How Has the US Mangaged to Survive As Well as It Has?

 Reading The History of the Republic by Alan Taylor, I’m confronted with the reality that the United States was on the edge of its very existence right from the beginning.  Not only during the Revolutionary War, which could have gone either way, but then the competition between the Federalists and the Republicans, between states’ rights and the central government, between rural America and urban America (witness the Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania in the late 1700s) and the animus between Jefferson and Adams and in the acceptance and rejection of immigrants.  We talk about polarization today as if we had not experienced it before.  Listening to a documentary on Mike Wallace underscores how much we have witnessed polarization before, no more than over the Vietnam War.  The protests made those we see today seem almost calm in comparison.

 

Let’s face it, like all human beings we’re contentious; we seek advantage; the rich tend to focus on preserving what they have; the poor on what they don’t have. 

 

In many ways, looking at our history, the question comes down to how, with all this inner turmoil, have we managed to survive as well as we have.  With all our frailties, how have we managed to make a good degree of progress, not uniquely, other countries have, too, but in a very special way. 

 

I think the reasons come back to a few characteristics of our nation, some of which we are endowed with, others that have grown through the make-up that our expansive land invited and made possible. 

 

Clearly, for the first centuries of our republic, we benefited from the opportunity to expand across the continent by our diplomatic adroitness and luck (Louisiana Purchase) and, yes, avaricious quest for land (Mexican and Spanish American Wars).  We were able to move across this continent with all the opportunities it provided and with all the resources that came from it. 

 

Then there is our Constitution:  engineered to foster debate, now more than ever, vitriolic debate because of gerrymandering and the polarization of news (everybody hearing what they want through segmented channels).  Then there is our diversity.  We fought against it at every step:  enslaving African-Americans and then throttling by Jim Crow.  Keeping immigrants out and belittling them for generations when they come.  Still, they have come because our country offered comparative freedom if not total freedom and the opportunity to prosper.  This diversity has provided an engine of innovation, of new ideas, that I don’t think any other nation has.  If it weren’t for the expanse of our land and the opportunity provided, we wouldn’t have had this diversity.  In an ironic and perverse way, we mightn’t have it either if we hadn’t had slavery, at least not with our African-American population, which is contributing so much today.

 

*****

The Path to Sustained Peace in Israel and Palestine: Reflections on the Best Book I Have Read on This Burning Issue

  

Sinking into the Honey Trap: The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
by 

Daniel Bar-Tal,

 

John Pepper's review

Jul 22, 2023  

 

I’ve read four books now on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, each with their own strengths. However, the freshest, and in many ways the most insightful for me, has been Daniel Bar-Tal’s, Sinking into the Honey Trap: The Case of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Bar-Tal is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Education at Tel Aviv University. His research interest lies in political and social psychology. He approaches the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by tracking its social-psychological foundations. He does so in the context of other intractable conflicts (Northern Ireland, Algeria, Guatemala, etc.).

Professor Bar-Tal believes that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that peace—will eventually occur, even as it may well take decades, which it already has. Professor Bar-Tal’s belief is based on two realities and one conviction. The two realities lie in the demographics: the number of Palestinians is about the same number of Israelis, and the Palestinians are not simply going to move away. The other reality as Professor Bar-Tal sees it is that conflicts of this horrible dimension and long-standing character have been resolved in the past. Northern Ireland is a classic example. South Africa probably another.

As Bar-Tal views history over the long term (centuries), he sees, as I do, a movement-- albeit with fits and starts-- to a greater respect for individual human dignity and freedom. He believes this will eventually happen in Israel.

Basic to Bar-Tal’s thesis is that the current state of the conflict has been created by competing narratives which, through most of history of this conflict, have asserted that the other side has no right to even exist. Each side declares its legitimacy and it is legitimacy that cannot be shared.

This narrative and mindset, has been expressed in different ways. At a few points it as has been altered by a short commitment to peace. But not today.

Bar-Tal rightly points to mutual trust as the key determining foundation for progress. As we have always seen in every venue, trust must flow from people coming to know one another and learning they can work together to a better end. This is what makes the "Combatants for Peace" movement so very important to my mind.

Another key part of Bar-Tal’s thesis is that the resolution of this conflict will need to be led by the stronger party, i.e., Israel. At the same time, he recognizes the imperative, so long un-obtained, that Palestine establish a unified leadership credible to the Palestinians, the Israelis and the world at large. He believes the Arab nations and Israel and probably Europe need to help make that happen.

However, the most important premise in Bar-Tal’s thesis on what it will take to resolve this conflict is that it will have to come from the recognition that the failure to do this carries a greater cost to both parties, including the Israelis, than continuing with the situation as it exists today.

A clear challenge on this point is that today the majority of Israelis not only feel the current situation is right, but they’re comfortable with it. The PLO, while objecting to the current situation, also to some degree finds that the conflict gives them its right to exist. Bar-Tal’s conviction on the importance of both parties discovering it is in their interest to change necessarily means, I fear, that there is likely to be more carnage before the mindset is created to establish a new narrative.

