Arab-Israeli Conflict and Western Misconceptions

There are western misconceptions, which result in misguided assumptions, leading to senseless expectations from the same redundant attempts. Contrary to what we would like to think, the Palestinian people are neither oppressed by Israel nor by their own leadership. The western refusal to honestly understand and deal with cultural differences leads to the inevitable excuse we provide the Palestinians with - OPPRESSION. Cultural behaviors that result from being in a different evolutionary stage of development, which would be defined as evil in the western society, force the Americans into making up a reasonable excuse for that behavior. The simplest most reasonable excuse for western minds would be oppression. Once that is assumed the oppressed are "guiltless" and "helpless" and the American knight in shining armor rises to the rescue, in the adamant pursuit of happiness, which would always translate to the pursuit of freedom.

In my opinion the Palestinians were always trust worthy. As far as I can remember and as far as I can tell they have always been truthful about their intentions. None of the main organizations representing the Palestinians has changed a word in their charters. The fact that PLO has been laundered by the western media since Hamas has been denounced doesn't change the declared purpose of Fatah, which is the "Liberation of Palestine". An honest look at what we are unable to achieve at the opening of the 2010 "peace negotiations", will reveal all about the honesty on the Palestinian side.The right of Israel to exist, as a Jewish State, side by side with a Palestinian state, in a two state solution! The Palestinian honest refusal to acknowledge this obvious foundation as a means of achieving their "desired state" speaks volumes of their honesty. Don't you think that a dishonest party would have concealed its true intention of taking over the whole of Israel, and would have temporarily accept the Jewish state, at least until they build enough power to be able to overturn reality?

As you might know, the fundamental law of smart negotiation is to "offer the least important to you, while asking for the most important". Whatever you might think of the Palestinians, negotiations is their middle name. What the Arabs forgot about negotiating the western world doesn't even know yet. With that in mind, would you think that giving up the Israel recognition to exist as a Jewish state would be a reasonable sacrifice as a means to getting the "most important" a Palestinian State? That is what any reasonable negotiator, who has an independent state living in peace, would do. Her comes the Palestinian honesty to our aid, and helps us better understand their proclaimed intentions. For decades they have been sacrificing the chance of their own independent state as long as they would not recognize Israel's right to exist. Apparently Israel's nonexistence has always been more important to them then their own state. If that is not honest I don't know what is.

The main challenge on the way to resolving this catch 22 is the western selective hearing and site. Americans cannot process situations and declarations that are beneath their evolutionary developmental stage. So when facing declarations like slaughter the Jews, Israel should be exterminated, America and Israel are satanic, etc', the western mental filter kicks in and refuses to accept it directly without decoding it to familiar "civilized" terms. Same goes for all horrible sites we are flooded with without the ability to fully compute them to be able to react reasonably. Depending on their severity, the most extreme encounters might result in total "blindness" and "deafness" on the western part. This is why I have no basis to claim that the Palestinians ever lied in the past. When Arafat was leading the PLO to kill Jews in Israel he honestly announced it all over the world. Then when he made his strategic decision to re-conciliate with Israel he engaged in peace talks with full honest intentions to achieve a resolution for both people.

However, Arafat had overestimated his power and influence, and underestimated the power and influence of global Islam. Even though he truly meant to follow through his commitments to Rabin, he was forced to realize that the Palestinian street complexity was stronger then his anticipated. As I often indicated, the division between Hamas, Jihad, and Fatah, that looks clearly defined in western perception, is much more complicated when it comes to the community reality. The struggle for domination is ongoing as deep as the family and clan level. families are being torn apart all over the West Bank between the different organizations and ideologies, when siblings are persecuting one another, and are being executed on the suspicion of belonging to either, or worse for working with Israel as traitor. In this situation of chaos and anarchy, which is quite the opposite then oppression, the only obvious aid and leadership comes from religion. Physical and spiritual assistance is provided daily at times when the "secular" leadership has been proving extremely corrupt and unreliable time and time again.

Nothing that "has been happening in the west bank in last 3 years" would change the above described situation. The grasp of the hot global Islam over the Palestinian destiny is what has been preventing this situation from resolving. Unless a strong brave leader, who is pragmatic enough to want freedom and independence more then to get rid of Israel, is found, we are pounding sand over and over again, in a ritual that is predetermined to fail. There is a desperate need for an Atta Turk, Churchill, Sadat, or Ben Gurion in the Palestinian reality. Imagine a situation in which the Israeli policy would have been governed by the most orthodox Jewish community or by the Rabbi Cahanah leadership. What would the chances of reaching any agreement with anybody in that situation? I would like to remind you that there has been a signed agreement between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993. Why would we need another one? What is wrong with the one that resulted in 3 Nobel Peace prices? So the answer is that, in my opinion, the chances of achieving a solution currently is zero.

