Peace In The Middle East

The irony seems to be lost on the world that the number of Palestinians who claim to have been made refugees by the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was more than equalled by the number of Jews who were forced out of Arab countries where they had lived for hundreds of years and more, at the advent of Israel's statehood. There are no encampments, towns and cities full of Jewish refugees.

There are no Jewish refugees and their hordes of descendants clamouring for return to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Morocco and Lebanon. Like the Palestinians who were bidden to flee by their Arab brethren who assured them it would be a temporary absence, and they took with them keys to their properties, the Jews expelled from the lands of their ancestors left behind their worldly goods, confiscated by the states that threw them out.

The Palestinians who flooded into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Kuwait settled in refugee camps, because they understood they were not to be absorbed into the general population. Nor did they wish that for themselves; instead they harboured a deep and abiding belief that they would eventually return to take possession of the land they had fled. The once-Jewish quarter of Beirut became a Hezbollah stronghold. Supreme irony.

The 'refugees' were encouraged to believe that Israel's presence was a temporary aberration. That the combined military prowess and armaments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq would destroy the fledgling state. When that didn't happen, they were assured by their irredentist leaders that their time would come. Never to let the dream of 'return' fade, to keep it fresh because it was attainable.

The public assertions of final acceptance of reality, that the Jewish state was there for good, were belied by private assurances that the Palestinians would prevail in their battle against the occupiers and one day re-possess all the land that was rightfully theirs, absorbing the land that Israel sat upon. That day, it would seem finally to the Palestinian Authority, fast approaches.

A clever public relations campaign, infiltration of Palestinian supporters throughout the international community, portraying the Palestinians as suffering refugees and the Israelis as brutal occupiers has been successful in turning the liberal-left in the West, and non-aligned and Muslim-sympathetic countries to the side of the Palestinians' plight.

The opportunity that had been presented to the Palestinians in 1947 with the UN-declared Partition of the Palestinian geography was accepted with alacrity by Israel, rejected with disdain and anger by the Palestinians. Now the Palestinians have in mind to resurrect that offer, to present themselves prepared unilaterally as a new state adjacent the 'other' one.

Since there has been no peace accord agreed to and signed, the putative neighbours would remain at war with one another, since one-half of the Palestinian Authority ruled by Hamas clearly declares its intention to destroy Israel, while Fatah does the same, but discreetly. Without a clear and decisive agreement between Israel and the PA before the initiation of a State of Palestine, war would be the outcome. Again.

Even before Israel became an officially authorized state, it was a de facto state-in-waiting. It had worked diligently to ensure it had most of the civil infrastructure it needed in place, well established; it had a functioning military which even in its nascent state was capable of defeating a combined Arab army intent on destroying it. It had the political institutions it needed, and it had superb leaders.

The Palestinian Authority has been given a clear light and praise from the World Bank, with the acknowledgement that the West Bank is thriving and has become economically viable, and with the assistance of the U.S., has an effective police force, and through the work of the UN it has learned how to administer itself.

But all of this has been accomplished with outside assistance, and it has been funded for generations by the international community. What manner of independent viability does this represent? And what kind of social/political stability will result from Fatah and Hamas once again agreeing to agree between themselves?

Their fundamental animosities and tribal antipathies, their political differences, their religious polarization, one secular, the other Islamist does not bode well for the future. The vicious conflict that took place between them when Hamas asserted violent control over Gaza set the final stage to demonstrate their different agendas.

The one matter on which they concur is their loathing for the presence of the State of Israel. Is that enough in common to forge a lasting relationship? In the finest tradition of Arab countries, tribal and clan and sectarian violence has always been the path to settling differences of opinion and values. So what kind of stable nation will this turn out to be?

The Arab Spring has focused attention on other matters, the wish of young Arabs to live within their own societies that reflect universal social values, equality, the rule of law, human normatives in gender relationships and above all, prosperity leading to full employment for the newer generation. Again, here too there is the common narrative of detestation for Jews and Israel.

Much of which has been deliberately groomed and encouraged by the ruling elite. For dictatorships, theocracies and sheikdoms that rule firmly as oppressive regimes entitled to the wealth of the nation without any of it trickling down to the larger population have always required an escape valve for the frustrations of their citizens.