Making Peace in Gaza and Beyond

Looking beyond the Trump points toward a peace we can all live with.

I recently wrote about the existing Gaza War Peace Plan, as articulated by Trump and more/less agreed to by Israel and Hamas. The good news is that it signals an end of Israel's efforts to demolish the Gaza Strip, killing people, starving people, inflicting psychological damage on an unimaginable scale. It also (less explicitly) admits failure to Israel's plans to depopulate and reclaim Gaza, and promises help to rebuild Gaza, even to make it prosperous. This much is good news, although our joy is tempered by the realization that everything in this plan could have been agreed to as far back as a month or two of the Oct. 7, 2023 upheaval, or indeed at almost any time in the previous 20, 40, or 60 years.

There was, after all, a plan circulated in 1967 which would have granted independence and ensured democratic governance in Gaza and the West Bank: the original "two-state solution," free of Jordanian and Egyptian misrule, uncomplicated by nascent settler's movement's "facts on the ground." This didn't happen because in the heady atmosphere of victory, Israel got greedy: they wanted some (then all), of Jerusalem, some (then all) of the West Bank, and the Golan Heights — some also wanted the East Bank, the Sinai, Lebanon at least up to the Litani, and most likely more — but what they didn't want was the people who lived on that land, and they did what they could, short of offending their western allies, to drive them away, to contain them, to immiserate them, to turn them into "an utterly defeated people," and even then to grind the boot and twist the knife further, until they snapped and revolted.

All of that was avoidable. Sure, it would have taken some skill, but that was never Israel's problem. Their problem was an obsession with power. It was always much easier to go to war than to reconcile injustices and make way for peace. Besides, it was so easy to just blame Arabs for "never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace," especially when Israel pulled the prize away more often than Lucy swiped Charlie Brown's football. Easier still was fooling the old and new imperial powers, but every step along the way, from the UK's Balfour Declaration in 1917 through Soviet arms in 1948 and the UK-France Suez war in 1956 to the long manipulation of the US and Germany, they've always known how to suck up to western prejudices and which buttons to push. It takes real skills to get away with injustice and murder on this scale for so long. Certainly they could have put those skills to the cause of peace?

As welcome as an end to the Gaza War is, much of the Trump plan is muddled and two-faced, mostly because it fails to own up to the misconceptions of the long, morally bankrupt legacy of occupation. While it does call for Palestinians to reconcile themselves to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors, it doesn't even begin to recognize the fundamental mindset problems in Israel, America, the Arab World, and elsewhere. What I hope to do in this second piece is to suggest some better ways of thinking than the mindsets that led to this horrific war, and will lead to further problems, possibly even war, unless they are redressed.

What follows is necessarily sketchy. These are ideas I've been thinking about for a long time, but each could be expanded multiple times without covering them thoroughly. They are, of course, subject to further refinement. I may work on that later, but would be even happier to see others pick up and run with them. I know from my own research that nearly every good idea is being worked on by someone somewhere. The ones I don't know about are simply because I haven't researched enough. But before we get into the weeds, let me preface with some personal comments about where I'm coming from, and where I want to go.

I grew up with no ethnic or class identity whatsoever, other than as a generic American, whose faith in God and Country was badly shaken by the discovery that nearly all authority figures were malignant morally and politically. Starting in my teens, I made an extensive study of history, philosophy, and psychology, and that moved me far to the left, making me very wary of power and the various identities that the powerful use to divide and conquer people. I realized that people are all pretty much the same, something they need to acknowledge to get along, as failing to do so, given the fright and fragility of modern technological society, leads to mutual destruction. Thus I've never been inclined to notions of nationalism, or any other forms of hierarchy.

This isn't a popular view in a world which for hundreds (or thousands?) of years has seen a constant struggle for domination. That those struggles have always ended in failure, and often in disaster, should be obvious. I can cite examples from everywhere, but Israel/Palestine has been especially tragic. That's partly because the Jews who settled in Palestine following the Russian pogroms from the 1880s, alongside Europe's racist/imperial conquest and pillage of Asia and Africa, and culminating in the Nazi genocide of WWII, especially victimized Jews. But Israel's fate was also forged by strategic alliances with world-dominating powers, especially with Britain during the Mandate years and America after independence. Those have not just given Israel a taste of power, it's lifted them so high above the Palestinians to lead them to believe they can beat the odds and win out by power alone.

