This is impossible. It is not possible to solve the conflict here. The conflict can be managed and it is important to manage the conflict" The quote above comes from former Foreign Minister of Israel Avigdor Lieberman. Here, he was speaking of the impossibility of any peace between Israel and Palestine. Mr. Lieberman, who resigned in December 2012 under charges of corruption, is exhibiting one of the most pervasive and flawed justifications of the occupation: Israeli fatalism. This flaw has transformed the Israeli political landscape into a place where a man who makes comments bordering on ethnic cleansing is a “moderate" and those who call for the annexation of illegally occupied land and the destruction of the Dome of the Rock are merely “right wing". Israeli fatalism maintains that the conflict can never end must be “managed" by whatever means necessary. In its foreseeable future it serves a most important role: by making the problem invulnerable it absolves Israel of their reactionary policies, at least in the eyes of most Israelis. Of course, many in the Israeli political landscape admit that the measures taken are not enjoyable. The separation wall that snakes its way through the occupied West Bank, illegally annexing hundreds of acres, isn't pretty but it saves lives. The overzealous assaults on Gaza, which simultaneously produce videos of targets being assassinated while travelling on moving vehicles and accidental bombings of residential areas resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths, are unfortunate. But the conflict is without end, and somehow, the ends justify the means. When the new Israeli political it-boy, Yair Lapid, tells Time Magazine that his “father didn't come here from the ghetto in order to live in a country that is half Arab, half Jewish. He came here to live in a Jewish state", alarms should begin to ring in one's ears. When he goes on to say that there are “3.3 million Palestinians now between the sea and the eastern border of Israel. If we don't do something about it, her generation [nods toward a 15-year-old girl at the table] is going to spend her time with six or seven or eight million Palestinians [emphasis mine]", his comments should be met with outrage. This is coming from the head of Yesh Atid, the “centrist" party that came out the big winner in Israel's January elections. He ran on a platform defending the middle class, increasing unity between the disparate Jewish populations of Israel and approaching the Palestinians to discuss peace. Granted, here he is speaking about his desire to negotiate a peace deal with Palestinians but how can one be considered a moderate when using this rhetoric? Israel's obsession with citizenship based on ethnicity or religion flies in the face of internationally accepted, secular definitions of citizenry. Israeli political discourse maintains that the soundest reason for a two-state solution is so those future “seven or eight million Palestinians" don't get the chance to outvote the state's Jewish population. So what is to be done? Palestinians give birth at a much higher rate than the Jewish population of Israel and the further their human rights are inhibited, such as the right to vote, the label of “apartheid" becomes ever more applicable. I don't believe Israelis know what is to be done. International support is waning, the spotlight on settlements is shining brighter than ever before and Palestinians are coming up with inventive, new and nonviolent means of protest and resistance and Palestinian hunger strikers are setting records and receiving worldwide attention. Quite simply, they are winning hearts and minds on a broad scale for the first time since the Second Intifada. The best advice the Israelis could be given is to do away with this rampant fatalism. There are solutions, compromises must be made and peace must be realized. The Israeli public and the politicians they elect can no longer view the question of Palestine as a zero-sum game. As much as this portrayal of the conflict helps ease whatever qualms the Israeli public has, it is no longer enough for the outside world. True, President Obama is set to visit Israel and Palestine without any demands. This is a sure sign of solidarity from the head of the United States. The US Secretary of State, on the other hand, is pushing Congress for Palestinian aid money withheld as a result of their bid for an upgraded status at the United Nations General Assembly to be unfrozen. Ahead of President Obama's visit, the European Union is dangling sanctions on Israeli goods over Netanyahu's head. The imports produced by settlers and companies headquartered in the occupied West Bank or Golan Heights often carry a label that reads “Made in Israel" or “Product of Israel". This is already considered illegal by most countries in the EU but the new sanctions would ban the sale of these products explicitly. It would be a blow to Israel's economy as products exported to Europe from the occupied West Bank account for approximately €220 million, but the true danger these sanctions pose is the door opening to further diplomatic measures. In the past election, Israelis turned a blind eye to issues concerning the conflict. Yesh Atid was the big winner as a first-year party coming in second place, but Likud and Jewish Home are still first and third. Who are the most frequent subjects of their pandering? Settlers. Israelis must turn away from their fatalism and embrace solutions to the conflict that leave ethnocentrism behind. Otherwise, in the near future, the door to sanctions will swing wide.
