Comments on the Palestinian issue

I recently visited Israel as part of a trip organised by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) for Rhodes Scholars. Over about a week, we criss-crossed the country and met several people from different walks of life. We did not, however, visit the West Bank. With that in mind, here are my thoughts about the issue.

The Palestinian question has so many connotations that it is difficult for any country to be truly neutral. It has a 'Christianity/Judaism v/s. Islam', 'West V/s. East', 'Capitalism V/s. Socialism/Non-Aligned' and may I say even 'Rich V/s. Poor' tinge to it. Reality is often distorted by fanaticism on both sides. The Middle East is such a unique place that it is often difficult, if not impossible, for someone sitting in the sub continent to grasp fully the issues plaguing the region.

This trip therefore made me think about this festering issue in a way I haven't thought before. The desire of the nation to maintain a semblance of normalcy is commendable; and yet, the manifestations of the conflict are highly visible. Outside of the official program, I met several people who introduced themselves to me in ethnic or religious terms - Arab, Jew or Druze. It is a challenge the like of which would be hard to find elsewhere. Yet, after days of merely listening to speaker after speaker, the contours of the solution became most obvious to me. I believe most of these would be least surprising to anyone who has thought about this previously.

• Forget: The global discourse of the conflict seems to focus on what is 'right.' Is it, for example, right for the Jewish people to return to (or occupy) a land that they last held as a political unit some 2000 years back, and one that has since then been populated by other people, most recently the Muslim Palestinians*? Can that be a basis for other ethno-religious claims of a displaced people, like that of the Zoroastrians on Iran? Was the partition plan feasible? Were the Muslims made to pay the price for a (Christian country's) Holocaust? I believe that answering these questions is futile - firstly, because there never is a 'right' or 'wrong'; akin to the fact that different ways of aggregating utilities yields different results in economics. Secondly, the last sixty-seventy years are also now a part of history. The inescapable truth is that over six million Jewish people now reside in Israel. Any future solution has to start today, with this fact in mind. Even if one believes that the creation of Israel was unfair, one cannot argue in favour of undoing the 'wrong' by removing the state - because that leaves the six million people vulnerable. Discussions about resolving the conflict needs to focus on (a) what is the status quo (b) what is the ideal solution (c) how can we get closest to this solution.

• Grow and Govern: The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an inescapable truth. Israel as a nation and the Jewish people as a community place a lot of importance on their safety, as exemplified in the motto 'never again.' Israeli occupation of the West Bank is important from a security point of view. If the West Bank goes the Gaza way, or if it becomes a breeding ground for terrorist organisations, that could seriously test the existence of the Jewish state. With the addition of the Yemen conflict, the entire region seems to be in a state of conflict. The military differential between Israel and its antagonistic neighbours is currently substantial, but will probably be blunted over time. Where does that leave us? It seemed to me that the two-nation solution is accepted as the only solution. When the state of Palestine will finally be created, it is in Israel's best interest that the state be strong, and a strong nation needs to have strong institutions. Hence, it is in Israel's best interest that the Palestinian people be guided, encouraged and even forced to have world-class institutions**. Actions such as withholding tax receipts from the Palestinian Authority because the latter joined the ICC do not create much confidence. The basic feature of institutions is that they are stable; Israel cannot have 'institutions' that are provided or withdrawn as per convenience. Israel must help create an independent, efficient and able judiciary, must help empower local governing bodies, and must lay the foundations of economic growth. So that when the day comes to hand over the reins to the Palestinian people, the Israeli state can be at peace.

• Integrate: Finally, something must be said about Israeli Arabs, as distinct from the Palestinians. I was recently reading about communal conflict in India, and Israel's case is eerily similar - a majority religion with about 80% of the population, an Islamic minority and a long history of conflict. With all its flaws, it seems to me that India has done better in addressing this problem. As an example, the Muslim community in India holds a 'political veto' - (with the possible exception of the Modi dispensation,) they are organised politically such that they can block any proposal detrimental to their society. In contract, the Arab parties in Israel are almost political pariahs for any government. I could see that efforts are being made to bridge the gap between Arabs and Jews, and I would like to study that further before making any further comment. Also germane to the discussion is the engagement of Israel with the Islamic world. With nearly half of the global Islamic population, the countries east of Pakistan could serve as Israel's gateway to the Muslim world. Many of these countries, in fact, recognise Israel. Israel, a country this is shrouded in myth and mystery for many of us in this part of the world, can do better to present itself in a different light.

In conclusion, what has happened in the region is a tragedy not just for the Arabs but for Jewish people too. While nobody deserves to live under foreign occupation, nobody deserves to live under existential threats either. Those who think about a solution to the issue need to imbibe a lot of pragmatism and long-term thinking. 

--------------------------------

* - Gandhi for example, sympathised with the Jewish people, before and after the Holocaust. However, he was against the idea of creating Israel by displacing the Palestinians. Click here for Gandhi's opinion about the Jewish people on the eve of the Holocaust.

** - There are two obvious counter - arguments to this. One, why should Israel pay the cost of developing institutions in Palestine? During the trip, the notion of a 'Security Tax' particularly appealed to me. Israel occupies Palestine for the sake of its security, and hence it is obligatory on Israel to pay for this added security (or compensate Palestinians for the lack of agency over their lives) through a (substantial) transfer of resources. The second counter - argument is why the Palestinians shouldn't be the ones building institutions? Of course they should, and they will need to be part of the process. But it would be impractical to imagine that the Palestinian leadership could do this all by itself. As the occupier, Israel will have to be part of the process.