9 February 2017
One state
By: Karsten Riise
My conclusion still holds: No party can create a decisive victory. Locked conflict. Stalemate.
Now, some decades after my rather successful analysis in basic school, I continue to look at the same issue. Although stalemate can hold for decades (as I foresaw) - no stalemate holds forever.
The military superiority of the State of Israel will in the next decades not increase. It can and will only decrease. This may happen unnoticed for a couple of decades - even with what may temporarily (but falsely) appear at some moment to be a further strengthening. In fact, the long-run relative decrease in the relative power of the State of Israel will probably be denied vehemently by great many notable persons and ordinary people there and there, just while it happens. Like a bridge losing its strength. Slowly at the beginning, then after one or two decades more visibly, and even later less deniably, gradual loss of control and supremacy will become evident to some, and then to more. Not necessarily as an "awakening" after a big all-out conflict, a short-term result of any larger conflict may even obscure the long-term development.
But the development I envision will show itself through this, that, and that - countless never ceasing, continuous and possibly ever more pressing conflictual events, as the table slowly, very slowly, turns. Also, the diplomatic balance (the power to be heard by the rest of the world) in the region will also slowly (or actually suddenly, for instance if due to some catastrophic event) change within the coming number of decades.
Such a diplomatic turn may be reinforced step-by-step (perhaps soon, or perhaps over decades) with the development of the surrounding types of government, with the regional human & economic development, and of course as the military strength of surrounding countries develop. This development eventually cannot be stopped, even though (like e.g with the nuclear issue) it may be delayed, manipulated, obfuscated and temporarily blocked many, many times.
So in a way, as the relative power of the State of Israel will not increase, there will never be a moment for peace, which will be more advantageous for the State of Israel, than now. The obstacle hereto is the existence of an illusion: The very large relative power-advantage of the State of Israel today may lure great many people to think, that this will hold forever - and that therefore (at least in the view of some people) no peace will ever be needed (or even be desirable to them), or at least that it shouldn't happen now. Because humans who feel they have a great relative power-advantage often want more of this and more of that, and they can trap themselves by spending their time in pursuit of things which they will in the long run (decades) not be able to hold on to.
A pursuit of such things may, in an illusionary way, look like building up strength, but in a later phase it will turn out to be exactly the opposite. Such a development is a classic theme in human history, which has been treated by poets and speakers from probably all religions, plus a great many philosophers, for centuries and millenia.
A lot of international initiatives (still on the official agenda of a great many countries and organizations) have been made for a so-called "two-state" negociation. I think the time has passed for that, and perhaps indeed the "two-state" idea was never viable. If this is correct, the only one other road that will exist, will be "one state". This is no easy way. In fact, some explicitly discarded such an idea as either undesirable or not-viable already long ago. There may indeed also be some here or there saying "yes - only one - and only for us" - which may lead to even more tragedy.
We have seen in Lebanon, how such a "one state" may develop. Lebanon may even suggest, that such a "one state" may only come to a peace within itself, after all parties have experienced the hard way, that they must live together. Though Lebanon also gives hope, the necessary human realization (and thus such a peace) may even be precarious. Such a development will of course, mean a development also in the idea regarding the basis of the state, if there is one state. And after that, a number of individuals there, or there, may decide to seek their fortunes in other places rather than to continue on such terms - which might, in such a theoretical case, be an issue which must be foreseen and managed by the world. The conflict in Algeria in the 1950'ies is something to learn from, not as a prognosis, but at least as a possible illustration.
But we have also seen after decades of this and that in a totally different place like South Africa, that brighter and more positive perspectives can be possible. Three religions have an attachment to the area we speak of here, and the texts of all three mention Israel. This came as a surprise to me, when I first saw it, and I actually spent some time thinking about it. All three religions - all religions - have something unique to say to humans.
So inspired by the old scriptures, perhaps Israel has symbolised, and/or may one day come to symbolise, all of humanity.
Karsten Riise
Partner & Editor
CHANGE NEWS
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