When Trump's people started concocting the Abraham Accords, they assumed that Palestinians were so powerless, so poor, so inconsequential that they could be ignored: the rich nations could simply carve up the spoils, secure in their belief that no one who matters cares a whit. I'm not one of the people who at this point would interject that Oct. 7, 2023 proved that Israel's belief in its own overwhelming power was wrong. My point is that it was always wrong, and not even because power can never be counted on to reduce others to utter resignation.

My position is that power rots your own soul, leaving you with the sort of psychological disorders that let someone like Netanyahu (and Trump) win elections. While few Israelis have suffered like the people of Gaza, or ever will, committing genocide — as Netanyahu did when he was unable to conceive of any other course — is an act they will always be ashamed of.

Few Palestinians will take any comfort in Israel's humiliation. It's hard for anyone to look past their own victimhood, at least as long as the state persists. That's one reason why the end of military operations is so important. That's why sane people called for a ceasefire from the beginning. The longer the shooting goes on, the more damage, the more recriminations, the harder it becomes to reflect and find a way to peace.

I'm under no illusions that this path to peace will just happen. Once someone gets locked into a zero-sum us-vs.-them mentality, with the idea that conflicts can only end in dominance or defeat, little short of total failure can persuade one to take a different course. It's fair to say that the people of Gaza have suffered such a defeat, and that it has surely discredited those who felt they could move Israel with armed force. All they need now is an option that allows them to live in safety, dignity, and freedom, because no human being can accept less for long, without feeling the need to fight back.

On the other hand, Israel has not been defeated. They've thrived in war, and come to relish it, leaving them no reason to even contemplate peace. Part of this is deep-seated fear, which their leaders have cultivated through things like their Holocaust memorials, that if they ever show weakness they'll be vulnerable. Part is the sense of superiority they developed as colonizers. Part is the feeling that war unifies them, especially behind political leaders who are selected for their toughness and military prowess. Such precepts easily turn into self-fulfilling prophecies: injustices lead to resentment, and with no peaceful method for redressing grievances, to rebellion. War begets more war. That's a cycle that will be extraordinarily hard to break.

In this situation, the best we can do is to mitigate deep-seated fears, while appealing to people's long-suppressed humanity. The proposals below are intended as small steps in that direction. They don't go very far in balancing the scales, but they go in the right direction. They tread carefully around the imbalance of power, making them seem more generous to Israel than is deserved, while offering little to Palestinians beyond the minimum they need. But they do seek to reduce conflict, which buys us time. And they reflect values that can eventually extended to everyone. Also note that many of them can also be profitably applied elsewhere.

Some Preliminaries

Before we get into the plans, I want to say a couple more things. The first is about "international law." Most nation states are run under a regime of law and order. The laws dictate a code of conduct that people are expected to live by, and forces of order intervene when people break those laws. Especially in democracies, those laws are usually consented to by common agreement, so violations are rare, and most people can act freely, trusting in justice. The more unjust a state is, the more it depends on repression to survive, and the greater the likelihood that it won't.

The great hope for international law is that it will be shown the same respect and compliance that state law receives. But there is no governing body capable of enforcing international law, nor is one possible: as Jonathan Schell put it, the world is "unconquerable." Therefore, the only chance for international law to work is if it is so fair and so sensible that no one can reasonably object to following it. We don't live in such a world, and won't until great powers give up the conceit that they have a prerogative to lead and that others must follow.

Nonetheless, after every wave of world war, brought on by the arrogance and rivalry of great powers, more and more people feel a need for guard rails, and look to international law as a tool for equalizing relationships between nations, and lesser treaties periodically appeared. But they've all floundered as great powers schemed to manipulate and/or flatly ignored their legitimacy. Still, there is much on paper that is worthy, and much more that can and should be added if anyone has the good will and good sense to do so. While the current round of world wars — Israel's "six fronts," the border conflicts around Russia, the failed states of Africa, Trump's return of "gunboat diplomacy" to the Caribbean, the escalating tensions between the US and China — is thus far less cataclysmic than WWII, the need for deconfliction and cooperation is as urgent as ever.

