The New Year provides little hope for Israel/Palestine

I begin with an apology. There is a sentence which I have quoted before and I am about to repeat myself. But it is impossible to think about geopolitics without re-using it. “The whole worl’s in a terrible state o’ chassis [chaos].” There seems to me to be no reason on earth why matters should improve this year. Indeed, it is quite likely that the chassis will grow worse.

The festive season offered some respite. In one household that I visited, the Memsahib forbade any discussion of the Middle East. One saw her point, yet the chaos will not go away. There were also the littlies. A very dear friend always accuses me of being a sentimental old git, and I see her point too. But without a strong dose of sentiment, the human condition can seem unendurable. Anyway, temporarily distracted by the presents under the tree and the impending visit of Santa Claus, the littlies were singing carols. Sentiment? Mine eyes smelt onions. 

“O little town of Bethlehem” featured. In Bethlehem this year, Christmas was cancelled, though the littlies there would have had a less bad time than in Gaza. “The hopes and fears of all the years.” Where are the hopes? Mr Netanyahu tells us that the fighting might go on for the whole of this year. In every chancery throughout the civilised world, that prospect will bring acute dismay. But what is to be done? 

I love visiting Israel. For a start, you are never more that fifty yards from a political argument and Israelis are happy to lay into each other – verbally, that is – despite the presence of foreigners. Out of tragedy, the Israelis have created a most impressive country. They have a vibrant and truculent democracy plus an equally truculent judiciary. They have made the desert bloom and their military/industrial complex has built up a formidable high-tech sector. This is a country which could be a light unto the nations, but for one difficulty, or rather seven million of them. What is to be done about the Palestinians?

We know what is needed. Israel should be a predominantly Jewish state within internationally recognised boundaries. While the Israelis would be able to rely on their alliance with America, the IDF would be easily able to deal with any external threat. The Palestinians, meanwhile, would have their state. Such a country, under a sensible government, should receive a lot of foreign aid. There ought also to be the opportunity for cautious cooperation with the Israelis, whose know-how could be of great assistance to the new Palestinian state. 

Yet how do we arrive there? 

It almost needs a miraculous benefaction but alas, Santa Claus does not exist. In the past, opportunities have been lost. Arafat sabotaged the Oslo Accords. Rabin, that tough general, might have been the statesman to keep a peace process alive, but he was assassinated. Sharon, an equally tough warrior, a bulldozer with a Ferrari engine, was converted to the cause of peace and then had a stroke. Instead, we have Benjamin Netanyahu. In Israel, most thoughtful Jews seem to abhor him. A view widely shared by intelligent Jews elsewhere. Yet he seems to have a grasp on Israeli politics; not a good argument for Israel’s form of proportional representation.

Meanwhile, as Rabin and Sharon passed from the scene while Netanyahu prevailed, the settlements grew: 700,000 incomers, almost all of them intransigent. A further repetition warning: species pseudo-differentiation. It helps soldiers to kill opponents if they are regarded as a sub-species. There is a lot of that on the West Bank now among civilians on both sides. It does not make the way straight for peace.

It is easy to understand why the Israelis wanted to inflict savage punishment on Hamas, in revenge for murder, rape and hostage-taking. But there is a problem. With Hamas, we are confronting an enemy which does not fear death and has no scruples in inflicting it. It is prepared to sacrifice its own militants and is delighted when the Israelis reduce Gaza to rubble with growing civilian casualties. Islamic terrorism is likely to prove hydra-headed. It is inevitable that a significant number of young Palestinian males will be radicalised. They too will seek revenge on those whom they have come to regard as a sub-species.

Hamas set out to sabotage the growing links between Israel and some Arab states. It was happy to drown the Abraham Accords in blood and it may well have succeeded. The longer the current conflict continues, the greater the likelihood that the whole region will be thrown into turmoil. The leaders of Hamas may well believe that their own losses are acceptable in pursuit of their strategic objectives, which are still in play. Who can be certain that they are wrong? Netanyahu seems happy to lock Israel into endless war. If not, what is his war aim and when will he be able to declare victory? In Vietnam, US commanders’ assessments of Viet Cong losses persuaded them that these were unsustainable. They were wrong. The Netanyahu strategy – if one can call it that – may be blundering into a similar mistake. 

There are at least two dreadful scenarios and I would be delighted to be reassured that they are impossible. The first is an eruption of the Israeli id. There are Israelis who insist that the Palestinians already have their state. It is called Jordan and they should all move to it. The wreckage of Jordan would be the Israeli fanatics’ version of “from the river to the sea.”

Then there is the risk from minaturisation and proliferation. As the century moves on, it will presumably become easier for terrorists to acquire and utilise a nuclear device. Again, I would be delighted if a nuclear physicist could assure me that this is nonsense. Yet – third repetition – as long as “Great hatred: little room” dominates the region, hideous consequences cannot be discounted. In a few years time, when a terrorist prepares to blow himself to paradise in a Tel Aviv bus queue, his death-waistcoat might not be equipped with a conventional explosive. There could be another Holocaust, in the Holy Land of Israel.

Has “peace on earth to all men of good will’ become war on earth where there are no men of good will? Let us hope not. Indeed, for those who believe in prayer, do give it a go. It cannot do any harm. 

There are two conclusions. The first is that when necessity is so manifest, a strategy for peace will emerge. The second is that the human race is simply not very good at managing its affairs. At present, the second has it. Fears are prevailing over hopes.

Let us hope that I am wrong. In that fervent hope, let us all wish for a Happy New Year.

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life