Peace of the Damned
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
"PEACE OF THE DAMNED"
For two years, now, Israel and the Arabs have engaged in bi-
lateral "peace" talks, heralded to lead to a "comprehensive"
peace, that have gotten nowhere.
The flaw has been in the agenda and the participants.
First, the agenda. The Palestinians are primarily interested
in ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and creation
of a sovereign "Palestine" therein.
Reasonable people, observing the breakup of Pakistan into Pa-
kistan and Bangladesh, the endless conflict in northern Ireland,
the proposed reunification of South Africa and its tribal home-
lands, the abortive Vance-Owen plan for Bosnia, etc. see further
disaster coming from additional balkanization of the Middle East,
particularly in creation of a non-viable, non-contiguous nation.
The first disaster for the Middle East was the balkanization
of the former "Arab-speaking" Ottoman provinces in 1922 into the
mandates of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Trans-Jordan, all
against the wishes of the indigenous people.
The second disaster was the creation of Israel in 1948, re-
sulting in the creation of millions of unrequited Palestinian
refugees living in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon
and indeed world-wide.
The Palestinian agenda at the peace talks addresses no recti-
fication of the problems caused by the past 75 years of history,
but would add an additional layer of complication.
Israel, for its part, and from its point of view, has the
more reasonable agenda.
Foreswearing its dream of an Eretz Israel from the Euphrates
to the River of the Nile, it stands ready to sign full peace
treaties with Jordan, using the Jordan River as the boundary;
with Lebanon, using the current international border; and with
Syria, with some retreat on the Golan Heights.
Left out of this agenda is peace with Iraq, or proposals to
defuse the enmity of Iran, to defuse the enmity of the Palestin-
ian refugees and the fundamentalists in Jordan, Egypt and else-
where in the Arab world, to defuse the enmity of Libya and Alger-
ia, etc.
Left out is what to do with overpopulated Gaza.
Left out is achievement of peace with all countries in the
Arab League.
Unsaid is the need for continued Israeli military power to
counter these hostile elements.
Hoped for gains are Arab trading partners, relief from a be-
sieged status, peace in the occupied territories, the sharing of
Lebanese and Syrian water resources in lieu of domestic produc-
tion of desalinized sea water, continued access to West Bank and
Gaza grunt labor.
For their part, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon have no real
agenda, and are in lock-step to agree to nothing definitive until
the "Question of Palestine" is addressed and resolved.
In this, we may assume they are acting as surrogates for the
other countries comprising the Arab League.
So.......
So where does this leave us. For starters, a peace conference
should be convened including all the aggrieved and aggravated
parties, prepared to discuss any and all matters of conflict.
Although this would appear to be "Israel vs. them", in real-
ity, there are innumerable intra-Arab, inter-Arab, Arab-Iran
squabbles to be thrashed out and resolved before real peace comes
to the Middle East.
Having all conflicting parties together at a conference with
an open agenda may seem ludicrous, but we always thought that
that is how peace is made.
Two years of a limited, wrong agenda and limited participants
have accomplished little if anything.
Even if an ensuing, comprehensive Middle East peace confer-
ence took five or more years, at the end a truly comprehensive
and enduring peace would be a reality, much to the benefit of the
peoples of the Middle East.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, as Senate majority leader, was
known for his technique of bringing senators together with the
words "Come, let us reason together".
This should be the shibboleth for the comprehensive Middle
East peace conference.
For two years, now, Israel and the Arabs have engaged in bi-
lateral "peace" talks, heralded to lead to a "comprehensive"
peace, that have gotten nowhere.
The flaw has been in the agenda and the participants.
First, the agenda. The Palestinians are primarily interested
in ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and creation
of a sovereign "Palestine" therein.
Reasonable people, observing the breakup of Pakistan into Pa-
kistan and Bangladesh, the endless conflict in northern Ireland,
the proposed reunification of South Africa and its tribal home-
lands, the abortive Vance-Owen plan for Bosnia, etc. see further
disaster coming from additional balkanization of the Middle East,
particularly in creation of a non-viable, non-contiguous nation.
The first disaster for the Middle East was the balkanization
of the former "Arab-speaking" Ottoman provinces in 1922 into the
mandates of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Trans-Jordan, all
against the wishes of the indigenous people.
The second disaster was the creation of Israel in 1948, re-
sulting in the creation of millions of unrequited Palestinian
refugees living in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon
and indeed world-wide.
The Palestinian agenda at the peace talks addresses no recti-
fication of the problems caused by the past 75 years of history,
but would add an additional layer of complication.
Israel, for its part, and from its point of view, has the
more reasonable agenda.
Foreswearing its dream of an Eretz Israel from the Euphrates
to the River of the Nile, it stands ready to sign full peace
treaties with Jordan, using the Jordan River as the boundary;
with Lebanon, using the current international border; and with
Syria, with some retreat on the Golan Heights.
Left out of this agenda is peace with Iraq, or proposals to
defuse the enmity of Iran, to defuse the enmity of the Palestin-
ian refugees and the fundamentalists in Jordan, Egypt and else-
where in the Arab world, to defuse the enmity of Libya and Alger-
ia, etc.
Left out is what to do with overpopulated Gaza.
Left out is achievement of peace with all countries in the
Arab League.
Unsaid is the need for continued Israeli military power to
counter these hostile elements.
Hoped for gains are Arab trading partners, relief from a be-
sieged status, peace in the occupied territories, the sharing of
Lebanese and Syrian water resources in lieu of domestic produc-
tion of desalinized sea water, continued access to West Bank and
Gaza grunt labor.
For their part, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon have no real
agenda, and are in lock-step to agree to nothing definitive until
the "Question of Palestine" is addressed and resolved.
In this, we may assume they are acting as surrogates for the
other countries comprising the Arab League.
So.......
So where does this leave us. For starters, a peace conference
should be convened including all the aggrieved and aggravated
parties, prepared to discuss any and all matters of conflict.
Although this would appear to be "Israel vs. them", in real-
ity, there are innumerable intra-Arab, inter-Arab, Arab-Iran
squabbles to be thrashed out and resolved before real peace comes
to the Middle East.
Having all conflicting parties together at a conference with
an open agenda may seem ludicrous, but we always thought that
that is how peace is made.
Two years of a limited, wrong agenda and limited participants
have accomplished little if anything.
Even if an ensuing, comprehensive Middle East peace confer-
ence took five or more years, at the end a truly comprehensive
and enduring peace would be a reality, much to the benefit of the
peoples of the Middle East.
President Lyndon B. Johnson, as Senate majority leader, was
known for his technique of bringing senators together with the
words "Come, let us reason together".
This should be the shibboleth for the comprehensive Middle
East peace conference.