Nov.01

electoral-vote.com

Dem 51

   

GOP 49

The War in Israel, Part IX: Readers Weigh in On Palestine

As promised, we're going to share some reader thoughts on the Palestinian side of the equation:

• G.A. in Berkeley, CA: In 1976, I typed on a manual typewriter my undergraduate history senior thesis on Zionism and Palestinian nationalism. It was historic: I finished on July 4, 1976. For the past almost 50 years, I have followed related events as a layperson.
  
  Some significant things have changed over that time. Among them: the ("cold") peace treaties between Israel, on the one hand, and Egypt and Jordan, on the other; the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979; the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank by agreement with Israel; Israel's voluntary and complete withdrawal from Gaza in 2005; the bloody Hamas coup seizing control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority in 2007 (the rivalry continues); ever-expanding Jewish "settlements" in the West Bank, where millions of Palestinians live.
  
  What has not changed is the basic, underlying dynamic: dueling nationalist claims to the same small piece of land. Jews, mostly exiled and abused for millennia, have always felt connected to the land of Israel. The Bible refers to both the land and the Jews as "Israel." And Jews have always constituted a majority in Jerusalem, except during part of the crusader era. European nationalism in the 19th century both increased the oppression of Jews living there and spread to them, initiating waves of emigration to Palestine.
  
  At the end of World War I, 400 years of Ottoman Turk control of the area ceased. The British "liberators" obtained in 1920 a temporary "mandate" over the area, approved by the League of Nations. Many Arabs had lived in the region for generations. A League of Nations report in 1922 concluded that many other Arabs had recently immigrated to the area due to the increased economic opportunities created by the British and the Jews. Nationalist sentiment increased among the Arabs in Palestine, resulting in clashes with the British and with the Jews. And a distinctly Palestinian sense of nationality grew rapidly among the local population.
  
  World War II resulted in the extermination of two-thirds of European Jews, some who had attempted to escape to Palestine but were denied entry by the British, in deference to the local Arab leaders—many of whom were openly supportive of Hitler. In 1948, the British mandate ended, and the relatively new United Nations recognized the new country of Israel within boundaries segregated from other areas of Palestine designated for Arabs. (The West Bank was not recognized as a country or part of one, allowing Israel a technical legal argument, following Israel's takeover during the 1967 war, that Israel is not an "occupier" of the area.) The day following Israel's declaration of independence, armies from surrounding Arab countries attacked. During the successful war for Israeli independence, many Palestinians fled, either because the Arab armies asked them to get out of the way, or because they were expelled by the Jews, or just to escape a war zone.
  
  Surrounding Arab countries largely declined to integrate the emigrating Palestinians. Many of their descendants are still living, often impoverished and ill-used, in refugee camps in these countries, demanding to "return" to a "Palestine" (Israel) that most have never known. Gaza and the West Bank also contain dense refugee camps. The status and desires of these people contribute to the continuing difficulty in resolving the "Israel/Palestine problem."
  
  The world is quite conscious of the Palestinian "refugees" (mostly descendants of those who left). But usually ignored is the fact that in the 1940s, and particularly after Israel declared independence, a roughly equal number of Jews living in Arab countries (Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen, Morocco, etc.) were beaten, robbed, expelled, and sometimes killed. A new and poor Israel absorbed the survivors. Palestinians often assert that Israel is a European colonial project populated as a result of the Holocaust. The irony is that, until the relatively recent influx of Soviet Jews, about two-thirds of Israelis were these so-called "eastern Jews" from Arab countries, and their descendants, who might even be considered non-white. These Arab countries, which used to have significant Jewish minorities, are now "Judenrein" (German for "free of Jews") or nearly so.
  
  Today, extremist Palestinians and extremist Israelis aid each other in preventing a solution to the common problems of the respective entities to which they belong. Palestinian extremists and their supporters demand a "free" Palestine "from the [Jordan] river to the sea"—in other words, without Israel and without Jews. Nationalist and national-religious Jews claim a biblical right to colonize all of the West Bank, while denying political rights to the millions of Palestinians who live there. (Unlike the Palestinian extremists and their supporters who would eliminate Jews, the Israeli extremists do not propose to eliminate the Palestinians, though they might like to do so.)
  
  Jewish and Islamic religious emotions feed the problem. Jews view the Temple Mount as their holiest site, while Muslims view the same area as the Noble Sanctuary, the third-holiest site within Islam. National religious Jews claim a right to settle exclusively anywhere within biblical Israel. Traditional Islam disparages Jews, and Jews in Arab lands were treated and ruled as inferior.
  
  Complex as this all is, the problems of the area cannot be understood without examination of the interests of foreign actors, which would require a long essay. To mention just a few interests: Under a 1994 treaty, Israel recognizes bordering Jordan's role with respect to West Bank Muslim holy sites. King Abdullah, a Hashemite (ancient origins in Saudi Arabia), is generally considered a "moderate," though Jordan's restive population is overwhelmingly Palestinian, and the stability of Jordan is not assured.
  
