I must have written, and certainly I've thought, that there really are only two schools of thought when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
There are the separatists, who believe that Jews and Arabs must live apart. They disagree only where the border between the two peoples should go. Arab separatists want the border somewhere in the Mediterranean; Jewish separatists want it along the Jordan river.
Then there are the integrationists, who believe that Jews and Arabs sooner or later will have to learn to live together. They disagree on a great many things, even within their own group.
I belong to the latter school. I think there's plenty of room for everyone, and all the other problems can be resolved once there's a will to make it happen.
But what if I'm wrong? What if, sooner or later, there will be a choice: either the Jews or the Palestinians will have to move out of what is now Israel, so the others can stay?
If this is inevitable (and nobody knows whether it is), it's gotta be clear that the Palestinians and the Jews aren't going to make the choice. Each would surely send the other packing. The choice belongs to the outside world: to the US, Europe, Australia, Japan, Russia, and the other supposedly impartial governments.
What would be their choice? If we assume that the separatist scenario is possible, we should also assume that they're consciously or unconsciously preparing to act on making the choice, that they're laying the groundwork for it to happen.
I am sure that every single government would protest that they are betting on efforts to avoid precisely that scenario. They don't want the choice, so they're making sure - they'd say - that they don't have to make it.
What is the evidence?
Well, if they have a preference, we'd be able to discern it by the bias in their positions on various issues, by the way they hedge their bets. Do they favor one party's legitimacy over the other's? Are they more forgiving of one party's actions than the other's? Do they rush to grant permanence to one party's gains while disputing the other's? Are they demanding more from one party than from another?
As every parent knows, even-handedness is not the same as fairness. The Israelis have a state, and all the institutions and infrastructure of a state. They have military superiority. They also have the confidence of victors, and a range of tactical options but are held accountable for the downside of each one. The Palestinians are still an insurgency, a network of armed networks. They rely on desparation and fanatisism. They have limited tactical options but very little accountability.
If you favored the Jews in the separation scenario, you'd question the legitimacy of Palestinian nationhood and maintain the otion of resettling Palestinians in the Arab world. Above all, you'd make it clear that the Palestinians had everything to lose by sabotaging peace efforts, and that every bit of misbehavior subtracted from their cause.
If you favored the Palestinians, you'd reinforce their nationalistic aspirations at every turn. You'd openly begrudge Israel every territorial claim, and you'd remind Jews that they owe their existence to the world's forebearance. You'd use every perceived bit of misbehavior to question their legitimacy.
With this in mind, it seems to me that the Palestinians have time on their side. Europe has cast its lot for them, and the more it looks like integration is unlikely, the more the conflict will shift to one between Israel and Europe. Not minding the ultimate consequence of their policy, Europe will continue to insist that Israel concede their interests. Israel will resist, and the conflict will deepen.
I think that Europe has made this choice because their fear is greater than their moral fortitude. The fallout of a Palestinian exodus is much more onerous than of an Israeli defeat. Jewish refugees don't control oil fields, don't spawn terrorist groups, don't spark the anger of hundreds of millions of co-religionists. And if the Europeans succeed in demonizing everything Israeli, there won't be much of pressure to tend to their humanitarian needs when they're refugees. The former Norwegian prime minister has warned that the demonic Israel can't expect mercy when it no longer has military superiority, and it must follow that Europe won't do anything to protect them against the vagaries of a future devastating war it's already been determined they brought on themselves.
In 1973, the Israeli government briefly feared that their defense in the Sinai and/or Golan wouldn't hold; that Egyptian and Syrian tanks would move into Beersheva, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem. They prepared for a universal draft, in which they'd be arming the general population to fight for every house. (They also considered nuking advancing Arab armies but had little time to do so.)
This kind of total defense was planned because Israel had no illusions that a victorious Arab assault would be the least bit merciful to a Jewish state. Whether or not there would be carnage and outright genocide, there would certainly be ethnic cleansing - one way or another, the vast majorty of Jews would have to leave.
So we have two (certainly disputable) assumptions here: one, that given the choice, Europe would rather see Jews give up Israel than Arabs give up Palestine; two, that Arabs would not - given the choice - suffer Israel to exist. I'm going to guess that most Israelis and indeed Jews in general share these assumptions. Even left-wing Israelis who oppose the hardline policies of their governments are doing their best to avoid testing these assumptions by pursuing the integrationist scenario. Right-wing Israelis view it all as inevitable and are pushing to take away the option from the Europeans.
What Europe must do is to abandon its racist ways. Arabs are no less capable of creating a free, democratic society than any other people, and few have had as rich an opportunity to do so as the Palestinians. To tacitly accept terrorism and rejectionism among Palestinians is racist. Similarly, Europe has to learn to criticize (and applaud, when appropriate) Israel for the wisdom, humanity, and effectiveness of its efforts rather than demonizing them for every effort.
In other words, it's time for Europe to bet on peace rather than on an ultimate Palestinian victory. Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.
Enjoye your article. I suggest another scenerio which is a biblical one presented by all the biblical prophets including Jesus.
Israel has been brought back from destruction from Egypt,Babylonia, Persia, Greece, Rome, Hitler and now the Arab confedrate states. Only a few countries stand in Israel's support.
Israel's miraculous rebirth and survival as a remnant is the biblical theme in that That is where Jesus will come back to reign as described in Rev. 22. Zechariah and many other passages state He will come back to where he ascended, the Mount of Olives.
Zechariah ch.'s 12-14 among others is a very clear picture of Israel's future. It involves more persecution but eventual delivery upon Christ's arrival.
Jesus said "unless those days be shortened no flesh would remain". The context is Israel rescued from total destruction. Ezekial ch. 38-39 are also clear.
Yes, this is a spiritual scenerio, God's plan for Israel and all the world.
Lynn
Posted by: Lynn Berntson | June 18, 2005 at 09:58 PM