In light of the current violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories, as well as President Clinton's efforts to facilitate the peace process, it may be worthwhile to try to understand why the Palestinians think the way they do. We, in the United States, have a general idea about the Israeli position. We understand that security concerns unlike any we can comprehend dominate Israel policy formulation. We saw President Clinton and Mr. Barak offer concessions that had never even been considered before. We wonder why such concessions were not enough to move Mr. Arafat and his chief negotiator, Mr. Ereket, any closer to a solution. What were they thinking? This article is intended to give you some background as to why the other 14 members of the UN Security Council officially condemned recent Israeli actions without making similar overtures toward the Palestinians and have repeatedly taken similar actions in the past. My intent is to give an idea of the Palestinian outlook and, to the degree I am able, how it was developed.The Past - A Thumbnail Sketch of Events Significant to the Palestinians.
In the interests of brevity, I will limit my discussion to activities of the last 100 or so years. This is not to say that events prior to that don't have an impact on the thinking of some of the people involved but, for the most part, they add more grist to the mill of the hawks than the peacemakers. For centuries, the Palestinian Christian and Muslim residents lived more or less amicably with their Jewish neighbors. While it would be untrue to say that the three communities never had disputes, it would be fair to say that they got along better than similarly diverse neighboring groups in any metropolitan area in the U.S. I will also keep my discussion devoid of religious interpretation. I think that any argument that starts with "God wants it this way..." can only start more arguments. These arguments are generally based on something other than reason and tend to nudge each side toward extremism. Suffice it to say that the Bible, Koran, and Torah are different. I don't think any of these books says that God promised Palestine to the Ottoman Turks and they held control of it for a greater part of the last 1000 years than anybody else.
Near the end of the Ottoman period, at the start of the 1900s , the United Nations estimates that the population of Palestine was about 500,000. British estimates hold that it may have been closer to 700,000. The breakdown by ethnicity was about 85% Palestinian Muslim, 10% Palestinian Christian, and 5% Jewish. Just prior to the turn of the century, a journalist named Theodor Herzl, living in Austria, first extolled the concept of what was to be referred to as "Political Zionism", the concept of creating a homeland for the Jewish people. A few options were suggested for such a place with sub-Saharan Africa, Argentina, and Palestine as possibilities. Herzl pushed for Palestine because of historical ties to the area and the fact that, by his reckoning, the area was essentially uninhabited (by Jews?). Herzl also lived in the hotbed of anti-Jewish sentiment growing in the area running from Germany through the Balkans with its epicenter probably somewhere near the cafes of Vienna. Like many Jewish leaders of the time, Herzl understood that it didn't really matter where they went as long as they didn't stay where they were. Within ten years, the Jewish percentage of the population of Palestine grew from 11% to 17%. In 1917, the British Foreign Secretary, and former Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour promised a Jewish national homeland to prominent Jewish leaders in Europe, in the form of the Balfour Declaration. A minor problem with this declaration is that, in order to win its fight with Turkey, Britain had made promises to a number of Arab leaders as well. One such promise was called the McMahon-Hussein pact: While the British would hold a mandate on the region, it would essentially be governed by the Arabs who lived there, such as the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Hussein. The two promises seemed at odds and, after massive Jewish migration started as the situation in Europe became more and more harsh, the Arabs protested to the international community and Britain. The British, although sympathetic to the plight of European Jews, set about, finally, to stem the flow of immigration to the area.
After the end of World War II, the situation would reach a peak when three Jewish groups born during the war in Europe to sabotage the Axis and promote Jewish interests - the Stern Gang (also called "Lehi"), Haganah (often referred to as the military arm of Lehi), and Irgun - began a program of violent acts to further their goals of a Zionist homeland in Palestine. The Zionist land acquisition efforts which had started early in the century with peaceful purchases from local owners, achieved the other extreme when the three groups started a systematic drive to expel the Palestinian Muslims and Christians in what could now only be referred to as ethnic cleansing. Their aggression was also aimed at England: In July 1946, the King David Hotel, which housed the British Army Command Headquarters and Palestine Government Secretariat, was blown up by Zionist extremists. Although estimates vary, a death toll of about ninety, with over a hundred more injured is probably accurate. The British government issued warrants for the arrests of the perpetrators of the terrorism, including a young Jewish Nationalist named Menachem Begin. As Zionist attacks on British targets and local Arabs increased, Britain asked the U.N. for help in coming up with an amicable solution.
Their efforts culminated in U.N. Resolution 181, dated November 29, 1947, which divided Palestine (in a way guaranteed to lead to war - a map of the plan appears below) with a patchwork of non-contiguous areas for both states. The plan gave more than 50% of the land to the Jewish settlers, with slightly less for the Palestinians, and Jerusalem established as an international city, owned by no single entity. At the time, this was not considered acceptable by either side. The Jewish groups believed that they had been promised the land in the Balfour Declaration and the Arab groups were enraged at the prospect of being thrown out of the homes that their families had lived in for centuries. Jewish groups continued their policy of expelling the Muslim and Christian residents and Arab groups went on strike and continued to petition the international community for help.
