More MidEast Frustrations

It is not about adversaries "scoring points" in a debate. It is about two friends trying to find a way out of the darkness, and trying to show each other how the other side sees us.

Sincerely,

Subcribe to Viewpoints/Peacewatch [The MidEast Web Newsletter]

 From Samer:

 Dear All,

I read, to my horror, that over 70% of the Israeli public supports the government's assassination policy, and just about the same percentage wants even tougher action on the Palestinians.

I don't know if I can explain these figures, which completely astound me. Certainly it is shaped in part by the perception of most Israelis that Barak offered Arafat "an extremely generous offer", the most that any Israeli leader has ever offered, and that Arafat declined and "chose" to launch the Intifada; as if the Palestinian leadership is obliged to accept whatever Israel or the Israeli public can 'stomach' to offer at any one point in time, rather than a viable and territorially contiguous state (for a good explanation of this issue, see this article in the electronic Intifada website: http://www.electronicintifada.net/coveragetrends/generous.html.)

Given this, it might be possible to say that the Israeli public 'perceives' itself and its leadership to have given Arafat the said "very generous offer". They believe the erroneous mantra that Arafat was offered "97% of the west bank," which he proceeded to spurn. If this were the case, it is relatively understandable that so huge a block of the Israeli public should have no qualms supporting and advocating the use of even greater force against the Palestinians.

Therefore the question becomes: why would the Israelis perceive this offer as being so goddamn generous in the first place?

The answer, I believe, is a simple one which is fundamental to why we have the current Intifada: Racism.

Oslo started in 1993, and yet even as the negotiations were underway, and talk of peace was the fashion, the Israeli public saw no act of bad faith in the fact that their government was negotiating while bypass roads were being built on annexed land which increasingly rendered Palestinian territory incontiguous, and Jewish settlements were being expanded with the settler population (according to the New York Times) increasing by 80,000 between 1992 and 2001. Perhaps it is unfair to talk to talk about the 'Israeli public' as if it constitutes a single block, but not even the Israeli "peace camp" found that this was objectionable enough to object to in any significant manner (something which Yossi Beilin, an Israeli architect of the peace effort, chided them for in an interview.)

My feeling is that the peace process, while promising Israelis peace and stability, never addressed or challenged their sense of outright entitlement in any way. This is the concept which all those Israelis who supported the peace process and thenceforth felt 'betrayed' by the new Intifada somehow fail to comprehend.

It is the entitlement most Israelis feel not just about settlements, land annexations, apartheid-style bypass-roads, but also about the acceptance of an ongoing military occupation of another nation on a daily basis, as if that was OK, and as if these people and this nation are somehow transgressing for resisting this occupation. My feeling is that most Israelis who support 'tougher' action by their government against the Palestinians, feel, sadly, that since they are the stronger party they are entitled to be rid of the Palestinian protest, and to continue to subjugate and oppress this "subservient" nation.

Be that as it may, I am convinced of the need which the late Faisal Husseini espoused of interaction with the Israeli public. Yesterday, for example, I followed a link which an Israeli friend of mine sent me to an article in the Jerusalem Post (Hi Yossi!.) It was an article about some supporters of peace from both sides meeting in Jerusalem despite the difficult circumstances, including Abdel Kader Husseini, Faisal's son. Apparently Abdel Kader received a phone call during the meeting informing him of Israeli's latest assassination of the highest ranking PLO leader to date, Abu Ali Mustafa. The article quotes Huessini as saying that "news of the assassination had made him contemplate whether he would be capable of standing up in front of a Jewish-Israeli audience and speaking about the need for peace and joint ventures. " Instead, it concluded "he reaffirmed his belief in his father's legacy - to seek ways to speak to the Israeli public - and stressed that "the harder this mission, the more important it becomes."

Somehow, I agree.

On a final note, I would like to share with you an email I recently sent to the Israeli army. I followed a link on the Jerusalem Post Web site to some sort of organization which has to do with the Israeli army (the banner said "support Israel's soldiers" (sic).)

Anyway, there was a frame on the left with a quote by Rabin, which I will quote below. I flipped through the site until I found a "contact us" form. I sent them the following message:

I came upon your site by accident, following a link somebody sent me to a Jerusalem post article. I would like to congratulate you on a nicely designed site, although I do have one comment. My comment is about the Rabin quote on the left frame of your website.

The feedback form had required fields to fill out, including name, address, email, etc... I paused for a long time wondering if I should sign my actual name and email or make something up. Eventually I gave them my true information. I hope I'm not assasinated anytime soon!.