As to the question of internal Israeli elections I wouldn't know the answer being here in San Diego, however I believe it is much less relevant then the consequences of the 2000 vote count in the US between Gore and Bush. In light of my remarks above, there wouldn't be any difference who is on the Israeli side, since the Palestinians are sending the cashier to negotiate for the supermarket without allowing him any real authority. Israel has nothing more to give up over what has already been agreed upon by Barak in Camp David. If that wasn't sufficient for the Palestinians something else will need to change before this ship moves again.

I am not clear about the question regarding the Arabs of East Jerusalem. We don't seem to have any choice in that matter. Jerusalem is undoubtedly the eternal capital of the Jewish nation, and was established by King David to be returned to Jewish government after 2000 years. We can either deport the Arabs of east Jerusalem to whoever will accept them, or accept them as citizens as we did with all the rest of the Israeli Arab population. I don't think you have the right image in mind when referring to that population. On my last visit only a month ago, I noticed that all Arab youth under the age of 20 in the old city were wearing ipod earphones. Some had Mohacs, and all had a western demeanor. The youth I encountered would not survive a week in the Palestinian Authority. Besides our historic right to Jerusalem we also bare a responsibility towards these Arab kids, and most of all we bare the responsibility of keeping all holy places open to all, which might not end up being the case under Palestinian authority.

Tibi Zohar

To learn more, visit our website at http://www.tibizohar.net

Middle East - Summary of Conflict Area

Middle East, Theater of Conflict

Stretching from the Atlantic Ocean at the west, into the highlands of Iran and the Arabian Sea in the East, the Middle East's political, social and economic activities impact upon the rest of the world on ever-increasing scale. Oil, ethnic diversity, religion and politics all come into play in this conflicted area.

Based on language, custom and beliefs, ethnic diversity in this area creates both tension and beauty. Most people in the Middle East are Arabs; and of these, most follow Islam. The language, Arabic, dominates most of the Middle East as it is the language of Islam, which is a prevalent force in the region. Israelis number in the millions in the region, speaking Hebrew primarily. The Israel was created by the United Nations in the mid 20th century as a homeland for Jews. Although a small percentage of people living in Israel are Arabs, this small number causes great social and political upheavals. Over the centuries, Jews living amongst other religions have been victims of persecution, scapegoat-ing, and forced assimilation. Today, Israel provides a homeland for Jews where self-determination and faith leaves these people with a national identity.

Turkey holds within it many groups of people who define themselves Turks, Ottomans, Kurds among others, mainly speak Arabic and practice Islam. Though the people of Turkey are primarily Muslim, they follow a secular government which separates most government affairs from religious unlike the many other Islamic states in the area. This fact and a national movement in the early 20th century has lead to a more Western blend of culture and politics.

Once called Persia, Iranians, the descendants of the Aryans who migrated into the region, speak Farsi. These people are Muslims also, but are primarily of the Shiite sect. This sect, separate from the Sunni Arabs of some other Islamic countries, differ on the role of Imam, or religious leaders and the role heritage plays in the leadership of the Islamic faith.

The many languages, customs and beliefs that lace the Middle East together in a great mosaic of cultures and religions have caused subregional conflicts. Surged by the European presence in the colonial ages until the trend toward self determination and the granting of independence that started after WW1 and spread until the 1960's, nationalism and religion have caused many problems amongst neighboring nations. The Iran-Iraq war was one of these clashes.

Although they share many attributes, the Arabic Iraqi and the Persian Iranian do not see them through the veil of Islamic sectarian lines, secular versus traditional religious law and territorial disputes. The dispute came to blows eventually over three islands in the Persian Gulf, who were granted from the British to the United Arab Emirates, seized by Iran, which caused retaliation in the name of Arabic defense by Iraq. Iran, with their relative wealth and military strength, backed revolts in the Kurdish, northern Iraq provinces. Seemingly backed into a corner, the two nations came to agreement over the islands amidst the 1975 oil minister's conference. The ceding of the islands to the Iranians did not last long, as the war was played out in the early 1980's. Failing to garner the support of Arabs living in the contested region of Khuzestan, and under the strain of an Iranian blockade of Iraqi exports, The Iraqi president, Saddam Hussain called for a withdrawal and cease-fire. The Iranians denied the request and surged ahead with invasions into Iraq.

