The Foreign Service Journal, December 2006

It is not surprising that neither the Jews, given their past suffering and desperation after Hitler’s war, nor the Palestinians, who had no responsibility for Jewish suf- fering at the hands of Westerners, but nevertheless lost their homeland, felt any empathy for each other. It is tragic, nevertheless, that the passage of time has done so little to heal these historic wounds and that the rest of the world, especially the United States, has allowed this dreadful situation to fester. And it is ironic that today the prospects for peace are still distant, even as the out- line of a two-state solution, the only way to meet the core needs of both societies, has become clear. There are many reasons for this failure: unrelenting propaganda; dysfunctional Israeli and Palestinian poli- tics; the huge disparity of power between them; and America’s failure to serve as an even-handed peace- maker. The Power of Propaganda Pervasive, self-righteous propaganda and incitement — deeply embedded in the political culture of both sides — have prolonged the conflict. Each has demo- nized the other to justify violence and cruelty. Politicians promote fear, not reconciliation, and find obstacles to negotiations because they oppose compro- mise. Negative mirror images between Israelis and Palestinians and, especially, terrible mutual violence have devastated hopes for peace in both societies. In recent years, Israeli historians, using newly opened archives, have debunked some well-worn totems of Israel’s idealized national narrative. They have established, for example, that 750,000 Palestinians were driven out by Israeli forces in the 1948 war, or fled in fear of their lives, and that their “voluntary” depar- ture in response to Arab radio broadcasts is a myth. And they have established that ideology and territorial expansion, rather than peace, have sometimes motivat- ed Israel’s policy. More recently, Israeli and other ana- lysts have challenged the notion that Yasser Arafat wrecked the Oslo peace process by rejecting a “gener- ous offer” at Camp David in 2000 in favor of armed struggle. Nevertheless, Israel’s patriotic myths are deeply entrenched and constantly recycled. Israel’s political culture exalts military power and deterrence as the key to security, and devalues negotia- tions and compromise. The Israel Defense Forces is the country’s most powerful institution in shaping pub- lic opinion and national security policy. The IDF’s icon- ic status and the country’s overblown faith in force are understandable, given the Jews’ historic powerlessness, the Holocaust and seven wars in the last 58 years. But pervasive propaganda has also reinforced a sense of per- manent siege, notwithstanding Israel’s military pre-emi- nence and nuclear monopoly in the region. Israelis’ self-righteous narrative of exclusive victim- ization and exaggerated belief in force have made it more difficult to deal realistically with their Palestinian neighbors. The occupation and settlement of territories conquered in 1967 has produced deep intellectual and moral confusion over the character of Zionism and the Israeli state. Propaganda has obscured the injustice of settlements in the territories and continued denial of genuine Palestinian self-determination. “Security” is cited to justify violations of international law and basic Jewish values, and to protect Israel’s self-image as a humane, democratic country. Historically, unrelieved occupation of an unwilling people has always bred violent rebellion. Yet many Israelis do not grasp the link between terrorism and mil- itary occupation, settlements and denial of human rights. Politicians and the media still preach that Palestinian violence stems from hatred of the Jews and rejection of Israel, even after most Palestinians and the Arab states have abandoned rejection of Israel in favor of a two-state peace. Palestinians are also deeply self-absorbed with their victimization and, like the Israelis, they too easily sur- render to pathologies of martyrdom and revenge. Their political culture seldom accepts responsibility for dys- functional organization, internal fragmentation and other historic failures, and tends to blame everything on Israel. Some Palestinians, like President Mahmoud Ab- bas, condemn terrorism and recognize its brutalizing effect. Yet many young Palestinians still cling to the fan- tasy that Israel will ultimately yield to violence. Too few understand the devastating effect of terrorism in feed- ing negative Israeli and worldwide stereotypes of F O C U S 22 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 6 Ambassador Philip C. Wilcox Jr. was a Foreign Service officer from 1966 to 1997. Among his many assignments, he was director for Israeli and Arab-Israeli affairs, con- sul general in Jerusalem and ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism. He is currently president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace.