Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Jonathan Lear and Andrew Sullivan

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Jonathan Lear

When Taking Back Roads Becomes Deadly

Posted Monday, Aug. 20, 2001, at 12:13 PM ET

Dear Andrew,

I went to Israel this summer, in part to express solidarity with a few of my Israeli friends, in part to attend an academic conference. I stayed with a friend in the Yemenite neighborhood of Tel Aviv, about three blocks from the site of the discothèque bombing. Perhaps as a result of the trip, I've been thinking about the Middle East conflict ever since.

The Times today reports that Mr. Abu Lawi, a Palestinian, was killed as he tried to take a back route and bypass an Israeli checkpoint. According to relatives, Mr. Abu Lawi "had been returning to his village with school supplies that he had bought in Nablus for his children." Israeli soldiers were worried about the deadly movements of suicide bombers. In less charged times, the taking of back roads is part of everyday life. As Clyde Haberman reports, the "back roads and paths are also known to the Israelis, who often turn a blind eye."

The taking of back roads is, I think, a metaphor for the Middle East--at least a Middle East in which life, some modicum of mutual coexistence, is possible. If Israelis and Palestinians, Arabs and Jews are to survive in the Middle East, there must be established ways of taking back roads. That is, for the foreseeable future, I don't think there is any fully honest and politically transparent solution. Both sides must know when to turn a blind eye. With the outbreak of violence, turning a blind eye becomes impossible.

Thus it remains puzzling to me why Arafat walked away from the negotiating table. I am a supporter of Israel's right to exist (and to flourish), but my point is not that he should have accepted Israel's offer. Why didn't he lie? Why didn't he "accept" the conditions of the deal, and thereby acquire 97 percent of the land he wanted, and establish a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem? He could then have continued his struggle with Israel as the leader of an established state. This was a back route that was open to him a year ago, one to which Israel was then willing to turn a blind eye--and a back route which has since been closed down.

Why didn't Arafat take it? I don't think one can answer this question in purely political terms. Here, it seems, we need to know much more about Palestinian subjectivity than we can learn by reading newspapers in the West. In Saturday's Times, Mr. Haberman gives a "he said/she said" account of the different outlooks--"If you'd just stop the bombing ..." / "If you'd only ease up on restrictions." But this is trivial.

What we need is a deep account of Palestinian fantasies. Without that, we will not really be able to understand why Mr. Arafat turned his back on establishing a Palestinian state.

the breakfast table
entries
12345678910111213141516
from: Jonathan Lear

When Taking Back Roads Becomes Deadly

Posted Monday, Aug. 20, 2001, at 12:13 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Jonathan Lear is a member of the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. His most recent book is Happiness, Death, and the Remainder of Life. Andrew Sullivan writes daily for andrewsullivan.com, writes the "TRB" column for the New Republic, and is a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Fiscal Drunkards, Dry Out
Ruth Marcus | Which candidate could lead us to economic sobriety?
Meyerson: Gods That FailedMilbank: Confidence Isn't Cheap