Imagine that someone
comes to you and makes the following proposal: I am going to let
you and your family finally live in your home, relatively undisturbed.
Most of the rooms will be yours to do with as you see fit-- all
I want is one room, the hallways, and control over who goes in and
out your front and back door. You may occasionally have to ask my
permission to go to the bathroom or into the kitchen to prepare
a meal, but I will usually let you pass with only a quick glance.
However, remember that anytime I want, I can seal up the hallways
and make you go to your room. I understand that you are willing
to let me have the rest of the neighborhood. I just need a little
bit more to make me feel safe. And I'll be happy to give you a few
acres out by the city dump in exchange for the room in your home.
Would you accept such an offer? If not, what would you counter?
And what about the claim that "we made our adversary a very
generous offer"? Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it was the best
they were ever likely to get. And they respond, not with a counter-offer,
but with violence. Clearly we have no partner for peace.
What other conclusion can the world make after the unanimous peace
offer by the Arab nations at the recent Arab summit was rejected
by the Israelis as a "non-starter"? Why the Israeli answer
with violence? Where was the counter-offer? Where is the Palestinians'
and the Arab world's partner for peace?
But what about these suicide bombers? They must be religious fanatics,
probably part of the bin Laden network. At least they must be indoctrinated
from birth to hate Israelis.
Again, let me answer a question with an offer. This time I'm going
to take away your house, send you to the city dump, and let the
United Nations build a 15 foot square concrete block house for you
and your family to share. Most Mondays and Thursdays you will have
running water, but nothing is really guaranteed. If you want contact
with water, you will, of course, be able to look out your door at
the irrigated lawns and swimming pools of your neighbors on the
surrounding hillsides. You can go to school in the camp, but there's
really not much point, since you won't be able to get a job. Those
few of you who persist against all odds and insist on getting an
education will be able to attend a university that operates spasmodically,
due to curfews and closures. That is, if you can work your way past
the scores of roadblocks that exist between your home and the university.
You don't mind getting up at three in the morning and returning
home at ten PM in order to attend classes, do you? Oh, and since
you can't find work, you won't be able to get married, but that's
not really a problem, since the birth rate is too high already.
Want to accept my offer? There's a short line-- no waiting. Or
does suicide begin to look like a viable alternative in a situation
totally devoid of hope?
What about the official US response? Yesterday, President Bush
said that Chairman Arafat needs to do more to stop the violence.
I assume that he means by this that Mr. Arafat is supposed to go
into the refugee camps, provide food and water, make education available
for all, guarantee everybody gainful employment and maybe plant
flowers-- the scent of the flowers might counteract the odor of
raw sewage flowing in the streets. Oh yes, and get rid of the horrendous
and humiliating military occupation under which the Palestinian
people have been suffering for decades. That's not too much to ask,
is it? OK, so you're confined to three rooms and surrounded by the
fourth most powerful military in the world. We'll give you a few
days, but we want you to be sure and do everything we ask-- and
don't forget to do it in Arabic.
Flash to Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon-- IT'S THE OCCUPATION, STUPID.
What then, is to be done in this seemingly intractable situation?
Let me conclude with my observations of 16 months ago-- which is
basically the plan proposed at the recent Arab summit, and the only
plan (or minor variant thereof) that can possibly lead to a lasting
peace in the area. Blaming Arafat and escalating the violence on
both sides will only prolong the death throes of Israeli and Palestinian
fear, anger and humiliation.
First and foremost, the national beliefs held by each side need
to be fully examined and understood by everyone involved. In a 1998
article, Rumania & Bar-Tel point out that both Israelis and
Palestinians both perceive only themselves as historical victims,
and both have legitimate claims to the land. Through systematic
internal indoctrination, each sees the other as an invader. Palestinians
fail to understand the Israeli obsession with security, based on
Israeli's self-perception as an island in an Arab sea, recognizing
that to lose a war is tantamount to disappearance as a nation. Israelis'
fail to understand Palestinians' legitimate claims to the land and
need for a viable state, and that Palestinians see themselves as
having borne the brunt of an oppressive military occupation for
many decades. Both sides assume that through violence they can prevail,
without carefully and logically considering the ultimate outcomes
of such violence.
A basis for solution already exists, in the form of United Nations
Resolution 242 (calling for Israel to withdraw to its 1967 boundaries),
reasonable return/compensation for Palestinian refugees, and the
application of the Fourth Geneva Accords (protecting civilians in
occupied territories). Clearly Jerusalem is a substantial issue,
but it is difficult to foresee any sort of permanent peace in which
any side is barred from a significant presence in the Old City and
absolute access to its holy sites. Both Israeli and Palestinian
security must be guaranteed, but the current situation of one overwhelming
power, both militarily and economic, and one semi-state with no
real territorial integrity or ability to control its destiny, is
clearly doomed to failure. For better or worse, these two great
peoples are bound together forever, and any fantasies about the
desirability of absolute control by either side are a prescription
for violence.
Finally, what is the role of America in this process? Unfortunately,
our claim to be an "honest broker" in this process is
transparently false. One need look no further than our long history
of financial and military support of Israel over the last five decades
($92 billion), or the recent declaration of support of Israel by
70 members of the US Senate. Of such actions is not honest-broker
ship made. It is long past time for us to retire to the sidelines,
and allow this issue to be dealt with by the United Nations, the
European Union and other appropriate international bodies. The alternative
is more decades of oppression, violence and fear. m
From an excerpt of a larger piece called "It's
the Occupation" by William J. (Bill) Thompson, Ph.D (wthomson@umich.edu).
Reprinted with permission from the author. Go to www.zmag.org
for the entire piece.
