A detached, unemotional analysis of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict must conclude that Palestinians in particular, and Arabs in general have demonstrated little, if any power to influence Israel to end its illegal occupation, end the siege on Gaza, halt construction of the segregation wall, and dismantle the settlements. A quick stroll in recent history offers ample proof.
The first intifada in 1987 may have won world sympathy towards the Palestinian cause and exposed Israel’s immorality and brutality. It also put a dent in Israel’s tourism and services sector. But the outcome was an imploded Oslo Peace Process which did not, even in the letter of the agreement let alone in action, yield to any of the Palestinian’s rights, rights already recognized by the UN and the International Community. The only outcome was a bland recognition by Israel of the PLO, while on the land, the expansion of settlements went into high gear under Rabin. In the words of Edward Said, the “Intifada was squandered.”
The second intifada, an understandable outburst of a suppressed people, at a high cost in life and material did not bring the Palestinians any closer to realizing even the slightest of their aspirations.
The Saudi-inspired peace plan, adopted by the Arab Summit in Beirut in 2002, was completely ignored by Israel and the U.S.
So it warrants to stop and ask: Where is all this leading to?
There are at least three possibilities: Withdrawal from the West Bank, annexation of part or all of the West Bank, or maintenance of the status quo.
The problem with the first possibility, withdrawal from the West Bank, is that if history is any indication of the future, then only through radical change can this option be seriously entertained. Any independent examiner of Israel’s behavior and actions will have to contend that Israel, Likud or Labor, has not been interested in a land-for-peace deal.
At least 38% of the settlers are religious Zionists, are vehemently opposed to relocation, and their votes count. The position of the current Israeli government has been against withdrawal, and a large constituency in the U.S., the Christian Zionists, numbering in the tens of millions and with a felt weight in Washington (a resource in AIPAC’s hands,) are against withdrawal. They see Israel, and the settlers in particular, as fulfilling God’s biblical prophecy by filling the holy land with Jews. In addition, from an expansionist, militant, paranoid (self administered or real) perspective, these settlers see themselves and are seen by some westerners as being on the front lines, protecting the Western civilization against Islamic radicalism and tyranny (while conveniently ignoring their own.)
On the flip side, many Americans including professors, think tanks, Jew and non-Jew alike, are for withdrawal, some on moral grounds, others—considering long-term sustainability— on pragmatic ones. The most notable is J-street, a new Jewish lobby in the U.S. that is for a two state solution and for ending the occupation. They fear that a continuation of the status quo will ultimately result in the annexation of the West Bank to Israel. Which brings us to the second possibility.
J-Street, some Jewish Americans and some Israelis worry that annexation will make it impossible for the expanded Israel to maintain a stable Jewish majority and remain democratic. Palestinians will ultimately demand equal voting rights like in South Africa, which, in due time, will become increasingly difficult to deny.
Unless, of course—a second wave of ethnic cleansing is to take place.
Netanyahu, for one, has expressed time and again a desire to expel Palestinians out. As deputy foreign minister and as far back as 1989, speaking to students at Tel Aviv’s Bar Ilan University in Israel, he said:
“Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.” (Israeli Journal Hotam, November 24, 1989)
He’s recently also expressed similar desires.
Abbas on December 17th, 2009, at the Al-Quds Capital of Arab Culture festival in Nablus, made a statement that Israel plans to expel Palestinians out of Jerusalem at a time when that city has been undergoing major settlement expansion.
Another tactic that Israel may use to handle the demographic problem is to instigate violence as a pretext to kill more Palestinians—since the beginning of the conflict, they’ve maintained a ratio of at least six to one –they kill six Palestinians for every Israeli killed. Add to that home demolitions, forced evictions, more unbearable restrictions and they could herd more Palestinians into Bantustans behind the wall and alter demographics in their favor. A quick glance at the segregation wall map shows that about 37% of the West Bank, including Jerusalem, and significant fertile land is outside the wall, i.e. on the side of Israel. This would be the most natural and immediate area to annex while facing perhaps only “manageable” demographic challenges.
The third possibility is the maintenance of the status quo. This means a continuation of settlement expansion which will lead to a significant number of Jews living in the West Bank, very busy making babies, altering the demographics. Currently, 17% of the West Bank is Jewish, but settler birthrate is three times that of other Israelis, and significantly higher than the Palestinian West Banker: In the West Bank, birth rate for Jews is 35.7 per 1000, Palestinians is 26 per 1000. In addition to taking up more land illegally, their constituency will, in the future, show more force in the Knesset. Finally, the status quo has to lead to some level of annexation.
In all three paths, particularly in the second and third ones, there is no room for a viable Palestinian state. The West Bank has already been cut to pieces and Gaza is completely isolated.
The only power that could force Israel to change is the U.S. But the U.S. has to change first. Congress, particularly the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House, and Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, have been for a while now completely manipulated by AIPAC. Unabated, that Jewish lobby, representing the Israeli government’s interests, has been calling all the shots. Now, with J-Street, there is a counter voice which might steer us away from madness, but which will take a while to gain influence.
And what about us—Arabs, Palestinians, Americans, and other citizens of the world that are pained by Israel’s policies? Are we mere bystanders, waiting for the roll of die in the hand of external interests to determine Palestinian destiny?
There are four million Americans with Arab ancestry, one third of which live in California, New York, and Michigan. About 94% live in metropolitan areas: Los Angeles, Detroit, New York/NJ, Chicago and Washington, D.C. If mobilized, the votes in these important states and districts can impact candidates in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Various such organizations in the U.S. have flourished. If they unite and join forces with J-Street, and establish a common, agreed-upon platform, we should be able to avoid what appears to be an impending catastrophe.
In all cases, the future looks messy.
Tags: Israeli Palestinian Conflict, Israeli Palestinian conflict forecast