A grimmer and grimmer reality is taking shape in the Middle East. Every day the body count soars higher and higher, and the chances for a real peace become slimmer and slimmer. There have been virtually seven weeks of sustained Israeli-Palestinian fighting, leaving 220 people, mostly Palestinians, dead.
With their rioting and effective declaration of war against Israel, the Palestinians have virtually annihilated any chance they had of obtaining an independent Palestinian state. Israel is now forced to ask itself whether it would be beneficial to its own cause to continue negotiating with the Palestinians. After the recent events, it seems clear that it would not be beneficial because Israel would gain nothing and lose much.
A fundamental principle of negotiations is that of reciprocity — each side stakes out its position then gradually works to a mutually beneficial agreement through a series of concessions. Israel's ultimate goal is that of peace while retaining as much territory as possible. It wants nothing more than to peacefully exist, surrounded by Arab states. The fewer hostile parties in or around Israel, the more secure it can be about the lives of its citizens and, thus, its continued existence. Israel does not ask for any necessarily positive action from the Palestinians, only a negative one — the cessation of hostilities.
The Palestinians' ultimate goal is that of statehood. They want a state literally carved out of parts of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and, thus, Israel is forced to take a positive action by conceding land. The difficulty of the negotiation process lies in this mismatch — positive action versus negative action — between the respective bargaining sides. Israel is giving up land, a tangible asset with a clear delineation, for a vague and nebulous guarantee of peace that has yet to materialize itself.
Ten years after the Oslo Peace Accords, Israel still has not seen any gains, while the Palestinians are one signature away from statehood. Arafat did not sign the second Camp David Accord because he would have been forced to compromise, a position untenable among his radical constituents, whom Israel was hoping to disarm. The settlement fell apart, and Israel is under attack again. (The notion that Israel is the aggressor — because of the enormous disparity of force between the two sides — is ludicrous. The Israeli military will not respond to stone-throwers by throwing stones back.)
This so-called peace process has not stemmed the violence against Israel, evidenced most shockingly by the brutal death of two Israeli soldiers at the hands of a Palestinian mob. Hence, why should Israel trust the PLO to curb the violence in the future? Why should Israel be interested in a negotiated settlement when, for the most part, negotiations have yielded so little?
The same has been said by the Palestinian side, that peace has brought them nothing, or at least not everything they wanted. However, the difficulty with this position is that it is mainly Palestinians who are dying in this conflict and who lack state recognition. The continued violence costs them everything — their lives and their potential statehood — and costs Israel virtually nothing. Of course, killing of any sort is unfortunate. Thus, the Palestinians should be willing to acknowledge that it is in their best interests to stop the violence and compromise.
For Israel, however, trying to reach a compromise is what got it where it is today — under attack. Israel would be far better off unilaterally enforcing the settlement, withdrawing their troops from those Palestinian towns stipulated in the now-defunct agreement. Some object to this because Israel would be accomplishing with its military what it failed to do through negotiations, thus committing a violation of international law. Well, what of it?
If one has enough strength, one need not negotiate. Why do countries build up their militaries? Israel's force is sufficient to unilaterally declare the issue of the Palestinian state a fait accompli, and thus it should. Peace would then be on Israeli terms alone, and whether it would be fair would be a question for the academics. Dan Ostrow is a politics major from New York. He can be reached at dtostrow@princeton.edu.
Read More
Sitting in at Princeton: proud past, shameful present
Keith Wailoo“To be sure, university leaders of the past were critical of students’ employment of sit-ins as a protest tactic, but they were willing to meet, debate, and — occasionally — even listen and change course.”
“To be sure, university leaders of the past were critical of students’ employment of sit-ins as a protest tactic, but they were willing to meet, debate, and — occasionally — even listen and change course.”
The ‘fun’ model just isn’t sustainable: a plea against hookup culture
Julianna Lee“Understanding and practicing commitment is key in forming and maintaining these relationships. Trust is essential. Making sacrifices for each other and for the family is necessary. If we don’t practice these skills now, we can’t expect to suddenly become good at them when the right time comes.”
“Understanding and practicing commitment is key in forming and maintaining these relationships. Trust is essential. Making sacrifices for each other and for the family is necessary. If we don’t practice these skills now, we can’t expect to suddenly become good at them when the right time comes.”
Faculty letter to U. admin calling for VP Calhoun’s resignation
Guest Contributors“We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community.”
"We demand the immediate resignation of VP Calhoun, in whose leadership we have lost all faith following her untruthful and, in our opinion, deliberately misleading representation of student protesters, that has proven to be the real threat to the Princeton University community."
