Compromise (Part I)

By now, many Somerville citizens I have spoken to, including several aldermen, seem to understand that the Middle East conflict is not the one-sided, black-and-white, immorality tale that the divestiture resolution or its sponsors wanted us all to believe.

If the current draft condemnation of Israel (disguised as an even-handed divestiture recommendation) is not likely to pass, thoughts seem to already be turning towards compromise. Can common ground be found between the resolution's proponents and its critics? Can the Somerville Board of Alderman work out a wise means of splitting the difference between competing parties?

Before putting effort into crafting an attempt at even-handedness, we should realize that a quick and simple compromise is already available to everyone. It is the same compromise that Somerville officials routinely take when deciding whether or not to involve the town in any number of international issues, from Haiti to Bosnia, from Zimbabwe to the Ukraine.

Whenever an international situation arises in which town leaders can't claim to understand the issues well enough to take an unambiguous stand, a fair compromise has been to simply avoid taking sides, get on with town business, and let an international crisis play out in other forums.

While the Arab-Israeli dispute was introduced to our alderman as a tale with clear villains and victims, most of us now realize that the Middle East conflict is just as complex (if not more so) than hundreds of other issues upon which our town has declined to take a stand (much less choose to punish one side or the other).

Given this, the best compromise would to simply vote down the current resolution and treat the Middle East dispute with the same caution our alderman have displayed when considering any number of other national and international issues.

While an attempt at "even handedness" such as equally condemning Arial Sharon and suicide bombing and corruption, or denouncing Israel's separation barrier and Palestinian hate-indoctrination of children, have the appearance of compromise, they are actually a way to avoid the issue while pretending to take a serious position. Having been told that the Middle East dispute is on the town agenda because it is a moral imperative, we cannot then turn around and treat it like an argument over the price of school band uniforms. Splitting the difference, a virtue when dealing with local issues, belittles a moral argument. If our aldermen do not feel comfortable deciding one way or another on an issue that is not central to the town's mission, then why is this issue on our agenda in the first place?

As I've already told several aldermen, if you feel that Israel is a racist, apartheid society that alone in the world deserves sanction by Somerville's public officials, then they should champion the resolution, as is, and vote for it with all of their hearts. Certainly this is the message the resolution's proponents will be taking worldwide.

But if our aldermen don't want this to the be the message Somerville broadcasts to the globe, or don't know enough to take one side or the other, or just want the whole issue to go away, then the choice is equally clear: an unambiguous no vote on December 7 ^th.

At least one Somerville town official has indicated an interest in convening a group to discuss Middle East politics in a civil, recrimination-free environment, and such an effort is to be commended. To be successful, however, the alderman need to remove the loaded gun pointed at the head of one party to this dispute, a resolution that unfairly and unequivocally points the finger of blame at one party and threatens economic sanction.

Once that gun has been put down, the conversation can begin.