An open Letter to Ambassador Richard Murphy

Dear Ambassador Murphy:

I listened with great interest to your talk at the Student Union of University at Buffalo, yesterday, November 4, 2002. Your presentation was thoughtful and enlightening, presenting a realistic perspective on the Middle East, its regimes and its diverse policies. You know these countries first hand and your assessment of the people and their leaders, based on personal interactions, was refreshing after a lengthy exposure to third hand information reported by our media.

It was interesting to hear from you that a major factor in the animosity of the Arab Street toward the US and especially toward the State of Israel is due to the one-sided TV coverage in the Arab world, showing exclusively the Arab side of the Arab-Israeli conflict and focusing on the misery of the Palestinians. 

What I missed was the remark that these one-sided TV reports would not have reached the Arab masses without the endorsement of the different Arab regimes, and unless the newspapers, which are tightly controlled by these governments, gave more credibility to those biased stories by graphic textual descriptions and vicious editorials. Moreover, these hate-provoking reports from Gaza or Nablus are further enhanced by staged shows such as the serialization of the anti-Semitic “Protocols” on Egyptian TV, during the Month of Ramadan. As a seasoned diplomat you must be sensitive to such symbolic animosity that eventually leads to violence. If our goal is to contain the violence in that region, we must do our best to curb this vitriolic propaganda.

I was also taken back by your statement that Israel has disregarded more UN resolutions than Iraq, a statement I have heard before.  You are probably right. However, this is like comparing the arrest statistics of one with ten arrests for speeding and five parking violations with another person who has just two arrests for armed robbery. Every time there has been an incursion of the IDF into Arab territory following Arab terrorist attacks, we witnessed a condemning UN resolution. On the other hand, I do not recall a UN condemnation of the gassing of the Kurds or the Shiites in Iraq. The UN, which has been controlled by anti-American Third World countries that view Israel as an American proxy, has a long history of anti-Israeli resolutions. Prominent among these are the equalizing of Zionism with racism and the expulsion of the “People of the Book” from UNESCO. The Durban conference illustrated again the mode of operation of the UN on issues concerning the Jewish state. Can you really blame Israel for ignoring an institution with such a blatant anti-Israeli bias?

However, I was truly surprised by your suggestion that Israel should negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs before there is a halt to the Arab terrorist attacks on Israelis.  Arab terror attacks on Jews are not spontaneous acts done by distraught individuals – all the homicide bombers were members of political organizations, and at least half of them were members of the Fatah movement and its offshoots, which are under Arafat’s personal command.  Yesterday’s bombing in Kfar Saba, a few hours before your lecture, was allegedly perpetrated by a Fatah member. Therefore, like the so many terror attacks that preceded it, it was an act of war, planned, directed and carried out by the same political entity that wishes to extract concessions from the Jewish state. As long as this war goes on there cannot be any room for negotiation. Political science teaches us that peace talks between adversaries are an alternative to war. Negotiations must be, therefore, exclusively non-violent tools in international political maneuvers.

As a seasoned diplomat you surely know that negotiation under fire imply surrender to the aggressor. In this case surrender to the local Arabs and their supporters in the Arab world.  I remember, listening to one of your TV interviews, that you justify this drawing on analogy with the negotiations of Americans with the North Vietnamese during the late stages of the Vietnam War.  But I assume that you recall that that war ended with American helicopters picking up the last refugees from the rooftop of the Saigon Hilton. And I hope you do not have the vision of a similar evacuation from the rooftop of the Hilton in Tel Aviv.  I cannot think of a case in history where negotiations under fire were not associated with admission of defeat and eventual surrender.  

The other point you made, which is open to criticism, is your suggestion that East Jerusalem be made the capital of a Palestinian state. You seem to base this point of view on the fact that Jerusalem is already today a divided city, where Jews do not enter the Arab quarters for fear of being killed.  To accept this view one must imply first, that Arab terror is effective, and that all the Arabs have to do is to extend their reign of terror to achieve additional territorial gains. Second, that Israel is making a gross political mistake by not policing that part of the city to stem and prevent Arab aggression.  At this point in time, Israel has full jurisdiction over that area, and therefore, full responsibility for law and order in Arab just as in Jewish neighborhoods.  Thus your implied critique of Israel’s sloppy policing of the Arab quarters in Jerusalem is quite valid.   My guess is that the Israelis have been trying to avoid violent confrontations with Arabs, but as one can conclude from your statement, this humanitarian consideration may cost them dearly in the political arena.

Now, I wonder why do you advocate that part of Jerusalem becomes the capital of an Arab state? Even if Arabs live in certain quarters of that Jewish city, just as they live in Nazareth, Haifa or Jaffa, it does not necessitate incorporation of the city or even part of it in an Arab state. Since some Arab neighborhoods are congruent to other areas that are heavily populated with Arabs, they might become incorporated into the boundaries of an independent Arab state as part of a negotiated political settlement. However, such a settlement is unlikely to allow de novo declaration of those neighborhoods as the capital city of the Arab state, because never before was there an Arab capital in Jerusalem.

As an experienced diplomat you must know very well that two capitals in the same city is not a stable political solution. There is no historical precedence for such a situation. But there is a historical example of a divided capital, namely Berlin that symbolized a lengthy conflict between two political systems until it became unified under one administration.  Since the Arabs have repeatedly declared their intent to expand their grip on Jerusalem until it becomes an Arab city, do you believe that the Israelis will ever surrender their historical capital?  Unless you foresee a catastrophic defeat of the Jewish state by a coalition of militant Arab states that might usurp Jewish sovereignty over the ancient capital of their homeland and convert it into an Arab city, the idea of a dual capital is a sure recipe for unmitigated “eternal” conflict. This would be a very far cry from a vision of regional peace and tranquility advocated by the whole world.  I wonder how you, with all your broad historical perspective and diplomatic experience, can advocate such a shaky political solution?

Sincerely,

Michael Anbar

Professor

University at Buffalo