|
For the first time in seven years, at the insistence of the United States, all major parties in the Middle East met in Annapolis to discuss a comprehensive Mid-East peace arrangement. A general communiqué was issued after the one-day conference, focusing on Israel and the Fatah-dominated Palestinian government once again beginning negotiations. Has there been a change on the part of the Arab governments in terms of Israel? Will there truly be a peace agreement based on the principle of land for peace? Several thoughts:
First, in a most helpful essay, Bernard Lewis zeroes in on the fundamental issue of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel or about the existence of Israel. If the issue is about the size of Israel, then it is a straightforward border question that, at least in theory, can be negotiated. But if the issue is the very existence of Israel then this is a totally different matter. You cannot negotiate a nation state out of existence. As Lewis states, “There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.” The PLO has occasionally dropped diplomatic language that hints at the recognition of Israel’s existence. But as Lewis also observes, “that is not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success.” Unless and until the 20 or so Arabic speaking countries agree to recognize the existence of Israel, there simply cannot be peace. Throughout history, in India, Poland, Germany, etc. various people were resettled or forced to resettle and were accorded the rights of citizenship in their new homes. What happened after 1947-1948 when about 3/4ths of a million Arabs fled or were driven from Israel and found refuge in neighboring Arab countries? Jordan granted these Palestinians a form of citizenship but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they were and remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, all maintained by UN funding. Lewis writes, “Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain or America, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-born children were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth or faith generation.” Why is this the unique case of the Palestinians in these Arab countries? Because of the right-of-return goal of all Arab states. They seek to reclaim all of the West Bank, Gaza and Israel. In other words, the destruction of Israel. No Israeli government will ever approve of this! Therefore, from the Arab perspective, if the issue is the existence of Israel, not its size, then all negotiations are foredoomed. For any degree of optimism about such talks, the Arab states of this region must renounce their goal since 1948—the elimination of the state of Israel. Unless they do so, there is no hope of any meaningful discussion or negotiations. The existence and the legitimate security needs of Israel in this post-Holocaust world must be recognized. That proposition must be the number one agenda item for the 20-member Arab League.
See Lewis’s brilliant essay in the Wall Street Journal (26 November 2007). |
