Palestinian State: If We Build It, Answers Will Come
By Daniel DiRito | Related entries in Foreign Policy, History, Israel, Military, The War On Terrorism, WarThe prevailing opinion is that the Middle East is a very complex and complicated region rife with centuries of sectarian, tribal, cultural, and religious differences. I agree with that characterization with regards to attempting to summarize the area historically. As to the current problems that have spiraled into a near full scale regional war, I’m convinced that the solution to the many issues rests solely upon one defining problem…from which all others emanate and from which all others can be resolved. In fact, in what some may call my fanciful Hollywood formulaic prescription, one particular movie quotation seems to capture the essence of my proposed story line…“If you build it, they will come�. The “it� is none other than a Palestinian state.
Dissect the situation any way you choose but you will always come back to the need to provide for an autonomous Palestinian state. Should there be any doubt; one need merely follow the underlying sentiment that has led to the formation of the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, and numerous other anti-Israeli / pro-Palestinian organizations. Further, if one were to attempt to understand the dynamics at play in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion as well as the failure of the Iraqi people to view the American troops as liberators (that glorious scenario envisioned by Dick Cheney and his band of neoconservatives who metaphorically run around shooting others in the face with reckless abandon), one must only realize that the United States is seen as an obstacle to freedom in the Middle Eastern mindset.
As with those who doubt Israel will ever allow for a Palestinian state, so too do the Iraqi’s doubt that the United States will ever fully implement an autonomous Iraq. They make that conclusion by extrapolation…one that says if the United States is fully supportive of Israel and Israel has yet to provide for a Palestinian state, then why would the U.S. ever provide for an Iraqi state since they, like the Israeli’s, will always be able to identify the potential for an independent Iraq to threaten the security of the region and ultimately the United States.
Believe it or not, the United States has played kingmaker in the region for decades…arranging for those seen as acceptable or malleable to U.S. interests to gain or retain power…and even to remove them from power at such time as the alliance is no longer strategically satisfying. I don’t offer that observation in order to summarily condemn U.S. actions…some were necessary and prudent…however, they are also open to interpretation by those within the region and others as acts of imperialist intervention solely motivated by the prevailing interests of the United States.
The point is that if “A� plus “B� leads to “C�, and even if such calculation is necessary though harsh, one can’t expect those who may be observing to simply ignore the math…we must be realistic that our actions have consequences…even if we deemed our actions advisable.
The neoconservative mindset is such that they expect consequences but they intend to deal with them through power or force. They believe that if we remain the biggest kid on the block, we can dictate to the block. The rationale says that because they hold power, they can dictate reality…and when perceptions don’t match reality, they simply and methodically apply force to achieve the reality they desire. Missing from that analysis is the formula that always evolves once a group of individuals coalesce around the perception that they have a bully in their midst…they realize they cannot confront the bully one on one or directly since they acknowledge they cannot defeat the bully in that manner…so they adopt other tactics. The Middle East is a textbook example of this eventuality.
The full article can be read at Thought Theater here:
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 15th, 2006 and is filed under Foreign Policy, History, Israel, Military, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 16th, 2006 at 9:39 am
The biggest myth that people like you have bought into, is that when Hamas, Hezballah, and the PLO have stated their goal as “ending the occupation of Palestine,” they are talking about West bank and Gaza. In fact, they are talking about all of “Palestine” which means from the Jordan river to the Mediterranian. It is not about 1967, 1948, 1922 or whenever a border of the Jewish state was defined. Its about the simple fact that Israel has Jews living there. Because of a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion, they believe Jews are the sworn enemy of Islam, and must be exiled, exterminated or subjugated while living in a Waqf that is adminstered by Sharia laws.
We were welcomed as liberators in Iraq in 2003, but as time went on and the power was still out, and street violence continued and people realized the war was not over, Iraqi citizens got fed up. It would be a dream come true for Israel if the Palestinian people responded to their occupation the same way the Iraqi people deal with the Americans. Thousands of tips pour in to American HQ, telling the occupation forces where the terrorists are hiding out. Iraqis are volunteering in droves to form a security force that persecutes terrorists, instead of supporting them. Israel has consistantly shown a willingness to live side by side with a sovereign Palestinian state. One only needs to read the Hamas charter to see where they stand.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:45 am
I must disagree somewhat, Jimmy. Removing all Jews from the entirety of Palestine is a solution which is not reasonable and that we cannot support; just as is the removal of all Arabs. Two separate autonomous states are the only solution.
It may not fully placate the extremists within Islam, but moderates would probably be open to a solution–acknowledging that both religions claim a “right” to be in the holy land.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Of course it is unreasonable, it is insanity! You must have misunderstood the point of my post. A two state solution is the only reasonable outcome; unfortunately, the extremists are in control of the palestinian authority and have managed to convince much of the palestinian public there to the cause of obliteration of Israel.
Hamas and Hesballah have no interest in a two-state solution. That is why they must be defeated or marginalized somehow.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:14 pm
Actually, there is a necessary preliminary step: build a Palestinian political party (or more than one even) which is a) secular , like the vast majority of Palestinians, and b) not massively corrupt . Give them something besides a choice of horrors to vote for, and the Palestinians will grab it.
Then, and only then, do you have a shot at a Palestinian state which can function, and live with its neighbors.
July 16th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
The linked article seems to suggest (in my interpretation) that if we just be nice to the Palestinians, ignore their unacceptable behavior and give them tubs of money, then they will eventually become friendly to us and behave in a more responsible manner.
Duh.
That’s exactly what we and the western world have been doing for quite a while. It seems to have worked quite well now, hasn’t it.
July 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Jimmi,
I believe you jump over the point of the argument I am making which is that in the absence of establishing a Palestinian state, there will be increasing radicalization and conflict within the region. I understand that Hamas and Hezbollah are radical in many of their beliefs…and that the PLO has been in the past and while it has moderated to a degree, it still has factions that remain committed to the destruction of Israel.
However, if we seek to end the radicalization and shut down the radical groups, establishing a Palestinian state has a greater likelihood of achieving that objective than the continuing and expanding military efforts. Despite current efforts to the contrary, political resolutions are the only legitimate hope for ending the conflicts that have plagued the region.
Israel may well succeed in weakening Hezbollah and Hamas but until they can affect the sentiment that fosters membership in these organizations, they will simply reconstitute. While Israel is diminishing Hezbollah, they are also making it more difficult for the Lebanese government to be an agent for change. Until the sentiment of the Lebanese population is such that they see Hezbollah as the obstacle to peace within the region, the government will remain impotent.
The existing Lebanese government is subject to the political realities of the nation. As long as many within the country support a Palestinian state and continue to see Hezbollah as a vehicle to that end, the government will be unable to shut down Hezbollah. They could attempt to do so but the likely outcome would be a full scale civil war.
While many praised the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, a civil war may only increase Syria’s support of Hezbollah and weaken an already fragile Lebanese government. That won’t improve the current situation or the long term prospects of a favorable environment within Lebanon. The U.S. supported the withdrawal of Syria but little has been done to empower the existing Lebanese government.
I agree with you that Hamas and Hezbollah need to be “eliminated or marginalized”. We disagree on the methods employed to achieve that outcome. Do you actually believe that they can be extinguished militarily? How does one destroy the sentiment that allows them to flourish? Until someone addresses that problem, they can’t be eliminated. Hence taking away the issue that drives support for these radical groups…the Palestinian issue…would over time (time that will be needed for the populations to turn against Hezbollah and Hamas)…bring about their demise.
I welcome hearing a scenario you feel would be more effective…in the long term…not just for a period of time after Israel damages the capacity of these groups to inflict military damage. Keep in mind that I also expect to see these groups conduct more suicide bombings in Israel in the near future…which is in my opinion an unacceptable, though inevitable, outcome of this current conflict and reinforces my argument that a political solution will be necessary.
JP,
I agree that we must win over those moderates because they are the people who can eventually marginalize the radical groups…until that happens the radical groups are being empowered by the current military actions. That may seem to be counterintuitive…but I believe it is accurate.
WJ,
Unfortunately, the Palestinian population voted to empower Hamas in the most recent elections. I don’t believe that vote tells us that the Palestinian population is opposed to an Israeli state…I believe the vote is a measure of the desperation of the Palestinian people. Given an alternative (a Palestinian state), I believe a majority of Palestinians would embrace a peaceful region and begin the process of marginalizing those who would remain radical proponents of removing Israel from the region (polling has previously demonstrated as much).
Lewis,
I appreciate your right to interpret my suggestions though I reserve the right to disagree with your analysis and your conclusions. In my opinion, your argument succumbs to the frequently offered “they” formula. One must distinguish between the visibly radical Hamas and the virtually powerless Palestinian citizenry. There is no doubt that Hamas has behaved badly and many Palestinians have supported their actions…but that may be nothing more than the lack of any meaningful alternative. We have evidence that suggests the existing approach isn’t working. Put the Palestinians to the test and see where they stand once and for all.
If we create a Palestinian state, we have an opportunity to win over the majority of Palestinians. Taking that risk isn’t any worse than repeating the never ending cycle of approaching the precipice and then backing away because radicals within Hamas sabotage the situation. Again, why not find out where the Palestinian population stands?
Perhaps the Palestinian population would be motivated to shun and remove those radicals if they had been given the Palestinian state they say they seek. If that didn’t happen, Israel would still have all the same alternatives currently employed…but more importantly they would have the moral high ground (and the support of any rational nation) with which to prosecute any necessary actions to extinguish the problems. As it stands now, both sides are subject to criticism such that lines are drawn and sides are taken.
If a Palestinian state were created and radical groups still sought to destroy Israel, there would be no doubt as to their evil motivations and the civilized world would have to support Israel or be seen as aligned with clearly radical and anti-Semitic groups. In that scenario, Israel and her allies would find little opposition to the conducting of whatever actions might be necessary to defeat such groups and any nations that might wrongfully align with them. I think that would be a much better scenario that the one we have witnessed for decades.
Thank each of you for your comments and observations. I fully enjoy the dialogue. I appreciate differing opinions because they expand the debate and hopefully allow me to find more “truth”. I hope to hear more of your thoughtful insights.
Daniel
July 17th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Why is moving Jews out of Palestine such an absurd proposition when the notion of moving them in was perfectly acceptable less than 60 years ago? If anything, advances in logistical technology would make the task of moving them out much easier than it was in the 1948 days of the steamship.
The religio-racist concepts underlying the Palestinian conflict expose the root of the problem. For instance, the entire notion that “God” chose the Israelites above all other nations of the earth is the epitome of racism (not to mention the clearly racist laws against the goyim, or non-Jews, contained within the Talmud). And the concept that “God,” as a divine real estate broker, gave away land in the middle east but required the recipients of this “giftâ€Â? to first enter the land and kill all living creatures is equally as absurd. Such thinking is clearly nothing more than the vestigial ideology of the ancient warrior tribes of Israel.
The year is 2006. The ideal that “God� loves a particular race of people more than others is no longer en vogue. Likewise, the concept that “to the victor go the spoils� has also been abandoned. The Jews in Occupied Palestine need to abandon their preoccupation ancient rhetoric as their justification for attempting to plunder a nation in modern times.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Daniel,
Exactly. Nobody knows the horror of a “lesser of two evils” choice better than people who were forced to make it, knowing what it was, and knowing that they would have to live with the consequences. Which really describes the Palestinians in the last election.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
First of all several years ago (in the late 90’s) Israel put a deal on the table that would have created a free Palestinian state. That deal was rejected by Arafat.
The land that was given to create Israel was a WASTELAND, were almost no one lived and few nations wanted. After the jews built something out of the wasteland that they were given by the World Community (not god) some nations decided to wipe it and its people out. There was never a Palestinian state captured by Israel, that land was taken from INVADING nations when THEY attacked Israel.