By the mid 1980's the conflict drew other interested nations into play. The Soviets supplied Iraq with missiles and aircraft. Iran purchased US weapons and defenses through the Iran Contra dealings. China provided missiles to the Iranians, which were used to threaten oil tankers in the Gulf. In the midst of this conflict, American forces gathered naval forces in the area. One US ship was attacked in the gulf by Iraqi forces. Mounting attacks in the Persian Gulf and the slowing of trade through this important route caused the UN to step forward with a peace settlement. By 1988, after some defeats of Iranian forces in the battlefield and the death of the Ayatolla in 1989, Iran and Iraq agreed upon a cease-fire. The two countries did trade prisoners of war (not all) and have not resumed warfare with each other since.

Oil quotas, criticism and calls of Arab repatriation of former Iraqi controlled areas lead to Iraq invading neighboring Kuwait. Leading up to the invasion, Iraq's president Hussain had charged that the Kuwaitis had overproduced oil which lowered the price and adversely affected Iraq and other members of OPEC. He also cited the granting of independent rule to Kuwait as illegitimate and claimed the land as originally Iraqi owned. These declarations, paired with the invasion caused lines to be drawn between the Arabic nations and the international community. The UN and the League of Arab Nations called for the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the continuance of payments toward war debts to Kuwait that were accrued during the Iran-Iraq wars. An import and export embargo would be placed until these demands were met.

While a few Arab countries agreed with Iraq's claims to the territory, many did not. Saudi Arabia asked the US to intervene, as it feared a similar fate. Led by US forces, a multinational force mounted an attack on the Iraqi forces in defense of Kuwait. In 1991, after just seven months of active military campaigns, the Iraqi forces were well routed. The army withdrew from Kuwait and the international coalition cried victory. Though it would take most of the 1990's and many requests and impositions upon Iraqi export quotas and UN declarations, Saddam Hussain finally allowed for a UN inspection team to view its nuclear sites to ascertain whether weapons of mass destruction were being developed by the Iraqi government. When this team was expelled in the late 1990's, along with retaliation toward US and British warplanes enforcing the No-Fly zone in Iraq, the international parties bombed defense and communication installations in Iraq. Subsequently, a UN and Iraqi agreement led to looser restrictions on imports for civilian and military goods under review of the UN Security Council.

The terrorist attacks upon US soil by the Al-Queda and a build-up of military troops on the Iraq border brought an about face by Hussain who opened up his nuclear facilities to UN groups and called for the destruction of long-range missiles and a self-imposed ban on nuclear military materials. Though these measures were taken by many nations as good faith, the US military, lead by President Bush and his foreign affairs officials decreed that Hussain posed a threat to US security. Many nations refuse to support this idea and did not join in the UN coalition of forces against Iraq. By 2003, the British armies and US invaded Iraq.

Many issues were raised by this action. The world leaderships have not yet agreed upon debates over the need, propriety and legality of the invasion. Though Hussain and many of the political and sectarian leaders of Iraq have been removed, killed or disappeared, the nation has as of yet been awarded true self-government or has it seen peace within its borders. Some scholars decry forced adoption of Western democracy upon the nation. Others find the reports of weapons of mass destruction to be fraudulent. Whatever the motivations, the outcome of the invasion and occupation has been a sum total of upheaval and tense terrorist subversion of coalition interventions in government and peace-keeping.

The nation of Israel as a Jewish homeland has been the actualization of a movement's vision paired with the endorsement and follow-through of both the British government and later, the United Nations. The following is a brief overview of the struggle, claim and victory that was seen in the realization of Israel as a sovereign nation.

The root of the Zionist movement started in the late 19th century. The term Zionism was coined by Nathan Birnbaum in 1892 and was meant to rally Jews globally in the name and goal of a Jewish sovereign nation. In his book, The Jewish State (1896) Theodor Herzl promoted the idea of Zionism as a long-term answer to the plight of Jews across the globe who live amid growing and pervasive anti-Semitism. This outlook stressed the point that Jewish folk were a "people" and not just a religion. It also sought to preserve this identity against the assimilation that occurred when and where Jews were forced to blend into a culture in order to live without stigma or harassment.

Both Birnbaum's and Herzl's call to rally around a Jewish homeland were heard world-round. Although some disagreed, most Jews heeded the charismatic and compelling literature and philosophy that surrounded the movement. The harsh life under the authority of a nation that never (seemingly) would allow the Jews to be anything more than a second class citizenry would prove to be a conviction that stirred these dissatisfied, disillusioned and disaffected Jews.

