Conflict and Convention:
The Israel-Gaza War
Achieving the TAT Moment
M. P. Ross 12-7-2023
What can be agreed upon and enforced by law and arms.
That is the answer. The question is: What ultimately determines who belongs where, and has the recognized right to territory and sovereignty? Parties to conflict must achieve the neo-Hegelian TAT moment; this translates to taking a seat at the negotiating table and getting down to business. Arriving at that stage, achieving a durable resolution, can prove all but impossible. However, the parameters and principles which define the process are as clear and reliable as a law of physics.
The Israel-Gaza War is unlikely to resolve any time soon; certainly not by merely demonstrating a rationale for its causes and remedies. The intended audience for this essay is the broader international community of policy makers and citizens, the UN General Assembly and the posters of online comments. The facts are well known to anyone willing to recognize them, as are arguments on all sides. The aim of this essay is to present a path to the TAT moment and the possibility for resolution.
It is necessary to explicitly note, that there be no misunderstanding, the consequences of war are devastating to all involved, whether to the combatants, their families, societies, or humanity itself. There are no winners, only degrees of loss. History offers little encouragement for relief.
Who belongs where is explained by the principle stating: Rights of Settlement and Migration are established through Conflict and Convention. In other words, new claims to territory are gained, or existing claims maintained, within the parameters of conflict and/or convention (diplomacy). If and when a claim resolves as a recognized right it will only do so through this process. The parties have no other options. This principle describes what necessarily occurs, not preferred means or desired outcomes.
Conflict and Convention are determined by both act and intent. Hamas rocket launches or Israeli bombing are outwardly expressions of conflict, when they may in fact have been means of diplomacy, intended to make a point, not secure a battlefield win. Likewise, diplomatic moves may be tactics of conflict aimed at gaining advantage under cover of convention. Von Clausewitz stated that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Conversely, politics may be war by other means. In the context of the principle of theory expressed in the previous paragraph, they are part of the same process which must take place to obtain resolution as a recognized right to territory.
The role of Narrative. Everyone has a story. There are verifiable facts; history—written from the perspective of the historian; and there is Narrative. Narrative, the story a people employs to understand itself and to justify its claims to outsiders, can be a blend of facts, history, folklore, or the product of creative public relations. However compelling and persuasive, accurate or not, at the TAT moment, Narrative is background.
“This has been our homeland since those high mountains were mere pebbles, our culture is as old as the sea.”
“Yes, that’s fascinating! Not dispositive, however. Our army will be at your gates first thing in the morning.”
Claims to territory and sovereignty are subject to challenge. This does not mean that might makes right, only that existing claims are not immune from counter claims. A strong and effective regional or international order makes new claims less likely, though obviously not impossible.
The Great European War, Parts I and II–WWI and WWII–resulted in re-drawing the world map. The empires of both the Hapsburgs and their allies the Ottomans were dismantled by treaty as a consequence of their losses in war. The same process that created the Ottoman Empire led to its end. It was built through conquest and treaty (Conflict and Convention) and lost in the same manner.
Migration and Settlement as the result of Conflict and Convention. Population movement in the wake of war is a well-documented tragedy, a common and repeated feature of human existence. In the background of the Israel-Gaza War is the Nakba, the flight of Palestinians during the 1948 war. This was one half of a transfer of populations. As Palestinians fled to nearby Arab lands, Jews from Arab countries from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf fled to the newly established State of Israel–in the case of the Baghdadi Jews, a community some 2500 years old.
This emigration/immigration event in the Middle East was hardly unique. Population movements involving hundreds of thousands of people each from 1914 into the 1950s include the Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, and the aftermaths of the Greco-Turkish War and India-Pakistan Partition. We can recognize the impact on those involved, and at the same time acknowledge that this is the story of humanity–Migration and Settlement combined with time creating new populations and identities. The result is an evolved identity post Conflict and Convention in a new status quo.
There must first be a TAT moment. To break out of a cycle of Conflict and Convention and move forward to resolution, the parties must lay their positions on the table and declare their intentions. Are we at war? Or, are we committed to peace, willing to negotiate terms however long it takes? Arafat walking away from Camp David was the wrong move if he had any intentions of resolving the conflict. The right move would have been to declare a commitment to peace, dispute the terms as unsatisfactory, then set to the admittedly long and difficult task ahead.
Hamas presents a particular obstacle to the Israel-Gaza War moving beyond Conflict to Convention. Hamas has been in a declared state of hostilities with Israel since day one of taking power in the Strip, and post October 7 has made clear statements that this remains their policy.
October 7 was a game changer. It was different in kind and quality as well as scale. War crimes, blatant and self-documented. Hamas has conclusively demonstrated how it will govern within Gaza’s borders, and what kind of neighbor it will be to Egypt, Israel, and the eastern Mediterranean. If the international community will not tolerate the conditions of the Gaza Palestinians, and its neighbors will not tolerate a Hamas regime, how might the conflict be addressed?
Egypt and Jordan share responsibility for the state of affairs they helped create and continue to maintain. From 1948 to 1967, an entire generation, Egypt and Jordan controlled Gaza and the West Bank, respectively, not Israel. There was ample opportunity for the creation of a Palestinian state in the years before Israel assumed control of these territories after the Six Day War. The practical means of achieving a solution are surprisingly straightforward—a topic for another time—however difficult it may be for them to be implemented.
The TAT moment. Are we at war? If so, if that is the declared policy, then surprise and outrage over its terrible consequences contribute little of substance to a cessation of hostilities. War delivers its own menu of horrors and tragedies well short of justifying accusations of genocide. Hamas declared war, Israel responded, and civilians are suffering the predictable consequences.
Stating what needs to occur and accurately predicting what will occur are two very different things. All parties, to both the war and to a viable resolution, must make a forthright and accountable commitment to the process of Convention. The alternative follows a now familiar pattern of hostilities, ceasefires, stalemates, and more hostilities.