DIRECTIONS
Web
Supported by
OBSTACLES TO PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Text of a talk by Joel Abramson, Chairman of Israel Advocacy Committee of B’nai Israel, on June 2, 2006 at IAC Educational Shabbat
When talking about peace in the middle east we often hear a list of “If Onlys.”
- IF ONLY Israel would abandon the settlements.
- IF ONLY Israel would end the occupation.
- IF ONLY the Palestinians had their own state.
- IF ONLY the Palestinians had jobs.
- IF ONLY the Palestinians were given more aid.
- IF ONLY Israel would agree to let the Palestinian refugees return.
One thing these IF ONLYS seem to have in common is the portrayal of Palestinians as victims, and if only Israel or the world community would address their grievances, peace would be possible in the Middle East.
About settlements and occupation: Before 1967, there was not a single settlement and there was no occupation. Yet there was war and there was terror. Israel became a State on May 14, 1948. On that very date it was invaded by the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The cause of that war was neither settlements (because there were none), nor occupation (because there was none), but the very existence of Israel as such.
Fast forward to Autumn, 2000. Negotiations at Camp David fall apart. Israel and the United States had made unprecedented concessions, including territory and statehood, but the Palestinians, without so much as a counter offer, respond with the Second Intifada on September 28, 2000. For many observers, this began to cast doubt on the conventional wisdom that settlements and occupation were driving Palestinian anger and blocking peace.
Settlements make up perhaps 1.7% of the West Bank. This estimate comes from B’Tselem, a radical Israeli human rights organization that vehemently opposes all settlements. In truth, settlements simply do not comprise enough land area to be serious obstacles to a political agreement.
When you fly over the West Bank, as Doris and I have done, the big surprise is the predominance of open space.
The overwhelming majority of settlers, close to 80 percent, live in communities located close to, if not contiguous with, pre-1967 Israel. Most could be connected geographically to the "Green Line" without involving Palestinian population centers.
The last binding international legal instrument which divided the territory in the region of Israel was the League of Nations Mandate of 1922, which explicitly recognized the right of Jewish settlement. As the UN is the legal successor to the League of Nations, these rights remain.
During the 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation of the West Bank, no nation, nor the United Nations, nor the Palestinians screamed “Occupation!” Only when Israel became the occupier did they scream.
Many observers incorrectly assume UN Security Council Resolution 242 requires complete withdrawal from the land Israel captured in 1967. In fact, 242 calls for only an undefined withdrawal from a portion of the land -- and only to the extent that it leaves Israel with secure borders. Actually, Israel has already withdrawn from the majority of the land it captured.
One may support or challenge Israeli settlements, but they are not illegal, and they have neither the size nor the location to seriously impede an agreement.
OK, but what about Palestinian statehood? Of all the imagined obstacles to peace, lack of statehood just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as a justification for war or terror. In 1947, the UN partition plan offered the Palestinians a state. They rejected it. They wanted Israel NOT to have a state more than they wanted to have one themselves. In 2000 they were again offered a state by Clinton and Barak at Camp David. The Palestinian response to that offer was barbaric terror.
The real problem about Palestinian statehood has been revealed since Israel’s disengagement from Gaza. Far from seizing the opportunity to demonstrate their capacity for self-government, the Palestinian world has been falling apart. Gaza, without an Israeli presence, has descended into chaos.
Let’s talk about “IF ONLY the Palestinians were given more aid.” A phrase used often by those who wish to assist Palestinians is that we need a new Marshall Plan. But according to World Bank figures, by 2002 the Palestinians had received more than twice as much aid for twice as long as Europeans got under the Marshall Plan.
So with all this aid, why have the West Bank and Gaza not had better economic performance? The easy answer is that aid to the Palestinians has been used extraordinarily badly, much disappearing down the sewers of corruption. But the real problem is that aid doesn’t provide what the Palestinians need, which is peace and better governance. The biggest single barrier to Palestinian growth is their violence against Israel, which forces Israel to impose closures and curfews. Those who want to relieve the suffering of the Palestinians should concentrate on stopping their violence, which would allow Israel to lift the devastating restrictions on the movement of people and the flow of goods. Restoring employment in Israel is an implausible dream for now, but if goods could flow easily, many Palestinian businesses could thrive. The main problem is the violence, because it causes closures and restrictions.
