(Here is
my original comment on a Public Musings post. Below I respond to
Public Musings' post about my commentary.)
Although I know that I’m being drawn into a cat-fight which will change neither of our minds, I feel the need to clarify what has certainly been misunderstood, if not misrepresented, regarding my previous statement.
First, the United States enjoyed democracy long before it allowed citizens to print blasphemy, minorities to own property, and women to vote or even wear pants in public institutions. I point out these universal traits not to confuse the issue but to focus on the fact that, evolutionarily speaking, the US is in no position to criticize developing democracies for the same mistakes in its own recent history. Yes, the denial of freedom and basic human rights is a serious problem in many countries and most of the Middle East, but we should recognize that these countries are at a
point in their history, not their end result, just as we are. Evolutionary change is encouraged with constructive criticism, not outright condemnation and dismissal. And we should also keep in mind that although they may be similar, separate processes will most likely not yield the same species.
Second, the issue is not with the fact that refugee camps make for bad real estate but with the reasons why they exist and how this affects their inhabitants’ political outlook and course of action. Also, it is absurd to blame Arab nations for the existence of refugee camps and it is
arrogantly absurd to suggest that the whole conflict between Israel and Palestine would disappear if only all of the Palestinians would just leave. Yes, the Palestinian struggle is hugely symbolic for the entire Middle East but that in itself does not negate any objection the Palestinians might have to living in refugee camps for 40 years.
Third, I have not made any judgments as to the ‘good or bad’ of a politically-empowered Hamas, nor have I made any claims regarding either Israel or Palestine’s trump over the other in “the right to exist” issue. As for their option of either “statehood” or “intifada,” let’s discuss why this over-simplification of the “right to exist” issue does not simplify the situation enough. I might use a close-to-home scenario involving post-Katrina New Orleans being overtaken by a foreign population that then segregates undesirable natives into camps or wards, but that involves African-Americans and I don’t want to confuse the issue any further than necessary. Instead I’ll use something simple.
Person A walks over to Person B’s house, enters and refuses to leave. Person B objects but Person A gains support from powerful neighbors that ignore the encroachment and support Person A, even after he has barricaded Person B in the pantry. Over the years, Person A brings over his family and they become established in the neighborhood. Meanwhile, Person B’s underdog struggle against Person A is romanticized, supported, criticized and inhibited by outsiders (ie. people not living in the pantry). Though a certain amount of exposure and discussion of his situation is appreciated, it fails to change Person B’s basic problem—that Person A is living in his home and, although he is still in the house, Person B is certainly not ‘at home’ and certainly not fond of living in the pantry. In the interest of peace, outsiders offer Person B the alternative of making the pantry his own official home, with access to the kitchen sink and guest bathroom. Although this option might offer better living conditions than the pantry, it does not satisfy Person B because he cannot ignore the inherent injustice of the alternative. Rather than take the deal, he instead becomes more hostile, violent and isolated towards Person A. Although this does not necessarily improve his situation, and may even worsen it, to him it is still a more acceptable option.
Arguments for either Israel’s “right to exist” or Palestine’s “right to return” miss the underlying problem—that there is no satisfactory solution for either party or the outsiders involved in the conflict. The eradication, eviction or continued segregation of the Palestinians is unjust and wrong. Sharing the land between the two states is an alternative but still unsatisfactory to both parties because each ‘home’ in Israel belongs to two peoples at the same time—the Palestinians who lived in it before the war and the Israelis that have inhabited it since. This problem defies the laws of peace. And at this point, even if these laws could be bent and Israel and Palestine agreed to peacefully co-exist, there are people—both inside and out—who have become so enraged by the attitudes, policies and countries that have allowed these circumstances to persist for 40 years that they will not settle for anything less than the whole house, even if it burns down the entire neighborhood. This is the conflict’s distinguishing characteristic. Unlike the repressive situations involving the Kurds, Shi’ites, Tibetans or African Christians, this conflict has affected so many people so deeply that none of its resolutions may ever result in peace.
In sum, Israel is a legitimate country begat by illegitimate means and Palestine is a legitimate nation illegitimately contained in limbo by its more powerful peers. I don’t agree with killing innocents, or supporting those who do, for whatever reason. It is wrong and unjustifiable. I’m just saying that considering the situation, I can’t really blame them.
2006 Olympics, Closing Ceremony: Virginal sacrifices 
