With Palestine, it's obvious that going nuclear is off the table, always will be, for more reasons than I can count.
There is no doubt that my attitude has ratchetted up along with the visible escalation of murderous attacks at such places as supermarkets, resort hotels and bat mitzvahs.
More than once, I've heard Palestinians compare their struggle against occupation to that of the American revolution against the British, yet I can't recall any history of Washington's troops attacking civilians at functions that were clearly devoid of the Redcoats. There was contempt levelled at Tories, but no legends of Paul Revere, suicide bomber, acting as liberator/martyr, with the promise of 72 virgins to deflower.
A more apt comparison would be the struggle of American Indians against the Dutch/Spanish/English/German settlers, but as that turned out badly for the Indians, the Palestinians would not like that analogy. Of course, there are significant differences, as the Israelis are not trying to confine most Palestinians to the Rez. They are saying that the sovereign nation of Palestine cannot reasonably accomodate all its expatriates at the present time because it would maintain instability for a number of reasons, which include the ability of the region to sustain a viable economy near-term.
Israel's population, as presently constituted, did not arrive en masse, but grew with its capability to grow and absorb a growing population. As of 1995 there were 5.6m Israelis; 18% or just over 1m, were Arabs. I think the last estimate was in 1997, with 5.9m Israelis, with about 1 in 5 being Arab. geography.about.com
But the population of Israel's Jews has increased more than 27% since 1989, largely due to the arrival of great numbers of immigrants from the republics of the former USSR. Because many Jewish immigrants are educated and skilled, their economy has been able to keep pace with the population growth and it is one of the leading technology countries of the world.
Though fairness suggests some level of concurrent repatriation occur, the issue gets blurry because of disagreement about how many left and the expatriate population's growth rate since. Further, recognizing that many would come from refugee camps, impoverished and illiterate, a fully repatriated Palestine probably could not exist economically, except as a Third World welfare state with a long history of deep-seated animosity towards Jews.
It is understandable why Israel should want restrictions to prevent this from happening, as it would likely yield ongoing hostilities. Whatever historical guidelines exist to suggest where complete fairness lies, it has to be asked, from a practical perspective, what benefit is it to Israel to resort either to military force or negotiated compromise, if they are expected to give everything and gain nothing in return? If bloodshed persists via every route, why give anything at all?
The majority in Israel wants a free and independent Palestine to exist and would provide many concessions to see that happen. Already, the existence of Palestinian police forces can be directly attributed to Israel; where else has an occupier helped train and arm those who act with such hostility towards them? It is reasonable, to me, that Israel gain some assurance of a peaceful future coexistence as a minimum return for their efforts to restore a significant portion of Palestine to Palestinian rule.
The repatriation issue should not be intractable. Permitting repatriation at a limited rate over many years could conceivably permit 100% repatriation down the road, but it would be contingent on the Palestinian capability to become economically autonomous and a newly demonstrated capacity to achieve peaceful coexistence over the intervening years.
There is no doubt, the reactionary settlers of Israel deserve no sympathy as they've added their share of destabilization in no small measure, and I remain convinced that most settlements should be dismantled. But doing so, in a linked response to terror bombings, would be the height of stupidity as it would legitimize and encourage further terrorism, when it was apparent in recent years the Israelis were willing to undertake the dismantling via negotiation.
Why is it that Syria and Lebanon are hostile to the Palestinians, in deed not words, yet are given a free pass, while Israel is decried and defiled with stories about drinking the blood of innocents and compared to Nazis of all things? I do not recall gas chambers full of Palestinians. I do not recall experimental medical operations unanesthetized nor lampshades made of Palestinian skin.
I do recall a constant attempt by Palestinians and Arabs to drive all Jews into the sea, which has never been met with an Israel attempt to do the same to any group of Arabs. From 1948 on there has been resistance to the British mandates that created Israel from Nation-States whose own borders were defined by the same British a few years earlier, in a botched job. Where does one assume one's own legitimacy while opposing another's, when both originate from the same source? The only standard for a difference is rooted in the pitting of one religion against another.
It's obvious that terrorist attacks will continue if the Israelis concede ground in response. As well, the terrorism will continue if they respond with violence to violence. Where is the third way? Would any argue that Israel should just shut up and accept violence? Or should it walk, en masse, to the sea and drown?
It appears that the Palestinians are able not just to sustain terror attacks, but to build a growing military capacity with more advanced weaponry than they had before. The current Israeli incursions are billed as an attempt to reduce the weaponry and arrest the leaders of the pro-violence groups that utilize only force while rejecting all negotiated peace proposals. Yes, Palestinian civilians die in this process, as with any military incursions. But the targets are military or terrorist, which is quite unlike the Palestinian effort to target, terrorize and demoralize Israel by principally targeting civilians.
Israel, it must be remembered, is an experiment. It can be viewed from a many perspectives.
The Zionist view:
israelunitycoalition.com!.htm
The Palestinian view:
nad-plo.org
And a more balanced view from outside:
geography.about.com
There is no solution that will satisfy all. Defining pure fairness is impossible because each maintains an interest in choosing its own date as the starting point. From a practical, historical perspective, the superior economic and military force has never yielded and surrendered their might, so it's well beyond pragmatic to expect Israel to do so at the risk of their own extermination.
Yet all outward signs suggest the Palestinian leadership expects a precedent to be set and have conveyed the attitude that if they persist with such terrorist resistance, in time - perhaps decades hence - Israel will be defeated or will surrender.
This stands in marked contrast to what Arafat preaches to the outside world. His deeds speak louder than words.
Ultimately, all evidence suggests both Arafat and Sharon will have to retire before either side can have a fresh starting point to develop a trustfull negotiating relationship again.
I've stated that the US interest is currently to remain steadfast against acts of terrorism, first and foremost. Consistency to that position is for our protection, not Israel's.
Most of the mediative effort that has produced limited gains has been done by the US to date, and we continue to harvest distrust, ill-will, and demonization, because we also supply Israel with much military aid (though our second leading recipient of such aid is Egypt, it should be noted).
Now that Palestine is being touted as the cause du jour by terrorists and repressive Arab regimes alike, our anti-terrorism efforts are being side-tracked.
Do we not have a right to defend the free and open society we've built, without being targeted by terrorists? I believe we do. And by taking bold actions now, we serve notice that we declare the unilateral right to pursue that interest aggressively.
If Palestine or its allies wish to challenge that right, I say 'bring it on'. But one thing looks sure.... our middle role displays a tolerance for violence and terrorism and we are being met with derision in return. This cannot yield anything for our self-interest.
I'm not suggesting we compell Palestine to negotiate terms under the gun. But I think it's in our interest to do whatever we can to convince the Palestinian leaders to begin to negotiate again.
Finally, here's a note I largely agree with:
tikkun.org
. |