  Most Muslims, including most Palestinians (this includes members of Hamas) are Sunnis. Iran, the center of rival Shiite Muslims, has attempted to extend its influence throughout the Middle East, in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and most notably through (Shiite) Hezbollah, the strongest military force in Lebanon, recognized as terrorist by many countries. Sunnis and Shiites generally do not like each other (Sunnis often kill minority Shiites in Pakistan, for example), so Iran's funding of Sunni Hamas, and Hamas's cooperation with Hezbollah, are both odd and tactical.
  
  After Syria invaded Israel in 1973, Israel seized the Golan Heights and has annexed it, angering Syria. Syria is allied with Russia, which has helped the Assad government win its civil war. Russia maintains its only Mediterranean port at Tartus, Syria—but also sustains relations with over a million Russian emigrés to Israel. Russia has been increasing its military cooperation with Iran, which is helping to supply Russia with arms to use in its invasion of Ukraine. And on and on (Turkey and Gaza, Kurds; America; Saudi Arabia...)
  
  Any time an improvement in the "Israel/Palestine problem" seems imminent—at present, the possibility of Israeli/Saudi recognition—one interest or another explodes it. And any time the situation appears completely dire, negotiations are often percolating under the surface. Ultimately, neither Israelis nor Palestinians are going to disappear. A two-state solution may be one of the only resolutions that could last, but this seems as far away as ever with the existence of entities such as Hamas and its supporters.
  
  
• T.P. in Kings Park, NY: J.W. in North Canton writes: "I think it's very telling that no Arab country wants the Palestinians." This is my least-favorite argument about the present conflict. I can't think of any conclusion that could be drawn from it other than a justification of mistreatment or death because Palestinians are too horrible to deserve human rights.
  
  In fact, there are several reasons why Israel's Arab neighbors don't want to allow a massive influx of Palestinians. It is a certainty that a substantial number of radical Islamic militants would be mixed in with the refugees, but more important, in my view, is the fact that they know that Israel would never allow refugees to return. Even states like Egypt that have made peace with Israel do not want to abet a process of ethnic cleansing.
  
  
• A.M. in Miami Beach, FL: In response to the point raised by J.W. in North Canton, one could also look at the repercussions to Palestine if Arab countries did accept the refugees—the far right in Israel would immediately open the floodgates to settlers while making conditions as bad as possible for Palestinians, to encourage them to leave immediately for their new "hosts." And boom, problem solved, "we don't need no stinkin' Palestine because there are no Palestinians." It would be a gift to Israel, and would absolve them of any eventual resolution of borders. Palestinians would go from physical occupation of at least part of their homeland, to "forever refugees," powerless and voiceless in both their homeland as well as their refuge.
  
  It seems unlikely there will ever be peace in the region, with three strong factions (Israelis, Arabs and Iranians) all fighting for dominance and control. I think it would likely take two generations of relative peace before real progress could be made, and all three factions include members too wedded to encouraging chaos and use of agent provocateurs to let that happen.
  
  
• J.B. in Berlin, Germany: The German-Israeli comedian Shahak Shapira listed things that everyone should agree on: "Palestinians are not Hamas. Muslims are not terrorists. Israelis are not the Israeli government. Jews are not White Supremacists. Hamas is a terrorist organization. It stands in the way of peace. Settlements are bad and stand in the way of peace."
  
  I agree and would add: "Both Palestinians and Israelis can be victims and perpetrators at the same time. Human rights are for all people. Children are not terrorists (according to the U.N., 70% of the victims in Gaza are women and children). International law should apply to all states, both revenge and colonial historical experiences should not be allowed to override it. The right to exist and self-determination should apply equally to Israelis and Palestinians. Terrorists as well as right-wing extremists do not belong in any government or administration."
  
  
• J.B. in Hutto, TX: Those calling for a ceasefire in Gaza have laudable motives, concerned as they are for the innocent Palestinian civilians trapped in Gaza. But a ceasefire now would, in fact, be the worst possible outcome of the conflict. It would leave Hamas in control of Gaza, free to use its territory to launch further attacks on Israel. It would allow Hamas to keep using the innocent Palestinians of Gaza as human shields. Simply put, a ceasefire now means victory for Hamas and would be seen across the Middle East as a vindication for the brutal atrocities carried out against innocent Jews on October 7.
  
  During World War II, the Allies refused to consider any kind of ceasefire with Nazi Germany, insisting on unconditional surrender. Perhaps this prolonged the war, but that was seen as a price worth paying to avoid a peace that left Nazi Germany intact. Israel (and the free world, for that matter) is in much the same situation now. No peace or ceasefire should be contemplated until Hamas is utterly defeated. Only then would any kind of just and lasting peace agreement be possible.
  
  
• C.A. in Atlanta, GA: If you're interested in learning more about the Palestinian perspective, this series, called Whispered in Gaza, is excellent. Each video is a 2-3 minute recording of a Gazan saying what they want foreigners to know about life under Hamas. After listening awhile, I realized they all took an enormous risk to tell their stories. It was recorded in 2022, but I still find everything extremely relevant to recent events.

Thanks to all contributors, as always. (Z)