The Party of God: Curse and Blessing

The New York Times opinion piece by Thomas L. Friedman discusses the broader implications of Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah, framing it as part of a global struggle between two coalitions. The “coalition of inclusion,” led by the U.S., seeks economic integration and collaboration, while the “coalition of resistance,” led by Russia, Iran, and North Korea, opposes this vision.

The article highlights a significant geopolitical challenge: the potential normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel, contingent on reconciliation with moderate Palestinians. This is seen as a keystone in the broader struggle between the “world of inclusion” and the “world of resistance.” The piece also notes Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s controversial map, which omits borders with Gaza and the West Bank, suggesting an annexation goal.

The name “Hezbollah” itself translates to “Party of God” in Arabic. Friedman also refers to “the Party of God” in the context of Israel, drawing a parallel between Hezbollah and Zionism.

Source:

---

The Party of God

The notion of being “the Party of God” is a profound claim, one that carries with it the weight of divine sanction and moral authority. But what transpires when two factions, embroiled in a long-standing conflict, both assert this title? The struggle between Israel and Hezbollah offers a poignant case study, revealing the intricate layers of identity, ideology, and morality that define modern geopolitics.

When both factions claim to be “the Party of God,” the conflict transcends political and territorial disputes, entering the realm of existential confrontation. Each side views itself as the rightful guardian of divine will, justifying actions otherwise deemed indefensible. This dual claim fuels terrorists cycles of violence and retribution on both sides, where compromise is not just difficult but ideologically unacceptable. The challenge lies in reconciling these deeply ingrained beliefs with the pragmatic need for peace.

The “blessing” of inclusion, often championed by global powers like the United States, is framed as a pathway to economic prosperity and stability. However, when this inclusion is perceived as ethnic cleansing, arguably the inevitable outcome of Israeli expansionist policies, it becomes a curse. The erasure of borders and marginalization of Palestinian voices is indeed a systematic attempt to reshape demographics in favor of a singular national identity. This reality tarnishes the narrative of inclusion, casting it as an oppressive force rather than a unifying vision.

Conversely, “resistance” to “inclusion” is not merely opposition to Western influence or Israeli dominance; it is a defense of the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people in occupied territories. Resistance is a moral obligation, a stand against perceived injustices, and a struggle for the survival of the oppressed group.

These conflicting narratives create a moral and ethical quagmire. On one hand, the push for inclusion risks perpetuating historical injustices under the guise of progress. On the other, the mantle of resistance can justify actions that undermine peace and escalate conflict. The result is a geopolitical landscape marked by deep divisions, where every move is weighed against its potential to uphold or violate fundamental human rights.

Religious and ideological extremism further complicates the pursuit of peace. When divine endorsement is claimed by both sides, the space for dialogue and reconciliation narrows. Extremism entrenches positions, making it difficult to find common ground or acknowledge the legitimacy of the other side’s grievances. It becomes imperative to challenge these extremes, fostering a narrative that prioritizes humanity over ideology.

In this complex entanglement of claims and counterclaims, the path to peace and justice demands a reevaluation of entrenched narratives. It requires a willingness to see beyond the binary of inclusion versus resistance, recognizing the legitimate fears and aspirations of all parties involved.

Only by embracing a more nuanced understanding of these claims can the international community hope to facilitate a resolution that honors the dignity and rights of all, paving the way for a genuinely inclusive and peaceful future.

A Two-State Solution

No formal accord has definitively established a two-state solution as a binding agreement between Israel and Palestine. However, the concept of a two-state solution has been a central theme in various peace proposals and negotiations over the years. Key initiatives that have endorsed the idea include:

1. The Camp David Summit (2000): Although it did not result in an agreement, the discussions involved proposals for a two-state solution.
2. The Roadmap for Peace (2003): Proposed by the Quartet on the Middle East (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations), this plan explicitly called for a two-state solution as the ultimate goal.
3. The Arab Peace Initiative (2002): Proposed by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League, this initiative offered normalization of relations between Arab countries and Israel in exchange for a full withdrawal from the occupied territories and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

While these initiatives have supported the idea of a two-state solution, none have resulted in a final, binding agreement between the parties involved. The United States has formally supported a two-state solution as part of its foreign policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This position has been a consistent element of U.S. policy across several administrations, although the emphasis and approach have varied over time.

The two-state solution envisions an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, living in peace and security. This framework has been endorsed by multiple U.S. presidents, including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. The U.S. has often advocated for direct negotiations between the parties to achieve this outcome, emphasizing the need for mutual recognition and compromise on key issues such as borders, security, refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.

However, the approach to achieving a two-state solution and the level of engagement in the peace process have differed with each administration, reflecting broader shifts in U.S. foreign policy priorities and regional dynamics. The two-state solution remains a widely discussed and supported framework internationally, but achieving it has proven to be complex and elusive.

---