Israel/Gaza and Iran have dominated global headlines for many months now, notwithstanding Russia/Ukraine and the very loud Trump show. Every time this columnist thinks he has something to say on the subject, the ground shifts, emotions get in the way or facts on the ground become impossible to verify. The whole matter sometimes feels as bewildering as a house of mirrors.
I subscribe to a number of Israeli WhatsApp news sites. I tune in to Al Jazeera, as well as to the left-wing, anti-government Israeli news outlet Haaretz and to others on the opposing side. Also, like most people, I get a smorgasbord of international Middle East news from both left-leaning and right-leaning news outlets like The Guardian, The New York Times, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, Fox and The Financial Times. And then, of course, social media.
Any attempt to stay objective while reading these sources is certain to drive anyone mad. There is no way to know the truth. Each pursues its own. Each platform deflects, nudges, edits, colours and, sometimes, simply lies about the situation. Facts dissolve into a slurry of interpretation.
All of this is complicated by my own history as the child of parents whose European branch of the family tree was truncated by the Holocaust. But we soldier on, trying to look at the situation with as objective an eye as possible (probably an unrealistic aspiration as, I am sure, is true of other commentators of different persuasions likewise trying to rise above their personal biases).
So what do we know for sure? About 1,500 people, mainly Israelis, including women and children, were brutalised, kidnapped or killed on 7 October 2023. The Dinah report on what happened that day, recently released, supplies photographic, video and medical evidence, as well as interviews (from both perpetrators and victims), which would sicken the most battle-hardened commentator.
And then, of course, there are the dead civilians, the keening mothers, the destruction and starvation currently happening in Gaza – also sickening, with a death toll of many tens of thousands, a significant number of those civilian deaths. While some try to argue that Hamas is responsible, there is plenty of evidence here to solidly implicate the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, even though Hamas may well be aiding and abetting the civilian misery which serves its PR cause.
In light of this, how are we to make sense of it all? To assign culpability, responsibility, to quantify redress, imagine renewal? To see a path through all of this pain?
I recently attended a private event of concerned, influential and (mainly left-wing) liberal Jews, about which I will say little out of respect for the gravity and confidentiality of the event, which sought to air and discuss some of the sacred, and not-so-sacred, cows treading on those barren Middle Eastern pastures. What I will say is that I found insufficient succour there. It is not enough to be horrified at the conditions in Gaza. We need to answer the question: what next? Not tomorrow, but in the longer term. No good answers were forthcoming, at least not for me.
There is a liberal Jewish cohort that believes the two-state solution is a pipe dream and that the only solution lies in the establishment of a non-ethnic democracy that encompasses both Jews and Palestinians under a single benevolent governance – a broad church, if you will (if you’ll excuse the metaphor). This seems even more of a pipe dream to me. There are seven million passport-holding Israeli Jews. All are Zionists. (If you hold an Israeli passport and love your country, you are a Zionist, no matter what your politics. The word “Zionist” has become deformed. Its original meaning simply referred to those who believed in the right to a Jewish homeland, just as Palestinians believe they have a right to theirs.)
What do the one-staters intend to do about seven million Israeli citizens who do not want a single-state solution? To say nothing of the two million Israeli Arabs who hold full citizenship rights and enjoy free access to Israel’s thriving economy. You simply cannot impose a single-state solution on a reluctant citizenry without provoking violence that would make the current mess look tame. There is a vanishingly small percentage of current Israeli passport holders who would agree to it, even among those who are solidly and passionately sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in this conflict.
There is also no chance of a single-state solution being imposed by the United Nations. There is no precedent for this sort of interference and it would surely contradict the UN’s founding principle of the sovereignty (and equality) of member states.
Then there are those who argue that the Israeli state is illegitimate and has no right to exist. This is an even less-useful position to adopt. Israel exists because the UN granted it the right to do so in 1948. Any discussion about Israel’s legal “right” needs to be argued at the UN (surely a fruitless prospect – the UN has never expelled a member), or Israel’s enemies will have to conquer the country militarily (there is also little chance of that). Israel’s “right to exist” is a pointless and wasted conversation; it is little more than playing “what if” with history.
There is a cohort who believe that some members of the right wing of the Israeli government should be held accountable for various excesses of this war and that a two-state solution is the only possible road to travel and must be hammered into place via coordinated international economic and political pressure. This seems to me the only reasonable position to hold, even if the two-state solution has been tried continuously for decades without success.
It is, of course, also true that there are those who think Israel is doing what it needs to do and has no other option – other than annexing Gaza and the West Bank perhaps, although none of these people was at the event I attended. I will not comment further on that can of worms other than to say I do not agree, and I believe the misery it would bring to all parties would be significant and endless.
Over the course of the past week the global community has started to shift more aggressively towards the two-state position, including Canada, France, Australia, the UK and others who signalled recognition of a Palestinian state. Notwithstanding that it is somewhat premature (there is no proposed shape or form to the Palestinian state on the table), such a statement of intent from some of Israel’s historical allies sends a powerful message and ramps up the pressure on all parties to find a two-state solution.
While it may cause discomfort to many Israelis, Isaac Saul from Tangle explains why it is bad for Hamas:
“The form of recognition is called ‘de jure’, meaning ‘in law’. France, Canada, Australia, and other countries are now set to extend de jure recognition to Palestine as a legitimate and sovereign state, which would allow for the establishment of embassies and the signing of international compacts and treaties. However, these countries are considering recognising the entity of Palestine and not the rule of Hamas, which Canada, Australia, and the European Union continue to list as a terrorist organisation… in effect, these recognitions are mounting diplomatic pressure for the removal of both Israel and Hamas from Gaza as one entity under one government.”
Read more: Israel-Palestine War
Finally, there is one more narrative in the Middle East conflict which keeps popping up via well-intentioned commentators: if the parties in South Africa could do it, then the Palestinians and Israelis can find a way forward together. I find this view fatuous. The situation is not remotely comparable. At least, not in the current political climate, when there are two messianic ethno-nationalists on either side each claiming God-given rights and screaming at each other across an abyss in a language neither understands.
Bridging that gap, particularly in the face of an extreme right-wing Israeli government which talks about annexations on the one side and Iran/Hamas/Hezbollah’s endless public roaring about annihilating Israel on the other, will take a lot more than a new Mandela. DM