Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Participant
An article in The Nation by Daniel Lazare illuminates the movement among Jewish intellectuals and others, such as Palestinian Edward Said, to abandon the "two state" solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, arguing that in spite of all the progress the state of Israel has made in modernizing that country, the fundamental ideal of Zionism, that the Jews would be able to live in friendship with their Arab neighbors, has not been met. Instead we have a hundred years of such conflict. Israel was supposed to be a safe haven, and it is far from it.

He describes Israel as an anachronism, and quotes Tony Judt, "In today's 'clash of cultures' between open, pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp."

He points out that the basic premise of Zionism, the Biblical history upon which it is built, the promise of return after banishment to the desert, has no scholarly, archeological support. "As a University of Tel Aviv archeologist named Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the newspaper Ha'aretz in 1999, 'The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign, and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Furthermore the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom.' The Israelites were merely one indigenous culture among many. The idea that they had some sort of pre-eminent claim to the Holy Land has no basis in historical fact. Zionist archeology thus turns out to subvert Zionism."

Moreover, he argues, conditions have gone from bad to worse, making many doubt that a two state solution could create a peaceful situation. He believes that what must happen is that the entire country should be reunited as an open democracy, not a Jewish state. Jews are now 56% of the population, but as Don often points out, the Palestinian birth rate is much greater so the balance would change. The question would be, could both sides agree to live in a democracy, recognizing that the differences within their groups are probably as great as the differences between them, and that would make for a society with a multitude of opinions that transcend their religious heritage.

Do you think that the Jewish population of Israel could give up the theocratic Jewish State, where one must be Jewish to participate? If, as Lazare suggests, it is an anachronism, changing it, modernizing it, could make more of a difference in the world picture of terrorism, than could any other single event.

Participant
Dick: Your #203 is a fine analysis of the almost impossible barriers to a satisfactory solution for the Israelis and Palestinians. But I suggest with due respect that it is not balanced -- it also needs a paragraph indicating that the religion-driven policies of the Palestinians are as much a barrier to a solution as that of the Jews. In fact, many of the ILF entries above point out the barriers to intelligent solutions are high when religion is intertwined with governing. I submit that the barriers caused by religion is about equal for both sides in this case.

I have been in Israel several times and have friends on both camps. My unreliable sampling tells me that there are as many citizens in both camps who would like to see a separation of religion and politics as there are Americans who would like to see an end to the impact of our religions right here at home.

There are no visible solutions in sight. But I would suggest the following formula as a reasonable tack to take, admitting that it seems impossible. As Churchill might have said: what follows is "the worst solution except for all others".

* Using the UN (the worst venue except for all others) to call a summit meeting of Muslim and Judeo-Christian powers.

* Using the best modern facilitation techniques (my pick would be those of AMERICASPEAKS, but I am sure there are others) try to follow the following agenda:

+ A period to ventilate current frustrations

+ Focus if possible on the deterrents of religions in achieving a solution, and at the same time establishing respect and an honored roll for religious participation short of political decision making.

+ Discuss sources of money, including needs for both Israel/Palestine and Iraq.

+ Avoid setting an unrealistic short time period to accomplish the above.

I also doubt if the above will work. But perhaps it will challenge someone more qualified than me to suggest something "less worst"!

Participant
Don, I agree completely that religion is a force on both sides. I guess I thought that I was bringing balance into the discussion because we have focused entirely on the fundamentalist Islamic side, and not on the Zionist side.

My strategy (still unlikely to work) would depart somewhat from yours. I would approach it on the idea that big changes are easier to make than small ones. I'd avoid airing the age-old complaints. I'd cast before both of them the arguments for and benefits of a one state solution. And I would offer to pay the compromising parties many billions of dollars to make the necessary adjustments. And rather than stretching out the deliberations, I'd make that a short time, with a deadline, and give the longer time to implementation. As you suggest, I'd do it through the UN, if possible, but here is a place we could use America's authority and resources.

To make it work, we'd have to put religion in the background for both parties, and make them accept a multicultural, multi-religion, secular state.

The problem, of course, is that it would be seen as heresy by the fundamentalists on both sides. How might we deal with that?

Participant
Dick: We agree on the most important idea: almost any strategy that differs from the current Bush dictatorship would be an improvement.

Where we differ is: You have a plan to sell, e.g. "I'd cast before both of the them the arguments for and benefits of a one state solution", and "I would offer to pay the compromising parties many billions of dollars to make the necessary adjustments", "And rather than stretching out the deliberations, I'd make that a short time, with a deadline, and give the longer time to implementation."

In my proposal, I assume that it would be better to have the parties invent the goals, and in doing so I am accepting a suggestion from an article in the latest bulletin of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace article that trying to hurry the process is a poor but understandable choice.

I would not argue for my strategy over yours. Both are very similar, and both have the odds against them.

