Searching for the Possible

At the end of the year, the world seems to put aside its woes and worries for a couple of weeks. Everyone needs a Winter Break.

Except in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

One of the world’s great ongoing problems doesn’t rest – not for Christmas, Hanukkah or even for a restroom break. Few of our world’s issues are harder to fully understand. Even the participants don’t fully understand it – so how should any of us?

And make no mistake, the disagreements among rational, intelligent people thousands of miles removed from the battle – among people who may never have laid eyes on the lands they discuss – have fierce debates and disagreements. Something about Israel and Palestine is emotionally charged for everyone. And again, make no mistake – our media sources have their opinions too – which contort and manipulate our perceptions. Everyone has their hand in it.

What’s the truth behind it? What are the real issues – and what, if anything, would bring “peace in the Middle East”? Books are written on this, documentaries filmed and lectures given from some of our world’s great political minds. And sadly, all the shrewd analysis on Earth hasn’t solved this endless blood feud.

People sometimes ask me for my take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For all the international matters I like to learn about and discuss, it’s the one that makes me most uncomfortable – that same uncomfortablity I get when talking about personal money matters or someone’s income. Something about it is personal and the type of opinion that’s almost inappropriate to inquire about. For me, being Jewish, I have a general support for the State of Israel – so of course, before I open my mouth, my interlocutor can always suspect I carry a bias – to be brought up if we disagree.

For years, I never knew how to deal with that. To me, Israel’s right to exist is undeniable. But of course, its conduct is not perfect. At the same time, it’s often asked, if not strong-armed into doing things against its interest in order to retain support from its allies – and even its lukewarm to semi-hostile trade partners in Europe. 

And Israel makes mistakes of its own. Certainly Israel started out kicking and screaming when entering the process that led to peace with Egypt. More than one Israeli Prime Minister and even more Cabinet members not only doubted Sadat could genuinely want peace, but who would want to be the leader who got taken for a fool by the Egyptians? And who could see the both successful and disastrous ’73 War as the catalyst toward a genuine peace with Egypt? Certainly not Golda Meir whose reluctant actions at the end of her term opened the door to a process that would lead to a peace treaty six years later.

Like a horrible parent-child relationship – where the relationship cannot be severed – the wounds and emotions mount until no one knows where it all began, or how to find their way out. The solution usually begins with an examination of the past, but a solution and resolution can only be found in the present – often preceded by acknowledging that today is no longer yesterday.

So, where did it begin?

I would say the British sewed the seeds of discord. Prior to and for most of the British Mandate of Palestine, Jewish settlers and local Arabs lived in relative peace. Certainly, the Ottoman Turks had little problem with Jews in their multi-cultural and largely secular empire. It wasn’t until the British needed volunteers to help fight in World War II that the trouble began. The British made mutually exclusive promises (in writing for the Jewish side) of both a post-colonial Palestinian State and a post-colonial Jewish State in exchange for the respective communities giving military support in the war effort.

Arabs and Jews lived side by side, and then served side by side.

But when it was all over and the war was won, the battle began. Two peoples who had gotten along for more than 50 years now vied for rights to a narrow strip of land. And the victorious, but crumbling British Empire was caught in its own deception.

No one does well with disappointment, and people fighting for the same resources often become intractable. British and later UN plans to divide tiny Palestine into two states were rejected on both sides. A mounting urgency of a homeland for Holocaust survivors and refugees brought the situation to a head, leading to UN approval of a split state plan – which led to immediate war between Israel and the Palestinians who had brought in five neighboring Arab states to support them.

Before day one, Israel became an all or nothing proposition.

In the twists and turns of time, some problems were solved, others created. Once it was clear Israel wasn’t going away, several of the surrounding Arab states realized that co-existence really didn’t cost them much. Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt became quieter – and in diplomatic circles during the 60’s and 70’s, many considered Jordan to be the first to be at peace with Israel, though it was assumed it would be the second to sign anything formal. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan – an outsider in the Arab world (being Hashemite), Western aligned, and having no oil – could not afford to break so explicitly and unilaterally with its Arab brethren.

