IS PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST POSSIBLE?
"The conflict in the Middle East can be summed up in three sentences: Israel wants security. The Arabs want justice. The rest of the world wants peace."
--Dr. Peter Bechtold, Director, Near East Area Studies, US Foreign Service Institute, State Department
IN THE DEEPLY-ROOTED CONFLICT beween Israel and the Palestinian inhabitants of its territory, both sides fall back on slogans that rest on exclusionary assumptions, absolving them of responsibility for their actions. People must move beyond slogans if they are to see each other as human beings who have rights and needs.
In the latest round of violence, Israeli authorities have repeatedly stated that Arafat should tell the Palestinians to stop the violence. This implies that Palestinians are incapable of making decisions on their own and will follow Arafat. It puts responsibility for "the violence" on the Palestinians, meaning that the Israeli violence is merely a "reaction." Golda Meir once said, "If you take the Arabs and put them in a sieve, most of them would fall through," implying that Arabs have quantity but not quality, are less human or less capable of reasoning than their Israeli counterparts. This reasoning allows the Israelis to ignore any wrongs they commit against Palestinians and to justify Israeli actions with historical claims to the land, asserting that their historical claims are greater than those of others. Zionism should not mean "Israel right or wrong." Zionism should mean that true honorable Americans are committed to helping a true honorable Israel make true honorable, lasting, committed peace with the refugees created largely by its own policies and with its neighbors.
Conversely, slogans like "What was taken by force must be regained by force," used by the Arab side that call for violence or demonize Jews, assume the Israelis to be so duplicitous that there is no alternative to violent confrontation and that Jews do not have a right to self-determination on the land where so much of their history has taken place, particularly since they were so persecuted as an ethnic minority living in other countries. Jews have a claim to that land, too. They built Jerusalem first, and they remember it in their religion. They have consistently lived there in small numbers through the centuries. And they don't have anywhere else. This does not invalidate the Palestinian's right to their land, but it does say that the Jews have a right, too. It is not about Hitler and Europe. It is about a very long history of lots of different peoples who have historical ties to the place. Furthermore, although the Arab and Islamic rule of Palestine had its high points, it wasn't a paradise, either. There was Arab violence against Jews during those times.
Then there are the slogans used by partisans outside of the land itself. The "Zionism equals Racism" resolution of the UN General Assembly elicits the response "Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism," from the pro-Israeli lobbyists and the pro-Israeli US government. These slogans falsely picture the conflict as primarily over race or religion and as a zero-sum game. In fact, the conflict is over a very small amount of land that has great historical meaning for many people.
Land for Peace?
The current "peace process" (which has not led to peace thus far) is based on the concept of "land for peace," with the details being how much land Israel wants the Palestinians to hold claim to (as little as possible) and what sort of name they are going to give this land (a country, a state, or an Authority). This process is not leading to peace because the premise is fatally flawed: the majority of Palestinians are from pre-1948 Palestine--what is now Israel proper.
When Golda Meir said that Palestinians do not exist, she was saying that "Arabs" are all one people, so Palestinians can go live in "Arab" countries. Trouble is, Arabs DO have national identities. The Palestinians are identified with the land which is now Israel. They lived there. They do not belong to another Arab country, and other "Arab" countries do not consider them citizens. (This includes Jordan, which was a sparsely populated Bedouin area before it was sliced off by the British from "Palestine" and given as a sop to the Hashemites.) I know Palestinians who live in Egypt and will never get Egyptian passports. They have "travel documents." They are people with no country. Most of them are 1948 refugees.
Amicably splitting the land down the middle, as if the two sides are contemplating a no-fault divorce, is not workable in the long term because it does not recognize everyone's right to self-determination; it ignores the 1948 refugees who no longer live in the area. Israel cannot forever deny these people their right of return.
The issue of Jerusalem is also one that does not get solved by any sort of division, split, or sectioning. In the long term, the three monotheistic religions that consider this city holy will continue to exert their claims to it as a holistic entity, and partition will be at best a very temporary solution.
