Arab Israeli conflict

After a close and exciting race, the voting has come down to a tie, so I give priority to the first vote. Perhaps women in Judaism comes next, unless another topic gets two votes before that time.

But first, a few notes on life in yeshiva after a full week. First of all, it is really hard to get used to transitioning straight from birkat cohanim to tachanun. Tefillin during birkat cohanim is also a little disorienting at first, but nothing like that sudden demand for total attitude realignment. Secondly, I may be "flipping out" a little bit. I decided to fast Mondays and Thursdays so I could skip meals and learn more. I don't think it is anything to worry about, my sense of self, moral intuition, and critical thinking don't seem to be in any danger, but I'll keep an eye on it. Finally, the community feels just a little... incomplete, I suppose; I attribute this to a confluence of three factors: 

-It is extremely transitory. This is an issue in college, where everyone is in and out in a few years. Kal v'chomer here, where six months makes you veritably an elder statesman. 

-There are no women. Some separation may be good, because men and women are different, but too much feels a bit off, because the differences are complementary. Hard to say exactly what the effect is, just a different timbre or flavor.

-The vast majority of the students are recent ba'alei teshuva. Again, hard to point out precise changes, but it feels different. I think that there is a certain self-consciousness to it, maybe unsettled identities or what-have-you. I don't know to what extent I give off this vibe, but I imagine that it fades quickly when immersed in a more organic community.

Now, these things are not necessarily bad, but it certainly takes some getting used to. Other than those few issues, I am having a great time. It is amazing to be removed from so many distractions and temptations that somehow manage to keep me from doing valuable things that I enjoy when I am at home. Even struggling through a mishna with a dictionary is really quite pleasurable. Davening is way more intense than I am used to. I lead today for the first time since coming here, at maariv. I was moved up to the next level for gemara, now learning under Rabbi Elie Silverburg. Much better fit.

Now, onto the main topic.

Full disclaimer, I am somewhat biased towards Israel's interest, which may have determined my feelings toward Gaza and the various rights of return involved. That said, I do value the well-fare of the Palestinians, and I think that in most cases our interests align. 

I am against a two state solution. I do not think that it is a viable path to lasting peace, when both sides are deeply committed to the entire land. Suppose an agreement were reached. We would then almost certainly see a flow of weapons and Palestinians from the diaspora into the West Bank. Given that a significant portion of the populace would not support the agreement, and still see Israel as occupying the rest of the country, some sort of violence is likely. 

Then there are two possibilities: either the government there will support the agreement, or it will not. If the PA retains control, and continues to support peace, then this is basically a similar situation to the current one, except Israel has greater threats from the West Bank and less freedom or position to act on them. Israel thus remains stuck in its moral quandary of involvement, quickly loses its initial windfall of international good will as the inevitable messiness results, and its security is dramatically worse. One might say that the Israelis could just ignore being attacked and wait for the PA to deal with it. I don't think that that is likely. The Palestinians don't get the full dignity of independence, because their sovereignty is regularly violated by Israel, and their economic benefits are severely limited. Not seeing much benefit from the agreement, and still desiring control of the territory left to the other side, popular support for the agreement is likely to decline on both sides, creating a vicious cycle that intensifies the problem. If the PA loses control or repudiates the peace agreement, then the West Bank becomes Gaza writ large. Then there are two possibilities: either Israel reoccupies or it does not. If it does, then at great cost it has managed to undo every potential benefit from peace and be left worse off than before. If it does not, and treats it as it has treated Gaza since Hamas took over, then its security position becomes almost entirely untenable. The Palestinians would, presumably, not fare very well in this scenario either. 

Stable peace thus relies on supermajority popular support and a strong PA, even after a large influx from the camps, who are generally more radical and would have legitimate grounds to reject an agreement that they had no representation in (or do we suppose that the refugees would be denied right of return even to the Palestinian state?). Given popular sentiment in Egypt and Jordan after years of peace, it seems too optimistic to suppose that even two generations would suffice to normalize the peace in the public imagination, so we would need the strength of the PA to continue stably for at least that long. The probability seems vanishingly small.

Some have argued for foreign guarantees of security as a solution to these problems. I think that this would be disastrous. There is a significant possibility that the guarantors would back out, leaving Israel in the lurch, but even if they did not, a western occupying force would give credence to claims that Israel is a colonial state imposing western power on the autochthonous people, rather than another group of indigenes pressing a just claim to their own land. Thus Israel surrenders its moral claim to existence for transient material support.

Further, even if a two state solution had long term viability, I would be hesitant, as a Jew, to support the renunciation of the region that formed the core of biblical Israel and contains many of our holiest sites.

Now, the status quo is also unacceptable. It is unjust and denies the legitimate demands of the Palestinians. It leaves Israel isolated and in a state of constant war, with attendant moral and security risks to society as a whole.

Therefore, I support annexation of the West Bank. I have seen a number of pundits suggest that the PA threaten to dissolve itself if negotiations fail this time, as a trump card to put pressure on Israel. I wish they would; that would give this plan all sorts of legitimacy. Still, it is unlikely. The leadership is too corrupt to even consider it. Even so, I think unilateral annexation is better than nothing. This would provide both Jews and Arabs with full access to the entire land and full dignity of equal citizenship. For those who are concerned with the security implications for Israel, consider that of all the Arabs in the Middle East, those who are least hostile to Israel are those who live there, or so I have heard. Given a stake in the state, they have less interest in getting rid of it. Without Gaza or refugees, there would be at least a generation for things to settle before an Arab majority becomes a possibility, and even then it is far from certain. Recent trends have shown a steep decline in Palestinian fertility and steady rise in Jewish fertility, even among the secular. Would the name of the state, the flag, the national anthem, and other symbols need to change? I don't think that it is entirely necessary. National symbols are fairly synthetic, and I understand that current non-Jewish residents of Israel largely identify with the current set. My brother spent some time in an immigrant neighborhood in Tel Aviv, and his description of the extent to which they identified with originally Jewish symbols was surprising. The chief rabbinate already has Muslim and Christian counterparts. I think that the army should retain its current policy of accepting Arab volunteers but not drafting them. There are other integration issues that would need to be addressed, but I don't think that any is insurmountable.

This plan does leave Gaza as an independent city state; not much change there, but it may be easier to isolate the problem without a broader conflict. It also does not in itself address the plight of the refugees. They need to be resettled elsewhere, as they should have been long ago. There are many other countries that have claimed to be interested in Arab-Israeli peace and the well-being of the refugees. Let some of them be part of the solution. Reasonable compensation should be on the table, especially if those countries whose Jews were driven out are willing to compensate for the property lost at that time. Reminds me of that story where the Egyptians sued the Jews for the borrowed wealth that was never returned, and were granted their case on condition that they pay backwages for centuries of slavery. 

This plan also leads to a chance that the Jewish right of return may not be open forever. It would be hard to justify allowing it for Jews and not for Arabs and still claim full equality and dignity. That is a hard price to accept, but I think that peace is worth it and this is the best chance at peace. As long as immigration is still possible for those who are committed enough to accept a normal naturalization process. 

That's where I stand, for now. Questions or comments? 

Shalom,

-Ethan