Lens of History Reveals Rationale Analytical Dialouge Key to Peaceful, Efficient Solution

Author: Michael Greene

Paralleling the escalation of violence in the Middle East, Middlebury's own two warring factions have recently upgraded their rhetorical firepower in our homeland propaganda war. In this battle of opinions, however, both sides have unfortunately managed to ignore the inclusion of historical fact into their arguments.

In the examination of the current crisis in the Middle East through the long-forgotten lens of history, we have a better chance of ascertaining the rational motivations on each side of the conflict. Dialogue based in such analysis is probably more productive towards finding a peaceful and efficient solution than merely jumping to the conclusions that Israel's refusal to concede to every Palestinian territorial demand is the result of an imperial quest for regional dominance, that the Palestinians seek nothing but the killing of as many Israeli citizens as possible, or that, as Wasim Rahman '02 stated ("Propagandist Posters Provide Disturbing Implications," The Middlebury Campus, May 1, 2002) and as Shahan Mufti '03.5 implied ("The 'War on Extremism' Must Begin on Home Turf," The Middlebury Campus, May 1, 2002), that Hillel (and the United States, to a certain extent) has pledged blind allegiance to a foreign government.

To the extent that there remains any practical, tangible goal of the current violence in Israel, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Authority centers around the occupation by Israel of the West Bank of the Jordan River, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights, all seized after the Six Day War of 1967, comprising what would serve as a potential site for the creation of a Palestinian state. This war originated when Egypt and Syria massed their armies on the Israeli border and the Egyptian leader publicly called for the Jews to be literally pushed into the sea. Israel responded with a pre-emptive strike on the air forces of its enemies and the invasion and eventual seizure of the aforementioned lands, as well as Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, which the Israelis considered to be more defensible borders.

Throughout this period, Yasser Arafat organized the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) for the cause of the Arab Palestinians, whose plight was not addressed by the initial peace plan between Israel and the Arab world after the 1948 War of Israeli Independence. Furthermore, even after Israel traded "Land for Peace" with Egypt and Syria under American guidance, the lands on which a Palestinian state would be situated were and still are under the control of Israel. Arafat's goal of giving a homeland to the Palestinian people won him the Nobel Peace Prize to which Mr. Mufti alludes in his article, but the methods of his organization for achieving that admirable end, including his recent support for the suicide bombings of civilian targets, have rightfully distinguished him from George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, and labeled him a terrorist.

Israel's motivation, on the other hand, is perhaps best described by a comparison with our own United States of America. That is, Israel, like the United States when it was only 54 years old (Israel's age as an independent state), is imbued with justified security paranoia. Just like the United States, Israel earned its independence from the British Empire by fighting, and was born into a world of hostile neighbors. Israel's paranoia becomes even more justified than ours in light of the recognition that whereas the American forefathers feared that the entrenched interests of European monarchies wished to destroy the experiment of democracy and retake their colonial possessions, Israel's enemies fight not only its system of governance, but its very existence.

When the United States had achieved what it thought was a secure position in the international order, it was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, an act that appalled our nation to the point that it felt compelled to drop not one, but two nuclear bombs on mainland semi-civilian targets.

Israel's World War II was the 1973 Yom Kippur War, though its regional implications were even greater than the global implications of our own conflict. The surprise attack on Yom Kippur by Egypt, Syria and Iraq is tantamount to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor — presuming that Pearl Harbor had occurred on Christmas Eve and involved a simultaneous landing by the Italians on New York Harbor and an invasion by the Nazis through the Gulf of Mexico. Imagine then the severity of our reprisals!

Like the United States, Israel came out of this trial by fire of its adolescence the unquestioned master of its world and has not been challenged until very recently, when the emergence of centrally-planned, large-scale terrorism as the weapon of choice nullified the effectiveness of its (and the United States') formidable defense force.

The fact that Israel elected Ariel Sharon, a war criminal who should have been rotting in prison well before he had the chance to campaign for prime minister, becomes much more easily explained when viewed through this lens. Unfortunately, it makes Sharon's collective reprisals and, pending more information on the recent battle of Jenin, his war crimes no less repulsive. However, viewing the Middle East in the context of such warranted fear makes it easier to understand how Israel, like us in our response to the ruthless attacks by al-Qaeda, has been forced by historical example to view the international system through the crudest and most hopeless self-help glasses.

This short and violent history of the Jewish state demonstrates an alternative interpretation to Mr. Rahman's assertion that Jewish settlements are a blatant attempt at opposing Palestinian statehood and a Mussolini-esque quest to restore Israel to its biblical dimensions. That is, the occupied territories are mostly populated by a people that share linguistic, ethnic, cultural and ideological ties with states that three times have threatened Israel's very existence. If, therefore, the occupation occurred to guarantee the security of Israel against breeches by these very states, it is perfectly logical that the Israelis should populate these regions with citizens loyal to their government in order to prevent collusion by the Palestinians with belligerent external influences.

Mr. Rahman is correct in asserting that a feasible Palestinian state may only exist if Israeli settlement is curtailed. However, the above logical exercise should show exactly why Israeli security must be guaranteed at all costs for that to occur. Whether or not a collection of overzealous whiners calling themselves the "New Left" thinks it is a misguided approach, the United States cannot and will not, under any circumstances, let any reorganization come to pass whereby the Middle East's only liberal democracy is not secure as a state.

In order for peace to occur, terrorists like Yasser Arafat and war criminals like Ariel Sharon must not be allowed a controlling influence in the peace process. Aside from the fact that both men deserve mention in Bush's "Axis of Evil," they have each been directly responsible, justified or not, for too many enemy kills to ever again be trusted by the population of their respective opponents. It will be easier then to throw aside the worthless rhetoric each side has aimed at the world press detailing the horrible atrocities the other has committed.

The one immutable characteristic of all peoples in human history has been the willingness to resort to any means to achieve the end of security. If the Arabs have more rhetorical ammunition in this case, it is only because the Israelis are carrying out their atrocities more efficaciously. If there exist Israeli "refusniks" (Katya Levitan '02, "Levitan Slams Rahman's Rhetoric," The Middlebury Campus, May 1, 2002), they must have Palestinian counterparts, neither of whom should be described as anything other than forward-thinking peace-lovers (and not cowards). They realize that o
nly in the simultaneous recognition of the legitimate right of Israel to guarantee the security of its borders and the equally legitimate right of the Palestinian people to govern themselves can a possible solution occur.