by

Ami Isseroff

Below we will examine in detail some of the many myths that dominate discussions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Arab Brotherhood – Palestinians have assumed that Arab countries would line up behind them in their struggle against Israel. This does not seem to be the case, as was plainly evident at recent Arab and Islamic summit meetings that produced no practical result. Egypt and Jordan have benefited from close support by the United States and foreign aid owing to their peace agreements, and are not likely to do anything to upset the United States. Jordanian businessmen likewise oppose breaking ties with Israel. No Arab country is likely to pay more than lip service to Yasser Arafat’s bid for a Palestinian state with sovereignty over East Jerusalem including the Haram as-Sharif (Temple Mount). This would put Arafat in position to claim pan-Arab leadership of the type once sought by Gamal Abdel Nasser for Egypt, and contested by other Arab countries. The Saudis cannot be enthusiastic about Palestinian sovereignty over the Haram as Sharif, which would make Jerusalem a rival to Mecca as a holy site and tourist attraction, as well as giving the Palestinians added importance in Muslim religious affairs. For that matter, King Abdallah of Jordan, whose Hashemite dynasty retains custodianship of the Muslim Holy Places in Jerusalem, is not likely to be happy to relinquish that title. Perhaps it was for this reason that Israel offered Muslim, and not Palestinian, sovereignty over the Haram as-Sharif.

Economic interests may predominate over Muslim brotherhood. The Saudi’s have indirectly invested in several Israeli and American hi-tech firms that want to establish industrial parks in the West Bank, where land is still relatively inexpensive. All Arab countries are aware that a war, like previous wars, may prove very costly to them in territories and lives lost. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that most Arab countries have not rushed off to join a holy war against Israel.

The Camp David II Proposals - A favorite Israeli myth is that Israel made a fair and viable proposal to the Palestinians at the Camp David talks, which the Palestinians refused for inexplicable reasons, or because they had already decided on violence beforehand. It is true that the Israeli proposals went farther than any previous ones, and were certainly more generous than those envisioned by Prime Minister Rabin when the Oslo accords were signed. It is also true that a majority of Israelis indicated they would vote against these proposals, as they understood them, if a referendum were held. It is also true that Israeli PM Barak won praise from US President Clinton for making far-reaching concessions. However, none of the above means that the proposals were fair and viable. Any fair reading of the proposals, as reported by various sources and summarized at MidEastWeb,   would have to conclude that they were not a serious attempt at a permanent solution.

The proposed Palestinian state would be divided into three or more enclaves in the West Bank separated by Israeli territory, with another half-dozen or so mini-enclaves given some form of sovereignty in East Jerusalem. There is no detailed account of how Palestinians would travel between these tracts of land, but it would probably involve a dreary system of checkpoints. The Palestinian border would be separated from Jordan by an Israeli presence, and Israelis would retain control of border crossings. This is not a recipe for founding a viable and sovereign state, nor is it in the interests of Israeli security. There is no way the Palestinian state would be able to maintain an independent economy and customs authority or provide protection to its citizens. The settlement would create numerous points of friction at the various checkpoints, and would endanger Israeli troops and settlers who could become trapped in the numerous small areas of Israeli control in the midst of Palestinian territory.

The Palestinians Need the Violence – This morally bankrupt and politically inept misconception has been advocated by Israeli peace activists as well as by Palestinians, who believe that the Palestinians will achieve with violence what they could not achieve at the negotiating table. Whatever the Palestinians achieved since 1948 has been achieved at the negotiating table, and they only began to make progress toward a state after solemnly undertaking to relinquish violence at Oslo. The resumption of violence as an alternative to negotiations has robbed the Palestinian leadership of credit they had gained as a responsible international authority, and made it much more difficult to convince even moderate Israelis that the Palestinian leadership can be "peace partners."

Separation will Solve Everything – The separation plan being prepared by Israel would supposedly render Israel invulnerable to Palestinian attacks. However, the maps show see that this is impossible without good will and a clear, final and contiguous border. In Jerusalem, Palestinian and Israeli neighborhoods are intertwined in a rather inseparable way. Many Israeli settlements, like the town of Ariel, are surrounded by Palestinian villages or towns. The small settlement in Hebron, which probably cannot be evacuated for political reasons, is located in the midst of a large Palestinian town. The tunnel bypass road to Efrat is surrounded by Palestinian territory and is subject to frequent closure because of the unrest.

Israel could end the violence by force, but the government does not do it for political reasons – If Israel had a good plan for ending the violence, the Israeli government would have used it. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no plan and can be no plan. Any military solution must take into account the reaction of the U.S. and Arab countries, the probability of further escalation in response to Israeli retaliation, and the low tolerance of Israeli society to excessive casualties. Believe it or not, announcing that Israel is annexing Palestinian territory will not endear Israel to the Palestinians or to the world, and will not bring us closer to a solution. Bombing Palestinian towns and starving them out is not going to make them love Zionism either, nor will it earn the support of the EU or the United States. Even supposing that the Palestinians could be starved and beaten into surrender, the facts of the situation would remain the same. Israel would eventually have to decide between giving up the territories or incorporating several million Palestinian citizens. The Palestinians would eventually have to decide between keeping their dreams of returning to Haifa and Jaffa and living in misery, or starting a new life in a state of their own.

It is remarkable that neither side has adopted strategies that could possibly have given them an advantage, because not only the political pundits, but the leaders themselves and even the so-called peace groups, are locked into thinking in terms of violence, force and an adversarial model. Palestinian non-violent protest would advance their cause much more than rocks and machine gun fire, but that course is unlikely to be adopted. Israel could do more to stop the violence and limit bad public relations by using non-lethal crowd control methods, rather than investing in public relations efforts and shooting kids between the eyes.

PeaceWatch - other articles