The Real Worry Should Be Sharon Not Arafat

The second alternative: at an opportune time, Israel could conduct massive violent ethnic cleansing with tanks and troops in which the entire Palestinian population (about three million or more) would be driven out of biblical “Greater Israel” to the Jordan River. Lacking an “opportune time,” a simple escalation of the present policy could starve the Palestinians of land, food, and a livelihood, leaving them no option but to go into exile in the millions. Both these approaches are war crimes under the Geneva Conventions. Either way, for Sharon this would be the completion of his grand design. But where would this leave Israel and the Jewish diaspora? 

Taking over the Palestinian territories and incorporating them officially into the Israeli state would be an illegal land grab, in violation of international law (aside from the war crimes aspect). Certainly, over the years Israel has consistently thumbed its nose at world public opinion and ignored countless UN resolutions, but such a course of action by Israel would push it beyond the pale and it would become a permanent international pariah. Without a doubt Israel would be faced with trade sanctions by a wide range of countries. Forget about any “peace” with the Arab world. Sure, Israel has its weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, but this constant military preparedness would haunt and undermine the state and its people. The Sugar Daddy U.S. will some day have a change of government and, together with concerns about Middle East oil security, it may change its policy towards Israel. What if there wasn’t over $5 billion coming in each year? 

How long before the Israeli people would rue the day they didn’t listen to Ben-Gurion when he advised them in 1967 to withdraw from all the territory they conquered. Or heed the words of the “non-Jewish Jew” Isaac Deutscher who also urged Israel to withdraw to its 1967 boundaries. Deutscher compared the Jews who were fleeing post-Hitler Europe to people jumping out of a burning building and the Palestinians to innocent passersby who were crushed by the fall—the Jews had a right to escape, but they also had an obligation to make amends to the Palestinians. 

What about Diaspora Jews? They can’t influence Israeli policies, but they nevertheless are identified with them, especially since Israel insists on their allegiance. So, unfortunately, the behavior of Israel affects the way many people look at Jews. Misdirected efforts to get back at Israel may put innocent diaspora Jews in harm’s way. Although anti-Semitism has many causes, it can’t just be coincidental that Sharon’s anti-terrorism campaign against the Palestinians has been accompanied by a recent upsurge in anti-Semitism worldwide. Also, Israel’s flouting of UN resolutions and disregard of world public opinion are matters to consider too. 

In my own circle of Jewish friends, they all lament the fact that Judaism’s concern for ethics is being undermined by Israeli policies that make a mockery of this traditional Jewish virtue. Put much more bluntly by Norman Finkel- stein (professor, writer, Holocaust researcher, and the son of survivors of the Holocaust), if Israelis object to being compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis. There’s no question about it, Israeli policies affect the lives of Diaspora Jews. 

Tony Judt’s recent article in the New York Review of Books , “Israel: The Alternative,” is timely, apropos, and challenging. He feels it may be too late to establish a Two-State Solution and hence the most rational alternative is the One-State Solution—as Edward Said had long advocated. This would give all the people in a combined Israel/Palestine state equal citizenship and equal rights—hence a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Palestinians. This might indeed be the most rational solution. Yet, we now have the Geneva Accord, with a seemingly viable Two-State Solution. However, this would never take place under a Sharon government—could one imagine Sharon ordering the dismantling of his cherished settlements, with some 250,000 inhabitants? Hence Judt’s pessimism, but with a challenge for a new solution. 

A leading Israeli historian, Martin van Creveld, in an article a few months back, pointed out that Sharon considers Jordan to be the real Palestinian state, and, by inference, that’s where all Palestinians should eventually be located. As Creveld says, Sharon “has always harbored a very clear plan—nothing less than to rid Israel of the Palestinians.” According to Creveld, Israel has worked out a detailed military plan on how to expel the entire West Bank Palestinian population of two million or more in a lightning strike, all in a matter of about eight days. All that would be required is a suitable pretext and an opportune political moment. There’s a strange ambivalence in the views of the Israeli public on this—over half the population would like to see the settlements dismantled, yet almost half would agree to Palestinian “transfer” under the “right” con- ditions. 

What’s the rationale for the establishment of the settlements in the Occupied Territories? If this was to bring security to Israel, it’s done the opposite. Actually, it’s a clear violation of international law and countless UN resolutions. Why should Israelis be surprised that Palestinians resist being under military occupation? Under international law, they have the right to resist. Though occupation and repression cannot justify terrorism against civilians, the way to end the Palestinian crimes is to end the occupation that inspires the Palestinians to commit them. The response to justified Palestinian anger should be justice, not more repression. As for the constant Israeli refrain for the Palestinians to “stop the violence,” it’s the Palestinians who have suffered almost four times the fatalities that Israel has in the current round of hostilities. 

As for Golda Meir’s comment about Palestinians teaching their children to hate Jews, an article from the Jewish Voice for Peace has this observation: “A Palestinian child who is awakened at dawn by Israeli soldiers demolishing his home and uprooting the family’s olive grove does not need anyone to tell him to hate.” It’s Israeli actions over the past 35 years that have exacerbated previous ill-feelings and have now brought Palestinian anger to a boiling point. At this stage, any kind of solution is not going to be easy, but to pretend that this is all the fault of “sub-human” Arabs and that Israelis are blameless for the violence and hatred that they face is delusional. 

The grim reality of the situation is that the Sharon government appears to have no intention of concluding any kind of “peace agreement” that would bring about a fair and just solution to the region’s problems. They intend to “solve” the problem with military force and if that doesn’t work, more military force would be applied, until there is a “solution” to the Arab problem—the eventual expulsion of the Palestinian population—and the achievement of a territorial Greater Israel. 

There are two courses of action that Israel would be wise to reject. The first is to simply maintain the present status quo, which in a fairly short time will devolve into an apartheid regime with ever increasing military repression trying to control an ever enlarging Palestinian population, bereft of any democratic rights. The second is the almost unthinkable proposal to conduct massive ethnic cleansing to remove the Palestinian population (passively or violently) in order to create a majority Jewish state within a substantial part of biblical Greater Israel. 

Israel does have two alternatives that could enable its people to live at peace with the Palestinians and with its Arab neighbors. The first is the Two-State Solution that could perhaps come about from the implementation of the Geneva Accord. The second is a One-State Solution, which would give the people of a combined Israel/Palestine state equal citizenship and equal rights— i.e., a single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Palestinians. Both alternatives present challenges, but with either one there could be a prospect for peace in the region.