One afternoon last fall, my aunt called me.
"Kellie! I just read the most interesting article. I know how much you will enjoy it. You must look it up."
"I will," I replied. "What's it about? What's it called?"
"Israel and Palestine; it's so fascinating. New York Times I believe. Sunday paper."
The article was an opinion piece called Two State Illusion, written by Ian S. Lustick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. At the time I was reading it, September 2013, I knew little more than a basic outline of the conflict in Israel-Palestine. When I read the prompt for this journal assignment, I found the article and with my slightly more expanded view, I read it again.
While I don't agree with everything the author puts forth, the basic message and the last line of the piece in particular rung true for me. Lustick emphasizes the importance of "ending the stifling reign of an outdated idea and allowing both sides to see and then adapt to the world as it is."
As an outsider looking in, the most prominent aspect of the conflict is an obsession with the past. This is both a good and bad thing. The New York Times article focuses on the two-state solution as an obsession from the past: Lustick believes it is outdated and, over the decades, has frozen the peace process. I don't feel that I am yet well enough informed to determine whether one or two states are a more agreeable outcome for both sides, but I whole-heartedly concur that nothing will be accomplished if Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans treat this conflict as if it is the same one they were dealing with in 1948, 1967, or even just ten years ago. Generations have passed since the first creation of the state of Israel. New people mean that there is a new problem, and a new problem calls for a new solution. No good will come of pretending we're in an era we're not.
A simple acceptance of the change of times seems trivial, but I believe that the next steps towards a peace process are impossible without it. This may mean the end of attempts at a two-state solution, or it may not, but so long as the politicians and the people of both nationalities are act as if nothing has changed over the years, they will continue forward on this current trajectory of nothing more than a stalemate. The "world as it is" is ever-changing. We need to keep up.
Thanks for bringing this up, Kellie. While I once felt weird and uncomfortable entertaining the thought that the past is the past, I've come more and more to believe that this whole peace process would seriously benefit from some forgiving acceptance that yeah, the past has been incredibly shitty, but now is now, and it would be a better use of our time to look forward instead of focusing on how to fix our messed up past. There is a lot implicated in what I just said, and the entire reason why people are so stuck on the past is because a lot of horrible things happened to a lot of people, and not all of this can or should just be forgotten, but I do think that there is a point at which a line needs to be drawn for how deep in the historical weeds we can allow ourselves to get this late in the game.
ReplyDeleteHi Kellie, interesting post. I think there is a balance that should be met; while it is important to remember why the past is important to different peoples, the changes that time has brought should not be ignored. It seems hard to imagine a solution to the conflict without reference to the past. However, I also believe it would be near impossible to find peace without a focus on the present time and the future. It seems to me that moderation and balance are needed for the peace process to continue to move forward.
ReplyDelete