G: “Could we perhaps roll back a little before we meander into Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism? We have focused a lot on the bottom half of the social pyramid, the masses. We have understood them as individuals seeking identity through something shared. And also as seeking security in a land they can call their own.
I fail to see anything particularly Jewish about the reaction to the historical realities. Seeking back to a land you once possessed once you come to accept that you can never live in peace in the communities you currently inhabit, strikes me at least partially as a rational choice.
Rationality. I want us to talk a little about that as well today. I don’t see the upper half of the social pyramid as possessed by irrationality. Sure, populist politicians, perhaps, but once they enter the intricate machinery of public office, to me it seems that calculation takes precedence over impulse.”
M: “Yes… but…”
This required some mulling over, so Miranda started to juggle concepts internally.
C: “Could we at least avoid using ‘irrational’ as an affront? Today people say it like they mean ‘hysterical’.”
G: “Is fear for your life hysterical? People who think like that ought to try living under those conditions.
Having said that, I don’t believe in a pure distinction either. Rationality and irrationality are pretty words, and bad attempts at dissociating two cognitive aspects. In which camp would you put analysis? Perception?”
M: “Well spoken. Those ‘masses’ as we colloquially call them, are just as rational as any politician, and just as afraid of the future as them, though they are guided by other theories.”
C: “After the 1967 War we saw how settlements became a thing. Israel developed this mentality of defensible borders. I found this article by this guy, Yigal Allon – he is the name behind the Allon plan which advocated securing only the strategically required territories to have defensible borders. It furnishes us with the reasoning behind Israel’s actions post 1967.”
G: “Guys… Ladies… "
Gerald was waving his textbook on International Relations.
G: “I am talking about the whole concept of rationality as misleading. This book offers plenty of schemes for rational analysis. Take your pick: Systems theories galore, bellicist theories, pacifist theories, economic conflict theories, microcosmic theories, aggression theories, psychological theories, deterrence theories, decision-making theories, post-modern theories. How should we view the system which is moulded by humans, perhaps it has moulded humans?
The problem is very real, because decision makers, and especially planners, rarely operate out of their gut feeling. They employ methods, and methods makes you blind to some aspects and aware of other.”
M: “Let’s talk about Allon’s article then. Christine?”
The Allon Plan
C: “Yigal Allon wrote an article in Foreign Affairs in 1976 where he laid out his own ideas. Those ideas seem to have shaped decisions of the government since 1967. No secrecy or anything, these are ordinary security concerns.”
WIKIPEDIA ALLON PLAN
The Allon Plan (Hebrew: תָּכְנִית אַלּוֹן) was a political proposition that outlined potential next steps for Israel after the 1967 Arab–Israeli War. It was drafted by Israeli politician Yigal Allon following Israel’s seizure of territory from Syria, Jordan, and Egypt; the Israeli military had come to occupy Syria’s Golan Heights, the Jordanian-annexed West Bank and the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip, and Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula.
C: “Right from the start he underlines Israel’s perception:”
ISRAEL: THE CASE FOR DEFENSIBLE BORDERS - YIGAL ALLAN - FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1976
Whereas
the Arab states seek to isolate, strangle and erase Israelfrom the world’s map,Israel's aim is simply to live in peaceand good relations with all its neighbors.
G: “One man’s deterrence is another man’s aggression.”
C: “Amen. Allon makes no attempt at being of neutral point of view on that matter. But having said that, IF we accept the basic premise that he lives in a country that is surrounded by hostile neighbours whose aim is the total annihilation of Israel, THEN his suggestions are quite lavish actually.”
M: “And that is one example of how our prejudices and fears can hide within a rational framework.”
C: “Well, yes, frankly. But on the flip side, I can without difficulty locate symmetrically reverse statements by Arab leaders that show the same disrespect.”
M: “Disrespect?”
C: “Yes, his blanket statement of Israel being peace-seekers and Arabs the contrary. The very provocative nature of this bold statements is almost a casus belli in itself:”
As opposed to this total Arab goal,
Israel's war aims have been confined to repelling the offensivesof the Arab armies as determined by strategic and political circumstances, whetherby reactive counter-offensivessuch as those of1948 and 1973or bypreemptive counter-offensivesas those of1956 and 1967.It should be clear from what I have said, that Israel does not hold most of the territories that fell into its hands in
the war, which was imposed on it in 1967, as an end in itself.