I find enormous encouragement in the history of the last 75+ years that there have been instances that show such a shift can occur. I won’t go through nor am I even aware of all the examples. Preeminent among them for me was the impact of Anwar Sadat’s coming to Israel to make peace. Sadat saw through the conflict supporting narratives and recognized the psychological barriers which prevented a peace process between his country and Israel.

In a luminous and brave speech to the Israeli Parliament in November 1977, Sadat reflected on the factors that prevent societies involved in conflict to reach an agreement: “There remained..a wall (which) constitutes a psychological barrier between us. A barrier of suspicion. A barrier of rejection. A barrier of hallucinations around any action, deed or decision. Today, through my visit to you, I ask you: Why don’t we stretch our hands with faith and sincerity so that, together, we might destroy this barrier? Why shouldn’t ours and yours meet with faith and sincerity, so that together we might remove all suspicion of fear, betrayal and ill intentions? Why don’t we stand together with the bravery of men and the boldness of heroes who dedicate themselves to a sublime objective?”

Tragically, as we all know, several years later, Sadat was assassinated by a far-right citizen of his own nation.

It’s often claimed that the Palestinians have never acknowledged the right of Israel to exist. That is not true. It’s been that way often, but not always. At about the time of the Oslo Accords, Yasser Arafat in November 1988 proclaimed the establishment of a Palestinian state (PLO) and also recognized the state of Israel within its 1967 borders, paving the way for division of the area into two states.

Of course, that never occurred. Blame exists on both sides.

The change in mindset called for by Sadat was more than skin deep. It took place importantly in the education area. Until the 1980s, the Israeli educational system had taught an uncompromising story of Israeli victimhood and Palestinian perfidy. That changed in 1984. New instruction material published by the Ministry of Education proclaimed the “existential need” for the educational system to deal with relations between Jews and Arabs and Israel. It established that the history of the Arab nations, their culture, their art, their language and their religion would “be taught in schools and the subject of relations between Israelis and Arabs would be integrated into the educational system from Kindergarten until the end of high school.”

In 1994, the Director General of the Ministry of Education wrote that: “We should present the achievement of peace between us and our neighbors, the Palestinians and the Arab nations, as an agreed-upon goal and to explain its essential importance, its contribution to the security, the strength and the prosperity of Israel.”

Yitzhak Rabin, then Prime Minister, said this in May 1994 during the signing of the Cairo Agreement regarding the Gaza Strip and Jericho: “We are convinced that our two people can live on the same patch of territory, every man under his vine and under his fig tree, as the Prophets foretold, and bring to this country, a land of rocks and of tombstones—the taste of milk and honey that it deserves. On this day, I turn to you, the Palestinian people and say: Our Palestinian neighbors, a century of bloodshed has forged in us a core of mutual enmity…today we are both extending a hand in peace. Today, we are inaugurating a new age.”

That was about to change as the 21st century was born. There were a number of factors, perhaps most importantly the lethal Second Intifada. The narrative shifted again and it has not changed fundamentally to today. There is encouragingly a growing, stronger minority group in Israel and Palestine that sees the resolution of the conflict as the only ultimate safety ground for Israel as well as what is right for and owed to the Palestinians. While still a minority, the world must build on this. It is the only peaceful and righteous path to the future.

I am struck by how the conflict of competing narratives is reinforced by the media and by the lack of factual understanding by the public. An example. Research conducted in 2008 indicates that about 22% of Israelis thought the Arabs had been a minority in the country before the beginning of accelerated Jewish immigration. Thirty-seven percent thought they were a majority and only 23% said they were a large majority. In reality, 95% of the population were Arabs.

About 70% of Israelis did not know that the division of the country, according to the United Nations resolution in 1947, gave the Jews, who were a minority, a larger, expanse of territory than that given to the Arabs. (About 1.2 million Arabs received 43% of the country, while about 600,000 Jews received 56% of the territory.)

Looking forward, Professor Bar-Tal underscores that achieving an ultimately peaceful solution will require two fundamentally different narratives than exist today. An eventual lasting peace agreement will involve painful compromises and will need to be based on the conviction that it is better than the alternative and, from an Israeli standpoint, would not harm the security--indeed it would improve the security of the Israeli people. Needless to say, it must grant equal justice and rights to the Palestinian people.

Professor Bar-Tal summarizes his examination of other examples of conflict resolution. He repeats his thesis that they were resolved peacefully "when at least a significant part of society change the narratives they held during the conflict. This happened when a large portion of society realized that the price of the conflict was extremely detrimental to society: in human lives, in its development, in its attempt to achieve prosperity.”

“When this understanding spreads and becomes legitimate, the insight that one can speak with the opponent arises, the same opponent who has been perceived as violent, with whom one does not negotiate. In other words, in order to enable the end of the conflict, it is important to change the way one looks at the opponent in the conflict.”

Professor Bar-Tal concludes with this: “Every major societal change must begin with the construction of new narratives. Societies that wish to set their direction toward democracy, humanizing the ‘other,’ peace, morality and justice must socialize their citizens with these values from a very early age. It is our responsibility and duty to show this road to the nations.”

