The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com.
The Israel-Palestine conflict and House Republican politics might seem to have nothing in common. But they do.
Both yield no hope of compromise. It’s impossible when parties believe they are fighting over a limited resource. That’s called a “zero-sum game.” When one side wins, the other side must lose. It’s winner takes all.
In Israel-Palestine, two groups insist that the conflict there is a zero-sum game.
Extreme right-wing parties in Israel’s current governing coalition want to absorb Palestine into a single country under Israeli rule. Arabs would likely be killed, expelled or required to live as second-class citizens. Israeli Jews, they believe, have an ancient right to a land that was once theirs and that provides them shelter in a hostile world, at its worst during the Holocaust.
On the other side is Hamas, a terrorist group that sees Israel as occupying lands that had been under Arab control for centuries. Its solution is to kill Jews or terrorize them so they leave. Because it is not bound by international norms, it feels free to rampage at will.
The limited resource in this case is territory. Each side maintains that it has a legitimate claim to all of it. Some Palestinians and Israelis favor a two-state solution reached through compromise, allowing each side to prosper. The world community presses for this solution, imposing the concept on Israel and the Palestinians, but without a real effort to make it happen.
Presumably, Hamas saw no chance of its anti-Israel goal being reached and worried that the U.S., some Arab countries and Israel would make a peace deal over the heads of the Palestinians. So it attacked and refocused the world’s attention. So far, the only result is a war with innocent victims on both sides.
In Washington, the limited resource is political power. The GOP’s slim House majority tries to deny to a Democratic president and Senate the power to appropriate funds or make laws as might be expected to be done by the majority party. If the Republican goal is to shrink government and keep taxes low, they wield power.
While compromise might advance the national interest, it would deny the House GOP the full force of its power. While the controversial issues run the full range of the non-military activities of the federal government, they matter less to the GOP than its legislative veto.
This quest for minority control reaches its extreme when GOP U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama blocks all senior military appointments unless he gets his way on a single issue. Even some of his fellow Republicans believe he has gone too far. His power, not foreseen by the Constitution, is more important to him than the nation’s armed forces.
In short, the national interest, which could emerge from a compromise, cannot be pursued because of a quest for power.
As bad as both of these conflicts over limited resources — territory or power — may be, they cause something even worse. Success seems to depend on reducing the opposition to being seen as inherently inferior or evil.
If you agree with Israeli policy, then you may choose to see Palestinians as followers of a different creed that is inferior to yours. If you see the Palestinians as Israeli victims, then you may hold all Jews responsible for Israel’s policy. From these attitudes comes Islamophobia and new waves of antisemitism.
If you agree with extreme GOP views, then you may see Democrats as socialists or, even worse, as traitors. If you are a left-wing Democrat, you may see the Republican right as racist. Both views are misguided, but make compromise impossible.
In a broader sense, these views, repeated with great passion, threaten society itself. They can end up holding every member of a group responsible for the views and actions of some members of that group — collective guilt.
Consistent and creative advocates of compromise are missing. Nobody takes short-term political risks to promote long-term solutions. The Gaza cease-fire and the brief budget accord reflect responses to strong outside pressures, not a meeting of the minds.
Thinking long-term requires advancing proposed solutions, even if they may not ultimately succeed. They can influence, if not change, the focus of controversy.
The U.S. and Europe could lay out a possible two-state formula for Israel-Palestine, offering more benefit for each side than endless conflict. Neither side would endorse it, but it could bring about real negotiations. Otherwise, bloodshed will continue, and neither side will prevail.
President Joe Biden could propose to Congress a comprehensive package of proposals on government funding and key policies. It would not be adopted as proposed, but Biden could be the leader who set the table for negotiations. Otherwise, government may become paralyzed.
In either case, a compromise could produce results or failure would allow public opinion to assign responsibility.
Now, two sides ensure that the best for one side is the enemy of the good for both. That’s wrong, because these need not be zero-sum games.