It’s also instructive to compare Palestinian incomes to those of other Arabs. According to the World Development Indicators, in 2000, West Bank/Gaza income per person was actually above the average for all Arabs.
Even after the terrible blows they have brought upon their economy, the Palestinian per capita income remains more than three times higher than that of Arabs in poor countries.
In the occupation years 1968-92, Palestinian per-capita incomes almost quadrupled. It’s galling to many Palestinians that the years of Israeli occupation saw better economic performance than since the establishment of the PA.
The lesson is not that occupation was good. The lesson is that economic prosperity depends upon political stability.
I am not opposed to helping the Palestinians; quite the contrary. But without stability, pouring in more aid will do little to improve conditions and may only provide politicians the resources to continue to avoid making fundamental changes.
The claimed right of return for Palestinian refugees is a key obstacle to peace. The Palestinian narrative is that in 1948, the Israelis illegally drove the Palestinians from their homes. The Israeli narrative is that they begged the Palestinians to stay, but the Arab nations instructed them to leave and promised they would be able to return once the Israelis were defeated. From what I’ve read, there is some truth to both narratives. The Palestinian refugees who abandoned their homes in 1948 were casualties of a war started by the Arab world with the objective of preventing the creation of a Jewish state. Some refugees fled on their own initiative; others were pushed out. The newborn state of Israel was fighting a war of survival it did not start and it owes no apologies for what it did.
The non-binding UN General Assembly Resolution 194 says that IF refugees agree to live in peace with their neighbors they should be permitted to go back as soon as practicable. But there are a couple of kickers. One is agreeing to live at peace. Another is the definition of “refugee.”
Palestinian refugees are defined differently than any other refugees in the world. The UN even created a special agency, UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency), just to deal with Palestinian refugees. According to UNRWA, any descendant of an original refugee is also a refugee. Of the original approximately 700,000 refugees, only about 200,000 are alive today. Yet by UNRWA’s unique definition there are now 4,200,000 refugees, and if Israel ever accepted them, it would be the end of the Jewish State, which of course is precisely what Israel’s enemies want.
Treatment of the refugees has been horrendous. UNRWA is keeping them in camps. Israel has built housing for them, but UNRWA has not allowed the refugees to use it. UNRWA admits to hiring HAMAS operatives. UNRWA policies perpetuate a situation that breeds and feeds on violence. So we have the irony of the UN itself being an obstacle to peace.
The Palestinian Authority encourages terrorism.
Palestinian television regularly features hateful sermons by fire-breathing imams.
It’s tempting to dismiss them with a shrug and say, “So what else is new?” But these Muslim preachers speak on Palestinian government-controlled television. They speak with the imprimatur of the Palestinian Authority. As long as the Palestinian authorities condone such incitement, there will be violence. Don’t take my word for it, get on the Internet and see for yourselves.
We have to acknowledge that our people have enemies who want us dead. I do not believe Israel is totally pure. I do believe Palestinians got a raw deal, but that it was dealt them mainly by their own leaders who betrayed them by stealing their money and refusing to compromise. And by other Arab nations which encourage them with hopeless aspirations. And by United Nations agencies, especially UNRWA, that brand them forever refugees. Is it Israel’s responsibility, let alone within its power, to redress the wrongs done by others?
In my opinion, the most frightening incitement and the most serious obstacle to peace is what is in the Palestinian schoolbooks. The concept of peace with Israel is not to be found. In fact ISRAEL is not to be found. In the geography books, you will find Palestine, but not Israel. “Palestine” stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Jihad is glorified and martyrdom is extolled. A new history textbook, “History of Modern and Contemporary World” is being taught in 10th grade. It presents the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” as an authentic document accepted by the first Zionist Congress in 1897. The Protocols are a known forgery first used by the Russian Czarist police. To have them presented as fact in schoolbooks is unforgivable. Remember, the kids who are taught this stuff grow up to be the negotiators the Israelis have to deal with. Now there, is an obstacle to peace.
