What happens when two peoples have title to the same land?

 

A lot of noise is being made in regard to the war between Hamas and Israel.  Sadly, most people around the world are getting misinformation, and sound bites aimed to keep their respective ethnic groups supporting corrupt leaderships.  In the case of the current Middle East conflict, the reality on the ground is much more nuanced than most people are led to believe.

A little over 100 years ago, allied powers forced the Ottoman Empire to divest itself of lands outside of Asia Minor.  This meant that control of lands such as Lebanon and Palestine (I'm using the older meaning of this place name, and not today's meaning here) were ceded to Western powers such as France and the United Kingdom.  Unlike the Ottomans, the French and British ran these lands in a ham-fisted manner.  Neither cared much about the delicate interactions that took place between Christian, Muslim and Jew.  In some cases, the same land was promised to multiple ethnic groups as payment for a temporary peace.

After World War 2, there was pressure on the UK to divide Palestine into a Muslim and a Jewish state.  However, leaders on the Muslim side did not accept compromise, and in the late 1940's Israel had to fight for its right to be a Jewish homeland.  Muslims who stayed on their land and cut peace deals with the Jewish state to be were allowed to stay and have full rights in the Jewish state.  Sadly, the Muslims who fought against the Jewish state to be could not be allowed to return to their ancestrial lands.

Today's Palestine (which contains areas belonging to Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza) is not a two-state solution which has been talked about since the 1940's.  Palestinian Muslims have been herded into both the West Bank and Gaza.  This might not have been such a bad thing, if Jewish settlers hadn't turned the West Bank into a "Swiss Cheese" of a territory - what could have been a Palestinian homeland is dotted with illegal Israeli settlements due to population pressures in the Israeli state.  The Israeli state doesn't care to remove these settlements to lay the groundwork for a healthy Muslim Palestine to evolve.  The people have no political rights.  And what rights they do have are often ignored by the Israeli government for reasons of political expediency. 

To make things worse, the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, and is not trusted by the people.  In the West Bank, they selected Fatah to run a government, and things have been tolerably calm (until now).  But, in Gaza, things are much different.  This part of Palestine is run by Hamas, and hasn't held an election since it took power over 15 years ago.  Unlike Fatah, Hamas has both acted like a government AND retained its goal of the total destruction of Israel.  There is no room for Israel to compromise when its neighbor advocates for Israel's total destruction.

Palestinian Muslims say that the Jews did not have a right to come in and take their land.  But how long should a claim to land exist?  The Jews were pushed out of Palestine by the Romans.  Should their claim to a homeland be denied?  But this question got me to thinking about North America.  Europeans came to North America over 500 years ago, and displaced the native peoples.  Should we be forced out?  How should the legitimate rights of the natives to their land be dealt with?  Does might make right?  In the US, we have evolved a tolerable middle ground (tolerable for "old world" settlers, that is) that allocates "reservations" (unless that have valuable resources) to native tribes.  We have a peace based on both higher population and on superior technology.  The native tribes accept our existence on what was their lands and have found ways to live in peace with us.

A while back, a prominent US politician stated that Israel will either be an apartheid Jewish state with no rights for Palestinian Muslims, or it will be forced to become a non-religious state to survive.  Previous Israeli inaction in regard to the West Bank settlements may have made a two-state solution impossible.  But what does this mean for options which may lead to a meaningful peace?

As I see it, Hamas must be vanquished at all costs.  At the same time, Israel must work with Fatah to make the West Bank a viable, functioning Palestinian state.  Peaceful actions must be rewarded, as much as they may make Israel uncomfortable.  Violence must be crushed with extreme prejudice.  A future Palestinian state may have to be sacrifice Gaza in order to become a truly independent state.  Yet, the question of Gaza remains.  Can Israel destroy Hamas' leadership in Gaza without a scorched earth policy?  No matter what, I expect to see many innocent Gazans die because Hamas wanted to prevent a grand peace deal from becoming reality.

But what can be done?

Muslims and Jews both self-select "news" that supports their own beliefs that they alone should be in control of historical Palestine.  Outside regional forces have reinforced the views on the "Arab street" that Israel can never be up to any good.  Arab media is just as biased as American media outlets such as Fox, Newsmax, and ONN have been in the United States.  Even if one was to force the media outlets to only report objective news without biased opinions from bloviating media stars, it would take generations to undo the damage caused by information biases.

So, what do I see happening?