So I'm going to propose couple of extensions to international law, specifically relevant to peace in Gaza and Israel. They no doubt need much longer treatment than I can provide here, which could also explore their value elsewhere. Also, they don't exhaust all the ideas I have. (There is no need to get into topics like trade and environment here, although they are major issues for international relations.) But before moving on, let me reiterate the key points here:

1. International law is a set of common understandings freely entered into by sovereign states, which agree or at least aspire to follow them but cannot be compelled to do so.
2. International laws need to prohibit war and inhibit other crimes against humanity, even by states against their own people. Such laws cannot be enforced, in large part because the use of force compounds victimhood. No nation, even one guilty of horrendous crimes, should ever have reason to fear for its existence.
3. While there is no international law police force, there can be courts that investigate and document violations of international law, applying fair and consistent standards to the best available information. Individual states may refer to their findings and use them in their own justice systems, or may ignore them as they see fit.
4. The only chance I see to put some muscle behind international law is to develop a voluntary system of exclusion, whereby nations could boycott, divest, and sanction violators (states and possibly individuals identified by courts). Enforcement by nations within their own jurisdictions is voluntary.

The other point that I want to make up front is that Gaza is just one part of a larger problem, but can (and at this point should) be handled separately. There are at least four distinct classes of Palestinians, each with their own issues and needs:

1. Palestinians, including their descendants, who were granted Israeli citizenship in 1950, in a law that denied any "right of return" to the 750,000 Palestinians who had fled their homes in the war that established Israel as an independent nation. These people have the right to vote in Israel, but they have largely been excluded from political life, and are subject to various forms of legal and extralegal discrimination. These include Druze and Bedouins, who have slightly different status.
2. Palestinians who live in Jerusalem, the West Bank, or the Golan Heights, who do not have Israeli citizenship. They have various restrictions, and are subject to various legal regimes, ranging from IDF military rule to the Palestinian Authority.
3. Palestinians in Gaza, who have no rights under Israel, and have been subject to various forms of misrule, culminating in genocide and devastation since October 2023.
4. Palestinians, including their descendants, who were refugees from the 1947-49 war, or from 1967, or otherwise went into exile. Some of these people have established citizenship elsewhere, while others have been denied citizenship (notably in Lebanon) and remain in UNRWA-run camps. These people are registered with UNRWA, and have a legal right to return to Israel, or to receive reparations.

These definitions can be split further, or possibly combined, but are important as stated. Each division needs and deserves its own representation to pursue its own remedies independently. One thing that helped scuttle the Oslo Accords was that Arafat felt he needed to represent Palestinian exiles as well as Palestinian residents of the occupied territories. As the interests of those different groups diverged, Israel exploited that to sabotage the talks (then blamed Arafat, which wasn't hard).

We can circle back to the non-Gaza cases later, but one thing I want to stress here is that Israel will never accept the return of the refugees, and that continuing to hold the issue over their heads just makes Israel more recalcitrant. If anything, a strong majority of Jewish Israelis — the only Israelis who hold any real political power — want to drive more Palestinians into exile. This is wrong, and possibly even self-destructive, but it is a major sticking point in any efforts to negotiate peace with Israel, and we have to be realistic.

I'm afraid that realism will force us to make many compromises with Israel that appear to be unfair and unreasonable. This reflects the extraordinary imbalance of power, which allows Israel to insist on economic and psychological concessions that won't be extended to Palestinians. This is unfair, and could eventually sour the deal, but may be necessary to halt far worse injustices (like genocide). There is little chance that Israel will ever have to pay for the damage it has caused, or that its leaders will face the criminal charges they clearly deserve. One might hope that the people of Israel will eventually turn on those immediately responsible for apartheid and genocide, and start to make amends. The people of Germany did something like that after the Nazis were defeated, but Israel won't be saved by foreign forces. If there is to be any justice, Israelis will have to choose that path on their own.

Peace Pointers

This section, which was written before the previous ones, offers several points that I was thinking about before the Trump plan was announced. They are still relevant inasmuch as the Trump plan is very iffy on many issues that could be dealt with more sensibly. Note that most of these points do not require any negotiation with Israel (or Hamas, or any other Palestinian proxy), and many could be done without agreement from the United States — although cooperation from the US and/or Israel would be helpful, and would start to make amends for having sparked and exploited this conflict.

