We are (almost) all "pro-civilian"

Via Shawn Macomber, I found this article in Reason, in which Jesse Walker leads with: "In the endless, turgid dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians, I take a third position: I'm pro-civilian."

That has a nice ring to it, "pro-civilian,"... but who exactly are the anti-civilians? In theory, with the exception of the most extreme on both sides, peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians is the end goal, it's just not agreed upon how that peace is to be achieved. So it's ridiculous to imply, as Walker does, that your average person who's pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian is against the civilians on the other side, that "pro-civilian" is a third position, rather than a constant among right-thinking people on both sides of the conflict.

Needless to say, Walker's "third position" isn't as neutral as all that:

"Indeed, [Arafat's] misrule helped create the conditions that left many critics questioning whether Palestinian nationhood was such a great idea after all. In the last few years, figures from Tony Judt to the late Edward Said have revived the idea of a "one-state" solution to the conflict. This would not mean one big Israel cleansed of Arabs, nor one big Palestine whose Jews have been driven into the sea, but one binational country with federal self-government, equality before the law, and separation of church and state. This is of course anathema to those who are more interested in invoking God as a land-use planner than in achieving equal rights for Palestinians or physical security for either side. But from the pro-civilian position, it seems like the best possible outcome."

A one-state solution that would effectively mean an end to Israel as a Jewish state ought not to be described as "pro-civilian," or as the sort of thing only religious nuts would think to oppose. How is fighting for a two-state solution, one that provides both sides with land and self-government, an anti-civilian one? When two nations--in this case the Israelis and the Palestinians--are in conflict, it makes no sense to suggest they merge, and that the larger population "democratically" take over the smaller. Both need autonomy, both need land, and neither should have to be under the rule of the other, fine, but the Jewish people (secular and observant alike) not only need a nation but have one, and a one-state solution is a clever way of saying it ought to be taken away.

All Walker offers in the way of neutrality is that, while arguing for what amounts to Israel's elimination, he also expresses distaste for Arafat. Some third position that is.

But what really gets to me is the assertion of the need for American-style "separation of church and state" among people who are not Americans, and who need peace but do not need the U.S. Constitution. Arguing that there should be one Israel-Palestine with separation of church and state is like arguing that observant Jews and Muslims alike ought to start eating ham because that's how things are done in America. There's a good chance it's the same Americans asking for separation of church and state in the Middle East as complaining about the secularity laws in France, which go, in the opposite direction, beyond anything America would ever want to enact. All countries should be tolerant, none should persecute those with different beliefs, but not every nation needs to strike the exact same balance as has the U.S. Some, like France, desire more secularity, while others, like Israel and like any eventual Palestinian state, will by necessity have certain religious leanings.