THE MIDDLE EAST AND THE END OF THE CONFLICT
Over the past two years, I have spent a lot of time reading and thinking about the Middle East. I have started several Rants concerning what is going on, but found the topic so complex that I could not actually finish a Rant. However, in recent weeks I engaged in an email discussion concerning the topic and have decided that, instead of writing an original Rant, I should simply edit my email discussion. Other than certain grammatical changes to reflect an essay and not a dialogue, the only additions I have made are the topic headers.
THE ORIGIN OF THE CONFLICT
The war between the Jews and Arabs in Israel goes back to the 1920s and, at its root, is a fight over whether there should be a Jewish-majority state in which Moslems are a minority. Arab speakers today argue that the Jews illegally and immorally �displaced� the existing Arab population. Such an argument is pure propaganda. The word "displacement" implies something involuntary. The Zionists had no plan for any involuntary transfers of any person or people. At the beginning of the 20th Century, there were no more than several hundred thousand Arabs in Palestine. There were more than 15 million Jews in the World. The Zionist intent was a mass migration to Israel of the Jews, who would become a majority. There is no evidence that the Jews thought they were going to exclude the existing Arabs -- only that the Arabs would be a minority -- just as Jews were a minority in every other country in the world, including the Arab world.
Throughout the early period and into the British Mandate, there was concern over the capacity of Palestine to absorb immigrants. This is probably where the myth of involuntary displacement can be traced. The notion was there was only so much fertile land, and the land could only support a limited population, so if Jews came Arabs would have to leave. This turned out to be simply untrue -- Israel presently has a population of approximately 6.5 million people, including over 1.2 million Arabs, which does not even include an additional 2.5-3 million Arabs on the West Bank and Gaza.
Therefore, it is not accurate to say that there is a conflict because the "Arabs did not want to be displaced for another people." It is more accurate to say that there is a conflict because the "Arabs did not want to be ruled by another people."
DO THE ARABS WANT TO END THE CONFLICT?
Why did the Intifadah start in September 2000 -- the exact point that the post-Camp David negotiations were about to culminate in the presentation of American proposals, proposals which were based upon years of discussions with both parties and based upon the American conclusion of what would be acceptable to both parties?
To answer that question, please read the following transcripts of Dennis Ross speaking about the negotiations between Arafat and the Barak government: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50161,00.html. If Dennis Ross is correct, Arafat, who the world apparently believes is indispensable to resolution of the conflict, does not want the conflict to end, and started the most recent Intifadah precisely because the parties were nearing agreement that would have ended the conflict. Just think about that. After reading Dennis Ross, ask yourself what exactly the Palestinians are fighting for that they were not offered by Clinton. And then ask yourself whether a party that wanted to end the conflict could reasonably conclude that a single death would be worth obtaining what was not offered. And then, just maybe, you will understand the predicament Israel finds itself in.
THE EUROPEAN VIEW OF THE CONFLICT
The problem with the European view of the conflict is that it truly is appeasement at its worst, because it refuses to accept what it knows to be true, because acceptance of the truth results in all sorts of uncomfortable results. To truly conceptualize that Arafat does not want the conflict to end, and embarked on a policy that has resulted in thousands dead and the death of Oslo simply to avoid the end of the conflict, is so horrible and has horrible consequences, that the Europeans close their eyes and pretend that what happened did not happen.
Furthermore, regarding the Europeans, they are right that there is a Jewish lobby in the United States that influences American policy. I wonder why there is not one in Europe. Oh, that's right, you needs Jews for a Jewish lobby, and Europe no longer has that problem.