M: “Yigal should care more about not directly provoking Israel’s neighbours. Nasser in Egypt may have overreacted to the false Soviet tip to Syria about Israeli troop buildup, but Israel was not attacked as such.”
C: “Allon speaks at length about how Israel cannot survive a successful first strike. They have to strike first or perish.”
G: “Besides, Egypt crossed another red line: They closed the Straits of Tiran for Israeli traffic.”
C: “Yes, the Allon Plan contains a large catalog of vital resources. Water is another, which is part of the conflict with Syria.”
G: “Is it really that hard for both Israelis and Arabs to acknowledge how important access to water is? Either there is enough for everybody and then it must be held sacred enough that water is not being used as leverage in a bargaining situation, or there isn’t enough and somebody should get working on a proper solution.”
C: “But to continue, one thing that is striking is how coherent his viewpoint really is.
The united Arab world can eliminate Israel, Israel cannot eliminate the united Arab world.”
Military defeats, indeed, cost the Arab states losses in lives, destruction of equipment, political setbacks, and damage to national prestige-and perhaps even danger to their regimes.However, such defeats have never been, nor ever will be, a threat to their very existence as sovereign statesor to the lives of their civilian populations.In contrast,
a military defeat of Israel would mean the physical extinctionof a large part of its population and the political elimination of the Jewish state.
G: “He is right on the mark, honestly speaking.”
C: “Well, duh. Any state can claim that their existence is threatened if their neighbours ally themselves against them. But the nature of that alignment must then be as described: United in a desire to obliterate the very statehood of the victim. Is that a truthful description of the Arab states?”
M: “On the contrary, they were woefully unable to coordinate their efforts and end their internal bickering. That cost them the victory in 1948, 1956 and 1967.
The real problem is that when it comes to your own existence, we automatically assume the right to take artistic liberties in describing our enemies. »They want our total destruction. Kill or be killed!« becomes a legal analysis.”
G: “I think you are overlooking that you don’t have to aim for annihilation to destroy a state. If everybody takes their cut, the remaining organism can still bleed to death.”
C: “I’ll admit as much, if we momentarily ignore your stark anthropomorphic analogy. Allon plans for several contingencies. His list of necessities:
- Defensible borders - demilitarised and with security zones. These are south of Gaza, east of Jordan as these are examples of attack vectors.
- Control over Golan Heights as the Heights represents a temptation to attack the lower Galilee areas below.
- Access to Strait of Tiran.
- Israel must be allowed time to field its reserve armies in the event of a surprise attack. This becomes relevant in many border zone considerations.
- Safe water supplies. No possibility of shutting Israel off from access to the Jordan River.
- Gain ‘strategic depth’, i.e. landmasses wide enough that the country cannot be severed easily.
Apart from such requirements, Allon is surprisingly willing to forgo territory and work out a pragmatic plan for peace.”
Miranda had finished reading the article now.
M: “With one glaring defect. Yigal Allon demonstrates that something is far more important than any material concern. He refuses to renege on the core Israeli narratives.”
G: “That right there is the main reason I don’t accept economic theories of conflict as the only, or at occasion even the best explanation. Most peace agreements that are forged usually leaves open the question of blame. Both negotiation teams must be allowed freedom to save face, to come home with a solution that leaves their country’s narrative intact.”
M: “Yes, gross violation of a version of the truth is a core casus belli, even though it isn’t treated as one…”
G: “Parenthetically international law treats only actual physical aggression as a legal reason for war.”
M: “… and yet, wars are at times launched over simple gossip. 1967 is one such example.”
C: As Gerald said, “»One man’s deterrence is another man’s aggression«.
G: “1967 was a chance for Egypt to stand with Syria and signal to the world that the Arabs would not stand for aggression.”
M: “Decent people who will not stand for colonialism and aggression. It is both true and impossible to weave into the Israeli narrative. And honestly, how could you ever fuse two completely different narratives together?
Either Jews had a right to the land from biblical times and the Arabs are the evil ones trying to hinder the formation of their nation, or the Jews have no right to the land and they have bullied their way into a nation by allying themselves with the most sinister of colonial powers to make injustice a virtue.
