Why Trust?

I just finished writing about the importance of trust in any Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. The typical line, however, is that "both parties know what needs to get done, why not just get it done?" We know that the Palestinians will have Gaza and the West Bank, so why not just give it to them? Well, on one level, that is starting to be the attitude of some Israelis. They just want to leave those territories and let the Palestinians have them. That is well and good from a national security standpoint and dismantling settlements only furthers the ball for future peace negotations. However, without a formal handover, the territories are doomed to fail. That is because, as much as Arabs would like to believe otherwise, Israel is necessary for the viable existence of any Palestinian state. Israel's cooperation is needed in everything from the organization of water distribution to Palestine's security to the job prospects of Palestinians, etc. Without some level of even mild cooperation, as Hamas is today finding, Palestine becomes an unviable state. Thus, it is in the Palestinians' interest as much or more than the Israelis to build some trust and broker a peace deal.

The problem is that the issue has been framed as: "You took X from us, return it and we'll have peace." That may be historically accurate, but that isn't the point. Returning the land won't necessarily create peace. Only a peace agreement can do that. Returning land can quell some of the roots of terrorism, but that is a national security not a peace concern. The actual issue is: "Two nations are intertwined. One rich, one poor. How can we construct an agreement that maintains the identity of both while also allowing both to be stable and secure?"

The answer is soem level of cooperation. Groups like Hamas may believe that breeding distrust will one day lead to a Greater Palestine. That isn't the case. It will probably lead to the semi-autonomous region of Palestine, i.e., more of the same. In this situation, Israel has all the cards. All the Palestinians have is the good public relations that comes with underdog/victim status. That helps fill the coffers, but that doesn't create a state. The only people that can broker a state for the Palestinians: Israelis. That's why trust is so essential.

Why No Peace?

Every talk on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (note: no longer the Arab-Israeli conflict, which might actually provide some context) ends with a solliloquiy whereupon the erudite speaker waxes poetic on the possibilities for peace. "Now that Sharon and Abbas are in power, the peace will come!" Or, "Now that the Israeli Public understands the Palestinians, the dove will find its perch." Or, "Now that the demands of the Palestinians have lessened ..." And on and on.

So, why is there no peace? Clearly, it is not for lack of optimism.

For one, the people hate each other. The Al-Aqsa Intifada and corresponding IDF missions that razed a good of Palestine only worsened the hatred. And yet, a couple years removed from the height of the violence, and peace is being talked about again.

But it is only talk. The latest round of violence has only made the positions of both publics more extreme. Israelis want to keep some settlements and have a unified Jerusalem. Palestinians want the 1967 borders unadulterated and a real right of return. This is where we were ten, fifteen years ago. Only now Hamas, not the PLO, plays the role of the Palestinian terror group that needs moderation.

We are bound to soon hear again all the old barbs. How the 1948 agreement gave Palestinians only 22% of the total land. How the Israelis were attacked by five Arab armies just as their nation was being born. How Ariel Sharon is a war criminal. How Yasir Arafat is a terrorist. How this or that family was humiliated by this or that army. How this or that family was blown up by this or that bomber. If this were a grievance competitions, it would be the whining olympics.

But historic grievance no longer stands in my eyes. I don't care who "deserves" x, y, or z, or what "atrocities" happened. That sounds callous, but the fact is the atrocities and claims of desert go both ways, and, when you look at them through the eyes of those making the claims, you see that they ultimately cancel each other out. You can't quantify the value of a human life to the family of the victim or the value of property to the displaced Jew or Arab.

The fact is that all we have now are facts. Facts on the ground as they call them. What happened happened. Let's agree that after the peace all the dirty books about whose worse and whose better can be published and republished. But, for now, let's focus on what is.

Two peoples sit side-by-side-by-side. One is steward of an emerging economy, the other steward of emerging chaos. One has sovereignty and international condemnation, the other some autonomy and victim status that no bleeding heart can ignore. The question is how can a true peace based on equality can be made when one child is feeble and the other strong? Under the veil of ignorance perhaps a wonderful, fair world would emerge. But facts are facts. Israel is stronger, Palestine weaker. Israel is stable, Palestine is teetering on outright anarchy. There is no Palestinian partner because no one government or militia speaks for all Palestinians.

Then, is it the duty of Israel to aid Palestine? It's certainly in Israel's interest to maintain stability there and to create some goodwill. But, every time the border is opened some shithead ruins it for everyone. Or, alternatively, everyone designates a shithead to get back at Israel for the slight of the day.

It's a two-way street. Goodwill and trust need to be formed on some level. Israel and Palestine need to realize they won't get everything they want. Palestine has to realize that Israel has a lot of the leverage, and that terrorism is not the answer. Israel and Palestine have to realize that there will be crazies before, after and during the peace. But, in the long-run a decent-looking Palestinian state is in both peoples interests. The problem is making those interests more salient than the immediate security concerns of the people. Further, those interests can only become evident once the hatred subsides and the who's the bigger victim game ends.

I'm not saying there will be peace soon. Far from it. Trust is hard to build and easy to break. But that's the road that we need to go down. Until the next atrocity ....

Going to Greece

So I have my ticket to "Ancient" Olympia. Going for a two-week seminar. Finally cashing in on being a political scientist. I'll surely be carbon-dating many political samples and measuring the craniums of many a Greek with my forceps. That's just what us doctors of politics do.

My first colloquium went quite well. A lot of constructive feedback. As usual, that means I'm back to the drawing board. Hoarding sources and readying myself to de-muddify my question and variables. Definitely at peace with the profession.