 |
The Ice-Cream Rule And The Arab-Israeli Conflict |
|
 by Roi Ben-Yehuda, October 30, 2008 |
||
Growing up in Argentina, my girlfriend Gabriela and her sister Paola cherished ice-cream day. On that day they got to eat as much ice-cream as they could. Only there was a catch. Gabriela’s mother employed the ice cream rule: during ice-cream time, the rule was that one sibling would decide how much ice-cream would go into each bowl, while the other had the right to first pick. That way, if one of the sibling had distributed the ice-cream unevenly, the other benefited. It was an ingenious system designed for fairness.
Now, what if we could employ the ice-cream rule to the Arab-Israeli conflict? Imagine the following: President Obama meets with Abbas and Livni/Netanyahu. He gives the latter a map and says, “Go ahead, two states for two people. You draw the boundaries, you choose a capital, and you decide where people have a right to reside. There will be no opposition or interference from Abbas. However, once you finish, it is up to Abbas alone to choose which side to take.”
Is there any question as to how the conflict would be resolved? Half a bowl of ice-cream for Abbas and half for Livni. Of course, such an approach would seemingly not be in Israel’s immediate interest since she possesses more than half of historic Palestine (the much more developed side as well). However, as has become clear to many across the Israeli political spectrum, if in the immediate future there is no viable solution to the Palestinian-Zionist conflict, Israel's territorial advantage (along with its demographic baggage) will be her undoing.
Thinking over a divided land, I am reminded of the story of King Solomon and the baby. As is told, when two prostitutes came to the king with conflicting claims over ownership of a baby, he adjudicated with a stratagem: "Cut the live child in two", he said, "and give half to one and half to the other." Realizing what is at stake, the real mother came forth and pleaded with the king to give the child to the other woman, "only don't kill the baby." The other woman said, “Cut it in two.” Hearing this, the king immediately returned the child to its rightful mother.
Now it is not out-of-bounds to use this story to champion the vision of a one-state solution, or Greater Israel or Greater Palestine. If the baby is a symbol for the land, then the true owner of the land will not compromise by dividing it into parts. On some kind of mystical level, the land needs to be indivisible and whole. One people, one land / two people, one land. Either way, one land it must remain.
But there is another reading of the story that could be helpful. It seems to me that the moral of the story is that real and unconditional love sometimes means letting go of something that is of ultimate concern. For the child to survive, the mother had to let go of her claims to him. Likewise, if the people of Israel and Palestine love their land as much as they say they do, then they need to let go of their vision of what Palestine and Israel ought to be - not let go of a vision of Palestine or Israel per say, just the one that is keeping them from realizing peace. Israelis and Palestinians are attached to myths (e.g. undivided Jerusalem, right of return) that given the reality on the ground serve no good. A new schema is in order, one that is based on genuine compromise and fairness, not on the unreasonable and exclusive claims of religion and history.
Forty weeks and 5 days of hell was just the start
Did Freud Know Hitler?
A Sudanese expatriate breaks the pan-Arab silence on Darfur
Trying to Find Jewish Life in China
Kashrut's Not Easy in the Land of Crawfish and Jambalaya
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Rob
To think that the answer was always there and so simple.
Do you think Hitler's taste was rocky road or vanilla? Vanilla, I think.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this idiocy.
Zeevico
If it was this easy, it would have been done long ago.
Ethnic conflicts are never this easy.
The truth of the matter is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not end now, in a year, or in 10 years.
Neither party is willing to compromise on its core positions: namely, the right of return for the Palestinians is rejected by the Israelis.
Until such compromise occurs--in effect, a massive change in the ideology of one of the sides--the conflict will likely not end. Either the Israelis will allow the right of return, or the Palestinians will give up on it.
yakira77
What is easy? I mean really, in this life nothing is promised to us and nothing is so easy. To love our children, that is easy but to protect our children, that is not so easy, but loving parents want to do so. In loving our children it should be our duty to teach fairness and if we lead by example it will start a greater movement and when our children grow up (and take over this world) things could be different. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but maybe in 10 years, maybe longer, but If we expect it to be different and work hard at being different ourselves, change will come!!
Apple Eye
It´s just obvious that the Israeli-Palestine problem is not as simple as the ice cream rule, nor as Salomonic as the solution found to decide who keeps the baby. Anyways, these two stories are very helpful for explaining the dilemma to people who are not very sure of what to think, or are biased because of what the media communicates. Maybe Zeevico is right by saying that "the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not end now, in a year, or in 10 years"; but in the meantime, we can advocate towards Israel and a peaceful conflict resolution, just by having conversations, using graphic and creative examples such as the ice cream and the baby, to open people´s minds and help them create their own views, on a didactic way.
gabsibabsu
Rob, I must say that your comment is disappointing. Can't you read deeper than that?
I do not understand why, the simple but imperative act of thinking about this conflict's solution, without saying THIs is the answer!, is not a fruitful act
"If it was this easy, it would have been done long ago"
Are we so naive to think that in the world we are living, decisions are not taken because they are not easy?
I read this article as an insightful mind excercise. To think about what we really want. To think in the important things as fairness and peace, to let go ideas that will not help to find a solution, to think in the other, to think as a whole.
RaquelEvita
I second Gabsibabsu's insights here.
