Having observed the events in the middle east and the subsequent reactions from around the world, I felt a need to write on the topic. However, when I was thinking about what I should write, it occured to me that there was probably too much flying around in my head for a single post, as this topic tends to galvanize me into hours and hours of debate whenever it gets brought up. So I decided that I would write three posts on the issue and related issues. The first post, this one, will be composed of the bulk of a short essay I wrote in 2005 on the topic. Following the essay, I will include a few paragraphs on my views of the developments between January 2005 and May 2006. The second post will be my views on the current situation, the impetus for conflict, the following responses and a few forward-looking items. The third part of the post will be one that I have been intending to write for some time, about the broader ideas behind what I believe. It will talk about the state of the larger world, and the foreign policies of Israel as well as those of Canada and the US. It will offer my hope for a better world in the future, and I will try to provide a few prescriptions for getting there. So here we go.
The statement that the root cause of instability in the Middle East is the Israel/Palestine situation is one that I tend to agree with, on a general basis at least. The religious and historical implications of the conflict are the most emphasized, and they are certainly major contributors to the problem. One must also consider the purely political aspects of the conflict; especially that Israel is a democratic, liberal state in a region covered almost exclusively with monarchies and theocracies. This fact leads me to believe that not only are the Arab nations concerned with the ethnic and religious tensions caused by the creation of Israel, but that they are afraid that allowing a beacon of freedom and democracy to be strong and prosperous in the region will ultimately undermine their own regimes. History shows that democracy spreads prolifically once there is a strong and established regional base for it. (See England in 18th and 19th century Europe and post WWII Japan in East Asia for examples) Therefore, the solution to the conflict must include political aspects as well as ethnic and geographical ones.
The beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict goes all the way back to the exile of the Jews from Egypt in the thirteenth century BC. The exiles settled in the land that is now Israel and maintained a kingdom for some five hundred years before being invaded by the Assyrians and the Neo-Babylonians. Some semblance of a Jewish kingdom survived another nine hundred years until its final destruction by the Romans in 132 CE. The land that they ruled over was sparsely populated and contained no established government, only nomadic tribes. The Muslim Arabs took over the area in the seventh century, and it remained under the dominion of various Muslim authorities, notably the Ottoman Turks, until 1918, when Palestine became a British protectorate. This history is relevant to the current question, as it establishes the historical justification that both sides have used to claim the land as their own. In my opinion, both sides have equally relevant historical concerns, and although they must be considered, history cannot be used as a rationale toward solving the problem.
The British, when considering the options available to them concerning the Palestine territory, realized that provisions had to be made for the historical complexities that I have just outlined. When they decided to remove themselves from the region after World War II, the plan they supported, tabled by the UN, outlined the creation of two states, a Jewish one and a Palestinian one. The Jewish organizations accepted this plan, while the Palestinian organizations rejected it, though it would have given them far more territory than they say they want, even today. The result of this was a declaration of independence by the Jewish factions in early 1948. Israel had to be established quickly, to provide a new home for Jews displaced by the war. The Israelis took only the land allocated to them by the UN plan, and were never opposed to giving the Palestinians a state of their own. Also in 1948, as Israel began developing and plans for a Palestinian state were in the works, surrounding Arab nations undertook an unprovoked attack on Israel, with the stated mandate of driving the Jews into the sea. It is often asked who bears responsibility for the continuing cycle of violence, and too often people blame Israel. In my opinion, it was the Arab states that caused the beginning of the violence, by attacking Israel. The common reply is that they were provoked, but the only provocation I can think of is shameless anti-Semitism (The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni, the Chairman of the Arab Higher Committee, collaborated with Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In 1940, he asked the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right, "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy. He spent the second half of WWII in Germany making radio broadcasts exhorting Muslims to ally with the Nazis in war against their common enemies. In one of these broadcasts, he said, "Arabs, arise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you”) combined with a strong desire to prevent the emergence of a democracy in the region.
The 1948 war was perhaps the worst thing the Arab states could have done if they truly cared about establishing a Palestinian state. Israel had no choice but to fight, and after the IDF routed the Arab forces, all involved knew that the UN plan had failed. Still, Israel undertook only the offensives needed to secure their borders, and willingly allowed Palestinian areas to go to Jordan and Egypt in armistice agreements.
The long history on both sides has been the major contributor to the current problems. The Arab states have fought four major wars with Israel, and there has basically been continuing terrorist violence throughout the 50-year period. Major negotiations have been unfruitful, with the only major accomplishment being the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty. In 2000, at Camp David, Israeli PM Ehud Barak offered a deal to Yasser Arafat that met 90% of Palestinian demands, all except for the return of Jerusalem and “acceptable” agreements concerning refugees. This offer was summarily rejected without a counter-offer, and led many, including myself, to believe that the Palestinians, and Arafat in particular, were unwilling to compromise or even negotiate. Things came to a standstill in 2001, when Arafat was labeled a terrorist by Ariel Sharon, who then refused to negotiate with him.
Now, with Arafat’s death in November, a new opening for negotiation has been created. Given the long-standing conflict, the solution must be understandably complex, and hinges on both sides being willing to negotiate and compromise. In my opinion, the time is drawing near where peace might be a viable option. A majority of Israelis favor a treaty, as long as it means an end to the suicide attacks that have plagued Israel for so long. The treaty should mandate the creation of a Palestinian state, provisionally run by the Palestinian Authority and its elected leader, Mahmoud Abbas, until an election can be held. This state should be comprised of the Gaza strip, along Israel’s 1950 border with Egypt, as well as the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, along the lines of Israel’s 1967 border with Jordan except in areas where there is a strong Jewish majority and 1967 borders would not make sense. A railway and a road, similar to the setup of West Berlin during the Cold War era, should connect these territories. The Jewish settlers in the area should be given the option to return to Israel or become citizens of the Palestinian state. The Palestinians, in turn, must guarantee the safety of any Jews who choose to remain in their state. Jerusalem should be removed from the control of either state and made into an international protectorate, run by a secular authority such as the United Nations, with an elected mayor and city council. Again, should its inhabitants wish, they need to have the option of becoming citizens of either Israel or Palestine. Finally, an arrangement should be worked out whereby Palestinian refugees wishing to return to Israel, and their first-generation direct descendants, should be allowed to do so after a stable Palestinian state has demonstrated its ability to co-exist peacefully with Israel and once a stable peace has been achieved in the region. A time frame for this is hard to estimate, but I believe that approximately 10 years would be required.
There's the essay. Obviously my plan would require a good deal of cooperation on both sides and it looks to me like that will not happen anytime soon. The Palestinians seem as unwilling as ever to reach a compromise, they elected a terrorist organization that refuses to even recognize Israel as their government. The continue to pursue anti-israeli policies, including perhaps the most blatant policy in support of terrorism I have ever seen (Giving huge amounts of money in desperatley poor Palestine to the families of suicide bombers). In that light, I truly applaud Sharon's/Olmert's unilateral disengagement plan, which starts Israel on the road to what I have recommended and leaves the door open for negotiations on refugees and other issues at a later date. The current situation has thrown a bit of a wrench in that though, but that's for part 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment