Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Annapolis And "The Jewish Question"

From Bernard Lewis:

On the Jewish Question
November 26, 2007; Page A21 , Wall Street Journal

Herewith some thoughts about tomorrow's Annapolis peace conference, andthe larger problem of how to approach the Israel-Palestine conflict. The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not)is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically twopossibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about itsexistence.

If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have astraightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, noteasy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, thenclearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel isgoing to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse inforeign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches andreligious 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. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the morethan 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much largernumber of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist asIslamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

A good example of how this problem affects negotiation is themuch-discussed refugee question. During the fighting in 1947-1948, about three-fourthsof a mllion Arabs fled or were driven (both are true in different places) from Israel and found refuge in the neighboring Arab countries. In the same period and after, a slightly greater number of Jews fled or were drivenfrom Arab countries, first from the Arab-controlled part of mandatoryPalestine (where not a single Jew was permitted to remain), then from the Arabcountries where they and their ancestors had lived for centuries, or insome places for millennia. Most Jewish refugees found their way to Israel.

What happened was thus, in effect, an exchange of populations notunlike that which took place in the Indian subcontinent in the previous year,when British India was split into India and Pakistan. Millions of refugeesfled or were driven both ways -- Hindus and others from Pakistan to India,Muslims from India to Pakistan. Another example was Eastern Europe atthe end of World War II, when the Soviets annexed a large piece of eastern Poland and compensated the Poles with a slice of eastern Germany. Thistoo led to a massive refugee movement -- Poles fled or were driven from the Soviet Union into Poland, Germans fled or were driven from Poland intoGermany.

The Poles and the Germans, the Hindus and the Muslims, the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, all were resettled in their new homes and accorded thenormal rights of citizenship. More remarkably, this was done withoutinternational aid. The one exception was the Palestinian Arabs inneighboring Arab countries.

The government of Jordan granted Palestinian Arabs a form ofcitizenship, but kept them in refugee camps. In the other Arab countries, they wereand remained stateless aliens without rights or opportunities, maintainedby U.N. funding. Paradoxically, if a Palestinian fled to Britain orAmerica, he was eligible for naturalization after five years, and his locally-bornchildren were citizens by birth. If he went to Syria, Lebanon or Iraq, he and his descendants remained stateless, now entering the fourth orfifth generation.

The reason for this has been stated by various Arab spokesmen. It isthe need to preserve the Palestinians as a separate entity until the timewhen they will return and reclaim the whole of Palestine; that is to say,all of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israel. The demand for the "return"of the refugees, in other words, means the destruction of Israel. This ishighly unlikely to be approved by any Israeli government.

There are signs of change in some Arab circles, of a willingness toaccept Israel and even to see the possibility of a positive Israelicontribution to the public life of the region. But such opinions are only furtivelyexpressed. Sometimes, those who dare to express them are jailed orworse.

These opinions have as yet little or no impact on the leadership.Which brings us back to the Annapolis summit. If the issue is not thesize of Israel, but its existence, negotiations are foredoomed. And in lightof the past record, it is clear that is and will remain the issue, untilthe Arab leadership either achieves or renounces its purpose -- to destroy Israel. Both seem equally unlikely for the time being.

No comments: