Navigating the truths and lies of the Israel-Palestine conflict

The Israel-Palestine conflict has polarised the world into pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel camps, where absolute truths are claimed and allegiance to either side comes at a high moral cost.

Picture the unsettling scenes of hundreds of Hamas fighters on a rampage in Israel, livestreaming their violent actions for the world to see. Or picture the scenes of Israeli bulldozers demolishing villages to make way for new settlements, rendering thousands of Palestinians homeless.

Sensible individuals would agree that the wanton killing of civilians or the uprooting of thousands of people for the sake of settlements contradicts fundamental moral principles.

But how often have we seen seemingly rational people attempting to justify those unjustifiable actions because it is part and parcel of what they are supposed to believe in? People often choose to make significant moral compromises to remain loyal to the prevailing intellectual positions.

Reconciling the existing moral dilemmas with our intellectual positions requires a superhuman effort.

The rule of thumb is that we are not supposed to be slaves to our intellectual positions. If we must sacrifice principles to remain true to our ideologies, something is wrong with either us or those ideologies.
Let’s reexamine the two opposing camps.

The pro-Palestinian side argues that Palestinians are victims of a brutal Israeli occupation that has lasted for 75 years. They say that Palestinians are peace-loving and are only looking for self-determination.

Prof. Norman Finkelstein is one of the most vocal intellectuals on this side. In a recent podcast, Finkelstein consistently called Palestinians ‘indigenous people’ to Palestine. That implies that Jews are both strangers and colonisers in Palestine.
A bunch of half-truth statements.

While it is true that Palestinians have indeed gone through a trying period, starting with the dispersion of 750,000 of them from their villages, they will never tell you that it is mostly Arabs who were responsible for the Nakba than not.

They may speak of Gaza as an open prison but won’t tell you that the blockade followed Hamas attacks on Israel and Egypt.

They will claim that Palestinians want a state of their own but will never tell you that Palestinians have refused numerous offers of statehood.

In 1967, right after Israel had conquered Gaza and the West Bank (territories of Egypt and Jordan, respectively), the defeated Arabs announced from Khartoum saying ‘no to peace, no to recognition, and no to negotiations’.

In history, usually, it is the victors, not the losers who are cocky.

If Palestinians wanted their state, they would have had it by now. It is said that Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

The fact is that Palestinians want the destruction of Israel more than the establishment of their own state. Sixty percent of Palestinians consider all of Palestine (including Israel) as Palestinian.

The Hamas Charter quotes Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, saying that ‘Israel will exist until Islam obliterates it’. Do you remember the thousands celebrating Hamas’s massacre of Israelis on the 7th of October? Quite predictable.

The pro-Israeli side usually portrays Israel as a modern, democratic nation surrounded by failed and authoritarian regimes. A picture is painted of a progressive nation that only seeks peace and security with its neighbours.

Indeed, Israel is a modern nation and highly successful in its own right. Its achievements in many areas of human endeavours are the stuff of legend. I have written about the Talpiot and 8200 military programs in the past – only fools would choose not to take notice.

Unfortunately, that is just a part of the whole story.

Israel is also a nation that insists on remaining a Jewish State, at the exclusion of others. It is not always apparent what they mean by ‘Jewish State’ given that Israel is a deeply secular nation.

However, evidence suggests that this is an ethno-religious idea that practically excludes non-Jews from enjoying similar rights in Israel, thus giving credence to apartheid claims by critics.

Israel tends to emphasise the security threats around it and has adopted a heavy-handed approach to its defence. However, it’s puzzling how Israel’s continued building of settlements in the West Bank contributes to its security.

The fact is that the issue of settlements goes to the very heart of the Jewish psyche – the desire to restore the prophetic nation of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital.

Barring something truly momentous, it is unlikely that Israel will ever let go of the settlements in the West Bank. And if the status quo prevails, Palestinians will continue to bear the brunt of this ethno-religious Zionist expansion.

Once again, both narratives are full of half-truths. The reality is that Israelis pursue more than defence while Palestinians pursue more than statehood. This sets them on a collision course, leading to unavoidable bloodshed. The extremists in both camps make sure of that.

For those of us who observe the conflict from afar but feel obliged to justify appalling actions by the side we support, we ought to know that we are helping no one by such moral compromises.