WHAT ARAFAT HOPES TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THE PRESENT WAR
Against all experience, I am willing to entertain the possibility that an independent Arab state on the West Bank and Gaza, under the auspices of Yasser Arafat, will morph itself into a peaceful democracy, primarily concerned with commerce and the World Cup. That was the view of Rabin and Peres and is the basis of Oslo -- you will never know whether something will work or not until you try. And it was tried. If we examine what occurred in the PA controlled areas of the West Bank and Gaza, we will find that the experiment was not a huge success, to put it mildly. The PA, as a governing body, turned out to be corrupt and brooked no dissent. If it wasn't Baghdad, it wasn't exactly Beirut circa 1965 either.
Sharon, of course, was one of those back in 1993 who said that if you put Arafat in the West Bank and give him 40,000 guns, it is going to backfire and Jews are going to die as a result. Nonsense, said Rabin and Peres � we have to take the "risk for peace."
Now, notwithstanding that there is no evidence that an Arafat government would be democratic, if I were an Israeli citizen, I would still agree to the creation of an Arab state west of the Jordan River, if that meant that the conflict would end and I could stop living in fear. Again, the magic words are the "end of the conflict," because that is the only thing the Israelis care about, which is something entirely intangible. If the Arabs are not prepared to "end the conflict," than that means the parties are at war, does it not? I mean, there is either a situation where the Arabs are trying to kill Jews (war), or there is a situation where they are not trying to kill Jews (no war).
In 2000, the United States government put its entire reputation, energy, and bankroll to see what would it take the Arabs to end the conflict. In effect, they said to each party, what will it take you write on a piece of paper and stand in front of the world that you no longer have claims against the other side? Obviously, the end of the conflict did not occur. Some people think the parties ran out of time. That is not what I think happened. I think that Arafat, a small, cowardly man, could not bring himself to go on television and announce that the Jews were here to stay, the Grandmas and Grandpas with their keys tied around their necks for 50 years are not going back to their nonexistent villages and homes in Haifa and Jaffa, a 50 year bloodlust is never going to be satisfied, the conflict with the Jews is over, and we are going to have to do mundane things, like building decent housing for hundreds of thousands of people who have been kept in camps for 50 years.
Instead, Arafat did what came naturally. He started a war, in the hope that somewhere down the line, the Israelis will unilaterally withdraw the majority of the settlements and an independent Arab state will be imposed by an international body, which will provide "observers." That way he will get substantially everything he was offered in 2000, but not have to declare and enforce the end of the conflict. The "extremists" will continue to blow up Israelis and Arafat will disclaim any responsibility. If Israel were to attempt to retaliate by invading the Arab state, we can only imagine the world reaction (actually we don't have to imagine because we can see it today).
The Arabs view Israel as they did the Crusaders -- an occupying force that will eventually go away when the cost becomes too great. That is why Arafat (and most other Arabs) do not want peace -- they think they are going to win in the long run.
I am a lawyer, and negotiate agreements and resolve conflicts for a living. Sometimes, there are conflicts that not resolvable and the parties litigate to the end. If the Arabs will not agree to end the conflict, the unavoidable result is war.
Attached is an article by Benny Morris, one of the "revisionist" Israeli historians so beloved by the Israeli Left and Arab sympathizers.. See what he says: http://www.gamla.org.il/english/article/2002/feb/morris.htm
WHY THE ISRAELIS CANNOT UNILATERALLY WITHDRAW FROM TERRITORY UNLESS THERE IS A CONTEMPORANEOUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE END OF THE CONFLICT
If the Israelis agree to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank and the creation of a Palestinian state without receiving an acknowledgment of the end of the conflict, then there will be complaints that the Israelis are continuing to occupy land, deny access to Jerusalem, etc. "Extremists" will attempt to kill Jews and Arafat will disclaim any knowledge or responsibility. Observers will investigate and announce that Arafat had nothing to do with the killings and no Israeli response is appropriate. While I can agree that the quantity of violence will probably diminish to pre-2000 levels, do you doubt that there will be several massacres of Jews every year, just as there was from 1993-2000? What level of violence is acceptable to justify the status quo? Should we give Arafat a free pass on the first 20 Jews killed, and warn him that if more than 20 Jews are killed, the EU is going to get really tough and call for an investigation why he isn't doing a better job policing his people?
