The Current Middle East Crisis
In this time of polarization in the US, when discussion seems to have diasppeared in favor of just choosing up sides, I offer my thoughts on the current Middle East crisis in the interest of keeping dialogue alive on the part of ordinary citizens.
Although it is impossible to consider here the millennia of strife in the region, we do have to look at a bit of history. Just looking at events since 1948, when the UN suggested that Israel and Palestime could become states in that area, it becomes clear that just getting Israel to stop attacking or being more restrained will accomplish nothing. Israel, as we know, decided to become a state, while Palestine decided not to become a state but to drive Israel into the sea, in other words to see that Israel did not survive. This goal remains unchanged, apparently for all of the Arab countries except Egypt. Accordingly, starting with 1948, the Arabs have attacked again and again, even after Israel has made concessions and drawn back from lands it had won in battle. Although I can't presume to know their rationale, it may be that Arabs see concessions as suggesting weakness rather than an effort to solve the problem, and therefore this may encourage further attacks.
In any case, it seems clear that conditions for Palestinians in the area have become scarcely short of intolerable, with lack of jobs and water, restrictions on movement, and what might be racism or discrimination against Arabs, even though Israel has been generous in offering democracy in many ways. Conditions are such that Palestinians cannot be expected to continue to live this way. Nor should they.
It appears that nothing will do short of another major effort to come to some kind of agreement, unlikely as that may seem. It just seems essential to try. What else is there?
Then what entity could take on such a task? The US would be the obvious choice except that it has earned such contempt in the world. It might be possible anyway for the US to take the lead in negotiations, given a credible statement about what course it might take. Or perhaps the United Nations? Or NATO or the Group of Eight?
Once some convener agrees to try to broker an agreement, it remains to find individuals who could engender enough trust to carry on negotiations. Some names come to mind. Someone from Egypt. Also George Mitchell, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright would be good candidates. Also Hannah Ashrawi. Of course there are others.
Beyond this, something might be said about what could be offered to the aggrieved parties, Israel and Palestine. The security of Israel must be assured; this must be made clear. And reasonable boundaries for Palestine must be arrived at, irrespective of past arrangements. A buffer zone between Israel and Palestine would seem necessary, as would a buffer zone between Lebanon and Israel, both fortified as needed. Additionally, Palestine could be offered aid--from the UN, the World Bank, the US, other Arab nations--in the form of creation of infrastructure, prehaps irrigation systems, perhaps help for education.
This is enough dialogue for one day.
Although it is impossible to consider here the millennia of strife in the region, we do have to look at a bit of history. Just looking at events since 1948, when the UN suggested that Israel and Palestime could become states in that area, it becomes clear that just getting Israel to stop attacking or being more restrained will accomplish nothing. Israel, as we know, decided to become a state, while Palestine decided not to become a state but to drive Israel into the sea, in other words to see that Israel did not survive. This goal remains unchanged, apparently for all of the Arab countries except Egypt. Accordingly, starting with 1948, the Arabs have attacked again and again, even after Israel has made concessions and drawn back from lands it had won in battle. Although I can't presume to know their rationale, it may be that Arabs see concessions as suggesting weakness rather than an effort to solve the problem, and therefore this may encourage further attacks.
In any case, it seems clear that conditions for Palestinians in the area have become scarcely short of intolerable, with lack of jobs and water, restrictions on movement, and what might be racism or discrimination against Arabs, even though Israel has been generous in offering democracy in many ways. Conditions are such that Palestinians cannot be expected to continue to live this way. Nor should they.
It appears that nothing will do short of another major effort to come to some kind of agreement, unlikely as that may seem. It just seems essential to try. What else is there?
Then what entity could take on such a task? The US would be the obvious choice except that it has earned such contempt in the world. It might be possible anyway for the US to take the lead in negotiations, given a credible statement about what course it might take. Or perhaps the United Nations? Or NATO or the Group of Eight?
Once some convener agrees to try to broker an agreement, it remains to find individuals who could engender enough trust to carry on negotiations. Some names come to mind. Someone from Egypt. Also George Mitchell, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright would be good candidates. Also Hannah Ashrawi. Of course there are others.
Beyond this, something might be said about what could be offered to the aggrieved parties, Israel and Palestine. The security of Israel must be assured; this must be made clear. And reasonable boundaries for Palestine must be arrived at, irrespective of past arrangements. A buffer zone between Israel and Palestine would seem necessary, as would a buffer zone between Lebanon and Israel, both fortified as needed. Additionally, Palestine could be offered aid--from the UN, the World Bank, the US, other Arab nations--in the form of creation of infrastructure, prehaps irrigation systems, perhaps help for education.
This is enough dialogue for one day.
posted by Gladys at 11:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home