Show me a saint holy enough that he can be the arbiter in that conflict.
The more I read, the less I believe there will ever be peace in the Middle East. They are not huddled masses, they are nations, and what is at stake is the very mythos of their self-identity.”
C: “Miranda as a pessimist. I’d never thought I’d see that. I guess I agree, but I am not willing to completely abandon my Marxist leaning.”
G: “Didn’t you say that Allon was willing to make rather tangible concessions in territory, as long as Israel’s security was unchallenged?”
C: “Yes, and he constantly reminds that Israel wants two things: Existence and peace. He shows no wavering or insecurity as to how to interpret events, but within the established Israeli interpretation, he is very willing to cooperate.”
G: “So justice in spirit before reasonability in material matters? Doesn’t that refute Marx’s thinking?”
M: “Christine would not have to abandon her Marxist view so readily. That fact that Allon is unwilling to admit to even a tentative concession in terms of storyline is pure Marxist textbook. Doesn’t it appear odd to you that he is willing to wave goodbye to hard won territory but not let slip a simple admission of guilt?
Marxism is not the idea that we invent explanations to excuse our desires. That is an oversimplification. You can probably imagine how destructive for the Israeli national project a wave of admission would be. Find me a soldier who can fight for something they feel is unjustified. Material realities structure our perception of justice, according to the Marxist canon, at least. Some viewpoints simply vanishes from the radar as being illogical or fear-driven or irrational.
But I could apply the same analysis over the Palestinian side. Imagine how destructive an acceptance of the fairness of a home for the Holocaust survivors would have been to their budding political self-awareness. Much too long they postponed building usable institutions because the stuck to a story of mistrust towards Britain, France and Israel as the colonialists with deceptive plans.”
G: “What I dislike about Marxism is similar to what I dislike about wacky theories of International Relations: That they try to view everything as a system rather than a reality driven by human instincts. In fact Marxism is worse, as their analysis becomes a chance to hide the analyst’s own personal prejudices.”
M: “Then tell me what other way to break the deadlock? The Israeli-Palestine conflict has raged for decades, and without a doubt, it is a self-feeding mechanism. Where’s the fuel?”
C: “Sorry for interrupting, but I want to propose a thought experiment. Imagine that Israel was offered security if they admitted to having morally wronged the Palestinians in the 1948 Nakba. That is, relinquish your narrative and gain a material position. Can we imagine Allon being prepared to accept that?
No! Something else is at stake here. Miranda is right about that.”
G: “Hypothetical. I can just as well re-apply Miranda’s thought that the very possibility is ruled out because the discursive field has been structured in advance by the polarisation of the conflict forcing Palestinians and Jews to view the world in different ways. It’s unproductive speculation, and the logic to me seems circular.”
All three could see the temperature rise and nothing but boiled verbal cabbage emerged from it. They sat quiet for a moment.
M: “Okay, I want peace as much as anybody, and I think we are all back to the tender point of negotiation where diplomats have to persuade a delegation and the people they represent that all sides must hazily admit to have inflicted damage on the other side. Our analytical card house has once again collapsed.”
C: “Hmm, perhaps. Diplomacy could perhaps be built on Allons epilogue:”
ISRAEL: THE CASE FOR DEFENSIBLE BORDERS - YIGAL ALLAN - FOREIGN AFFAIRS 1976
Peace is not only a Jewish and Zionist value and goal, but an imperative national interest for Israel, coinciding with the desires of all peoples and all peaceseeking forces in the world.
C: “And then he goes on to negate his worlds indirectly:”
Because of this, particular care must be taken regarding the nature of the settlement to be reached: whether it is to be fragile, provisional,
and containing the seeds of a future war; or whether it is to be stable and enduring, cutting the ground out, to the greatest possible degree, from anyone intent upon war.
M: “His very preparedness to wave war if defensible borders cannot be guaranteed means he is unprepared to understand the Arab side, that they by logic must be prepared to accept weakened borders - if we can assume a zero-sum reality here.”
G: “Zero sum. Zero gain. Zero hope.
You know, perhaps this is the curse of Babel. »Come, let us go down and confuse their narratives so they will not understand each other.”«
Imagine that… God’s own people affected by the same curse as their enemies.”
/ПРИЗРАК