1. The main problem with the Trump-proposed Gaza War Peace Plan is that it proposes long-term administration of Gaza by new ad hoc means that seem designed to ensure long-term domination by Israel and the United States, backed with funding from the Arab petrostates (mostly monarchies, with few if any democratic bona fides). As the former were responsible for decades of mistreatment ultimately turning into genocide, they have no credibility with their victims. The latter, mostly known as repressive oligarchies, aren't much better. When things go wrong, as they are bound to do, they will be blamed, resistance will arise, and they'll probably repress it like they usually do.

   This is a recipe for disaster, but could be avoided if from the start the UN reclaims responsibility for Gaza, and quickly organizes a government of, by, and for its people. The UN has historical legitimacy in that it could revoke the mandate originally granted to the UK, which abandoned it in 1948. The UN backed down after its mediator, Folke Bernadotte, was assassinated by Israeli terrorists, and ever since then has failed to live up to its own declarations. Stepping up here would help redeem its very tarnished reputation, and restore some hope for responsible international mediation. But, despite repeated US Security Council vetoes, the UN still has more street credibility than any other organization. It even has a skeletal organization in UNRWA that could be scaled up for nation-building. It would still be subject to the influence of donor states, as the aid needs for rebuilding Gaza will be enormous. I don't doubt that the purse strings will exert considerable influence, but that needs to be mediated by an organization that can build trust both with the people and the donors. The only realistic candidate is the UN.

   If the UN can show some competency at organizing fair and inclusive democratic governments in the ruins of failed states, those skills can be used elsewhere. Failing governments (and their rivals) may even choose to dissolve and invite the UN to rebuild, especially if such efforts could count on proper funding. This is not something that individual countries like the US can do on their own, or even through alliances, because it is impossible for them to separate their interests from the interests of the people.

2. Many countries have taken the purely symbolic step of recognizing "Palestine," largely to offer moral support for the "two-state solution." This started in 1988 with Yasser Arafat's appeal to the UN to recognize his PLO — 81 nations responded at the time. A later push was made in 2011-12 by Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and more nations have joined since 2023 (now 157 of 193 UN member states), signifying their disapproval of Israel's genocide. The problem here is that the PA has no legitimacy beyond its limited autonomy in the West Bank, where it is effectively just another arm of the Israeli occupation. Israel likes that they are relatively docile (or perhaps that just means notoriously corrupt), but the idea that they can negotiate for and/or administer Palestinians everywhere is nothing but a ruse to prevent any real agreement.

   I have nothing against Israel continuing to work with the PA in the West Bank, and hope that together they can improve conditions there (which, by the way, have deteriorated severely under the fog of the Gaza war, with settlers protected by the IDF running amok). However, all other groups of Palestinians should have their own representation, able to make separate deals to advance their own interests. What I propose instead is that the UN recognize a new kind of sovereign entity: a nominal state of dispossessed people. While there are several candidates for this, by far the most pressing case is the Palestinian refugees. UNRWA has served these people since it was formed in 1949, so it shouldn't be hard for them to produce a census registration, allow for elections, and select some authentic leadership. The people covered should be all Palestinian refugees who do not have citizenship elsewhere, although for practical purposes it may not be possible to include those residing in hostile nations (like Israel?). It certainly would include everyone currently in Gaza, as there is no effective state citizenship there. (This would change if/when a democratic state is formed in Gaza, although anyone who left Gaza in the meantime would retain membership in the Palestinian refugee state.)

   A refugee state can arrange embassy rights in other nations, and administer itself from there. Otherwise it has no territory, and no claims to territory. It can negotiate with other nations, and should make efforts to settle refugees wherever they may be accepted. It can issue passports. It can be funded through the UN, donors, and/or taxes. Its members may reside is any actual nations where they are welcome as residents, but cease to be members when they become citizens elsewhere.

   Refugee states should not be permanent. They should work to help their members find permanent residency and citizenship, either by return or naturalization. There is a risk that some countries (like Israel) would see refugee states as an incentive to expel unwanted people. Doing so should be recognized as a crime against humanity, and possibly as genocide, but the refugees themselves should be welcomed and cared for — and most would be better off in the long run away from their hateful home countries.

