternal if they made concessions, would not make said concessions.

And these people have a lot of power, especially when it comes to disrupting the peace process. They don't even need to stop it on their side, they need to cause something to make the other side go "Unacceptable!" and bail out. And both sides are all too ready to bail out. They're looking for excuses. They're looking for reasons to play the blame game on the other, rather than buckle down and work hard. Also because no one likes making concessions, and because these people who are forthright about not wanting peace can make their political life harder.

Those schisms in our societies don't help internally either. Many Israelis don't care for the settlers' wishes, but the settlers' also don't care for the non-settlers' wishes. An internal discourse filled with strife and antagonistic remarks makes it harder to take action, especially about important issues such as these. The elections often are for us to say "We want peace" or "We don't want peace" (very simplified), and yet afterward people don't carry out the actions they were chosen for. Someone just needs to do something, if peace is to be achieved, and live with the consequences - something no one wants to do. It's the same with people living in Gaza and the West Bank. They're hardly all of one make, and people from the West Bank looked down on people from Gaza before the 2nd Intifadah, as hillbillies, basically.

So people don't want peace, and their governments don't want peace. Well, they want there to be peace, but without actually giving up on anything, and without the process. Yeah, that's not how the world works, is it? And because people see how hard it is, and because all of the bad blood and lack of faith, they're willing to shit on anyone actually trying to have a peace process, or negotiations, or talks. What the fuck, eh? Not only are people against peace, and against concessions, they're even against talking to the other side. Forget peace, you can't even have a civil non-peace like that! You will NEVER have peace if that's how you act. And that sort of mentality isn't rare, on the sides of both governments, and both peoples.

I believe that even if you know you won't have peace for at least 40 years, you still need to talk to the other side, so in 40 years' time there MIGHT be peace, and so even the non-peace won't be as terrible as it can be. Israel has a peace agreement with Egypt, and on the government level things are actually going well, but for Israelis to go to Egypt and openly declare they're Israelis is often not the wisest course of action. "Peace" is just a word. Better to be good neighbours before we have peace than have peace before we're good neighbours.

BTW, you've seen my comment above about "magical peace"? Too many of the people commenting about the situation in Israel from abroad buy into this magical deus ex machina solution. They either play in the blame game, which is, as I've covered, all about reasons to NOT have peace, or to say why you don't have to do anything but the other side should - often by people who don't actually have to concede anything, in either case. I mean, what does the average American have to give up should the Israelis and Palestinians have peace? Talk about armchair analysis.

And then we have the real issue, yes, the mindset that all problems have clear-cut solutions. "Just send [x] to another country." - "[Y] is evil, they should all die." and such. This is the mindset that doesn't want peace, which means a process,and concessions, and is dirty and messy and human.

This is the mentality that wants quiet, and it wants resolution. The mindset that thinks there's some sort of "Magic Solution" that in one swift moment will resolve everything. Remember my comment on "Good neighbours"? That magic solution doesn't really get us there, which is why these solutions are so often "BAM!" - It's the sort of mindset that thinks you can topple a regime, perhaps invade a country, and automagically everything will be fine, just as you wanted, immediately after. We've seen more than enough times how that turns out, eh?

The peace process is valuable. Too many people are content to have it in order to keep peace at hand, but it's probably better to have it than not have it - and more than enough people don't want to talk to the other side at all. The representatives of the UN, of the Quartet, of the USA, they all come for a "solution", and so leave when things don't get resolved quickly enough.

There can be peace, I believe, in the future. But it requires people to understand it'll take hard work, and that talking is better than not talking, and to stop thinking there will ever be magical solutions. That's the mindset that is saying "I don't want to put in the work, and I don't want to concede anything" - that's the opposite of peace, or dialogue.