#76 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday July 2)
Good morning!
I want to address several falsehoods permeating the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinians.
The Jewish state is nothing more than the last colonial experiment, in which white people have overrun traditionally brown or black people’s land and exploited power to enforce their will. First, the Jews in Israel are not “new” to the region and have historic roots in the region. Second, over 50% of the Jews in Israel come from the middle east—and NOT Europe. There were many thriving Jewish communities throughout the Arab world, some tolerated, some actually embraced, and others vilified. My own background lies in the City of Basra. My grandfather was born in what was then Mesopotamia. As early as the beginning of the 20th century, Jews were unwelcome and found their way to other, safer, more inviting areas. My great-grand-father sold his wares to pay for the cost of transport to Calcutta, where Jews were building a growing community. Regrettably, he was murdered by neighbors, forcing my great-grand-mother to make the journey with her four children, one of whom died on the voyage. This story plays out in other cities that had meaningful Jewish populations, like Aleppo, Damascus, Cairo, Alexandria, and Baghdad. There was no compensation given and no “right of return” exists. Most of those displaced ended up in Israel.
The Palestinians ran from their homes in 1948 and have no right to return to (or be compensated for) their ancestral homes. Try telling that to a family that was driven from their homes. Certainly there were those, perhaps even a majority, that left in fear or in the mistaken belief that they would be able to return shortly after the Jews were annihilated. But there are many who we have now learned were driven from their homes. While I can’t imagine an unlimited “right of return,” I certainly can imagine compensation for those who were displaced.
Until Israel won the 1967 war and captured what were “Palestinian territories,” the Palestinians were well treatedin their homeland. Not so. While the 1948 partition offered the Palestinians a state of their own, the Palestinian people never had their own homeland. The West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt; Palestinians were not afforded the same rights as they received under the Israelis. And if you think the Jordanians or Egyptians wanted these territories back, recall that they did not put up a fight to get them back in their respective peace deals. That’s because they didn’t want to be the “overlords” of a permanently displaced minority. There WAS going to be a Palestinian state, but the Arab governments declared war on Israel in 1948, when the two “Palestinian” states were formed (Israel and what would have been an Arab Palestinian state).
Arab hatred of the Jews is a response to Israel’s actions. There are, for sure, instances where Arabs and Jews lived side-by-side in relative peace and brotherhood. Not to dwell on my own family narrative, but I just want to point out that my great grandfather was buried on the Mount of Olives, then part of the British Mandate. After the partition and the subsequent takeover of the West Bank by Jordan, that cemetery was unceremoniously plowed over to build a hotel. So much for mutual respect of the other’s faith and past. I think the enmity predates Israel.
The Palestinian terrorist attacks over the past decades warrant the security measures in the West Bank. I’m no expert on Palestinian politics, but it is generally accepted that the far more radical Palestinian groups are in Gaza and not the West Bank. But regardless, it is hard to imagine that a country as technologically advanced as Israel has not worked out a system whereby certain “trusted travelers” can’t get expedited movement through checkpoints. To treat all Palestinians as potential terrorists is to punish an entire people for the actions of a few. There are actions Israel could take, if it choose to do so, to make the lives of Palestinians better and to provide them with greater dignity and respect. In America, we don’t cordon off entire neighborhoods and control their movement (and livelihood) because some members of the neighborhood might commit crimes.
I think the fundamental point here is there are TWO PEOPLES who have a claim on the region. They occupy the same place and they must figure out a construct whereby they can co-exist together. There is not an acceptable narrative, on either side, justifying an “all or nothing” path to victory.
AN IDEA THAT ISN’T INTENDED TO ELICIT A LAUGH
What if the only way for the Jews and Arabs in Israel and the Palestinian territories is not to draw away from each other but, rather, to embrace each other more tightly? It’s not that crazy.
If two separate states can’t provide what Israel desires and if one state can’t provide what democracy requires, why not a confederation of some sort? I try to think of most conflicts in business deals. In negotiations, I like to focus on what are the most important things for our side and what’s most important for the other. If both can get a semblance of what they perceive they need, but have to give in a bit to achieve most of what they want, why not? I would argue that in this case, the major objectives are these:
Israelis want: (a) safety and security, and (b) a continuing and thriving Jewish state.
Palestinians want: (a) a state of their own, and (b) respect, dignity, relatively unfettered travel, and economic success.
What if a confederation were established? Working out governing and policing within the respective members of a confederation may be the easier task. What is roughly equivalent to the current Israeli state continues to be governed by its Jewish majority, with a responsibility to protect its minority. The Palestinian state would be governed by its religious majority, with the responsibility to protect its minority. The smaller Jewish settlements in the West Bank probably could be consolidated into more discrete enclaves that don’t impede a more contiguous Palestinian state. This is the self-government “must have” for the Palestinians. Those Jewish settlements that would choose to remain, would be citizens of a state under Palestinian rule (understanding that some of the larger settlements probably have to be attached to and remain within the Jewish state). In order for a Palestinian state to benefit from statehood, the patchwork of the west bank would need to be made into a more coherent whole. But, as I say, there is a workable solution for “domestic” governance and policing.
Things get messier when one talks about state sovereignty within the community of nations. I’d argue the three most critical indicia of statehood within the modern context (other than geographic boundaries) are (a) currency and economic regulation, (b) foreign relations, and (c) defense. On the question of currency and the economy, the two peoples already share the Israeli currency. As to defense, all of the agreements proposed by the Israelis to date (and nearly accepted two times) have required that the IDF would be the sole protector of sovereignty and would ensure the pacification of the West Bank. This is the security “must have” for Israel. That’s the biggest pill for the Palestinians to swallow but they nearly accepted this formulation twice before. A military is not necessarily a precondition to sovereignty and self-rule. In looking for examples, Costa Rica has only police and no military.
Just thinking aloud here. I’m not suggesting this is the only way to go. What I am suggesting is that some permutation of this sort of construct seems all that is left, as a “two state solution” appears to be slipping away as a meaningful option, and “one state” ensures the eventual end of the Jewish state or of its democracy, due to demographics.
When things seem most dire, perhaps the most outrageous, audacious of solutions are the only ones left. And perhaps they’re not that bad.
Curious what others have to say.
Have a good week,
Glenn
FROM THE ARCHIVES