Regarding the Israel-Hamas war, a thought crossed my mind. What is the duty of leaders in times of war and conflict? Is it to de-escalate, or to add fuel to the fire? In pursuit of a presumed noble cause, can it be justified to choose violence when there is the option of exploring a peaceful solution?
Let’s accept a few things as given.
Hamas’s brazen attack on October 7, which claimed nearly 1,400 lives, most of them civilians, is hard to justify even for its staunchest supporters. Just as Israel’s retaliatory bombing of Gaza, with the loss of more than 7,000 people and counting, has appalled many globally.
And we must separate the question of justice for Palestinians from anti-Semitism. The notion that those who support the Palestinian quest for self-determination are by definition anti-Jew is belied by the opposition of many Jewish people around the world to what is happening in Gaza.
Even if Israel achieves its stated goal of eliminating Hamas, will that make the Palestinians’ sense of grievance go away? Will it make Palestinians accept the inequity and injustice of statelessness?
With that out of the way, we should be honest about the central cause of conflict between Israel and Palestinians: the denial of an independent homeland for Palestinians, which is a negation of their right to self-determination, a right that is recognised for all peoples and has been enjoyed by the Israelis themselves for more than 70 years.
This grievance lies at the heart of the cycle of violence that has convulsed that part of the world and stands in the way of a lasting solution. The proposal for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, already endorsed by the United Nations and widely supported globally, seems like an eminently sensible solution.
The point of this column is not to dwell on the merits of one of world’s most intractable political problems, but on the role of leaders in such times of crisis.
Surely it is their duty to ceaselessly search for nonviolent ways to resolve conflict? And in the event of war, should it not be the task of leaders — unless they are psychopaths — to seek ways to end the bloodshed as quickly as possible, rather than glorifying war and taking pride in sending their people, usually young people, to their probable deaths?
After all, leaders are not mere messengers whose role is merely to pander to the prejudices of their subjects or exploit their basest instincts. The primary mission of good leaders should be to seek to make the lives of their people better, safer and more prosperous.
If leaders in Israel are inclined to choose war over exploring peaceful ways of resolving conflict, they are condemning current and future generations of their people to a state of permanent war with Palestinians and other neighbours. Similarly, those Palestinian leaders who opt for an all-or-nothing approach are cementing their people’s permanent statelessness and disempowerment.
The notion that Israel can shoot and bomb an entire people into submission has already proved to be a nonstarter. As has the Hamas idea of wiping the state of Israel from the face of the earth. Neither path will be countenanced or supported by rational and fair-minded humanity.
The trouble with keeping people in subjugation is that it is an unrelenting burden — with the oppressor not knowing when the oppressed with rise up, and how they will do so.
Even if Israel achieves its stated goal of eliminating Hamas, will that make the Palestinians’ sense of grievance go away? Will it make Palestinians accept the inequity and injustice of statelessness?
To arrive at a lasting solution to the conflict there will have to be a negotiated settlement. That, in turn, will require mediation. It is therefore unfortunate that the party with the biggest influence in the conflict, the US, decided to take sides as soon as hostilities began.
The history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has proven, repeatedly, that in the presence of a sustained and deep-seated communal grievance, the use of might is a worthless weapon in imposing lasting peace
US President Joe Biden has repeatedly pledged his country’s “unwavering” support for Israel. “The US,” he said, “will not ever fail to have her back.”
His secretary of state and top diplomat, Antony Blinken, also expressed unconditional, eternal support to Tel Aviv, telling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “as long as America exists … we will always be there by your side”.
The US position will, in the eyes not only of the Palestinians and their supporters but also of many in the rest of the world, disqualify it as an honest broker in mediating a solution.
In addition, having pledged unending support, what will Biden do if Israel were one day to be found to be in the wrong, to have violated international law?
Then there is Israel’s apparent faith in a so-called war to end all wars, in this case an operation to ensure Hamas is never again able to attack it. As we speak, this approach manifests in bombing Gaza to smithereens, to demonstrate that for every Israeli killed by Hamas, Israel can kill seven times the number of Palestinians.
But such wars have never produced lasting peace, from World War 1 to today. The history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has proven, repeatedly, that in the presence of a sustained and deep-seated communal grievance, might is a worthless tool in building enduring peace and security.
Elsewhere, reference has been made to the South African experience in ending apartheid, and the crucial role of negotiations. It is instructive that, despite its boast about having the most powerful military on the continent (thanks, by the way, to support from the likes of Israel), the outgoing regime could not prevent the collapse of apartheid or keep black people in permanent servitude.
As the Middle East death toll climbs towards 10,000, what is required are leaders who think with their heads, and not, as Nelson Mandela would have put it, with their blood.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.