The recent recognitions of a Palestinian state and the October 10 ceasefire have been followed by a flurry of calls to “deradicalize” Palestinian society. The New York Times editorial board went so far as to compare this deradicalization project to the denazification of Germany after the Second World War. These calls have the situation backwards to the point of farce.
Nothing about it is confusing, it is very clear. And it is an absolute position that will make this conflict go on forever. Why? Because in an asymmetric conflict like this, there will always be injustice.
You have to find a way to end this injustice with peaceful means. I refuse to accept that only violence can solve this. That’s all I am saying.
What absolute position? I wrote a whole paragraph after the bit that you quote exactly on why it is not an absolute position.
Okay, I admit I didn’t pay enough attention to what you wrote. Probably because I don’t like being lectured about history.
But in that case, even better! They tried working on a two-state solution. It was shot down, but you gotta try again. And again. And again.
Everything Israel and the Palestinians are doing at the moment is the exact opposite. They create more violence, hatred, death, destruction and desire for vengeance, which in turn will be the fuel for more decades of war.
Stop both sides-ing for goodness sake! There are no two equal sides here. There are the perpetrators and the victims of a genocide, of apartheid, and of occupation.
Not to mention that you are literally factually wrong. Hamas controls Gaza but the PA controls the West Bank. There is nothing the PA does that “creates violence, hatred, destruction and desire for vengeance” among Israelis. So to be extremely clear YOUR FRAMING IS FACTUALLY WRONG. The PA has recognized Israel, supports the two state solution. The PA is so actively trying to supress radicals that if you look around this thread you will see people accusing it of being collaborationists. And what do they get in response? Colonization, occupation, apartheid, and pogroms. If Israel achieves its war goals and eliminates Hamas from Gaza, the result will be that that insufferable misery also extended there. The Palestinians are literally given a choice of genocide or apartheid, of a quick fiery death or a slow bleeding death. This is Israel’s policy and it isn’t just Bibi, it is the Israeli state policy of the last 30 fucking years.
Interesting thread, although your definition of ‘Justice’ being one where ‘each side gets what they can live with’ isn’t quite in line with how it’s defined. Many dictionaries word it slightly differently, but it all boils down to legality and morality, both of which have no absolute basis.
I.e. any side can cite any law or moral reference to support their view(s) and establish a casus belli. That only their described outcome is ‘just’. Justice =! compromise or reparation. It’s merely an interpretation.
In our current frame of reference, what Bibi and the Israeli forces are doing is reprehensible. However, the cessation and ‘deradicalization’ of such actors followed by the delivery of some form of ‘justice’ to all concerned doesn’t deliver a blank slate and an enduring solution, simply because the interpretation and basis of justice is so vastly different for each involved state in the whole region.
The concept of justice I’m advocating for in this context (and I’m not claiming to be a moral philosopher) is a mix of Transitional and Restorative concepts of justice. I’m inspired from things like ending vendettas/blood feuds. For such long standing conflicts, absolute justice is just not realizable, because absolute evil has already happened. However we can get to functional relationships and communities that work towards a future. So when I say ‘each side gets what they can live with’ I mean exactly the question of how far can you get to justice without breaking the future. And I actually mean “live with” not just tolerate but actually live. It’s not a compromise in the sense of horse trading, it is a compromising in the sense of accepting that some wrongs just cannot be amended but that a better future is still possible.
I understand your description of justice in this context. Could you follow that with real life examples of where a lasting peace has been achieved between actors after an ‘absolute evil’ has been done that meets your definition?
Also, what constitutes ‘living’ in your context? Would say, the relationship / situation between Greece and Turkey be accurately classified as living, even though quite some ‘hatred’ bubbles beneath the surface?
I am quite eurocentric, so take this as a caveat. France and Germany I guess would be the most obvious and successful example? And Germany with like the Netherlands, Poland, etc. Ireland with the UK are getting there too possibly. Sub-nationally, I would add South Africa to the list, maybe also Catalonia, Basque and Quebec (but they’re not winning the oppression olympics).
For Greece and Turkey I think it’s still an unfinished project (Cyprus is the proof of that). We have achieved a big degree of functional reconciliation, but mistrust, hatred, and shenanigans persist (my theory: this because neither nation properly reconciled with the fact that we based our peace on mutual ethnic cleansing…).
And here is the weird take of the day: I wouldn’t be too shy to say that a lot of the Balkans have “advanced” to a point where in practice memes and teasing (think 2balkan4u) serve as a sort of a weird fucked up balkan version of truth and reconciliation…
But that’s the point, right? Justice seen as a process. Nothing can ever be said to be “done” but you can get more towards it.
The ww2 example (assuming that’s what you’re referring to) is a very brief (if violent) conflict relative to the one we’re discussing in this topic, which is spread over at least centuries. Not too mention that ww2 was a burst of activity and a decisive conclusion was reached, unlike the conflict in question. Greece/turkey is a good example of a conflict that lasts at least a similar duration. Ireland/UK is also closer in that regard, but still is ‘only’ over decades of conflict.
With centuries of bad blood, the respective definitions of ‘justice’ from either side (in their various forms) have clearly drifted very far apart from each other. The ‘how’ aside (as seemingly no one is willing to nor able to achieve it), what would a realistic and just peace look like in your eyes for the region? Because I think we have to accept that (base on Greece/Turkey) a feud that lasts over a century is not overcome in one generation.
I won’t say much about the Balkans as I’m not well read on it and it seems to be one with more than two main actors.