One state, with Israelis and Palestinians having equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can happen. After all, the South Africans did it--there is a precedent. Don't farm all the Palestinians off in bantustans like Gaza. (Have you ever been there? Not a pretty sight!) and say, "That's enough for them." In the long run, this will NOT lead to peace.
Also, keep in mind that not all Israeli Jews are trying to kick the Palestinians onto refugee camps. There are some brave Israeli Jews who are defending Palestinians and their rights. They want to co-exist. See <http://members.tripod.com/~other_Israel/sites.html>.
A "Peace of the Brave"
Peace is hardest for the person in the position of strength who tends to push for submission or "peace on MY terms" as the only viable option, seeing anything less as a "concession." In fact, the "peace process" seems more like a contest than a dialogue for peace, since Israel sees any real step towards meeting Palestinian needs as a "concession" that erodes its hard-won "security." Conversely, the Palestinians, who have very little to lose, see that they are the ones expected to make "concessions" although they were the weaker party to begin with.
A true gesture for peace must come from the "winner" or the stronger side. Israel, as the country with the land, the arms, and the monetary support, is the stronger side here. It holds all the cards. The weak, co-opted, hopeless, and basically defenseless Palestinians (those in the Gaza and West Bank refugee camps, those in Israel proper, and those languishing in unfriendly Arab states) are not in a position to really negotiate or do anything. Therefore, Israel is the one that must "make peace." This is not easy, but it is the brave and principled thing to do and can also show "largeness of heart"-something that Israel, perhaps more than any other nation, has the POTENTIAL to do because of the great, uplifting history of the Jewish people and their contribution to the world's civilization.
The Plan:
Israel:
·Clearly states that it recognizes the right of return of the 1948 refugees;
·Clearly states that it recognizes the right of non-Jews to self-determination on this land (all of it);
·Makes some effort to estimate the amount of loss suffered by the Palestinians who were made homeless, and makes this estimate public;
·Calls for one land for all the people who have historical claim to it and rejects the exclusionary and divisive language insisting that its land must be "Jewish" only;
·Tears down the fences between its land and the West Bank and the Gaza Strip;
·Unilaterally withdraws from the Golan Heights and withdraws its soldiers from the Lebanese border;
·And, finally, declares its nuclear capabilities and its military plans for the future.
Palestinians, Lebanese, and Syrians:
·Agree on the Jewish right to self-determination on that land (all of it);
·Renounce all anti-Jewish or anti-Israeli rhetoric or statements or calls for violence;
·Palestinians: Choose where they wish to live, whether they wish to return or not to the place they are from, or accept some sort of compensation in return for recognition of the Jewish right to self-determination in the same land;
·Syrians and the Lebanese: Accept their land back in return for recognition of the Jewish right to self-determination in the land of Israel/Palestine.
If all sides agree to this plan, there could be a true, just, and secure peace, which is what the whole world, the UN, and the actual parties to the conflict truly want.
Other Arab states would recognize Israel's unilateral peace gesture by canceling any remainder of the "Arab Boycott," opening full diplomatic relations with Israel/Palestine, and, where possible, sending financial contributions to Israel/Palestine to help restore and develop the Arab citizenry's economic structure.
The US would recognize the true establishment of a jus
t peace in the region by taking immediate steps to demilitarize the region and stop filling it with weaponry. The end of the Arab-Israeli conflict would lead to much greater security in the region, which would provide an opening for diplomatic initiatives in other Middle Eastern conflicts such as the Iraqi issue, border disputes between the Arab states and Iran, the conflict in Sudan, and other long-standing issues.
The only long-term solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is one land, one people, one united Jerusalem open to all faiths, and equal rights for all citizens regardless of religion. Any other solution is going to be partial and partisan in nature, and, if history is any guide, destined to fail.
--Anna Ghonim is an American Muslim living in Cairo. She served as a Foreign Service officer in the US government from 1992 to 1998, with postings in Tunisia, Riyadh, and Lagos. She now works for the US-based educational nonprofit AMIDEAST as a project manager.