May 16, 2018

As chaos shrouds the middle east, voices of sanity flicker

located:	Israel, USA
editor:	Yair Oded

On Monday, The Middle East was rattled once again as the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, thereby officially recognising the former as the capital of Israel and reversing decades of American foreign policy. The opening ceremony coincided with mass protests along the Gaza border by scores of enraged Palestinians who attempted to cross the fence into Israel. In the clash between protesters and the Israeli Defense Forces, dozens of Palestinians were killed and thousands were injured.

As events unfolded in Israel and live reporting inundated world media channels, WNYC radio station broadcasted an interview with former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak. Barak arrived in New York on a short lecture tour following the release of his new book My Country, My Life: Fighting for Israel, Searching for Peace; his interview became all the more relevant as it overlapped with Monday’s tragic events.

A sworn enemy of Netanyahu, Barak criticized the former’s administration for crippling the peace process by pandering to right wing and religious extremists and expanding Jewish settlements on Palestinian soil. When asked about his overall view of the conflict, Barak delivered a soberingly balanced explanation, delving into the complexities of the issue and elaborating on the responsibility and contribution of each side to the exacerbation of tension. Barak further argued that, in his view, peace would only be achieved when a durable two state solution is instituted, and defined it as the primary goal both sides must strive for.

Alas, when confronted with a question regarding the relocation of the embassy to Jerusalem, Barak settled for a somewhat evasive answer, claiming that recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel doesn’t preclude recognising the eastern part of it as the Palestinian capital, when their state is finally established. While in theory this may very well be true, Barak failed to address the implications of moving the embassy to Jerusalem at a time of great volatility in the region, with peace talks nowhere in the offing, and on a day in which Palestinians commemorate their expulsion from their former homes.

Ultimately, the endeavour to officially recognise Jerusalem as the Israeli capital at this point is arguably futile, simply because it’s an established fact, and since no practical peace proposal would dare negate that. Rather, it is the prospect of declaring East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital that remains under threat. Therefore, relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem should have been carried out with extreme sensitivity, only after a substantial peace proposal is deliberated upon, while ensuring that both sides, and capitals, are equally considered. Instead, in a mishmash of nationalistic proclamations, unrelated historical facts, and religious preachings, the U.S. delegation and Israeli government officials signalled to all during the opening ceremony of the embassy that the Palestinians’ aspiration for sovereignty is of no concern to them, and that the scrutiny and position of the international community on the issue are essentially meaningless.

Thus, when given the opportunity, Barak should have called out the two governments for their recklessness and disregard for the region’s stability and future. He should have named the move for what it truly was: a provocation concocted by two administrations corrupted to the core, in an attempt to appease right wing voters and divert attention from their respective scandals. He should have mentioned that both Netanyahu and Trump were aware of the violence the relocation of the embassy would spark, knowing full well that such a move would deepen the desperation of millions of besieged Palestinians on their day of mourning, and serve as ammunition for extremists, such as Hamas, who mar an otherwise legitimate call for freedom by committing and encouraging violent attacks.

Though imperfect in parts, Barak’s interview nonetheless projected optimism, pragmatism, and highlighted peace as a feasible and necessary end-goal for the region. And so, on a day darkened by somber news, Barak’s words serve as an important reminder of two major points: that voices of sanity are out there, and that, particularly in a time of crisis, the latter must be bolstered to render criticism of those in power genuinely effective.

As our leaders abdicate the most basic principles of morality, it is crucial we ask ourselves: who are the individuals or groups who stand for what we believe in? Who are those we can get behind in order to challenge the existing system? Sanctioning, condemning, and demonstrating against extremists are important steps. Yet, change is not likely to stem from the reigning hardliners. For their respective reasons, neither Hamas nor Netanyahu are interested in a resolution, as peace does not benefit them: with Hamas preying on Palestinians’ plight to perpetuate a reign of terror (murdering LGBTQ people and political rivals and using civilians as human shield), and Netanyahu capitalising on Israelis’ fear and regional instability to ensure his political survival, all the while benefiting from the unwavering support of an American president who desperately courts the Evangelical voter-base. Thus, protest must be carried out in conjunction with the strengthening of voices of reason, in order to show those in power that there is an alternative to belligerence. A replacement for indifference. A cure for nationalism.