The Balfour Declaration (1917), was a letter sent from Lord Balfour, the Foreign Secretary and former Prime Minister of Britain to a Sir Walter Rothschild, a Jewish community leader in England. The word-age of the letter signaled affirmation of the United Kingdom's agreement that the Jewish people should find a nation of their own within the boundaries of Palestine. The sympathy stated in the letter was shadowed by the statement, which followed the agreement of the due and necessity of the founding of a Jewish state, that the British government wished it to be being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". This declaration of sympathy was at once seen as a boost for the Zionist movement and as somewhat contradictory as it implied that the Jews would not be receiving aide in acquiring the land, just a "nod" toward the movement. The Balfour Declaration, while it bolstered the ideals of the movement, did not grant the Jews a nation in the Palestine territory.

Where the Balfour Declaration was theoretical in its message, the United Nations' resolution in 1947 for the creation of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel was the concrete move that set into effect the creation the Nation of Israel. Jews flocked from Europe, the Americas and within other countries in the Middle East to within this fledgling state. Although carved out of Palestine, the Israeli nation was the end of the Zionist vision, and beginning of Jewish freedom from anti-Semitism and forced assimilation.

Arab opposition to Israel has lead to major warfare in the region. Palestinian Arabs had been forced into refugee camps as the Jews took their land. Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip conflict with Palestinian views of ownership. In the fight for the contested lands, or the Jewish rights to land at all, Arab support for Palestinian control has been fractious. The strength of Arab ties tends to be elastic in nature. In some arenas, they are strong, in others, not as much. An- Naqba, the forced removal of Palestinians from the borders of other Arab nations lead to disunity amongst the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors. The Palestinians relied on historic, local rights and compacts to give them identity. Israel forged one out of the disenfranchisement from the rest of the world and a common religion. Arab disputes and long held disagreements were held off in their fight against the Jews in Israel, but were not forgotten.

The PLO, or Palestinian Liberation Organization sought to bolster unity among Arabs in the fight against Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Since the 1960's, the PLO fought for an sovereign

Palestinian state. The movement caught itself in a full revolt in 1987 when PLO members clashed with the Israeli Defense Forces. The group was labeled a terrorist organization and violence marred the movement. Later the 1980's and 1990's, the group's leader, Yassir Arafat moved the PLO toward peace by recognizing Israel's right to exist and calling for attention toward the refuge situation rather than armed conflicts.

Born from this paradigm shift, the PNA, Palestinian National Authority worked toward a nation for Palestinians who were living in occupied areas and abroad in Arab nations. Since the 1990's, a series of peace talks between the Palestinians, Israelis and other world leaders have taken place. A Temporary peace has ensued and the territories in dispute are being re-aligned, areas repatriated and concessions on both sides are being made.

Although in the past few years a resurgence of terrorist groups like Hamas and other militants still mar the process, the return of lands and the slow growth of a Palestinian nation continues.

Anti-American sentiments sprout from our intervention into the Iraqi land-grab of Kuwait and our alliance with Israel. Many Muslim's who view Arab nations with "loose" or even secular governments as being against Islam. The Islamic fundamentalist movement has grown in the last few decades and has gained momentum in many Arab national governments. Calling for the US to remove military bases and personnel from all Muslim and Arab nation is one of the herald-calls of the Al- Queda and Taliban movements.

After the September 11th attacks on US targets masterminded by Osama Bin Laden, the United States and members of a anti-terror multinational coalition have fought militants bent on destroying either the US and/or our partners and allies. Thus the US embarked on a "War on Terror" which endeavors to stop any terrorist activity in the world waged by fundamentalist Islamic militants. Many individual liberties have been suspended or levied against in the name of this "war".

The nebulous and ethereal nature of such a war, to me, is one fraught with subjective views and a venture into ore disputes as it has subverted the politics and sovereignty of many nations. Afghanistan was bombed harshly in the hours after the 9-11 attacks. Raids on suspected terrorist cells have been rained upon citizens in many nations from Indonesia, west to the Mediterranean shores and as far as Europe and even America. By fighting the "War on Terror", the US and its allied nations may have bred an even bigger generation of zealots who have taken to fundamental and militant Islamic calls in the aftermath of US occupation and anti-terrorism acts abroad.

Since WWI nations in the Middle East have held a concert of border disputes, wars over religions, land rights and water resources. Embargoes, foreign instigation and alliances have entangled Europe and American nations into the pitfalls of these disturbances. Islamic opposition to secular or non-religious governments causes this oil-rich area to be in almost constant turmoil. The Middle East may be a region of either shared history and backgrounds in some ways, but it also exemplifies the troubles that arise when religion and ethnicity takes precedence over common goals. The independence granted by the colonial empires in the 20th century removed a common enemy (until now?) and has let loose the grudges that have been underlying the area for centuries.