But as much as the neighbors might be willing to eventually settle into a tacit acceptance of Israel, they weren’t prepared to keep the Palestinians. And here, the game turned.

Many countries were willing to accept the Palestinians as their own citizens. But not some. And then there were some Palestinians who didn’t want to become part of other Arab states, but who just camped out while they devised a plan to destroy Israel.

This last group eventually became a thorn, not just for Israel, but for some of the host Arab countries – particularly Jordan and Egypt. In September 1970, the PLO attempted a coup against King Hussein – trying to take over Jordan. Syrian forces supported the PLO with an invasion of Jordan from the North. Under a quiet US orchestrated plan, Israeli army and air force pushed much of the PLO guerilla army out of key positions and then retreated as Jordanian police and forces resumed control of their country.

As a result, King Hussein not only expelled PLO leaders and militants – but later had no desire to negotiate peace for land. When Israel offered the West Bank back in exchange for a peace treaty, the King had no desire to reclaim the land, or the people on it. Without his knowing at the time, Israel’s victory and capture of the West Bank in 1967 got rid of Jordan’s Palestinian problem.

With similar, but slightly different circumstances, the same thing happened with the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Despite having lost the Gaza to Israel in the 1967 War, Egypt had no desire to reclaim it when it was offered back to them. The Palestinians and PLO there became Israel’s problem.

So, the Palestinians – wanted by none, satisfied with little – stayed in limbo for another two decades until Israel and the PLO reached agreements on Palestinian self-governing territories. And that should have been the happy ending. But of course, it’s not.

Israeli Settlers. For many years, Israeli allowed Israeli citizens to settle and take residence in the West Bank. Many ultra-orthodox believe the West Bank areas are an essential part of a Jewish homeland and refuse to leave. And the issue becomes this: Will Israel abandon the protection of Jews who refuse to leave the West Bank?

Although by and large, the Israeli government, and the majority of Israelis favor complete withdrawal and hand-over of the West Bank – including requiring Israeli citizens to return to Israel-proper – the idea of leaving Jews behind to die (even if by their own choice) is horribly distasteful. In Israeli politics, it’s a giant hot potato. While the government wants to get out of the West Bank – who wants to be the one responsible for ordering Israeli forces not to protect Israeli citizens? In a country founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust – proclaiming to be the one place that protects Jews – who wants to be the one to let Jewish settlers die?

And of course, when those people become martyrs – what will happen then?

Now in Gaza, we just have remnants of hatred. Palestinians still bent on reclaiming Israel as Palestine – and an Israel ever poised and on notice to use a firm hand to protect itself and make a statement. Everyone lives in a permanent state of fight or flight. A vicious circle of pain, violence and atrocities where no one’s hands are clean and the world can support and condemn anyone, at any time for a situation with no clean lines or answers.

Israel, in my opinion, is one of the great examples of post-colonial calamity. A former colonial power backed itself into a corner with incompatible, mutually exclusive promises and then pulled out without taking responsibility.

In the aftermath, the various Middle East states divided up in the global game of the Cold War – only compounding the issues that results. Syria, Iraq and Egypt under Nasser became Soviet satellites. Lebanon – the most Western and cosmopolitan nation fell victim to Syria and was consumed in civil war and Syrian and PLO occupation. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and of course Israel aligned with the United States. Iran, pre-revolution – also aligned with the US and UK and post-revolution became non-aligned.

In a weird way, although the Middle East states were pawns in the ongoing game of chess between USSR and USA, the two great powers also became mediators and negotiators over the messes left behind by the British and French.

But the work was left undone. The complications only snowballed.

What makes it so complicated – so intractable?

