the miscellany news

lxxxii

2.7.08

  • news
  • opinions
  • life
  • arts
  • sports
  • backpage

opinions

published on 02/15/07

Eye On America | Radical changes needed to achieve peace between Israel and Palestine

print this articleemail this articleskip to comments


Ross Weingarten Columnist

Last week, leaders from the two sects of Palestinian leadership met in the holy city of Mecca to try to broker a peace agreement between the two groups. President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of the more militant Hamas tried to find a way to end the factional fighting that has killed dozens in the last two weeks. After a few days of negotiation, it seems that at least a temporary cease-fire has been reached. However, more significant progress, such as the two sides coming to terms about how to approach Israel, has not been made.

The question of what to do about Palestine and Israel is incredibly complicated and seemingly indeterminable. Since Israel’s inception immediately after World War II, there has been a never-ending conflict between the Zionist state and her Arab neighbors. There have been four bloody wars with Israel emerging victorious in each. Last year, however, the outcome of a war between Israel and a militant Lebanese group called Hezbollah was much more ambiguous. Since the state of Israel was created, displaced Palestinians, who claim as much right to the land as do the Zionists, have clamoured to regain their land, and a chance to live in an autonomous state.

There seems to be no answer to the Palestine question. The process of shutting native Palestinians out of their land, which has happened for decades, is simply wrong. Zionist settlers were imported to the region, and when they arrived, they found an already thriving population. Instead of working to co-exist with their new neighbors, Zionists worked hard to gain the upper hand, claiming the best resources and using their funds to subjugate the Palestinians. Israelis have no more claim to the land that they live on than do the Palestinians. In recent years, while moderate Palestinians like Abbas have tried to work with the leadership in Tel Aviv, militant groups such as Hamas have tried to undermine these efforts using violent guerilla tactics. Israel’s response was to strike back violently, as well as to cut funding and stop trade into Gaza and the West Bank, two areas set aside for Palestinians.

The simple fact is that Israel’s creation was a misguided idea. In a post-Holocaust world, the idea of a Jewish homeland seemed logical at the time but leaders failed to see that simply importing a group of people into a place where a population already existed was not going to work. Combine that with the fact that Jews and Muslims have historically had a less-than-amicable relationship, and you get the powder keg that we have today. However, the question remains: what to do now? We simply cannot give up on Israel as a 60-year experiment gone awry. Now that they are there, the Israeli population deserves to live in peace just as much as anyone else. Unfortunately, being surrounded by enemies, most notably Iran, makes this virtually impossible.

But I do believe there is an answer, and it must come from the international community. To start with, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank must become completely, unequivocally Palestinian. There are still a number of Israelis who choose to remain on these strips of land, claiming them as their own. They have obstinately refused to get off the land, despite attempts by the Israeli government to get them to move. As harsh as it sounds, Israel must forcibly remove these settlers , as they are undermining overall peace efforts. Palestinians need a place to call their own, and if a small number of Israelis will not allow this, they should not have the support of the Israeli government.

Secondly, Israel, along with the international community, should return funding to the Palestinian government, which they have alreadystarted to do. Imposing sanctions against the incredibly poor administration will only make more enemies and cause more people to turn to violence out of desperation. Furthermore, Palestine must be able to engage in international commerce. The fear is that Iran and other militant neighbors will try to ship in weapons to stimulate the already-present violence, and this is a grave concern. But with vigorous monitoring from an international body such as the United Nations, this can be avoided, and Palestine can start to benefit from our global economy.

My last proposal is the most far-fetched, and perhaps the most idealistic. Miles of Israeli territory separate the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, surrounding and isolating Palestinians. There must be some way to connect the two territories, making it possible for Palestinians to travel back and forth without being forced to deal with harassment from Israeli forces at checkpoints and customs stops. However, because of the volatile security situation, Palestinians also should not be allowed to enter Israel unchecked. As a result, there should be a railroad, or even a highway, that connects Gaza with the West Bank. Sound absurd? Perhaps it is, but only when Palestine is a completely independent and united country will the violence end and Israel exist in peace.

