Who is to really blame for the Israeli-Palestian Conflict?

Posted by T.Collins Logan on
 
There may be a better way to approach this question.
 
Having studied and written about the Middle East over a number of years, and consulted with self-professed "experts" on different sides of the same issues (often asking them to review my writing for errors, etc.), here are some conclusions I've reached so far:
  1. There are many partial truths that can be, in isolation, very damning to either Palestinians or Israelis -- and sometimes damning to both.
  2. There are many historical parallels about the situation in Gaza...but none of them seem to fit the current situation very neatly or precisely.
  3. There have been many folks -- including leaders -- on both sides who have, at various times, demonstrated a sincere desire for peace and been committed to it. But (and this is a critical point IMO), there have also been what I would call "bad actors" who have all-too-frequently and deliberately sabotaged constructive resolution efforts...also on both sides.
  4. Both sides of this conflict (or we might say "all sides," since others are involved) are responsible in some way for horrific atrocities, which they then either justified after-the-fact with one-sided political propaganda, or just denied altogether.
I could continue this list with another half-dozen key points for consideration, but the evident pattern would be the same: There is no black-and-white "gotcha" anywhere in the more nuanced narratives of Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Both sides bear responsibility (even if it may seem like a 60/40 split in some instances, or a 30/70 split in others).
 
Which has, after a lot of waffling and hand-wringing on my part, led me to conclude that very few folks (and perhaps no one at all?) with strong one-sided claims about either these conflicts' origins, or the failures to resolve them, have a thorough understanding of those nuanced narratives. Or, if they do have such an understanding, they are willfully dismissing or suppressing what they themselves know to be true in order to strengthen their own personal convictions or rhetoric.
 
To hold the wretched and hateful violence of ANY conflict in a "neutral" space is seen by some to be inherently abhorrent. But I would say that, historically, achieving lasting peace in society often involves letting go of an insistence that one side is "more right" or "less wrong" than the other. In fact, in my view one side could only be secure in their moral high ground if they ceased perpetrating atrocities against the other side altogether...and we simply haven't arrived their yet, either because it is not politically viable/survivable, or because no real (or enduring) moral courage exists in the leadership on either side.
 
My 2 cents.

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

This link is not meant to be clicked. It contains the trackback URI for this entry. You can use this URI to send ping- & trackbacks from your own blog to this entry. To copy the link, right click and select "Copy Shortcut" in Internet Explorer or "Copy Link Location" in Mozilla.

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

No comments

The author does not allow comments to this entry