Rob, you see the "simple" question as idiocy, yet Roi's sharp observations ("However, as has become clear to many across the Israeli political spectrum, if in the immediate future there is no viable solution to the Palestinian-Zionist conflict, Israel's territorial advantage (along with its demographic baggage) will be her undoing.") clearly surpassed your capacity for reason. A mention of Hitler and the conversation is closed - how counterproductive. It's also a lazy assertion, if you're truly interested in the resolution of this conflict. Roi is not (nor am I) questioning the legitimacy of Israel's founding - so perhaps you could explain why your statement is productive rather than simply emotional.
Much more useful is the searing insight Roi makes in his final paragraph: that perhaps Israelis and Palestinians are both attached to myths that, given the reality of the situation, serve neither party adequately and certainly don't move us closer to a solution. The implementation of the "ice-cream rule" seems more realistic, frankly, than success via any means tried before.
Zeevico
The ice-cream rule only works when one is prepared to understand the beliefs of the other party and achieve a compromise. Most Israelis do, I think, either want a compromise or are willing to accept one if it is forced upon them by the majority through a democratic process. A minority of the Israeli far-right may be unwilling to accept such a compromise. That would be a tragedy for Israeli society. Most Palestinians do not want a compromise and either do not understand what a democracy is, or do not want one. That much is clear by their support for Hamas and Fatah--two groups that are engaging in civil war. The former rejects freedom of speech on religious grounds; the latter because it intrudes on their desire for power. Until a majority of Palestinians desire peace and the minority is willing to accept the majority view, 'peace'--a cessation of all conflicts, whether as between the Palestinians themselves or as between Israelis and Palestinians--is impossible. Once all this happens, the ice cream rule can come into play. The Israelis are probaBut the ice cream rule, and any other means of resolving the conflict, are for the moment moot.
Zeevico
The ice-cream rule only works when one is prepared to understand the beliefs of the other party and achieve a compromise. Most Israelis do, I think, either want a compromise or are willing to accept one if it is forced upon them by the majority through a democratic process. A minority of the Israeli far-right may be unwilling to accept such a compromise. That would be a tragedy for Israeli society. Most Palestinians do not want a compromise and either do not understand what a democracy is, or do not want one. That much is clear by their support for Hamas and Fatah--two groups that are engaging in civil war. The former rejects freedom of speech on religious grounds; the latter because it intrudes on their desire for power. Until a majority of Palestinians desire peace and the minority is willing to accept the majority view, 'peace'--a cessation of all conflicts, whether as between the Palestinians themselves or as between Israelis and Palestinians--is impossible. Once all this happens, the ice cream rule can come into play. The Israelis are probably too attached to certain parts of the country; the Palestinians to others.
The ice cream rule is a great end point. But you need to take other steps before hand to reach it. I don't think those other steps will come for a long time.
The Red Baron
I enjoyed this. It made me smile and broke down some of the problems that we face in this two state (or not) sultion delima. I find that it is extreamly hard to simplify this crisis that has effected both people with years of termoil and blood shed, but this article is a breath of fresh air to the commonplace heavy handed didactice approch that most people take to this problem. By the way, I am going to absolutly apply this rule to my children (if I ever have any) that is the best idea I have ever heard!
Serwasser
I found the concept of applying simple idea to a complex problem very interesting. Good article
PaliVoice
Very interesting Artcile, Roi. I really liked the way you interpreted Solomon's story with the two prostitutes. And I'm talking about the second interpretation where you talk about uncoditional love and letting go of the myths boths side are still attached to. I believe its so true! to compromise, we have to give up many of the myths we are both living!
This is very insightful, Roi. And to those who think that this is very simplestic, I would say that I totally disagree. We['ve been thinking in a complex way for ages, and what we get is more complexity and more problems we can't cope with. Sometimes "a simple" solution can save the day.
Thanks for this insightful article. :)
Rob
In the words of Ronald Reagan "We win, they lose".
Raquel - If you don't like Hitler references than take that up with the daily propaganda machine coming out of the Arab world using Jew hating images not seen since Der Sturmer not to mention the Mufti of Jerusalem who was a great friend of Hitler.
The terms Islamofascism and Islamonazi are used for accurate historical reasons and not just an obnoxious and ignorant slur like so many "progressives" use against Christians and Jews.
RaquelEvita
And boy, wasn't Reagan wrong there!
Rob, it turns out that my daily life is about taking on the very propaganda machine you're talking about. I regularly receive threats from my fellow faithful for doing just that. I know about the "Grand" Mufti - Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini. His legacy is a glaring stain on Muslims, and as one I readily say that.
I also think there are times where a Hitler reference is absolutely warranted. However, your assertion came across as dismissive of Roi's apparent intention: exploring even seemingly simple solutions to an urgent problem. It's clear that other solutions have not worked. Ultimately, everyone's existence hangs in the balance.
Terry
I think that as the human population gains an expanded world view – thanks to technology (internet, cheap travel, satellite TV, and education) – the ‘Ice Cream Rule’ may one day not be such a far-fetched idea.
Yes, I know, history suggests otherwise. But history and politics are shaped by human perspective. And the perspective of the middle and upper class (the decision-makers) is shifting toward a less warlike mentality. The Bush administration is on its way out. Saddam, Arafat, Castro, and Kim Jong-Il, are all either dead or dying. As people become more educated, become more aware of life’s big picture, and gain long-term vision, I think they’ll stand up to warlike leaders and demand a new form of negotiation (as is happening in the U.S. as evidenced by all the support for Obama).
Who knows? Human nature may one day be conquered and the ‘Ice Cream Rule’ could be a “partial” reality. Probably not in our lifetime, though. Still too many religious fanatics, ethnocentrics, and patriots running around.