Let's just try to think of things anew. I'll work in dialog form. The following is a discussion between guy-in-quote-marks and guy-without-quote-marks. Old friends.
What is the most plausible path to peace?
"What are we talking about now, Ukraine?"
Not today. I'm thinking of Israel, or Palestine, or whatever neutral name we might want to give to the territory between Lebanon and Egypt on one axis, between the Jordan River and the Sea on the other.
"Let's call it X, as in algebra."
Okay. What is the most plausible path to peace for X?
"A two-state solution."
Really? Won't two states in that enclosed space be constantly at war -- or at war until one conquered the other, whereafter the warfare could be reclassified as civil unrest, but would continue unabated?
"Very likely."
So: the problem I take it is the violence, not the classification.
"The point, though, is that peace for X cannot really be considered in isolation from the broader problem of peace for the whole globe, and THAT allows for only one even semi-plausible model. There will not cease to be nation-states. At no time in the rest of this century or, I suppose, in the century after that will it cease to be the case that the institution of nationality-based sovereignty will dominate maps of the earth. Any plausible quest for peace must be a peace GIVEN that."
An arguable point, my friend. Indeed, it is a point with which you would have argued perhaps even heatedly not long ago.
"That I acknowledge."
But even if we grant it: should that just lead us to defeatism and quietism with regard to peace? After all, the world of distinct nationality-based sovereigns is one with which we are all too familiar, and hardly a peaceful place. And X is not likely to become an exception simply because diplomatic skill manages to jam two of them into the space between the river and the sea.
"But Israel and Egypt have been at peace since the Camp David Accord went into effect between them back in the 1970s."
Yes. But those are two distinct nation-states, which simply adjusted their border. Neither was created in those accords. Consider a suburban homeowner. It may be a nuisance for John to settle matters with his neighbor Grant, if they have been arguing over exactly where John's property ends and Grant's begins. But it is rather different if John has to make peace by recognizing that Grant and his family are the proper owners of a wing of the house John and his family have regarded for decades as their home. Not really the same thing at all.
"I concede the difference. Still, the process is the progress."
I hate it when you get terse.
Your approach is well-taken. The players in this deadly game subscribe to the adage which says never give an inch or your opponent will take a mile. Weakness is foolish, even sinful or traitorous. There is no point in reasoning together if one is bertain there will be breakdown later on. We could, therefore, argue generational intractability that in effect supports genocide. Talk is cheap. The best defense is a crushing offense. That is all the adversaries know.
ReplyDeleteI'm an Israeli Philosophy student who'd just found this blog.
DeleteBullseye of a take, really. It is a game of strength and honor, whereas weakness is at least damaging and at most deadly; that is what's behind the Israeli shift to the right since the second intifada, for what I know.
Aporia yet again. Seems to me as an accurate analysis, and I can't see an ending in sight. But. Looking at the data (https://peacenow.org.il/en/population-data-in-israel-and-in-the-west-bank), the amount of Israelis living in the West Bank has been growing approximately at an exponential pace. In addition to that (not backed up by data for now), in the past ~15 years (since the 2nd Netanyahu term) there has been a massive growth in founding of small outposts with the sole explicit purpose of occupying land, often lots of them surrounding Arab towns, and hurt the Palestinian spirit and any sense or future of sovereignty. Right now, about 10% of the Jewish-Israeli population is living in the West Bank, and is not going anywhere. The 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which had just a few thousands of Israelis living in it, was a canonical moment in recent Israeli history, and is still a difficult one to many. So with 100x the inhabitants, and after oct 7th - they aren't leaving. Therefore, the traditional 2 state solution, for better or worse, is dead, at least as long as the Palestinian people won't agree to ridiculous offers such as Trump's, or the Jewish settlers won't agree to live in the Palestinian state; not happening.
ReplyDeleteWe are left with the One State Solution, and its many variations. I have some speculations, but I have no idea what the future holds. With that being said, the Israeli mainstream lead ideologically by Netanyahu, who's a known chicken himself, doesn't know what it wants going forward, so Israel tends to be passive in regards to solving the conflict. The thing is, the non-decision to stay passive, tends to be the worst one.
It has been a little while since I thought about this. I think vonatank nails it pretty well. We can't compel long-time enemies to suddenly renounce their differences and peacefully co-exist. The world isn't made that way.
ReplyDeleteTrue. Have been wondering for this reason how time will affect the conflict.
DeleteFirstly, sorry about misspelling your name. Am having some vision issues. Next, let me address that ubiquitous arrow of time philosophers talk about. Time, itself, does nothing. It is Heinlein's
ReplyDelete*fair witness*.How we act and operate is irrelevant to the passage of time. If I could see movability---even recommend something meaningful---I would do so. The aged adage about Mohammed and the mountain is apt here: neither Mohammed, nor the mountain are likely to budge. The mountain can't. Mohammed won't. Fundamental philosophy is pretty simple until word salad complexifies it. All good wishes to you,
PDV.