Distance is not just geographical

In case you didn't know, US-sponsored (and that is meant in all meanings of the term) peace talks are under way in the chic Sinai beachside resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, and already failure is being pre-emptied. One of the reasons given for a failed outcome is growing Israeli apathy. As Time magazine and now the BBC report, Israelis in places like Tel Aviv are more concerned about 'making money' and enjoying the good life rather than making peace. In that Western morally superior way, this is interpreted as being bad and callous. The BBC, like many Western media outlets are also quick to point out that Tel Aviv is 'less than an hour away from the West Bank'. However, what we have here are some serious double standards and a failure to understand the true implications of these attitudes.

The truth is, many Israelis are more concerned about holidays and consumerism than making peace with the Palestinians. But why would they be otherwise? Israelis are human like the rest of us - many are apathetic and it is so much easier to avoid dealing with social issues when they are out of mind, out of sight. Just like how more people in the USA are more concerned about what Snooki will be doing on Jersey Shore than the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq (ostensibly to guarantee the security of the US), or that there are far more Aussies interested in Masterchef than tackling Aboriginal health, the same goes for many Israelis with their occupation versus nice lifestyle. So why then are the Israelis portrayed as being the bad ones? Aren't we all guilty of not caring? It's from this viewpoint that accusations of anti-Semetism have been made at Time magazine for its recent story (cover below).

But what about the Palestinians? Surely they would be wanting peace? Like the Israelis, they do, but they too are human, and there are plenty of Palestinians who after many decades of stalemate are less concerned about the occupation and more with other things. For some living in Gaza, it has to do with getting food, while for others in the West Bank, their priorities mirror those of many Israelis - fashion, consumerism, cars. Likewise, there are also plenty of poor Israelis whose main concerns are similar to those living in Gaza - food, shelter, health.

Israelis and Palestinians alike have been at loggerheads now for over 60 years. Many people have died in needless acts of violence and war, and simply, people are tired. They all would like to have a quiet life that doesn't involve polemics; one that ensures that they live comfortably. The politics of the region and the promise of peace guaranteeing prosperity is now ringing quite hollow. Why this has failed, and why their is little faith in the peace talks is that they are going about it the wrong way. As has been proven in the past many times, peace does not necessarily bring prosperity, but prosperity does bring peace. When the prospect that plenty of money can be made and people can espire to living comfortably, then there's not much incentive to create other purposes in life such as the honour in fighting for a greater cause. It has been said that had the amount of money the USA spent on Vietnam War or Iraqi occupation been distributed evenly to each Vietnamese or Iraqi instead, that rather large individual amount would have guaranteed such prosperity that the outcomes in those conflicts would have been quite different. We have witnessed conflicts reduce in relation to the growth in propserity in places like Northern Ireland. Even when there is conflict, you can always count that the people making the money are usually blind to it. For instance, even that supposed defender of all things Serbian, the warlord Arkan was in close terms with Albanian underworld figures during the Serbian-Kosovo conflict in 1998-1999, despite his very anti-Albanian public stance at the time. So why would it be different in the Middle East? Or Afghanistan? It isn't.

The problem for peace in the Middle East is not apathy. I'm afraid to say it but the wall and the roadblocks which keep the Palestinians away from Israel have been so successful. The main reason why the Wall was installed was to cut the amount of terrorist attacks in Israel to zero - and that has been largely achieved. So too are the roadblocks. The West Bank may be extremely close geographically from Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, however with the bureaucratic and physical hurdles in place for Palestinians to get from one part of the West Bank to the other, let alone into Israel, they are practically thousands of kilometres away psychologically. With the West Bank now contained behind a wall and no terrorist attacks to worry about, Israelis now can lead somewhat normal lives and prosper. They have found a solution to their main problem of security and as such, don't really need a flimsy peace anymore.

Governments, and kings before them, did not invest hugely into walls because they were unsuccessful. The GDR erected the wall across Berlin, dividing the city as well as Germany, as it would successfully stem the flow of much needed professionals seeking great financial and career opportunities in the West. It was so successful at first that the GDR authorities were even brave enough to launch a liberalisation of the system in the early 1960s. Much like in Israel's case geographically, even though they were the same city, East and West Berlin psychologically were worlds apart. However, the only thing which the GDR could not stop was the airwaves - West German TV and radio could be picked up throughout most of the GDR, giving East Germans an insight to a rather obviously more prosperous system. It did not matter that not everything that was on West German TV, such as advertisements for luxury goods, was accessible to everyone in the West, the fact that it existed was reason enough to show the difference. So what caused the Wall to fall was the inspiration of many East Germans (and Eastern Europeans) to be able to live like Crystal and Alexis as seen on Dynasty episodes on Western TV channels or VHS cassettes rather than a political and civic desire to be able to have a greater say in the way they are governed.

As the GDR showed, the Wall meant everything to its existence. Once penetrated, it led to the downfall of the psychological distance. The same can be said of Israel. The only way that Israeli apathy towards the West Bank and moves towards peace can significantly change is if the Wall is breached and the West Bank makes its way to the streets of Tel Aviv again. With this contained, Israel is now more focused in stopping a greater threat - missiles, either conventional medium-range ones fired by Hizbollah from Southern Lebanon or nuclear ones from Iran. So these days, Iran is a closer threat psychologically than the West Bank or Gaza, but still sufficiently distant to not be an overwhelming concern.

But what if the Wall is to be breached? Wouldn't a long-lasting peace be a better alternative? Of course it would be. However there is one psychological wall that both sides to the Mid-East conflict have yet to conquer for that to happen - one that combines machismo and honour. Being a 'man' and defending one's honour is paramount to most males in the Middle East regardless of religion. Compromise is seen as a sign of weakness, which is something neither manly nor honourable. Only once this far deeper wall has been penetrated, and not just apathy, may we see any true change come to anywhere, let alone the Middle East.

By the way, figure out where the café is up top, and where these poor people live: West Bank or Israel?