3. Once Israel departs Gaza, the territory should nominally be placed under UN control, which in coordination with donor states and NGOs will decide how to deal with it. The people should be accorded citizenship in a refugee Gaza/Palestinian state. The administration, which may bring in outsiders but should mostly employ locals, should be dedicated to public service, and careful about corruption. There should be a general amnesty. All previous political organizations should be disbanded, but there should be no prejudice against forming new ones. The administration will consult with locals, who as soon as possible will be organized into a legislative body, and before long an administration. I am hopeful that policing will be minimal, and disarmament will be uneventful. Money would be better spent on alleviating want than on policing scarcity. Foreign investment should be limited until local authority is established.

   This part is all very complicated, so it's tempting to hand wave a lot of details. It seems likely to me that a lot of people would be best off moving out, at least temporarily. They should not be pushed, and should be assured of return if/when they want. The economy will probably require support for a long time. We should see the basis for peace and justice as worth the investment, and not (as Trump and his club seem to expect) as a casino for quick gains. Probably too much to hope for, but leftist policies oriented toward mutual support would be an improvement, especially given that the existing models in the region tend toward neoliberalism, military dictatorship, and/or medieval clericalism.

4. There should be a widely accepted right to exile, where almost anyone incarcerated in one state can petition to be deported to some other state willing to accept that person. This would primarily be intended to free people whose offenses were political, but shouldn't be limited to such cases. The main rationale for jailing people is to protect society, but exile would work just as well for that. Whether it would reduce or increase the likelihood of offense isn't clear, but on balance this should free individuals and reduce state conflict.

   One possible use of this might be by Israel to channel unwanted people into exile. While this would be an unfortunate abuse of the system, it also offers a relief valve for people trapped in a discriminatory system (like Israel's). Its abuse could be noted as a violation of international law, while still allowing the right to exile to play out.

5. I believe the design of the International Criminal Court is fundamentally flawed. While there is value in identifying individuals who commit crimes against humanity, the ICC does not have the sort of authority that investigate, much less prosecute, anyone anywhere. The result is that many crimes go unheard, especially in a timely fashion. A spotty system of justice is ineffective and even counterproductive. I suggest these changes:

   1. Forget about punishing individuals. The purpose of the Court should be to uncover and publicize facts, to understand events, and to sort and weigh out conflicting charges. It is much more important to identify individuals responsible for crimes than it is to punish them.
   2. Investigate as soon as you have suspicions, and issue findings based on whatever evidence is available, understanding that any case can be reopened should we uncover more relevant evidence.
   3. Provide adequate defense counsel for anyone being investigated, even if the defendant is not cooperating. Defendants may add to their defense at any time they see fit, and finding will be revised as is appropriate.

   Of course, it is possible that national courts, which have the power to punish individuals in their jurisdiction (limited by the right to exile, as noted above) may use the findings of the court for their own purposes, whatever they may be.

   Note that the findings here may be used by nations to justify sanctions against individuals and other nations. In the case of nations, the findings should be suspended when the dominant political forces of that nation change — although they may be reinstated if the policies do not also change, and amends (such as reparations) may be taken into account.

6. War is very expensive: it kills and otherwise mangles and deranges lives, it destroys property, it pollutes the environment, it envelops us in fear, it spreads hate and a desire for revenge, it undermines trust and eats at our entire social fabric. Even on the small scale we call terrorism, the costs can be enormous. And even when violence is averted, there are opportunity costs, which steal away our futures. The prevention of war should be second only to the resolution of current wars as a goal of all foreign policy.

   Most wars grow out of a conflict cycle where provocations are met with responses that provoke further responses. We can break this cycle by turning each provocation into a claim for damages, beyond which no one has a legitimate excuse for further response. We can do this through a system of war (or terrorism) insurance. A global consortium would pay for any damages incurred in war (or terrorism). When a nation is attacked, it files a claim, and gets a payout to compensate for the damages. Each claim should be treated as a discrete event: previous provocations do not excuse a new attack. However, the consortium can refer claims to courts to determine responsibility, and based on that, may make efforts to recover some of the claim costs. Responsibility can either be direct (when some other state has directed the attack) or implicit (for failure to prevent a third-party terrorist attack). Reclaimed costs can be obtained through various means, including sanctions and asset seizures (within limits of culpability).

