Is Palestine a Counterexample to Pacifism? by Matias Bulnes, NYC

While the US celebrates an unprecedented historical event, in a remote point on the globe UN officials witness a discouragingly familiar scene of destruction and desolation. The first black president of the US brings joy and hope for a better future. But we should not forget the irony that at the same time Obama became US president Israelis and Palestinians were sinking even more deeply into a nightmare that seems to outlast generation after generation. Conscientious Americans will hope that the change Obama has forecasted will spill onto Palestine. But let’s not hold our breaths: the conflict has seen politicians fail one after another, many notable.

The international community has reacted to Israel’s military excursion into the Gaza Strip as usual: repudiating bloodshed yet hesitant to condemn either side. What will likely happen is what has been happening for the last century. This outburst of violence will ease up. There will be months, years, hopefully decades, of tamped hostilities between Zionists and Arabs; then another outburst. International alarm and UN resolutions will follow suit. The sad truth is we are out of ideas. All one sees around is variations of old schemes of solution that have already been rejected by either Israelis or Palestinians.

But let’s not point our fingers at the international actors; too many have been pointed in this endless conflict. Perhaps it is nobody’s fault. I see people heatedly debating who is on the right, whether Israelis or Palestinians. But at this point their historical arguments, correct or incorrect, sound to me like futile abstractions. Whether or not it has a right to be, Israel is not going anywhere—nor are Palestinians. To the extent that both parties are unable to accept these facts there will be no solution. What’s worse, even if both parties accept these facts there might be no solution. Perhaps it is time to contemplate this possibility. Perhaps the idea that all conflicts have a peaceful solution is untenable after all.

The pacifist hopes for nonviolent understanding between conflicting parties. But this is more a prescription than a practical solution. It prescribes that peace should be put before any other ideal. The reality is that many people don’t and getting them to change their minds may turn out impossible (at least by nonviolent means). The case of some religious people is instructive. While they regard earthly life as secondary, their religion may dictate goals that trump the value of their own lives as well as that of others. Oftentimes these goals can only be achieved at the expense of some other groups, violence to follow. Arguably there is an element of this in the Palestine conflict.

But inevitable violence does not necessitate religious intolerance. A sufficiently Kantian outlook can produce similar outcomes. Nationalisms typically trade on abstractions such as the nation’s special dignity or worth. These, the Kantian line goes, also trump any practical goals: they are matters of principle and should never be up for negotiation—as politicians say. The result is analogous: if two groups perceive the recognition of their dignity as incompatible with the existence of the other, violence is in the offing. Arguably there is an element of this too in the Palestine conflict.

In his first day as president of the US, Obama hinted at an active role of his government in the Palestine conflict. Does he expect to solve it? Perhaps. But even if there is no solution to the conflict and bloodshed will be forthcoming no matter what we do, it would still seem immoral to remain indifferent before such devastating human suffering. If unable to solve the conflict, we should not renounce palliative measures intended to minimize the destruction and casualties it will claim.

In fact, it would not be surprising that Obama sees the future role of the US in Palestine as primarily palliative. After all, he does realize that the hawkish foreign policy in the Middle East has been earning the US more troubles than benefits lately. His plan to restructure the energy supply of the country has been insistently framed in the broader context of the war against Islamic terrorism. However, it would be myopic not to acknowledge that anti-American sentiments have been abetted by the US’s interventionist policy in Palestine. Obama, as any other politician, cannot publicly use this as an argument to withdraw influence from the area, for this would amount to admitting a military defeat according to Bush’s rhetoric of the “war” on terror. But terminological issues aside, this seems to be the course of action that gives the US the most bang for the buck and will probably occur anyway if Obama's energy plan succeeds and the US has no longer business in the Middle East.

In sum, I raise the question what is the right course of action for the international community in the Palestine conflict. Nothing seems to work because the Israeli and Palestinian platforms of negotiation appear to be wholly incompatible. For years the world has wished that these platforms were dictated by the extremists and that eventually a majority of moderates would emerge. By now it seems increasingly clear that the extremists have significant support. Hence, no solution. Still, I believe it is our moral obligation to provide humanitarian aid in the area any time it’s needed. However, it is not clear to me, nor perhaps to Obama, that more direct intervention in the conflict is going to do any good to anybody. Should we keep on trying?