Said, for instance, makes the point that the Oslo agreements were destined to fail because they failed to account for these "lost outcomes" (my term) among other things and, thus, became the basis for future conflict.
True enough. I have also seen Said sigh and say sadly and wisely, you must realize, Israel was built on the ruins of Palestinian society. Taken narrowly, this is true, but it kind of omits the part that Arab decisions (for starters, the decision to fight wars rather than compromise and inability to accurately gauge their chances of success) have played in that ruin. It was Arab decisions that forcast that driving the Jews into the sea in 1948 would be a piece of cake, and it was the decision of Arab officials that evacuated 200,000 people from Palestine, including anybody with money, before the end of the Mandate. Said does omit that part, nor have I seen him dwell on the Arab world's part in keeping the Palestinian refugee crisis festering. It is too easy, and expedient, to stick with the side of the story that foots Israel with the bill for all the Palestinian suffering.
I mean, cast this refugee crisis into any other part of the globe and you will see how anamolous it is. Is Europe still arguing about whether the Sudaten Germans will go back to the Czech Republic?
For instance, as I read Said and as I read the Foreign Affairs essay on the Palestinians you recommended, I'm struck by the talk of the pre 1967 boundaries. To the Palestinians, it seems to me, that's a critical memory
What do you mean, 1967 is a critical memory? Isn't 1948 usually the critical memory? It was 1948 that created the refugees and the "lost outcomes". It is not as if the Arab world accepted Israel before 1967 in any boundaries, nor was there any talk of a Palestinian state when the West Bank was annexed by Jordan. It was only with in 1979 that Egypt first accepted Israel in 1967 boundaries, and Jordan in 1994. Israel is still technically at war with the others. |