But if we were serious about moving in this direction in our deliberations, a good preliminary topic for discussion would be your valid effort to move the parties into "our" idea of a constructive set of goals as soon as possible and my feeling that trying to get them to "invent" the solution boundaries, even if it takes more time, is a choice worth considering.

Participant
Don, I certainly can identify with your strategy, and with the Carnegie Endowment. That strategy is what I would suggest for Iraq. But, unless Bush has squandered it completely, we have considerable leverage with the Israelis, and because of that, with the Palestinians as well.

Sometimes when legislation is forced on people, their attitudes come around--as happened when the US armed services were integrated, over considerable resistance, and in general with the civil rights legislation. Like Martin Luther King, I worry about "the tranquilizing drug of gradualism". That strategy has not worked in that country, and we've given it a very good long try.

I think we have enough muscle there, especially if we were to up our already strong financial commitment exponentially, to get them to move. Of course, we will also need diplomacy, and perhaps what we lack, the UN may supply.

We have every reason to be as demanding with them as we are with Iraq. Even more so in one sense. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is closer to the root of our terrorism problem, especially 9/11, than any other. We should not be ignoring it, but really going after it in a forceful way. I don't mean an invasion, I just mean getting tough. Sharon is far more responsible for our terrorism fears than Saddam ever was.

As I said, this would be seen as heresy, maybe even more in the US than in Israel, believe it or not. But it is being talked about in the right circles.

Participant
Don and Dick:

Would a commission made up of Carter and Clinton (and maybe Bush I and Ford to make it non-partisan) appointed by Bush II to serve as intermediaries between the Palestinians and Israelis be a viable means of creating a fair and impartial dialogue to search for either a one or two state solution? And to restore American credibility?

If the answer is yes, what would be the modus operandi to approach Bush II with this idea?"

Participant
Robert -- Warning: my answer to your question comes from someone with more expertise (if any) in process than in the substance. I would agree that your list of names should be among the participants. But I would rather have as members of a "commission" people with an international reputation in facilitated discussion rather than in politics. Those in your list would, in my opinion, feel they knew the answers and would use their skills in getting others to agree. A skilled facilitator would be more successful, from my perspective, in "serving as an intermediary in steering the search for a solution".

Participant
I know it sounds harsh, and crass, but I think we have to avoid a situation in which each side can air its history, legitimacy, and outrage. We have to escalate to a discussion of what must happen for there to be a one or two state solution, but the decision as to which it should be is not theirs to make. That discussion should take place in the UN or elsewhere. That is, I think a decision has to be imposed upon them, and the discussion limited to planning the implementation. This is no longer a local problem. This conflict is creating worldwide terrorism. I'm not sure that a US commission would be seen by the world to be sufficiently unbiased to accomplish a fair settlement. I'm for an international group. Then the US can work behind the scenes to gain cooperation, including buying their cooperation with fifty billion dollars.

Participant
I think I need to clarify my last, written in a rush. It may sound strange for a psychologist to suggest that there are times when talking things out is not appropriate. In fact, open communication is only successful under very special circumstances, and one of them is when the power of the communicants is about equal. In the Palestinian/Israeli situation the power is way out of balance.

Since 9/11 is directly related to that conflict, and therefore to everything else that has been tied to that terrorist act, the international community has a major stake in seeing it ended in a way that will no longer make it a source of Middle Eastern anger. I think there are many Israelis and Palestinians who would welcome the authority of an outside power, like the UN, to lay down the law, and establish a just solution.

Participant
Dick: With all due respect, I think your enthusiasm for "the authority of an outside power like the UN to lay down the law and establish a just solution" is rooted in a long (and justly reached) emotional conviction of just what a just solution must be.

I doubt that the Kofi Annan or his close advisors would willingly take on the task as you define it. And even if such a process was tried and succeeded in coming up with a "solution", I doubt it would be accepted by BOTH sides and could be enforced.

I think you are on the right track in wanting the UN, with all its flaws, to be the lead agency for seeking a solution. I hope your #212 and this memo of mine will stir up some further discussion here regarding the PROCESS we might suggest for the UN IF IT DID TAKE ON THIS TASK.

Participant
I agree with you, Don. I introduced this whole line of thought with the qualification that I had little hope for its working. I'm simply trying to get into our deliberations some alternative ways of thinking about what is the real core of the terrorism issue in America, what responsibility hard core Zionists have for the existence of terrorism, and what are some so far unconsidered options for curbing that terrorism.

I think the major idea that we must incorporate into our thinking is that what has changed in the past few decades, and especially since 9/11, is that a conflict like the Israeli/Palestinian mess is no longer a regional affair, and therefore it becomes everyone's problem and interest.

As you say, the UN might not want to touch it, but I'm not sure. I do know that America has a lot of clout in that region, and if we can get out of Sharon's pocket, we can forcefully make some demands.

Previous Page        Next Page

top