Samer Kurdi,

Amman, Jordan

From Ami:

Dear Samer and friends,

Samer - You have presented your case well. You are right that these are very sad and frustrating times for all of us who believe in peace and decency. You know I am 150% with you about this:

" Instead, it concluded "he reaffirmed his belief in his father's legacy - to seek ways to speak to the Israeli public - and stressed that "the harder this mission, the more important it becomes."

We have always known it would be difficult.

I will try to answer your question about why Israeli public opinion is like it is, though I don't make Israeli public opinion. Most Israelis, like most Palestinians and Jordanians, are not racist. I know some racist Israelis, but they don't make policy and they are not the 70% in the opinion polls. In Amman, we saw that they sell books about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - even in the "good old days" when it looked like peace was coming soon - but that doesn't mean that most Jordanians are racist. The same "Protocols" are in the Hamas charter and many Palestinians now support the Hamas - but not necessarily because they are racist.

97.% sounds like a fair offer for most people, who did not look at the maps, and did not understand that it was not 97%, and that it was in stages and so on. Misinformation rather than racism is a more likely explanation. That is why we published an explanation at MideastWeb, beginning at http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm . That is one reason why keeping dialog open is so important - so people see both sides.

But not every person is interested in looking at maps and reading boring details. Many who do look say "The maps are unofficial - it is not true, just anti-Zionist propaganda." People believe their leaders. Palestinians believe their leaders. Israelis believe their own leaders.

They know that the Palestinians promised in the Oslo accords to forego violence, and they know that violence began in September and did not stop. The issue that Israelis see is not "do they agree to this or that offer?" but "are the Palestinians willing to live in peace with Israel?" The answer given by you is "certainly." The answer given by many, many others, apparently the majority, is "no way."

In the same way, the issue for you, is "are Israelis willing to let Palestinians live in peace in security in their own state?" The answer for me is "yes." Until September, the answer was "yes" for most Israelis I would judge. In a referendum, I think that Israelis would ratify any agreement that allowed _both_ sides to live in peace. The violence changed all that.

Israelis are scared that if we give back Gilo, the gun fire will be directed at the Knesset, and if we give up Jerusalem, the gun fire will be directed at Tel Aviv. Since the PNA broke its word in such a dramatic way, or lost control, few people in Israel have faith in any promises that the PNA would make. Can you really blame us? You are not responsible for Hamas or Islamic Jihad, as I am not responsible for the settler vigilantes and Sharon. But we cannot control the fanatics in our societies.

The casualties on your own side always hurt more than casualties on the other side. If your sister, or your brother or your friend is in the hospital it is not the same as a face in a newspaper, whether they are Arab or Jewish or Swedish. That is not racism. That is another reason why keeping dialog open is important. It turns the people on the other side into friends and acquaintances instead of numbers. When the Israelis killed a Palestinian who was for peace and said they had killed a "terrorist," it was Gershon Baskin of IPCRI who pointed out that it is not true and started a fund for his family.

Israelis have the perception that we are in a war, and that these people who are being assassinated are generals of the enemy. It is true that innocent people get killed too, but innocent people get killed in discotheque and pizzeria bombings and schoolbus bombings. If the Israelis were shooting machine gun fire at Amman, what would you want King Abdullah and the Jordan Legion to do?

The tragedy of the Palestine-Israel conflict is not that it is assymetrical in arms and resources, but that it is symmetrical in people's perceptions - that is what guarantees that it will go on. The Palestinians call the Israelis racist, and the Israelis call the Palestinians racist. When we read in Al-Hayat al Jadida that the Jews are the root of all evil, how do you think Israelis see Palestinians?

Both sides are sure that whatever they do - whatever concessions are made - the other side will only want more. An IPCRI poll shows that about 80 to 100% of Palestinian refugees will be satisfied only with full right of return to their homes. This would mean the end of the State of Israel. So it is no wonder that Israelis would not want to make concessions - nobody wants to commit suicide.

I say the same thing to Palestinians and to Israelis:If you saw your friends and children being blown to bits on television, what would you think? What would you want your army to do?

The public opinion polls also show that 80% of Palestinians support suicide attacks. Do we conclude from this that Palestinians are racists? Maybe we can conclude that both sides are angry and frustrated.

We live in very sad times, and it is up to us to find ways out of the nightmare - not by assuming the worst about the other side, which we cannot control, but by looking at the actions of our own side and seeing what we can do to stop the violence and get the message across.