What a Real Middle East Peace Process Would Look Like
Submitted by Sultan Knish on Fri, 08/28/2009 - 18:53
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionSultan Knish
As the Obama Administration tries to drag the rotting corpse of the peace process out from under the table and into public view, accompanied by the expected Israel bashing and phony rhetoric about everyone learning to get along, it might be time to revisit why the peace process failed in the first place.
Unlike the accord with Egypt, the "Middle East Peace Process" expected Israel to negotiate not with a country, but with the PLO terrorist organization, as supposed representatives of the Palestinian Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank, who were to be given an autonomous territory in exchange for an end to the violence. Though the violence did not end, only escalated, the autonomous territory became a state. Now the PLO/Fatah is fighting for its life against Hamas, and the only thing keeping it in power is American and Israeli backing. The day America and Israel withdraw their support is the day that Abbas, or whoever is running the giant fraud and terror network of the Palestinian Authority that has siphoned off billions from the U.S. and the EU, had better have a fast jet waiting on a nearby airfield.
It's news to no one that the PLO template of the peace process has failed. Arafat and his henchmen had no ability to govern and no interest in ending the violence. By the end of his term, even President Clinton, who built his legacy on Middle East Peace, was forced to admit that Arafat did not want peace. The process had failed long before that. It was kept alive and is being kept alive like a zombie, by foreign governments and left wingers who insist on the important of a peace process, while being completely detached from the reality of its failure.
The Clinton administration, the two Bush administrations and now the Obama administration have expected Israel to negotiate with a bunch of terrorists, give them a state, and assume that will solve all the region's problems. As usual this is one of those cases where a four year old would quickly understand what most diplomats and politicians deliberately choose not to understand, because it is in their professional interest not to understand it.
But by way of contrast, let's take a look at what a real Middle East Peace Process worthy of the name would look like, not from a pro-Israel perspective, and without laying blame, but from the perspective of practical problem solving oriented diplomacy.
The current situation involving Israel and the Arab world is the product of two wars, in 1948 and 1967.
Seven nations participated in the 1948 war, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Israel. (Representing the Palestinian Arab side was the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas militia under the Mufti of Jerusalem, a former Hitler ally, but not as a nation.)
Five nations participated in the 1967 war, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Israel. (The Palestinian territories had been annexed by Egypt and Jordan in the aftermath of the 1948 war.)
It is clear that any serious Middle East Peace Process has to involve at least five of these nations, preferably all seven, hammering out a resolution to any lingering problems, and agreeing to a long term regional accord. The problems to be discussed include mutual hostility, the regional arms race arise from it, and the status of refugees displaced by mutual hostilities between the parties. The resolution would involve an end to such hostilities and the agreement of all parties to work together to resolve regional issues and problems that arose from their former exchange of hostilities.
Because of the prolonged history of these hostilities, no individual problem can be put at the doorstep of only one party or one nation. Nor can any solution involve only one party or one nation. Solutions must be mutual and involve reciprocation. One party cannot be expected to shoulder the burden alone, or do what the other party will not.
Just as an end to hostilities must be mutual, all other agreements must be mutual as well. So if the Arab states believe that a Palestinian state is vital for peace, they must also be prepared to contribute land to the creation of such a state. This applies most glaringly to Jordan, which was also formed out of the territory of the former Palestinian Mandate, and to Egypt, which had run Gaza for decades. A Palestinian state composed of the territory of three nations, and administered by three nations, would be a far more stable and tenable entity. It would also shift the scenario from one of aggression to one of mutual cooperation.
The mutual hostilities have in turn created a flow of refugees out of Israel and to Israel, with Palestinian Arabs fleeing Israel, and Jews from Arab lands fleeing to Israel. There are two solutions to such a problem, their absorption by their new land, or their return to the land they fled from. If the nations in the pact agree to the latter, then they must be willing to provide territory or financial compensation to those refugees, across the board.
If Israel must provide land or compensation for Palestinian Arabs who fled, the Arab nations must provide land or compensation for the Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from their countries. If not only the living refugees, but all of their descendants, must likewise be accommodated, the same solution would have to be applied across the board.
The number of Palestinian Arab refugees and Jewish refugees from Arab lands has both been capped at below a million at the time. Their descendants are both estimated at being somewhere in the several million range. The problem is roughly equivalent on both sides. The solution would have to be roughly equivalent as well. It might take the form of Israel contributing more land for a Palestinian Arab land, and in turn receiving land from Arab nations for the Jewish refugees it absorbed. It might take the form of all sides agreeing to a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" to call an end to past issues, and agree to absorb whatever refugees are residing in their country at the present, with financial compensation provided by the country of the refugee's origin, to both the refugees and their new nation.
Such an approach might actually yield a legitimate regional solution, one based on mutual recognition, a mutual end to hostilities and a commitment to mutual problem solving. This is in contrast to the present day process which is utterly incapable of solving anything, because it enables the Arab nations' neglect of their end of the problem, while forcing Israel to negotiate with terrorist organizations that serve as proxies for the ongoing Arab and Iranian hostilities with Israel.