My problem with unilateral withdrawal is not that it is "unfair punishment," but that it is tactically and strategically useless. The Israelis unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon and are now being bombed every day from Lebanon (BTW, where are the UN resolutions condemning Lebanon and investigating the situation). For there to be progress, there must be an enforceable quid pro quo. How about this -- an agreement that the Israelis will withdraw settlements, but if a terrorist act occurs, the EU will fund a new Jewish settlement on the West Bank for every Jew that died? That seem fair, does it not?
(BTW, and as an aside, why are Jewish settlements so troublesome to the Arabs? Why exactly can't Jews live on the West Bank, even though they lived there continuously for thousands of years right through 1948, when they were either massacred or expelled? How exactly do they make the lives of Arabs difficult? Should the Israelis demand that the Arab settlements in Israel be dismantled as part of a final agreement?)
As a practical matter, Oslo has shown that incrementalism will not work. In retrospect, Oslo failed because the parties failed to negotiate the final issues at the beginning, and failed to agree upon a timeline, benchmarks and remedies for failure to meet benchmarks. It was done that way because there was hope that time would create its own dynamic favorable to good-faith compromise, but that assumption turned out to be utterly incorrect. A future settlement will have to include an agreement upon the exact terms of the end of the conflict, and will have to include drastic penalties if the Arabs breach the agreements. Do you see that happening?
Regarding the end of the conflict, I will take what exists with Egypt. There is no "peace" with Egypt -- Israel and Jews are vilified in the Egyptian press, and there are almost no cultural, scientific or economic ties or exchanges, and any Egyptian who engages in such exchanges is risking being ostracized (this situation predates the present fighting). However, there is an effective cessation of violence, the Egyptians effectively police the border, and Israelis do not wake up in the morning wondering if they will be killed by an Egyptian. I don't think that is too much to ask. Do you? Of course, Israel and Egypt are separated by the Sinai, while Israel and the Palestinian state will be separated only by the promises of Yasser Arafat.
WHERE WE ARE HEADED
I am against all unilateral withdrawals, because unilateral withdrawals will discourage an end of the conflict. I am opposed to the principal that Jews should not be allowed to live in the West Bank. However, as the Israelis are unwilling to annex the West Bank because of demographic concerns, I agree that an Arab state is inevitable. Israel's fundamental problem is demographic, which problem is caused by its bureaucratic socialism combined by the constant threat of daily violence. Israel's only long-term hope is to turn itself into a free-market tiger, and to force a similar political economy on the West Bank. If the Arabs believe there is no foreseeable hope to get the Jews to leave because Israel is an attractive place to work and live, and the Arabs find that their political economy is similarly conducive to freedom, then there is a possibility that a secular bourgeois class will emerge that will have an interest in building a real economy and avoid conflict with the Jews and will take over leadership. Presently, such Arabs are living in the United States with their Israeli brethren expatriates
Unfortunately, there is little evidence that the Israeli political class has any understanding of real economic reform. Therefore, the Arabs are probably correct that over the long term, as long as there is a continual threat of violence, capable Israelis will continue to emigrate to the United States. However, the Arabs are playing a dangerous game by refusing a compromise and ending the conflict now. As emotions fester, the possibility of all-out war becomes more likely and, as the next war will be more like 1948 than 1967, it is impossible to predict what the demographics of Israel will be at the conclusion.
If the Arabs could manage to stop killing Jews for one year, I think the Israeli population would vote to approve the substance of the deal negotiated at Taba. However, it appears that the Arabs will not take yes for an answer. If they do not take yes for an answer and the killing continues, then the Israelis will have no choice other than to go back to the status quo of 1993 and reoccupy the West Bank, which I agree is a terrible result, except for the alternatives.
Thank you for listening.
DBS