Israel withdrew completely from Lebanon 6 years ago. The terrorist’s response was to attack Israel for six straight years. Missiles, armed military incursions and suicide bombers were the response to leaving Lebanon to its own people. People who then decided to pull back Lebanon’s army and let the terrorists have its southern province.
Recently Israel gave up its settlements on the Gaza strip. This has obviously empowered the terrorists who then gained political control of the region. Since Hamas is now in control of the region of Palestine every usual attack that they make is now an official act of war on behalf of all people in Palestine.
TO Shane, were do you want to move the Jews to some camps in Germany maybe? (If so go to hell you f***ing nazi!) As far as I know Jews don’t hate any religion. They hate people trying to exterminate them.
Hamas and Hesballah and Iran have all stated that their goal is to wipe Israel of the map not to make a Palestinian state though, Hamas wants that as well.
July 17th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Personaly I am against wars that can be avoided like the US war in Iraq.
If the terrorist blew up a few buildings once a decade in Israel then I would be against Israel’s current military action. They are however attacked several times a week while trying to make peace. In my opinion they have a right to defend themselves during war, and that is exactly what this is. An escallation of a prolonged military conflict NOT i repeat NOT a declaration of war after a few isolated incidents.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:10 am
D’Rito:
So long as there is a Koran, and people who interpret it as an instruction booklet, Islamic radicalism may never be extinguished. However, consider the case of white sepratism in America over the past 150 years. A cataclysmic war was fought to crush as much of the confederacy and sepratist groups as possible, and an insurgency of white supremicism followed, lasting more than a century. I dont think some kind of comprimise with the KKK or Crimson Dragons would have been practical, no to mention morally acceptable. It sucks to slog it out, but real evil does exist in this world and sometimes you have no choice.
Shane: Consider the following:
1)The zionist movement began in 1897; not 1948, 1967, 1973 ect.
2) There are more jewish refugees from Muslim states living in Israel than Palestinian refugees coming from Israel
3)The majority of Palestinian refugees were evacuated by Egypt and Syria prior to the 6-day war in order to clear the battlefied for what they thought would be an easy victory.
4) The majority of Palestinian refugees are descendants of Egyptians, Syrians and Jordinians who emmigrated to Israel after 1922 looking for work in the economic miracle that was the early Jewish state.
5)The palestinian mandate was granted to the British after the Turks lost WWI and their empire was dissolved. The politcal atmosphere world-wide at the time was very Bohemian; world powers thought that carving out nations along ethnic and tribal lines would end all wars. The turks were supportive of the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine.
July 19th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Daniel,
I never understood why Arafat walked away from the table with nothing when he could have taken about 95% of what he wanted.. I guess that reflects the corruption thing. Certainly, history has shown that he made a very poor decision that has just prolonged and maybe worsened everybody’s suffering.
I wish the cycle of stupid hatred could be stopped. But at this point, I don’t think reasoning will do anything. Looks like the only cure will be so much misery that people will be willing to do anything to stop it, like even living in peace with Israel.
In the meantime, I think the guy with the biggest hammer will “win”. I don’t see any other way to deal with your typical radical Islamist who glorifies hatred and death. These guys are complete and total nut jobs who can’t be reasoned with. The sooner we admit that we can’t even begin to understand them or reason with them then the sooner we will be able to deal effectively with these nuts. They do not think or see the world the way we do, period. So we make a fundamental error in thinking they will react to incentives the way “civilized” westerners do.
Modern history teaches us about people like this. Look at either Germany or Japan prior to WW2. What they wanted and the brutality they were willing to go through to get it caught the world off guard. Good think nukes weren’t around then. Now we have a very similar situation with fundamental Islamists. I think they are more brutal and zealous than the Japanese were in WW2. But now, they either have or will soon have nukes. I personally don’t think it’s a very good idea to try to appease them. Actually, I think appeasement borders on suicidal. You won’t ever be able to satisfy them. And the more you give in, the bolder they will get and eventually, they will become bold enough to use nukes. We must stop them and do it soon, and do it without remorse or mercy.
Well anyway, that’s what I think.