I agree that I’d like to see more about the human aspect of the conflict. Such stories, of course, are the very things that it’s hardest to be neutral about. The risk of finding “emblematic” representatives is that they might be perceived as stereotypes of groups rather than as individuals. The cool rationality that comes through the guide is both its strength and its weakness. It is removed from emotion and ideology, and so perhaps is removed from some of the force that drives the conflict. Yet the value that the guide adds is precisely how cleanly it is able to lay out events and positions that otherwise get obscured. There is a trade-off between neutrality and emotional depth. In my opinion, the need for an un-biased source is greater than the need for an examination of the various irrational mindsets on both sides, important though these opinions are.

To finish with a note on the presentation, I appreciated the map-based approach in the land section. I would like to see some kind of integrated map that would allow you to combine the timeline, land disputes, and diplomacy sections. A supplement that allowed the viewer to toggle through all the existing maps in one place would be useful.

Unfortunately, however, when the average newspaper article or television report describes a situation , it is impossible to represent the entire historical narrative of a conflict as the CFR did here.  The news is certainly an industry, and like any industry, its products are meant to be consumed.  News consumers seek the feeling that they understand what they are reading, and throwing in too much history and disputed facts will ultimately confuse them.  As a result, news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often shoddy, incomplete, and frustrating to those who feel they truly understand what is at stake.  For example, in the recent war in Gaza, barely any distinction was mentioned in the media between killed Hamas fighters and innocent Palestinian lives.  Mere death tolls followed news of an Israeli strike or ground incursion. To explain that Israel had targeted mostly Hamas military targets, and that their precision far surpassed that of the United States or British militaries in recent wars, would require far too much explanation, and would demand answers to tough questions about the nature of Hamas and who counts as a civilian.  Similarly, it is hard to briefly contextualize any of the violence and occupations within a larger framework of Middle Eastern history, and this is rarely done.

Similarly, I think the media’s attempt to portray “objectivity” in a 5 paragraph article creates more problems than exist to begin with.  So often, I read articles which depict the Palestinian point of view by quoting a militantly anti-Zionist Hamas fighter, and then depict the Israeli point of view by quoting a extreme right-wing settler who believes God gave the Jews all the land from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates.  These views distort the sentiments of the majorities on both sides of the conflict, and serve to further polarize us.  As a Jew who cares deeply about Israel, I have been particularly frustrated when I’ve read accounts of the conflict which portray a moderate and sensible Palestinian perspective, and attempt to “balance” their report by quoting extremist Israelis who do not in any sense represent the mainstream views of the conflict.

I applaud the Council for this comprehensive review of an extremely complicated situation.  I hope that through dialogue about what is at stake in the conflict for each side, a moderate consensus can emerge as to how to move forward.

We need to be able to see the situation through both the eyes of the most fanatical pro-Israel Zionist and those of the Palestinian suicide bomber. Why does the Russian Jewish émigré take up an Uzi and march into Lebanon for his new nation? What drives a father to strap a bomb to his own child and send him into a Tel Aviv pizza parlor?  These are the individuals who drive the higher social and political machinations of the conflict, and whose passionate ideologies are so vital to understanding it. When policy makers head to the conference table, it is these “opinions” — the religious and cultural passions, hatreds and allegiances of either side — that influence their decisions.

I also think that there is no better way to enliven interest in the subject than through representative portraits of such beliefs. A pure historical survey runs the risk of banality. That said, I really applaud the Crisis Guide’s graphical and interactive method of presenting information, and I do believe that the historical background chosen for inclusion is both relevant and interesting. In form and content, there isn’t too much I would change; it displays a great fusion of relevant, academic research and sexy Web 2.0 sensibility. However, I really do think that an extra, subjective element — colorful portraits of the personal religious and cultural beliefs that shape the conflict — could do much for the relevance and dynamism of the guide.

I do admit that the effort to be neutral in the project is quite evident. However, I cannot deny that in the attempt to be neutral CFR has left out some information. There is no clear reference in the guide to any of the recently uncovered information by Israeli Historians themselves. I have read Ilan Pappe’s Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine some time ago and was surprised that none of the information that he and other Israeli historians uncovered is included in the report. There was no inclusion of any of the declassified IDF archives that Pappe clearly documents in his book. I personally feel that what happened in 1948 has been watered down. In CFR’s attempt to be neutral it has excluded and downplayed the amount of Palestinian suffering that resulted from the creation of Israel.