The Grand Deal regaring Mideast Peace has been scuttled for a while, but it will return.  The Saudis have too much at risk to allow Iran to gain more power.  The Turks (successors to the Ottomans) will try to gain influence in this region, possibly by turning itself into a peace broker.  The Iranians will continue to try to stir up trouble by supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.  But this will be a losing effort, as forces allied with the Saudis and the Turks will quietly work with Israel to defeat Iran.  Israel will get involved in a protracted ar with Hamas, keeping Gazans imprisoned in their small strip of land, as they are a danger to any land that accepts them - including a West Bank Palestinian state.  

Now, what happens to innocent Gazans?

Israel needs to clean Hamas out of Gaza.  It may need to rebuild Gaza as a Hamas free zone and pay for the rebuilding of Gazan infrastructure.  But it will not govern Gaza - this has been proven unworkable in the past.  Part of a potential peace deal might involve the temporary administration of Gaza by a third power, a transitional government and media structure geared to "teach" Gazans how to live in the modern world and demand a government that responds to their needs first.  Until then, we will have war....

Bibi's visit

Both left and right in the USA are following their tribe's "official" position. Sadly, no one is asking the right question - how much of America's security depends on Israel's existence? If we ignore moral dictates on whether Israel should exist or not, do we have any good reasons to preserve the country?

Israel and Palestine are in a deadly embrace, where Israel will likely lose because of demographics. The Haredim are deadbeat leeches, but they are preventing the moderates from cutting a deal. (One could say the same thing about a couple of Palestinian factions.) Unless a two-state solution is enacted soon, Israel will have no choice but implement a single state Apartheid type system where the natives of what might have been called Palestine are even more harshly repressed than they are now - and then cut off from the world, as South Africa was. Can America afford to take the "wrong side" if this happens?

There is an effective taboo in American politics - "Thou shalt not criticize Israel." In the urban areas (mostly Democratic), there is often a sizable and influential Jewish population, with the vast majority supporting Israel's existence, simply as a potential home in case of domestic persecution. In the rural areas (mostly Republican), there is often a sizable Christian fundamentalist population who wants to see Christ's second coming in their lifetime, and will do anything to facilitate it. Israel, more so than fixing Social Security or cutting military spending, is a third rail of American political thought. Touch it at your own peril.

We are now seeing an unholy alliance between America's rural (usually Republicans) politicians (playing to their base) and the hard core Israeli leadership that feels there is no way to ever cut a deal with the Palestinians. This group not only wants to emasculate Palestine, but abort the birth of a new nation. And they have good reasons to do so, considering what Hamas has done in the Gaza Strip. Yet, an equally good case could be made for striking a deal with the moderates, given Israel's relationship with Al Fatah in the West Bank.

Sadly, Congress has made an invitation for Bibi Netanyahu to come to America, so that he can speak to the Senate and House of Representatives. However, this invitation was not made through the State Department or any other part of the Executive branch of government, and protocol does not require our President to even recognize this visit. They want to make it harder for Obama to work with Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. They want to continue the war of words and isolation that started over 35 years ago when our embassy was taken, and hostages held for 444 days. (They conveniently ignore the fact that the USA was actively preparing to overthrow their newly elected government. and that the Iranians had no way to back down the rhetoric against the USA once this proof was pieced together - literally pieced together from shredded paperwork coming from our embassy.) 

In this case, Iran is a side show. The fundamentalists in both countries are afraid of what will happen if Palestine stands on its own. Would it be a threat to Israel? No one knows. Would Palestine accept a foreign presence on its soil to insure it is no threat to Israel? Probably not for long? Could a new Palestinian government hold its people responsible for any attacks on Israel? I doubt it. There are many good reasons for fearing the existence of a healthy Palestine.

Bibi, like many in his political faction, wants to prevent Palestine from ever existing. The illegal settlements have never been removed. Can Palestinians act "responsibly" when they continue to be squeezed out of their own lands? (We've seen this in our own country, with the forced migration of our "Indians" into reservations, and then the mismanagement of their resources by the Bureau Indian Affairs, with no profits being sent back to the native peoples. No wonder why the Indians fought for so long in the West!)

Could Palestine be a peaceful partner of Israel? Given how Jordan works with Israel to deal with water rights, the answer is a maybe. Could Palestine hold off fighting Israel as Egypt has done? I'd hope so. There are many possibilities for Palestine to prosper by having a peaceful and friendly relationship with Israel. But I'm not sure if the Palestinian people would realize this, and accept the fact that they have to co-exist with a powerful Israel.

The reality is - do we want to be on the side of the people who get to write the history books, or do we want to be seen supporting another lost cause - whatever that is? And even more importantly - what is in America's best interest regardless of tribal loyalty?