As the end of the British Mandate approached in 1948, the Zionist groups became more aggressive. Among their exploits include the complete destruction of the town of Dayr Yasin, where all of the nearly 300 citizens of the Arab village were slaughtered. Quickly, the Europeans that came were clearing every Christian and Muslim village to make room for new owners. After word of the events of Dayr Yasin spread, the process went fairly quickly. To make matters worse, some local Arab leaders exaggerated the carnage in an attempt to elicit support from neighboring Arab countries. It only increased Arab emigration. A particularly good account of the process was written by a Palestinian Christian reverend, himself one of those expelled from his village, named Elias Chacour, in his book, "Blood Brothers". The U.N., without a force to impose its will, and Britain, tired of fighting, disengaged. After its May 1948 declaration of statehood, Israel was immediately attacked by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon which, with a modicum of western help, it survived. It annexed West Jerusalem, with Jordan retaining control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Egypt controlling the Gaza Strip; 150,000 Arabs become Israeli citizens with limited rights. Many more than that fled to surrounding countries, especially Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. None of these countries had economies capable of absorbing the huge influx of people and the internal politics of each was negatively affected. The first Palestinian refugee camps outside of Palestine/Israel were born. The Palestinians plead again for support from the U.N. It sent an ambassador from Sweden, Count Bernardotte, to find a compromise solution during a cease-fire. Although it is assumed that he was preparing to side with the Palestinians and recommend Israel be asked to give back land it had taken, we will never be sure as Count Bernardotte was assassinated by members of Lehi on 17 September 1948.
In 1967, Israel attacked Jordan, Egypt, and Syria in what it referred to as a pre-emptive strike. It took the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt. In Resolution 242, the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously to condemn Israel saying that it had acted aggressively and that it should withdraw from these lands. Israel refused. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Egypt and Syria attacked to try to seize back some of the land lost in 1967. With U.S. assistance, Israel repelled the attack. In 1977, Egypt got the Sinai back by signing a peace treaty with Israel. Anwar Sadat shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Menachem Begin but within three years, Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and Sadat had been assassinated. In March 1978, Israel invaded Lebanon following a PLO raid. After U.N. intervention, Israel backed to its border but kept troops stationed in Lebanon in a self-imposed buffer zone. In December, 1981, Israel annexed the Golan Heights. In June of 1982, Israel invaded southern Lebanon again. The Israeli artillery bombardment of Beirut lasted 88 days, long after any military target had been destroyed. As of this writing, it had not pulled out completely, although it made overtures to that effect and moved most of its troops to the southern edge of the country.
Another equally disturbing event happened in Lebanon. Two refugee camps had been established just outside of Beirut, called Sabra and Shatila. As Israeli Defense Forces sealed off the entrances and exits, Israeli-backed Lebanese militia entered the camps and attempted to kill nearly every man, woman, and child. The death toll at the massacre was estimated at over 3000 people. Then-Israeli Defense Minister, General Ariel Sharon was deemed to have had previous knowledge of and likely helped in the planning of the operation. Many Israelis were as horrified as the rest of the world and some 400,000 of them protested the bloodbath. As a result, Sharon was expelled from the Israeli Cabinet. This is the same Ariel Sharon whose visit to the Dome of the Rock/Temple Mount set off the current hostilities.
Finally, although not violent per se, but perhaps more vexing than anything to the Palestinians, are the settlements. Most of us have little concept of the idea but it's a simple one. Israel, trying to grow into areas previously considered Palestinian, builds neighborhoods (which are guarded by the IDF) and encourages its citizens to move into them. It then pushes the people who are already living there to move out. When former Prime Minister Netanyahu was arguing for agreements with the Palestinians he was building new settlements at an alarming rate. These settlements have continued throughout. The likelihood of peace is minimal as long as the settlement issue remains unresolved.
Current Perspectives and Outlook for the Future.
The Palestinians know that they are not without guilt. Most abhor the violent acts performed in their name and want only to live in peace. Unlike in 1948, most have come to the realization that there is and will be a state of Israel, although many still refer to it as "Occupied Palestine." The primary desire of the Palestinians is to have a country where they can enjoy the same individual freedoms they enjoyed when the country that is now Israel was their home. They understand that Yasser Arafat and the PLO have performed violent acts but have a difficult time understanding why their efforts to create a state are any different than their Israeli counterparts like Menachem Begin, his replacement as Prime Minister, Yitzchak Shamir, and a litany of other top leaders in the Israeli government who began as extremists as well. They would remind the world that the Stern Gang, Haganah, and Irgun taught them everything they know (the hard way).
 |
|---|
The Palestinians will admit to the mistakes of a desperate people, but their biggest complaint is the one-sided story that is told here in the U.S. They have a tough time understanding why the apartheid and ethnic cleansing that America fought in South Africa and Yugoslavia would be acceptable when directed at them. They then grow jaded when they realize that the reasons for our demonstrated antipathy toward them may take the shape of dollar signs as they realize that most estimates put PAC donations of the Pro-Israel lobby at 200-500 times what is spent by Pro-Arab sources. Almost every national office-holder gets a donation and that makes the Palestinians cynical.