   Admittedly, it would take a lot of effort to set this up and to get it tuned so the damages and charges can have a serious effect on behavior, but once it is working, it should minimize both. As for proof of concept, just look at the history of Israel and Gaza. Every time someone in Gaza (Hamas or otherwise) shoots a missile into Israel, they simply tally up the damages and submit a claim. We check it out, verify the damages, and cut them a check — minus, of course, any outstanding claims from Gaza for damage Israel inflicted. That would be $0 if Israel respected the system and didn't retaliate, as they have habitually done for decades. It would help if all of the foreign aid to Israel and Gaza is cleared through a bank which can impound charges related to claims. Thus, when some terrorist shoots a missile from Gaza into Israel, Israel can collect its claim, and Gaza will lose aid to pay for that claim. Even if the government in Gaza isn't directly responsible for the rocket attack, that gives them significant incentive to track down and punish whoever actually shot the rocket. (Insurance should credit them for doing so; same for some rogue Mossad agent responsible for Israel causing some harm.) It might be expected that all donor aid to Gaza would go through such a bank. One can only hope that US aid to Israel would also be at risk. Instead of spiraling into ever more desperate acts of war, this system should in fairly short order settle down into stable coexistence.

Each of these points is designed to nudge us a bit closer to a world where injustice is reduced and war is averted. As I said in the opening of the previous article, "real peace is: a state where all parties feel safe and secure in their homes and work, and can reasonably expect that any disputes or disruptions will be dealt with in a fair and just manner." That is the aim here, and it applies equally to Gaza, to Israel, and to all the disenfranchised Palestinians both under and away from Israel. This is a conflict that goes back at least to 1948, and has been sustained by all sides making claims that no one should have to submit to. This only seems complicated due to many myths that have been constructed around a mistaken belief in the right of the powerful to dominate the weak. That belief is ancient, but grew as Europe conquered the world, and continued to grow as the world struck back. Israel has long been on the cutting edge of that struggle: it is the last of the important colonial settler states, and for long the last one still up for grabs. It still is, at least demographically, although in terms of political and economic power, Israel has won, and should be secure.

On the other hand, the Palestinians are still here, too, despite Israel's most savage efforts. They're unlikely to ever get more than tiny shards of their homelands back, but they will persevere. When I hear "an utterly defeated people," I think of the surrenders of Sitting Bull and Cochise, who saved what was left of their people, and eventually emerged as some kind of celebrities, in a nation that had finally lost its fear of Indians and frenzy for killing them. Not that the US even now treats its Native Americans as well as it should (nor do those in power treat the rest of us much better), but those wars are safely behind most of us (aside from soldiers still trained at Ft. Leavenworth to apply the lessons of anti-Indian warfare to places like Helmand). Even though Gaza is about a "utterly defeated" as possible, there are still Israelis who are so terrified of the last remnants of Hamas they're keen to starve children who would only grow up to join Hamas if they are treated like those who joined Hamas were.

In some ways I feel sorrier for the Israelis than for the Gazans, who at least have a fairly clear picture of who is doing this to them, if not why. Israel is doing this to itself. This is a nation which takes it children and sends them to Auschwitz and Masada to terrify them. This is a nation that drafts adolescents, gives them guns, and turns them loose to terrorize Palestinians. This is a nation that has degraded a religion that was once defined by the golden rule ("that which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow") to an obscure verse about slaughtering Amalekites. This is a nation that constantly reminds itself to "never forget," yet has forgotten everything that allowed them to survive 2000 years as a diaspora in a diverse and sometimes hostile world. These traits go way beyond bad ideology deep into mass delusion. The only way out is to top the killing, stop the oppression, and start making amends. But Israelis can't do this alone, especially while Americans are kissing their feet (for their own sick fetishistic reasons, but that's another story).

So while I've done my duty documenting the atrocities, and I've been clear about who is to blame for what, I've also stressed time and again that any American who truly cares about Israel has to intervene to stop this, if only for the sake of the Israelis one supposedly cares so much about. (And by Americans who care about Israelis, I'm not talking about the Mike Huckabees who only want to see the second coming of Christ bringing eternal damnation to all the unconverted Jews, or the Lindsey Grahams and Nikki Haleys who relish "finish the job" as a blood sport, or the Donald Trumps who don't care about anything beyond their next bribe. I'm talking about people whose own identity is bound to Israel.)

All these people — victims and soldiers, liars and schemers and rationalizers and hapless dolts — need a reckoning. But first they need peace. With some well considered planning, such as I offer above, the path will be easier. But even if it's done as clumsily and half-heartedly as the Americans did with the Indians, or for that matter with the Nazi Germans, the healing only starts when the war stops.