Also to second Ahmed’s argument, I do feel that the religious aspect of the conflict is overemphasized. The religious aspect is extremely important, but in the end, the conflict is about people, land and dispossession.

However, sometimes the Guide shies away from the more complicated aspects of the conflict. I would have liked to have seen more statistics of the death toll on both sides over time. I also felt that America’s massive support of Israel with both arms and words was underemphasized. The “Israel lobby” is a powerful force in the United States, and I would have been interested in an examination of America’s motives behind its commitment to Israel’s security. I would like to see the extent of other nations’ support for both Palestine and Israel.

The Guide is certainly a useful overview of a conflict which understandably confuses many. It’s a good place to start when seeking to fully understand the dispute, but it’s impossible to become well-informed solely from this website. As a historical guide, it clearly lays out important events and shifts. However, it runs the risk of over-simplifying a conflict over which a huge range of opinion exists. The controversies surrounding the dispute are simply omitted in this resource. It is what it purports to be – a guide to the conflict, a sort of map. We may gain some conception of the dispute from it, but to truly understand the conflict we must immerse ourselves in the tangled maze of opinions and information that surrounds the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

First, I would like to applaud this website for its evenhandedness. I really think it approaches neutrality as far as is humanly possible. (How can anyone ever really reach true neutrality? That is a debate by itself.) Previous postings have brought up the journalist’s challenge of how to include personal stories and  emotional portraits in reporting. The “human side” of emotionally loaded subjects, while connecting people to the story, can damage neutrality and neutral interpretations of facts simply by bringing up bias-inducing feelings (fear, rage, sorrow). At the same time, people obviously view the “human side” as an important part of reporting. How do you choose how much individual story versus how much fact reporting to include? Can sympathy be dangerous?

Of course, if the CFR were to make that ambitious leap, it would encounter problems. For journalists and others seeking to tell the story of this conflict, the “well has been poisoned.” That is, any editorial decision can be viewed as expressing bias toward one side or another. For example, during the second Intifada, Israeli government spokespeople speaking to U.S. news media started using the phrase “homicide bombing” instead of “suicide bombing.” The intention was to highlight that these were acts of murder, that the terrorist was unimportant and therefore that his reasons for acting were unimportant. Fox News immediately adopted the phrase in its ostensibly neutral coverage, like its field reports or hourly news recaps, but other networks and news outlets did not. Suddenly, choosing to use the phrase implied a pro-Israeli government bias, while choosing not to use it appeared to be a critique of Israel.

We saw similar dilemmas for the media even during this most recent Gaza conflict (see the BBC’s decision not to broadcast an aid appeal for Gazans: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7850000/7850617.stm). There’s probably no solution to this problem, except to make the debate on this issue less polarized. That lessened polarization, in turn, can only come from real progress toward peace, and at this point that does not seem likely. 

Before launching into my thoughts about the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis Guide, I would like to thank the CFR for this opportunity. I have much respect for the Council’s publications and for its commitment to thoughtful coverage. With that said, I was disappointed by the Crisis Guide for a few reasons. My first and most recurring impression of the guide was that it does not convey the bitterness and mistrust permeating the Palestine conflict. Both exchanges amongst leaders and everyday interactions between Israelis and Palestinians are dominated by skepticism and resentment. This hostility has emerged from the tangible realities of the conflict: many elderly Palestinians living in the squalor of refugee camps still hold the tattered deeds to their properties in Haifa, and Israelis have been robbed of a sense of security in their public places. The systemic approach of the Crisis Guide does not capture these realities. It does not get across the underlying feelings of the populations in question in a meaningful, let alone compelling, way. I fear the effect is that viewers do not learn the reasons behind the radicalization of the electorates who have chosen the leaders who stubbornly avoid concessions, and who have sustained the conflict’s current disequilibrium.

I was also disappointed by the portrayal of former President George W. Bush’s efforts in the region. The fundamental shift in policy that his administration implemented should be acknowledged. Explaining his particularly strong support for Israel and his departure from genuine mediation — he once likened negotiations with Hamas to “the false comfort of appeasement” — would add context to recent tensions. These developments were included neither in the short summaries in the “Diplomatic Efforts” chapter, nor in the spoken commentary which accompanied them. These details would not have to be presented as criticism, only as background on the sharpening stance of Hamas towards the United States.