 

My Resolution for 2024

 Never to forget; always to honor these words of Henri Amiel:

"Life is short, and we do not have much time

to gladden the hearts of those who make the journey with us.

So, be swift to love, and make haste to be kind. 

And may the blessing of God who made us, 

who loves us and travels with us

be with me and with you now and forever"

The Centrality of LOVE

 We hear its all importance celebrated simply and singularly from two different eras:

"Love, and do as you will"--Saint Augustine.

"All you need is love"--John Lennon and Paul McCartney

War Is Hell--Let Us Never Forget. It

 This from Tolstoy's "War and Peace"

“War isn’t courtesy, it’s the vilest thing in the world, and we must understand that and not play at war.  We must take this terrible necessity sternly and seriously.  That’s the whole point:  to cast off the lie, and if it’s war, it’s war, not a game.”

We are being reminded of this yet again, in the carnage suffered by people in the Holy Land and Ukraine. Both conflicts must be stopped and a basis for lasting peace put in place. That's what the people want. Leaders must step up and face reality and do what is right to achieve peace. 

Don't Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater

 That proverbial cliche comes to mind as I read the deluge of over-the top criticism of so called "elite universities" following the misbegotten testimony before congress by three presidents of Ivy League schools. 

Yes, it is true that the faculty of most of these schools follows a liberal political bent. 

Yes, it is true, that many students and faculty members holding "conservative" views may feel uncomfortable in expressing them. 

Yes, it is true that group identify has taken on a greater significance than individual identity in recent years, in some cases excessively so in my opinion. 

Yes, there are always reasons to ask if we have the balance right between seeking truth and respecting our most important personal convictions born of learning and one's life experiences.

But lets please keep this in perspective. 

Peggy Noonan in her WSJ column of 12/16-17 captures the shrieking exaggeration we are seeing all too broadly. Universities "have gone from being centers of excellence to institutions pushing political agendas". 

Noonan writes that the idea of a historian attempting to "find the honest truth seems inapplicable to the current moment". She asserts, with absolutely no evidence, that "the good faith of the scholar is sacrificed to political fashion". 

Tell that to the Professor of History I have known at Yale for decades. Neither he nor I will know what you are talking about. He is seeking truth with all its complexity. So will the many other historian I have known. 

The same drive to find the truth, mine new knowledge, motivates every professor I have known no matter what their field.  I have agreed with some of them; I have disagreed with others. But I do not see their orientation to continue to learn in the search for truth to have changed.

Let's calm down. Improve where we should, keep an open mind, listen to and respect different points of view. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. 

We Are at a Moment of Crisis: President Biden Needs to Address the Reality of the Moment

 

For a couple of months now, it has become clear to me that unless President Biden is willing and able to change the way he is communicating with the American public and what he is actually proposing and accomplishing, he’s going to lose big-time to Donald Trump or to whomever takes his place in the unlikely event that the criminal cases become so appropriately overpowering someone else does take his place.

 

The latest poll numbers this morning shout even louder that this is the truth.  He’s down in all the key states versus Trump; and if Haley would displace Trump (and she is the most likely candidate to do so) the gaps would be even higher.

 

It is clear that the 91 indictments against Trump and his outrageous self-revealing assertion that he’ll be a “dictator on Day One” aren’t moving the needle.  They will to some degree when voters are confronted with this reality in the voting booth, but not enough.

 

Biden’s challenges are two-fold as I see it:  1) Personal.  He is not seen as sharp enough; he is “too old for the job.”  2)  There are the policy issues, above all immigration; he and the administration have to take a decisive stand on this now.  The feeling that the economy is not going well is out there, too.  Time is going to have to take care of that.  I think the message that the economy is better will come through over the next year. 

 

However, the age and policy issues, particularly around immigration, won’t go away unless Biden does something differently.

 

I don’t know if he’s up to it, but he has to change the way he presents himself to and communicates with the American public.  I believe he needs to adopt informal fireside chats.  Perhaps with an interviewer; perhaps with a small group.  I’m not talking about town halls.

 

He needs to address head-on the issues that are on voters’ minds:  his age, his quickness, why he feels he is uniquely able to carry out the role of the presidency at this point in time.

 

I for one believe he is, above all because of the global challenges we face in Israel and Palestine, in Ukraine and Russia and in many other places, too.  We must hold NATO together.  We must have good relationships with our allies.  We must seek a relationship with China that doesn’t blink at the reality of competition but sees the opportunity and the need for collaboration.

 

Joe Biden is far more equipped by experience and temperament to carry out this critical function at this moment in history than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican.

 

He needs to make that clear.  Concretely. 

 

I wish I knew how to share this message with someone who might be able to make a difference in how Biden approaches this.  In fact, I don’t think what I’m saying here would be new to the inner circles of the White House or the Democratic Party.  What I don’t understand is why it’s not getting through. Or, perhaps if it is, why Biden isn’t acting on it.  I just hope he is up to it.  I truly believe the country’s future depends on it.  We are at a perilous moment.  Liz Cheney understands this.  Not enough other leaders do. The time to act differently is now. We can't just pretend that it will all work out. Life does not work that way.