To be sure, there have been benefits from the diplomatic process. At the very least, Israel now enjoys diplomatic relations, and the greater, if tentative, respect of more nations than at any other time in its history. But that this respect, and these contacts, have come at the expense of so many lives should at the very least be cause for concern among all Jews. How has the "peace process" not resulted in peace? How has acceptance, recognition, and growing trust not resulted in a cessation of violence? How can the PLO still remain true to its terrorist nature after having recognized Israel and negotiated with the Israeli government? The answer, I believe, lies with the Israeli leadership itself.
Throughout Israel's history, the one common thread has been conflict with its neighbours and with its Arab inhabitants. All attempts at solving this conflict have assumed, as part of their formations, first that the conflict can be solved, and second, that it can be solved through compromise. Yet it should be plain, at least after forty-seven years of trying, that conflict resolutions based on the scientific definition of fairness, namely the notion of equality, often do not work. There are examples of this truism outside the Middle East. One need only look at the question of Quebec independence to see how one side can bend over backward to ensure that the other is treated fairly and still the problem persists.
The reason for this is that the scientific definitions, equations, and calculations, which lead to predictable answers, preclude any examination of the human ingredient in the conflict, which is by necessity the defining factor in that conflict. The scientifically fair attempts at solving the question of Quebec independence ignore the fact that two separate and distinct nations at one time inhabited Canada (apart from the aboriginal tribes that were here long before either the French or the English), and that the war that provided for the ascendancy of one over the other never solved the essential conflicts between them. In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, the same holds true. The difference there is the length of the history behind the conflict. Whereas the French-British squabble over Quebec is only a couple of hundred years old, the conflict over Israel can be dated as far as two thousand years or longer if we assume that today's Palestinians can take the place of the earlier Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, Ottomans, and others who have challenged the Jewish claim to the land.
In most, if not all, modern conflicts, mediators (whether they be the United Nations, the United States, or even the Norwegians or Egyptians) apply the scientific notion of equality and fairness to an essentially non-scientific problem. Usually this ends up prolonging the conflict. This can be said quite easily of Bosnia, Somalia, even Vietnam. Certainly the Balfour Declaration, and subsequent British backtracking from that position, fell into this category. The problem, essentially, is that the mediators to these conflicts use the terms "fairness" and "morality" in their judgements without understanding that these terms necessarily mean different, and often opposite, things to the conflicting parties. In essence, one party's morality is the other party's misdeed.
A fine example in this respect is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians claim that Israelis are immoral for "occupying" their homeland, for imprisoning them for terrorist acts in the name of "freedom fighting", and for a whole myriad of other "offences". Israelis, on the other hand, justify these acts in the name of state, personal, and national security, and then point out, quite correctly, the immorality of the Palestinian leadership in calling for the annihilation of another state, murdering and maiming its citizens, silencing dissent among its own people, and punishing collaboration with lawful authority by death. The actions of each side are, no doubt, "moral" in the judgement of that side's leadership. To the other side, they are plainly immoral. To outside observers, the actions of both sides are immoral, and the resolution to the conflict lies in the relative degree of (im)morality of each side's respective actions.
The reason morality is even brought into the equation by outside mediators is the initial application of the term by the conflicting parties themselves. Any conflict is quite limited, if not irrelevant, without the question of morality being posited by one or more of the parties. Yet, as soon as the banner of morality is hoisted, the issues upon which the conflict is based are automatically raised to the level of international concern. Each party, considering itself the victim in the conflict, abuses and misuses the terms "morality" and "fairness" to bolster their claims without understanding the true meanings of the terms. Again, one side's morality is the other side's misdeed, and often it is left to outside observers to determine which morality is truer. The question of whether the morality of the outside observer(s) is valid is another issue, and often cause for further conflict.
The essence of morality, as I see it, is loyalty to one's values and needs. Israeli morality therefore is loyalty to the tenets of Zionism, including absorption of Jewish immigrants, promotion of Jewish immigration, and provision of security to all Jews. This includes the maintenance of a strong and self-sufficient military, the development of a strong and self-sufficient economy, and the availability of adequate infrastructure for the absorption of immigrants. Lastly, Israeli morality necessarily includes the protection of Jewish religion, culture, and institutions. Palestinian morality, by this definition, is dramatically different from Israeli morality. For Palestinians, morality includes adherence to policies which would lead to the replacement of Israel with another Palestinian state, the acquisition of Jerusalem as its capital, and the removal of all Jews from the land.
We can see, through this dichotomy, how one side's morality is the other's misdeed. Morality here becomes an existential, not an ideological, question. Yet the scientific definition of fairness dictates that one abandons one's own values in the name of morality. The contradiction inherent in this definition renders it unworkable as a tool of conflict resolution. This explains the failure of the Oslo Accords and all preceding attempts at solving the Middle East conflict.
Within the scientific model, Israel has been asked repeatedly to abandon its own morality, that is, its loyalty to its own values, in the name of compromise. The Arabs, likewise, have been asked to abandon their own values in the name of compromise. This, in the estimation of foreign mediators, is the way to solve the conflict. But what is theoretically "fair" in the rubric of compromise, is, practically speaking, fair to neither party. In the end, both sides feel they have lost something rather than gained, and this only prolongs the conflict.