Israel’s right to exist , Palestinians’ right to live

The thing about an either/or worldview is that it puts people squarely in one camp or the other. Nowhere is this truer than in the Middle East question, that festering boil in a world where there are enough vexing problem spots. It’s almost redundant to ask people where they stand. Enough to know their geopolitical background and their religious faith, if any, and there’s your answer. Any Middle Easterner, any Muslim, including non-Arabs such as Iranians and Turks, will say unequivocally that Israel has to disappear and disappear now rather than later. European and American intellectuals, human rights organizations and activists of all stripes will deplore Israel’s inflexible stance, its harsh retaliatory tactics, and the constant humiliation to which it subjects Palestinians. On the other side, you have Western governments, pro-Israel organizations, the Jews that are part of demographics in almost every country, much of the media, and analysts who try to keep a semblance of reason in political discourse.

The scales may seem weighted against Palestinians but things are more complicated. On the one hand, there’s Israel, a tiny state (democratic, true, but not for their own Arab citizens or for the subjugated Palestinians, much like ancient Greece was a republic of equals except for slaves) fending off constant attacks and questions on its very right to exist. On the other hand, the tragedy of Palestinians–who count some of the most highly educated and superior cadres of a number of countries in the area,including Jordan– violent anti-semitism (a misnomer if there ever was one, given that Arabs are as much Semitic as Jews). The anti-semitism is not different from what the world has always known, except that its anti-Israel or anti-Zionism sentiment becomes a thoroughly acceptable excuse. Every day, my email box gets filled with documentation of nefarious Jewish and Zionist conspiracies—how Jewish media control the world, Jewish lobbies control Congress and the White House, about Dead Sea scrolls, proof absolute that no Jews died on September 11, Finkelstein’s “Holocaust industry,” etc.

I read rants by fellow Iranian-Americans, the most reasonable among them declaring that we shouldn’t take sides as we’re not Arabs and the question doesn’t concern us. Actually, it does concern us. It concerns everyone. It’s a sad judgment on human affairs that after so many talks, round tables, handshakes on the South Lawn and U.N. resolutions, the world cannot see its way to a definitive peace and the divisive Israel-Palestine issue is worse than ever. Examples to follow are not many. South Africa? Yes, white minority and black majority put behind them the so-heavy past history, but they were one people, in one country; any kind of separation would have been unthinkable. Northern Ireland? Same thing—Catholics and Protestants were all Irish. Once the guns fell silent, people could start picking up the broken shards of their lives. But here, consider the situation, what has happened over decades and what little hope there is of a solution. Arafat, as corrupt and flawed as they come but a consummate negotiator, is long gone. Ariel Sharon who, as Defense Minister, bears great responsibility, albeit indirectly, for the Sabra and Chatila massacres and who, upon a visit to the Temple Mount, justified Israel’s oversight of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, sparking the second intifada, completely reversed his position some time after becoming Prime Minister. He kicked thousands of Israeli settlers out of the West Bank, embarked on unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and endorsed the roadmap to peace. Wouldn’t you know it, the devil became anxious at seeing a possible solution take shape and, in 2006, hit Sharon with a stroke.

This week, Mahmoud Abbas is making a case for statehood at the United Nations. Yes, it’s a problem for everyone concerned—for Hamas which prefers to see the plan fail rather than succeed without them, for the United States which has declared that because this action would prevent peace talks (which peace talks, exactly, are we talking about?) from resuming, it would vote against it, for Israel which has vowed punitive action. Why, for heaven’s sake, why? Recognizing Palestine as a state, and bypassing future possible negotiations that will die in the sand as have past ones would not only put all players in front of a fait accompli. It will protect the West Bank, now a sovereign nation, from further Israeli diktats and settlements. It will also protect Israel by helping it regain the capital of good will that has been seriously depleted in recent months.

Netanyahu and his conservative government don’t quite take the measure of the forces they are unleashing, especially now that Turkey and Egypt are withdrawing their support. The Palestinian Authority President is appearing before the United Nations as a supplicant, with a totally empty hand. It would take a bigger man than Netanyahu to invest in the continued existence of Israel by going back to the pre-1967 borders and recognize Palestinian rights, no matter what concerns such as Jerusalem and settlements would remain. It would take a U.S. president showing more resolve than Obama has so far in making difficult decisions. But what would our individual lives be—and the world—if not for our hope that miracles are round the corner? If nothing else, history should tell us that borders can change, countries can merge (see Vietnam) or divide (see Sudan) and past conflicts can seem absurd. Looking back—fifty years, a hundred, a thousand—we wonder at situations that were hopeless then and are quite forgotten now.