Lastly, the role of demography was sorely missed in the Crisis Guide. While the strain of ecology on the conflict is given its own subsection, the ever-increasing size of Palestinian populations, and the potential of this augmentation to escalate the conflict, was not included. Perhaps this is because demography is a long-term problem. Now, Palestinians living in the territories only number half the total population of Israel. But they are expected to increase to be twice the size of Israel’s population by 2036. This expected upsurge in the population of Palestinians will undoubtedly intensify disputes regarding the already inequitable division of arable land, water, and other natural resources. The incorporation of this sort of rarely reported but potentially devastating detail is just the type of insight I believe contributes to a productive, forward-thinking review of the conflict.

It is impossible to take an unbiased approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict as long as it continues to be painted as a conflict religious in nature. In my view, the conflict is primarily about land and should be treated as such. For example, early Zionists thinkers wanted a modern nation-state for Jews, not a Jewish state where orthodoxy would hold sway. Similarly, the Arab states that resisted and fought Israel in the beginning were all secular states. In the 1950s and 1960s, the big idea in the Middle East was pan-Arabism, not pan-Islamism. The PLO was also a secular organization, and both Muslim and Christian Palestinians suffered in refugee camps. Only with the rise of Hezbollah during the Lebanese civil war and Hamas during the early 1990s did the Palestinian side start to adopt an Islamic character.

And now a few thoughts on the Crisis Guide. The Guide rightly states that the Arab/Muslim world sees the Palestine as the price “Muslim Palestinians have been forced to pay…for the sins of Europeans during the Holocaust.” The editor then claims that “for the global Jewish diaspora, the conflict’s narrative grows out of centuries of anti-semitism and abuse at the hands of Christians and Muslims alike.” Anti-Semitism as a phenomenon never really existed on the Muslim side, there being only rare instances of violence, much less “centuries” of abuse. I think it is wrong to compare European treatment of Jews to Muslim treatment of Jews. In fact, anti-Semitism only emerged in Muslim societies after the creation of Israel, and that, too, as a revenge for the perceived ill treatment of Muslims at the hands of the Israelis.

Secondly, it is technically wrong to call the conflict between Zionists and Palestinians in early 1948 a civil war, as the Zionists were mostly Europeans (and therefore foreigners) and not exactly native to Palestine. The conflict was more like one between the colonizers and the colonized.

Also, it would be interesting if the Guide analyzed the Arab view of Zionists as Crusaders. As we know, the actual Crusades were wars waged by Europeans against Muslim states during 10th-13th centuries. But that time, the Jews were on the side of the Muslims, as they knew how badly Jews were treated in Europe. How is it that this time around, according to the Arab perspective, the dynamics have so radically changed? This time, the role of Crusaders is played by the Jews, while those under attack are Muslim and Christian Palestinians!

Buried in the many twists and turns of the conflict, and in the often parochial sense of aggrievement each side feels, are historical complexities that defy easy description. Our goal here was to lay out as best as we could the facts of the conflict, paying very limited attention to “possible solutions.” While I deeply believe solutions are possible, we tried not to be prescriptive. Instead, as one blogger, AGolic, already has mentioned, it is our assertion that only through a thorough understanding of the historical roots of the conflict can a viable way forward be found.

Many people have deeply held, sometimes emotional and even existential opinions about this conflict. I would ask those taking part in this forum to try and keep the emotional side in check and to approach this as an opportunity to engage in a real dialogue about the conflict itself. For myself, there are two broad areas I am happy to address: One would focus on whether CFR.org, under my direction, lived up to our desire to be objective and create a resource that would be useful to those trying to understand the complex topic. A second is the conflict itself, and from that standpoint, I’m happy to talk about the many dilemmas objective journalists struggle with as they attempt to cover it.

What I’m not interested in is a series of partisan opinions. Opinions are like noses - we’ve all got ‘em. Analysis is more valuable, insight should be the ultimate goal.

So, I’m happy to join the fray, and thank our friends at Yale Globalist for co-hosting this discussion.

Michael Moran

Executive Editor

CFR.org