Another obstacle to peace I must mention is HAMAS, which is actually an acronym for ISLAMIC RESISTANCE MOVEMENT. It is, as its name implies, an Islamic fundamentalist organization. The HAMAS Charter is readily available on the Internet and makes some interesting, if chilling, reading.
Yitzhak Rabin once said you make peace with your enemies, not your friends. But how is Israel expected to make peace with HAMAS, which wants no part of it? Is HAMAS important? Absolutely. HAMAS is in the ascendancy while the power and influence of Mahmoud Abbas, President of the P.A., is declining. Abbas refuses to take on HAMAS, leaving to Israel the vexing and dangerous decision of whether or not to do it for him.
And what about IRAN? A nuclear Iran is a nightmare. Iran openly says Israel should be wiped off the map. The president of Iran has said this several times in prepared speeches, so it is not just an off the cuff remark. More immediate than the nuclear threat is Iran’s bankrolling of Hezbollah. More than an obstacle to peace, Iran is a threat to Israel’s very existence.
I cannot omit mentioning Al Qaeda. Evidence abounds that they are already in Gaza and the West Bank and increasing their activities in Jordan and the Sinai, positioning themselves to target Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Placating these people is not feasible. Like HAMAS, like Iran, they threaten Israel’s very existence. Only a strong determined Israel allied with an equally strong and determined United States can deal with these threats, which won’t be resolved tomorrow.
When one closely analyzes much of the criticism of Israel, it’s hard to escape the notion that it is not Israel’s behavior that upsets its opponents, but Israel’s very existence. For some, just the fact that Israel exists becomes the root cause of the troubles in the Middle East.
But, the problem with this root cause view is that it’s wrong! There are many other problems in the Middle East that are unrelated to Israel, and if Israel were to gratify its critics by vanishing in the night, the Middle East would still be a cauldron. Middle East history abounds with examples of violence having nothing to do with Israel. Some examples:
-
Saddam Hussein tried to seize Kuwait
-
Saddam gassed his own citizens, the Kurds.
-
Egypt and Libya clashed repeatedly in the 1970’s.
-
Egypt intervened militarily in Yemen in the 1960’s.
-
Syria occupied Lebanon.
-
The PLO tried to overthrow King Hussein (and by the way it was Israel that rescued him.)
-
The war between Iraq and Iran was the longest war of the 20th century.
-
Hafez-al Assad massacred 20,000 Syrians in Hama in 1982
Would HAMAS or Al Qaeda stop if Israel vanished? They have bigger fish to fry. They want nothing less than a pan-Arab state (may I say one nation under God?), something they are unlikely to achieve without big time violence.
So the theory of Israel as root cause just doesn’t hold water. It’s a convenient smoke screen for despots in the region, as well as for anti-Semites everywhere.
Summing up, short term, I’m not optimistic about prospects for peace. But long term, history says there’s hope. After all, this is not 1492, when we Jews were expelled from Spain. Nor is it 1942, when we were being fed to the ovens of Auschwitz.
To listen to Israel’s enemies and detractors, one would think Israel's sole "occupation" is occupation and oppression. But Israel, starting with nothing in 1948, has been "occupied" with far more than these critics would have you know.
Throughout the world, Israeli products are driving technological advancement. Israel’s scientists and engineers are producing the most advanced technologies, from domestic appliances to the most esoteric products in computers, telecommunication, medicine, agriculture, electro-optics, lasers, biotechnology.
Is Israel perfect? Of course not. But unlike its neighbors, it is a country that operates under the rule of law, with freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and yes, freedom of religion. Arabs in Israel enjoy more civil rights than Arabs in Arab lands! And just imagine what Israel might accomplish, what opportunities for exciting regional development there might be, with peace. May it come in our time.