Israel’s Islamist Excuse
Why they can and should “negotiate with terrorists”
My recent post “What Bill Maher & Others Get Wrong About Israel-Palestine” stirred up robust discussion, out of which another blog with a similar theme is due. Here’s the heart of that opinion, which I’ll try to substantiate below: Islamist extremism can’t and shouldn’t be an obstacle to Israel sitting down with Palestinians to negotiate a lasting peace in the region.
We’ve all been hearing it again and again for decades: “Israel will never negotiate with terrorists!” The rationale seems obvious and intuitive, on many levels. Akin to sending a ransom to kidnappers, the money incentivizes more kidnapping, and won’t even guarantee release of the kidnappee. Bad behaviors are reinforced, why comply with blackmail?
Even worse, negotiating with people having the express goal of driving your people into the sea and taking 100% of your land doesn’t bode well on the trust factor. Why bother playing poker if your opponent says that regardless of outcome, he’ll steal all your chips and murder you? And since you’re starting with more chips, they will gain and you will lose if you play at all.
These analogies are petty and simplistic, but illustrate why the Jews have demanded the Palestinians accept the existence of the State of Israel as a prerequisite for any negotiations. They also illustrate why Israel seems to have lost patience with the Palestinians and the peace process, while violence and Islamist extremism continue to intensify across the region.
A consequence of that loss of patience is the rise of Netanyahu’s ultra-right-wing government, and their policies designed to expand West Bank settlements rather than concede any land, short circuit negotations toward Palestinian independence rather than facilitate any negotiations, and until Oct 7th embolden Hamas to preclude a unified front with the PA.
Across the populous and proximate borders, Palestinian rage has surged in parallel, of course culminating with last year’s surprise and utterly unprecedented invasion and hostage taking in southern Israel. The IDF response was exactly what Sinwar hoped for: 1000x retaliation, played out with a flattened and invaded Gaza, and eruption of multifront conflict.
The overall result is exponential deterioration of Israel’s international reputation alongside a surge in global antisemitism, indefinite halting of the Israeli-Saudi security deal, the Palestinians and their plight front page news again, and for bonus points a splintered American electorate where bipartisan and unconditional support for Israel is now being questioned.
Round and round it goes, where it stops everyone knows: mutual assured destruction. The self-fulfilling prophecy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists because negotiations would be futile has succeeded only in creating more terrorists. That’s because if you don’t talk in such a contentious situation you have to fight, and if you fight it only gets worse.
History is cited by both sides as a knee-jerk reaction to this circularity, absolving one’s own tribe of responsibility by pinning blame on the other. Everyone has given up on talking, instead diving headlong into more violence, more suffering, more death, no end in sight. “Israel was always willing to make peace, but the Arabs always pulled the plug!” and vice versa.
The rationale for Palestinian deflection and betrayal is allegedly their Islamist extremist ideology, the goals of which are the destruction of Israel and the reclaiming of all of Palestine, acting as a priori justification for waging continuous jihad. Of course the Palestinians are disingenuous, since even the best case outcome of peace talks falls short of a caliphate.
The mirror-rationale for Israeli duplicity and retaliation is allegedly their Zionist extremist ideology, the goals of which are taking and claiming as much Palestinian land as possible, acting as a priori justification for enacting continuous apartheid. Of course the Jews are disingenuous, since even the best case outcome will force a Palestinian State they don’t want.
For the sake of my argument, let’s assume all of that is true. Rather than cherry pick the decades-long tortured timeline of failed Israeli-Palestinian negotations, blame this side or that one for this terror attack or retaliatory strike, one tribe’s terrorist the other tribe’s freedom fighter, let’s instead assume the very worst about both, yet consider what could actually work.
As I claimed in the Bill Maher post, the Palestinians can’t be forced to concede because this wasteland the size of New Jersey is precious to the world’s three major religions, and the Israeli-Palestinian populations are tightly packed, close to each other, about equal in size, and growing. The Palestinians won’t acquiesce, and continue to resist, because they can.
That begs the question of who is right or wrong, what the history does or doesn’t “prove” as to who is wrong or right, and therefore what should or shouldn’t be done as a result of this or that tribe having that or this moral high road. None of that matters. What does matter is that the respective populations trend toward more Arabs, and more orthodox right-wing Jews.
My summation of solving this dilemma seems obvious: stop the endless war of attrition, and return to peace talks. Since Israel is the more unified, structured, and powerful player, they must initiate with good faith efforts. Will the Palestinians even participate? If they do, can they be trusted? Can the Israelis? Who cares: Cross those bridges when you come to them…
Not so fast! Hands are raising, fingers are typing, things are being thrown at computer monitors and smartphone screens, asserting: 1) Israel has tried and failed at peace talks because the Palestinians are incorrigible religious fanatics vowing to destroy Israel, so 2) all Israel can do is hit back harder and harder, the only way to show that Islamist extremism is a dead end.
Stop peddling this Islamist ideological argument — an intuitive and dramatic but invalid excuse for not rekindling negotiations. As counter-intuitive as it may sound, whether or not the Palestinians chant “From the River to the Sea!” is irrelevant — start talking. The only lasting change will come from within, guided not by brute force but by slow reconciliation.
Insisting Palestinians renounce their Islamist extremism before talking peace is like demanding consumers love your product prior to it becoming a top seller. If you want to induce behavioral change, you need to earn it: Either be first to define the category, or work hard and steady to create an emotional groundswell that becomes a flattering reflection of your buyers.
Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are buying peace because they’ve been fed bullshit. Bibi Netanyahu and Yahya Sinwar have poisoned the well, each for their own gains. In contrast, consider George Mitchell and Bertie Ahern in Northern Ireland, or Richard Holbrooke and Igor Ivanov in Yugoslavia, where peace finally broke out thanks to old school negotiating.
Like cats chasing their own tails, Israel fights terror by creating more terrorists, while the Palestinians poke the Lion to try and tame it. “I will do what you say because you force me to say it,” said no one ever, making what’s said moot, and what’s done all important. Islamist extremism will morph into secular moderation with the carrot of peace, not the stick of violence.
Here’s the original post, with comments that inspired this topic:
And here’s a robust debate that was inspired by this post:
