When considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, our own history should not be forgotten

On Tuesday, May 18, members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Saeima adopted a "statement on the escalation of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, calling for an end to armed conflicts and an end to all forms of violence that endanger the lives of innocent civilians."

The main purpose of this statement was to position our country's stance on the nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the possible solution. Mark which side we are on. In this statement, Latvia clearly takes the Israeli side. This is evidenced both by the very title of the statement, "The Foreign Affairs Committee calls for an end to armed conflicts in Israel" (where is Palestine?), and by the only specific fragment in the statement, "The Committee strongly condemns the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel and its citizens and recognizes Israel’s right to protect its population from rocket attacks...”

The statement mentions "armed conflicts" in the plural, and such grammatical choice shows that the Saeima Foreign Affairs Committee does not consider that there is one big Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but there are small, almost domestic conflicts that have been escalated by the terrorist organization Hamas. These conflicts are now being called to stop. I must admit, a rather strange interpretation.

No less strange is the call in the title of the statement for an end to armed conflicts [only] in Israel. As if the call would not apply in the Palestinian territories. Rather, so as not to even mention Palestinian autonomy, it is simply being ignored. As if it didn't even exist. The same cynicism that was recently demonstrated by some representatives of the National Alliance (Nacionālā apvienība) when adopting the Saeima resolution on the recognition of the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire. Given that the Foreign Affairs Committee is chaired by a representative of this party, it is clear that this cynicism, or, to be more precise, an unnecessary effort to pander to the strongest, is the party's official doctrine. Whatever the actual and historical situation, we support the United States or those who are stronger in our camp (in the case of the Spanish-Catalan conflict).

For comparison, the official statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “On 18 May 2021, Foreign Minister Edgars Rinkēvičs took part in an extraordinary videoconference of the European Union (EU) Foreign Affairs Council, which was convened to discuss the growing escalation of Israel and Palestine relations."

As can be seen, the word Palestine is used in capital letters here as a specific administrative-territorial unit. Although Latvia has not recognized the Palestinian state, it has never opposed the 1993 Oslo Accords or in any way specifically avoided contact with representatives of the Palestinian Authority. The statement of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Saeima chaired by the NA de-emphasizes the Palestinian side with the sole aim of demonstrating to Israel and its closest ally the United States that we are on the Israeli side with heart and soul.

It should be noted that this position of the NA gets quite ambiguous, not to say tragicomic, in the light of the issues of March 16 and the restitution of Jewish property. On these issues, the NA is ready to stubbornly stand opposite to the positions and recommendations of Israel and the United States, but on the Palestinian question, they are ready to act as their greatest friends.

One can understand the position of the NA on this issue, looking at the party's place in the political spectrum. In the assessment of the Middle East conflict, the right forces have traditionally been on the Israeli side and the left on the Palestinian side. At the aforementioned meeting of EU foreign ministers Hungary, ruled by the right-wing Orbán, refused to support the EU's common position, considering it insufficiently favorable to Israel. However, coming from Latvia, such a position looks organically foreign. About the same as when a pale, scrawny teenager wears rough ankle boots, a leather jacket, massive chains and acts like a strong macho man.

However, Latvia is not in the same situation as Hungary. The Hungarians were once one of the two privileged nations of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Throughout their history, Latvians have been oppressed by other, larger nations, so this demonstrative standing on the side of the strong looks unnatural. Just as in Catalonia, Northern Ireland and other situations, when historically larger and stronger nations are trying to oppress, assimilate smaller ones.

Here, of course, one can try to challenge who is who in this situation. Who are the oppressed, who are the oppressors? Who are the colonists, who are the natives? Who is trying to assimilate who? Even without going into the substance of the issue, the above-mentioned division of sympathies and antipathies between the EU and the US political spectrum clearly indicates who is in the strongest position and who is in the weakest position. I myself have been to Israel several times, including to Palestine (Ramallah), and I can say with conviction that there can be no question of even the smallest symmetry.

The balance of power is incomparable. Israeli society is totally militarized. The number of people in Israeli cities with machine guns on their shoulders does not differ much from the number of people in Riga with backpacks on their shoulders. Including ones dressed in civilian attire. It is quite strange (even a little uncomfortable) to see a young man with dreadlocks in his hair, low-hanging jeans, untied running shoes and a massive, long-barreled machine gun carelessly hanging on his shoulders.

In Palestine, the situation is quite the opposite. I think that even for the Palestinian soldiers standing as honor guards at the mausoleum of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, the machine guns are just for the show and are unloaded. The Palestinian Authority is practically completely disarmed. Israeli military units, in full armament, are free to enter the Palestinian territories and do practically whatever they want. Unfortunately, this is also happening, and the main issue between the Palestinians and the Israelis is that Israel continues to build new and new settlements in areas not only meant for the establishment of a Palestinian state under UN Resolution 181/II of November 29, 1947, but also in the territories transferred to the Palestinian Authority under the 1993 Oslo Accords.

This colonization of the Palestinian lands is taking place in a situation where the Palestinian side has virtually no chance of legally resisting this colonization. The main feeling that comes from the talks with the Palestinians is the same: utter helplessness and despair. It is this impasse that has brought the Gaza Strip under the control of Hamas, as this terrorist organization is the only one that is forcing Israel to pay for its expansionist policies, even a little, and it gives some Palestinians at least minimal satisfaction.

I would also like to point out that the widespread view that there is a clash of two different cultures and eras in the Middle East is, to put it mildly, greatly exaggerated. Israeli advocates are trying to blame the conflict on the clash of democratic, civilized, secular Israel with a backwards, medieval Palestine that is occupied by religious fundamentalists. Truthfully, it is not so easy to say which of these countries is more embroiled in religious fundamentalism. There are just a few facts to take into consideration.

In the seemingly western Israel during the Sabbath (Saturdays from sunrise to sunset) practically nothing is open. Even trains do not run. Everything is closed. Only the ambulance is working. Jerusalem is full of men in black long cloaks, with large round hats on their heads. With long beards and payots. The central part of the city is full of them. However, in other Israeli cities they are a rarity.

In Ramallah, Palestine, I was staying in a guest house run by an openly gay couple. The fact that they were gay might have been inferred from the reviews on the hotel reservation portal, and they did not hide it, but these people were not discriminated against because of that, let alone persecuted. Very close to this guest house, which was almost next to the Palestinian Occupation Museum and the temporary mausoleum of Arafat, was a completely legal, large liquor store that would be a rarity even in a secular Islamic country like Turkey (excluding tourist centers). On the streets, most women wore ordinary European clothes without headdress (hijab). So there is no reason to talk about the dominance of any religious fundamentalism among the Palestinians. At the same time, it would not be right to completely deny the Islamic component in Palestinian culture, but it is commensurate or even smaller than the Jewish component in Israeli life.

What did I want to say with all this? The Middle East conflict is complex, multifaceted and, fortunately for us, far away. We must be aware that it is in our own existential interests to have good relations with the world's great powers, first and foremost the United States. However, being in a good relationship does not mean pandering and taking the position of a "friend" in all matters. A true friend doesn't ask that from anyone. The United States is not asking that from us either. Nor do I intend to call on Latvia to take a pro-Palestinian stance. We should simply take into account our own historical experience when evaluating our position in various international disputes. In this case, it means being more sensitive to the difficult situation of the Palestinians and taking a more balanced position. It's not a lot to ask for.