Goodman, a political thinker, has rocketed to public prominence in Israel and past for his contrarian thesis on how to not remedy the long-running battle.
Goodman himself is bemused by all of the newfound curiosity from politicians, diplomats and generals. Earlier in his profession he wrote books analyzing historic Jewish texts, which he says was precisely the proper coaching for tackling a difficulty as contentious because the Israeli-Palestinian battle.
“The foundational idea of the Talmud is to always listen to two sides of the argument,” Goodman tells Source. “The Talmud admires people who ask ‘why are we wrong?’ Thinking only one side, or only your side, is correct is anti-intellectual.”
Goodman deployed this method in his 2017 guide, “Catch-67: The Left, the Right, and the Legacy of the Six-Day War,” which wrestled with the inner Israeli debate in regards to the battle with the Palestinians and the destiny of the territory Israel captured in the course of the 1967 battle.
“I showed both sides’ argument, just like in the Talmud: If Israel stays in the territories [like the right wants] it threatens its future as a Jewish and democratic state. If it leaves the territories [like the left wants] it threatens its future due to security concerns.”
The guide, Goodman says, “caught fire,” turning into a shock bestseller in Israel that was rapidly translated into English.
In Goodman’s telling, the older approaches by the Israeli left and proper solely put ahead ideologically pure concepts about tips on how to finish the battle with the Palestinians. This is a “false dichotomy,” he provides, that led to paralysis and the perpetuation of the established order within the occupied West Bank. According to Goodman — who himself lives in a West Bank settlement, though he describes that as irrelevant to his work — the left needs a right away finish to the army occupation of the territory, whereas the proper needs to proceed Israeli settlement building and the easy “management” of the battle in perpetuity.
“We can make things much better [in the West Bank] even if it doesn’t end the conflict,” Goodman stated — therefore “shrinking” the battle. Goodman focuses solely on the West Bank in his evaluation and leaves out the thornier problem of the Gaza Strip, which Israel unilaterally withdrew from in 2005 — and has fought 4 wars since in opposition to the Hamas militant group that controls it. “It’s a much more complicated situation there,” he stated sadly.
“We need to quantify the conflict and decrease the quantity of the conflict — this is the paradigm shift,” Goodman provides. “Look at the Covid-19 pandemic: We’re no longer talking about ‘Zero Covid,’ we’re talking about a certain level of Covid, of ‘shrinking Covid’ so it doesn’t collapse the health system.”
In sensible phrases, Goodman’s method entails a bunch of steps Israel can take to enhance Palestinian financial life, safety and self-governance within the West Bank. They vary from extra conservative strikes — reminiscent of rising Palestinian work permits inside Israel and bettering Palestinian commerce entry or constructing roads and bridges that bolster the territorial contiguity between Palestinian cities — to extra domestically controversial measures, reminiscent of freezing settlement constructing exterior of the principle Israeli West Bank inhabitants facilities and granting Palestinians extra land for their very own building.
In latest weeks, Israel has begun adopting a few of these measures, together with issuing 15,000 new work permits inside Israel for Palestinians, floating the Palestinian Authority a $500 million mortgage, re-establishing Joint Economic Committees to debate future initiatives, permitting reunification (i.e. authorized standing) for Palestinian spouses within the West Bank, and tentatively approving 2,000 new housing models for Palestinians within the a part of the West Bank below full Israeli management.
As one senior Israeli official informed Source final week, echoing Goodman: “We have to make every effort to shrink the conflict and start shaping the solution, beginning with infrastructure and economics.”
Yet the extra far-reaching measures outlined above are extraordinarily unlikely given the make-up of the present Israeli coalition. This would not deter Goodman, nonetheless — in his thoughts it solely bolsters his thesis.
“There is no consensus in the government about the end game, but they can agree about the game. This is this government’s entire approach on all issues,” Goodman says. “The important thing is to agree on the action, not on the narrative surrounding it.”
For Goodman, “shrinking the conflict” can readily match right into a left-wing narrative a couple of two-state resolution, since a lot of the proposed initiatives may be seen as necessary steps on the highway to constructing a Palestinian state. Right-wingers, Goodman asserts, can really feel the identical, because the method — for now — solely bolsters Palestinian autonomy and would not suggest statehood or preclude Israel from annexing the remainder of the West Bank, as Bennett has argued for years.
Goodman’s critics from each the proper and the left aren’t as sanguine.
For the proper, the steps Goodman is selling probably run the next safety threat than he appreciates, and in any case miss the bigger level.
“This conflict is not due to ‘friction’ between Israelis and Palestinians. It was there before and it’ll be there after, even if the left makes us leave [the West Bank],” says Ran Baratz, a public diplomacy director for former Prime Minister Netanyahu. “You think you’re shrinking the conflict, but for the other [Palestinian] side it’s just a lull between wars where they’re improving their position.”
The left, at finest, would not see a lot new in Goodman’s thesis and at worst is suspicious that “shrinking the conflict” is identical method adopted up to now by the Israeli proper — “managing the conflict” or “economic peace” — solely rebranded.
According to Dahlia Scheindlin, a political analyst on the Century Foundation assume tank, Goodman’s method seems to “perpetuate the paradigm of Israel giveth and Israel taketh away, and it’s unclear if it’s sincere regarding genuine Palestinian self-determination.” The new Israeli authorities, she provides, “latched onto a slogan, but I don’t know what content behind the slogan they’re actually going to implement and what their intention is behind it.”
Palestinians seem bemused by this wholly Israeli debate about what’s basically their future too.
“It’s nice that Goodman is analyzing what can bring 80% of Israelis to consensus about the conflict, but can this issue be resolved if only one side agrees? I doubt it,” says Samer Sinijwali, an activist and inside dissident from the ruling Palestinian Fatah celebration. “I’d prefer if one Israeli and one Palestinian talked about what 80% of Israelis and Palestinians can agree on.”
Goodman, for his half, argues that rising Palestinian self-governance is an effective unto itself that may solely enhance Palestinian lives and improve Israel’s choices in future. After all, he says, the previous approaches have not delivered.
“We won’t get to peace through big diplomatic pushes, it’ll only be through small steps until the Palestinians achieve a critical mass of self-governance. At that point the positions of many Israelis and Palestinians will likely change. Right now our imagination is so limited.”