Well, perhaps, among many factors, we have the issue of two cultures – in very different stages of economic, social and political development. Israel is a Post-Industrial first world democracy with a high GDP working off a model derived of a hybrid of British, European and American institutions. Israel is basically a Western country out of sync with its region and working from a different viewpoint and base. The neighbors – Egypt, Jordan and Syria are still not completely - or in some cases even close or heading toward – an Industrial model. They still have strong tribal components of their cultures, function best – as they always have – with autocratic rule. In the non-oil producing countries of the Middle East, economies have not developed. They don’t have the wealth of other Arab states – and still live by and large, more traditionally than their oil-blessed neighbors, or first world Israel.

In a distant – and much less charged sense – it’s similar to Singapore being the lone first world economy and integrative multi-cultural state surrounded by far less developed Southeast Asian nations. Singapore too lived in the constant fear of war and annihilation during its first decade or two. This is in part why Israel helped train and develop Singaporean military forces.

Basically, there is a huge difference in world view – and motivations.

Combine that with a group of refugees no one wants, cultural differences, limited land, and post-colonial mess – and the situation is as difficult as it gets.

Perhaps all I have to offer on this sad and difficult saga of people in conflict is about the role of the outside world.

I’m often bothered by the stances of removed criticism coming from other countries – but particularly Europe. It’s so easy to sit on the outside, at a remove, and judge. It’s even easier when you’re very dependent on Arab oil and wouldn’t want to break ranks with the lifeline of your economy. But even more, European colonialism is largely responsible for the shape and challenges of the Middle East. I don’t see any European power working on a solution. I don’t see European mediators, diplomatic missions, peace conferences, or initiatives.. Sadat and Begin met at Camp David, not Chequers (The British Prime Minister’s country getaway estate). Much like a marriage gone bad, it’s very hard to know from the outside, everything that happened and how it can/should really be.

We only know that this New Year’s, things are not as they can and should be. And for that, we can and should all feel badly for this ongoing human tragedy.

Henry Kissinger described Diplomacy as the “Art of the Possible”. We can only hope that everyone involved in the Israeli-Palestinian situation eventually find the right viewpoints to take advantage of the peace and security that are, of course, possible.

***This post is not meant to offend anyone's sensibilities. If you have some charged feelings or views, make a thoughtful comment and contribute - or send me an e-mail.

Comments

[Lauree Feigenbaum]

The news media has taught us to use terms that are not correct. You title a paragraph "Israeli Settlers" and then after the question "So where did it all begin?" again say "Jewish settlers and local Arabs". This is in reference to the West Bank which was Israeli land so the Israelis who went there and built homes, farms and businesses were Israeli citizens. They were residents of the West Bank, not "settlers". And why were the Arabs "local" but the Israelis not "local". "Settlers clearly implies that they were not local and that they were the ones who came there from elsewhere while the Arabs were "local. The other thing we have been taught by the news media is the word "cycle". Your paragraph that starts with "Now in Gaza...." says " a vicious cycle of pain". It isn't a cycle. A cycle is circular. If tomorrow the Arabs stopped fighting, tomorrow there would be peace. If tomorrow the Israelis stopped fighting, tomorrow Israel would be anniliated. Where's the cycle?
If you are open to it, I cannot urge you enough to go to www.honestreporting.com and sign up. It does for our brainwashing by the news media what spellcheck does for our typed words.

[Eric]

Thanks for posting. I appreciate the contribution!

The reason I used the term "Israeli Settlers"with regard to the West Bank is because until the 1967 War, the West Bank was Jordanian. There were no Israelis there. Originally, Israel intended to use the Golan, West Bank and Gaza as bargaining chips to trade for peace with its neighbors.

It wasn't until after Jordan made it clear it would not take back the West Bank that Israel allowed Israeli citizens into that area. So, at that point, they were new to the area - and thus, the term "Settlers".

On that one, I don't think the Media has it wrong. Israel's original borders - didn't include that area. And leaders at the time, didn't see it as a permanent acquisition.