Stanford, November 1 – Scientists testing the principles of theoretical physics have so far been unable to create hypothetical situations in which an action by Israel will not be construed as a threat to the peace process with the Palestinians, a news brief in the journal Physics reports.
Writing to report on the latest developments – or lack thereof – in the Israeli-Palestinian niche of the field, a group of scientists indicated that through sixteen months of calculations, diagrams, experimentation, and analysis, they have yet to posit a move by Israel that would not immediately be characterized as undermining the peace process or the Two-State Solution.
“We will continue our work,” one scientist was quoted as saying. “But so far the results have proved disappointing.”
In an interview, research team leader Professor Palli Wood described the various ways in which each hypothetical Israeli move would meet its ignominious fate. “So far, and this might serve as the basis of an interesting model to explain the dynamic, the possible imprecations involving such moves fall into three categories,” she explained. “The most common reaction to an Israeli action involves painting it as directly opposite to peace, or to a desire for peace. That’s the simplest and easiest to predict.”
“The second type of negative reaction takes an Israeli move that, if performed by some other party, might be ignored or considered unremarkable,” she continued. “But because Israel is the party performing the action, the very neutrality or irrelevance of the action becomes a demonstration of Israel’s lack of commitment to the peace process or the Two-State Solution. If Israel were serious about peace, the argument goes, it would not waste its time on moves that, while they do nothing to hinder the peace process, do nothing to advance it, either, and therefore call into question whether Israel really wants peace.”
Professor Wood finds the third type of response most worthy of study, however. “Finally, when Israel does do something positive, something constructive, or manifestly in keeping with the letter and spirit of the agreements that govern the peace process, there’s still a way it’s turned into a blow to that very process,” she remarked. “Instead of demonstrating willingness to pursue peace, instead these moves become proof that Israel is merely engaging in deceit, ‘peacewashing,’ if you will, attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the international community. It could not possibly be that Israel is interested in peace, an axiom that leads to the inevitable conclusion that any Israeli moves in the direction of peace as envisioned by the stewards of the process must perforce be insincere, diversionary, or otherwise a threat to peace.”
The scientists noted the opposite dynamic with regard to Palestinian behavior, concerning which the theorists have yet to posit an action or set of actions so heinous that international consensus might question Palestinian willingness to make peace.