The ironic thing about the Palestinians is how they mix this cynicism with unwavering hope that this thing will work out and peace will be achieved. I spoke to three Arab friends, two of them Palestinian, the other from Lebanon, as the latest Camp David Summit was going on. I expressed surprise that Prime Minister Barak had floated the idea of some level of Palestinian control of Jerusalem. They explained that Israeli leaders had said that before in the past and that as nice as it sounds, it's just rhetoric to make them sound open-minded in western ears. They said thanks for the concern but it simply wasn't really on the table and I should assume that it wouldn't happen. I also said that it looked like Israel was ready to make serious land concessions this time. They said two things in response: first," I'll believe it when I see it", and second, something to the effect that they are talking about giving back 90% of some of the areas that the U.N. told them to give 100% of back, 33 years ago. They're offering to give us small parts of our own land. Pardon us if we're not ready to give everyone a big hug yet (note: criticism is theirs, sarcasm is mine). Their math checked out, by the way. The optimism came through, though. Maher Tamimi, an Arabic language professor at the Defense Language Institute, was quick to add that this is all cause for hope: "When they are talking, they aren't shooting. Most Palestinians chose peace as their option. When Palestinians were given the opportunity to elect their representatives in the West Bank and Gaza, the majority of them voted for the PLO leadership which adopted the peace approach versus other organizations that were not supportive of the peace process." He states further that he doesn't hate Israelis; he simply wants a safe place in Palestine for his family. Maher is single; the rest of his family still lives in Hebron, where two of his brothers are doctors who have been attending to the victims of the current bloodshed. Maher loves America and his life here and wants to show himself as an example of what Palestinians are really like as opposed to the stereotype often portrayed in movies and on television.
As of this writing, the Israeli electoral process was in full swing with the odds strongly favoring the same Ariel Sharon I spoke of earlier. Ehud Barak was reluctant to give up his seat to Shimon Peres, who could conceivably beat Sharon. Barak will lose if he chooses this tack, which is unfortunate because the peace process will end with his administration. A Sharon victory will almost guarantee a regional war. He has discussed giving the Palestinians about half of what Barak promised and moving IDF forces into the Sinai which Egypt will not be able to tolerate. Hosni Mubarak will be forced to react or lose all political power. Additionally, prices at the gas pump will increase and global terrorism will triple. Sharon will pay one benefit for the Arab/Islamic world: he will create greater unity in the region than it has seen in a long time. Iran and Iraq will again become major players and their ties to former enemies will be cozier than ever. From a U.S. foreign policy perspective, a Sharon administration is a worst-case scenario. If somehow, Barak pulls off a miracle, peace is still possible. His mandate will not be strong in any event and short-term public safety needs will be paramount. From a U.S. perspective, however, even the weakest Barak is better than Sharon. The Palestinians may not be able to bend on some things but many of them trust Barak and his strongest supporters in Israel during this election will likely be the 10-12% Arab population of the Israel.
What it seems many Palestinians really want from the U.S. is a global leader that is willing to tell both sides that they must live together. One that is not afraid to tell Israel that it is not always right no matter what it does. The United States currently gives Israel between 2 and 4 billion dollars in aid every year, depending on how you measure it. A pledge to withhold some or all of that money until peace is worked out, Jerusalem is either divided or an international city, and there exists a Palestinian state with the rights that Israeli citizens are guaranteed, might make the situation a little more peaceful. It would also have secondary benefits such as increasing stability in the Middle East, and keeping prices at the gas pump a little lower. Not doing these things costs us a few billion a year and gains us nothing.
Post Script:
Update: As you know, Ehud Barak did not acquiesce to Shimon Peres and got destroyed by Sharon at the polls mostly because of serious security fears of most Israeli citizens and an almost complete boycott by Israeli Arabs, who had supported Barak in the previous election by 90%, but who had lost faith in him. Ariel Sharon has not disappointed, turning off the peace process and nullifying the Oslo Accords in his first days in office. His administration is reported to have already proposed legislation to the Knesset asking it to legalize torture in the interrogation of prisoners. New settlements have continued to grow, unabated, as well. It is my guess that these developments, along with the predictable Palestinian reaction to them, will not greatly enhance the peace process. It will get worse before it gets better. It appears that U.S. policy may be leaning toward a hand-off approach, suggesting that the Israelis and the Palestinians solve the problems themselves. This neglects a few irrefutable facts. First, the Israelis aren't interested in drawing hard lines in the ground and saying, "That side is yours and this side is mine". They want it all. They're historically insecure about their borders and with some good reason. They are expansionist as a method of feeling secure; the continued settlements demonstrate that amply. Second, for negotiations to work, both sides must have some power to wield. The Palestinians have none - Israel with all the weapons, the money, and guaranteed U.S. support at the U.N. have all of it. It's much easier to negotiate if you're holding an M-16 and your opposite number is holding a broom stick. The Israelis have no need to negotiate and, with Sharon at the helm, won't. For peace to have a snowball's chance, the U.S. must take a more active role, not less. The prospects are clearly not good with Sharon in power. As I said before, it will get worse before it gets better.