Such a process does not address either regional problems or regional participants, dooming it to fail, and to prolong the misery of everyone involved by promoting terrorism, bigotry and the use of Palestinian Arabs as pawns in a larger war between the regional powers. By eschewing a real Middle East Peace Process, the United States and Europe are prolonging the regional conflicts in favor of a microcosmic approach that expects Israel to shoulder the burden alone, while expecting nothing from the region's other powers. If they seek real peace, they must be willing to push for a process that fosters mutual responsibility and accountability, rather than striving to ignore it. Only such a process has any hope of bringing peace.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Sultan Knish, a blogger, columnist and freelance photographer born in Israel, maintains his own blog, Sultan Knish.
As long as Islam says Jews
As long as Islam says Jews are the sons of apes and pigs and kill the unbelievers there will never be peace in Israel.
Hi, Marie, And yet, let us
Hi, Marie,
And yet, let us consider their inconsistency in this. For arguments sake, let us say Jews, in terms of responsible human behavior, are not much more capable than apes and pigs. They are to be despised that way. Then why this astronomic amount of blaming, laying responsibility at the door of Israel???
If humans were to endlessly admonish real apes and pigs they would be considered lunatics, the apes and pigs would only squeal and grunt and go on with searching for food and what apes and pigs do all day. Pretty hopeless, hence it is pretty useless to blame them for anything.
And; by the same token; why do Muslims not hold Palestinians more responsible/ accountable, because they are higher in their own opinion than apes and pigs, they are humans. And humans, they can change, adapt. So humans you can ask to be held accountable, thus humans you can blame.
So, in this scenario, it is
So, in this scenario, it is those who are blamed and held responsible the most, are the ones most complimented as humans, most capable of change, hence the ones in charge, the ones to be addressed.
The ones that are described as victims, who are not blamed, not held accountable, are less complimented, considered less capable of change, hence not in charge at all, hopeless to address.
Putting arabs to the
Putting arabs to the 'sincerity test' is delusional and part of the same problem. If the EU and US use Israel for their own agendas what sort of a cynical exercise do you think is played out by arabia? They just play the EU, US and Israeli leftists and other 5th columnists in the dreamland of eventual victory. But like all the strategies of the 'great game' it will all end in blood for the arabs and economic and political loss for the 'big shot players'.
Benjamin Franklin said that endlessly repeating an experiment in the expectation of getting a different result is a sign of insanity. Soon Israelis will stop 'playing' this game and regain their sanity. Gaza will be liquidated and Judeah liberated. Peace has never been on any arab mind much less a European or American one. The arabs had the territories now said to be 'occupied' for 20 years before Israel came to them. The PLO was formed in 1964 - there was no 'occupied' territories then. This is a war of liquidation that Israel has not yet begun to fight. But that day of reckoning is coming. And to use the words of Winston Churchill, 'they will be taught a lesson they will never forget'. For those that live through it that is.
Demsci: And; by the same
Demsci:
And; by the same token; why do Muslims not hold Palestinians more responsible/ accountable, because they are higher in their own opinion than apes and pigs, they are humans. And humans, they can change, adapt. So humans you can ask to be held accountable, thus humans you can blame.
I say:
Why do Muslims not hold their brethren responsible for killing and persecuting Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, other Muslims, and exc.?
Humans have a tendency to commit atrocities against each other. But if they are indoctrinated from infancy into believing a violent ideology then the ideology must be held accountable. The reason for this is because the ideology turns people ( who have the potential to do good if left alone ) into murderers.
Thanks Marie, OK, you say to
Thanks Marie,
OK, you say to hold the ideology responsible and I wholeheartedly agree. So we are glad this is exactly what FFI/ Islam Watch/ Jihad Watch and many others are doing. And with it they hold the Muslims that practice it accountable. Which again is a sign of respect for them as human beings, elevated above unreasonable animals, children or lunatics. Because it would serve no purpose to hold these accountable.
FFI and its visitors, like us, on our turn, are often held accountable by LS and KL, who thus show us respect, by seeing us as responsible, changeable humans.
What I liked about the article among other things, was the insistence that the problem of refugees existed on both sides, not just on the Arab side, but also on the Jewish side, and that it was about roughly the same. I like the suggestion that Jordan and Egypt, who have plenty of land, with Sinai, also should offer land for the solution.
I keep thinking of the map of Israel and about its narrow middle part, with Jerusalem far into the east, on the map pricking in the side of the West Bank. Judeah is south of that, with the big Arab city Hebron, but that lies much to the West. Lieberman has hinted that the Galilee triangle with its Arab majority one day might be ceded to a Palestinian state. Could it ever be possible to exchange Hebron for Galilee triangle? It would give the ancient heartland Judeah back to Israeli's and let an Arab majority-district be ruled by Arabs. Of course the inhabitants of Hebron should be allowed to stay, which some say really IS negotiable with them. Or of course highly compensated if they decide to sell and move to the Palestinian state. I know how difficult all this sounds, but in the south Israel has such ugly and difficult defendable borders and this could go a long way to fix that, in a hopefully just way.