E-mail this entry to:


Your e-mail address:


Message (optional):


Comments posted do not represent the opinions of The Miscellany News, its staff, or Vassar College. The Miscellany News reserves the right to withhold or remove comments which contain false information, are inappropriate or irrelevant to the article printed above, or are otherwise objectionable.

Alumnae/i posters are strongly encouraged to include their class year with their name. The maximum length for comments is approximately 100 words; longer responses should be submitted as letters to the editor to misc@vassar.edu. More information about our letters policy can be found on our Policies page.

Posted by Neal F. '78

This article is lazy. It is lazy in its assumptions. It is lazy in its history. It is lazy in its suggestions. It is, most of all, morally offensive.
**************************************************************************************************************

According to the author: "In a post-Holocaust world, the idea of a Jewish homeland seemed logical at the time but leaders failed to see that simply importing a group of people into a place where a population already existed was not going to work." On the nonsense theory of this article, no country should ever come to be - if the proposition were applied universally.
**************************************************************************************************************
Needless to say, the United States of America should not have been allowed to exist, on the stated theory. In fact, none of the nations in the Americas should have been allowed to exist. The Arabs, moreover, should all have stayed in Arabia, instead of conquering what is now Israel - a conquest that has always been celebrated in Arab lands. But, contrary to the lazy article, that is not how history runs. Countries are not born a virgin birth.
**************************************************************************************************************
Moreover, contrary to this lazy article, Israel is not an experiment. It is a country. And no country on Earth has any moral justification to exist. None is demanded of any country either. Rather, the justification and existence are one and the same.
**************************************************************************************************************
Israel's founding included violence. But, contrary to the article's suggestion by silence - perhaps ignorance -, it was not a one way affair. People were displaced on both sides. In fact, more Jews were ultimately displaced than Arabs. But, again, that is history. The article is something else.
**************************************************************************************************************
The historical issue that is pertinent is why the displaced Arabs refused to be resettled - i.e. according to the custom followed in the numerous great displacements in the 20th Century. Maybe, the author never heard about the creation of Pakistan and India - in which 14 million people were displaced (none having a right of return) and one million people died. Maybe, the author never heard of the displacement of the Sudetenland Germans at the end of WWII. That was about 2 million people involved. None has the right of return. And, they were summarily marched to the border with Germany and told not to come back.
**************************************************************************************************************
As an interesting aside to show the hypocrisy of all of this: The Council of Europe, back in 2003, was asked by supporters of Palestinian Arabs to demand that Israel allow not just Palestinian Arab refugees but their offspring to return to Israel. The Council came to a different view - but the decision was hardly noticed by the press. The Council debated the matter and the issue arose that to create side with Palestinian Arabs would mean creating a precedent for the return of Sudetenland Germans - something that went to the very heart of the issue exploited by Hitler at Munich. Hence, the Council resolved, as is the custom in the world, for Palestinian Arabs to be settled where they can find refuge, not in Israel. My point in noting this is that the tragedy seen by the author of this article is one of choice - as in people who refuse to accept settlement where they find refuge.
**************************************************************************************************************
Now, the author also lazily assumes that an accommodating Israel would, by ceding land back to the 1967 Armistice line, automatically solve the dispute. He also lazily assumes that he has solved the issue of Gaza and the other territories being connected. He evidently does not realize that such problem was long ago solved - but the overall packaged was rejected by the Palestinian Arab side.
**************************************************************************************************************
I really must say that articles like this one serve mostly to misinform people. I would recommend that the author study this article by historian Benny Morris: "And Now Some Facts," by Benny Morris, The New Republic, May 8, 2006. The article also appears online at http://jeffweintraub.blogspot.com/2006/04/mearsheimer-walt-and-now-for-some.html
**************************************************************************************************************

Posted on February 18, 2007 02:16 AM

Remember Me?