Separate and Sustainable Existence
I was shocked to read the October 14, 2003 editorial of Ha’aretz, titled “Separate and sustainable existence.” The editor seems to endorse the “Geneva Accord” authored by a group of marginal, discredited Israeli politicians, led by Yossi Beilin and Amram Mitzna. This is not what I would have expected from a newspaper that used to be a source of reliable information and rational thinking. Without going into the manner by which this “Accord” has been authored and handled, there is really little new here. Like any democracy, Israel has its fringe politicians, but why did Ha’aretz become the harold of this questionable fringe? Also in the US, we have a Rev. Jesse Jackson who went to Baghdad to negotiate with Sadam, and there were also Americans who went to Baghdad to be human shields, protecting the life of one of the most brutal despotic murderers in history. Thus by offering to become a human shield to protect Arafat, Uri Avnery has not done anything novel either. Fringe politicians are often driven by destructive hatred. In their devious attack on Sharon and the policies of the current Israeli government, Beilin, Mitzna and Burg are ready to accept what would be in effect the eventual destruction of the Jewish state as unavoidable collateral damage. Following the maxim that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” they have joined forces with Arafat, the archenemy of the Jewish state, to demoralize their own nation and weaken its resolve to survive.
I would not have been this critical of those rogue politicians if the plan they propose for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict would have had merit. There is little new in their “Accord”, and there is no point in the attempt to reconstitute the failed Oslo, Camp David and Taba accords, advocated by the same politicians.
The “Geneva Accord” will never work not only because it willfully gives up full Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem, the ancient Jewish capital, and not only because it implies the displacement of 100,000 Jewish Israeli citizens just because Muslim Arabs do not tolerate non-Muslim citizens in their territory. The “Geneva Accord” will never work not only because Egypt, Syria, Iran, Libya and Arabia follow basic tenets of Islam, which mandate Muslims to retake any territory ever conquered by Muslims; thus these counties are unlikely to stop undermining the very existence of the Jewish State, even if they agree to an armistice as a temporary tactical necessity. It will never work not only because the PLO does not truly represent the political will of the Arab population in the “West Bank” and Gaza – the proposed “free” elections will be again limited to candidates hand-picked by the PLO. It will not work for an entirely different reason.
The “Geneva Accord” will never work primarily because in order to be even tentatively acceptable by Israel, the new Arab state must have a limited sovereignty. The entwined geography of the proposed new Arab state mandates that it must be virtually demilitarized, have limited control of its airspace, have limited rights to form alliances with other counties, and be economically extremely dependent on the State of Israel, for many decades to come. Even if the PLO accepted all these constraints as a tactical ploy, they will continue to ferment local Arab dissatisfaction, which undoubtedly will be exploited by extramural Arabs to continue to undermine the existence of the Jewish state by incessant terrorism. The latter critique applies equally to the well-known “Roadmap to Peace”.
Although the “Geneva Accord” will be never accepted by Israel, the media coverage of its ceremonial presentation in November has a hidden benefit for the PLO – legitimizing this despotic terrorist organization as the sole representative of the “Palestinian” Arabs. The truth is that the PLO represents the “Palestinian” Arabs just as much as the Israeli citizenry is represented by a bunch of renegade Jewish politicians. The “Geneva Accord” is evidently collusion between two groups of politicians who defy democracy.
Was the intent of Burg, Mitzna and their allies to oust Sharon using this political scheme, or to put an end to Arab terrorism against Jews? Actually, the “Geneva Accord” is a reward for terrorism. It will only encourage more of it in Israel and elsewhere. It is not surprising that the “Geneva Accord” has the blessings of Arafat, the father of Arab terrorism. It promises him much of what he wants. And if it just demoralizes the Israelis and mars their international image, he has already gained.
One might ask at this point – “If you are so critical of the “Geneva Accord,” do you have an alternative suggestion? How do you suggest to stop the decline of morale and the deterioration of the economy in Israel? How would YOU put an end to Arab terrorism?” My answer is as follows: I do agree with the concept of “separate and sustainable existence,” but under entirely different terms.
I suggest the establishment of an autonomous, independent Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip, with a possible increase of its area from 360 to say, 500 sq Km. At the same time, all territories west of the Jordan should be annexed to the state of Israel. After an appropriate period of “dePLOization” (cf. denazification), all Arab inhabitants of the “West Bank” territory will be offered full Israeli citizen’s rights. Militant religious or nationalistic Arabs amongst them will be given the option to move to the independent Arab state of Gaza and become citizens of that new Palestinian state. Immigration of Muslims into the State of Israel would be limited, however, to maintain a demographic balance (cf. Lebanon before the Syrian occupation).
Let us analyze the merits of this suggestion:
1. The Jewish nation has no historical claims to Gaza. Gaza has not been a Jewish city from the dawn of Jewish history up to date, although a minority of Jews lived there during certain periods.
2. The Gaza strip does not pose a significant military threat to the state of Israel, even if annexed by Egypt, which is not very likely, or even if another Arab state sends troops there.
3. The border with the Palestinian state in Gaza may be open to commerce or hermetically closed, depending on the political relationship between the two states.
4. The historical geopolitical position of Gaza at the crossroad of three continents lends itself to becoming again a commercial and industrial city-state, similar to Singapore or Hong Kong. The media propaganda that the Gaza Strip is the most densely populated place on Earth is blatantly false. The population density in the Gaza Strip is currently 3542 people per sq Km. Economically flourishing Singapore and Hong Kong have 6667 and 6767 people per sq Km, respectively. However, the GDP is $600 per capita in Gaza, compared with $24,000 and $26,000 in Singapore and Hong Kong, respectively (all 2003 statistics are from the 2003 World Fact Book of the US CIA).
5. Using the 2003 CIA figures, there are at present 1.26 million Arabs in the Gaza Strip and this population could double or triple, given the appropriate political and economic incentives. Addition of 140 sq Km to the Gaza Strip could economically support an additional million people, at least.
6. On the “West Bank” (to use that obsolete Jordanian term) there are 1.68 Million Muslims, and within Israel there are today 905,000 Muslim citizens. Thus if Israel annexed the West Bank, it would include approximately 2.6 Million Muslims and more than 5 million Jews plus over 700,000 others. Although Muslims would then constitute close to a third of the Israeli electorate, the fear of a demographic takeover of the State of Israel by Islamists is unfounded, especially as the Muslim birth rate will dramatically decrease as their dismal economic status improves. Today the GDP of the Arabs on the “West Bank” is $800 per capita compared with $19,000 of Israelis (this includes 1.2 Million non-Jewish Israeli citizen! The GDP of Israeli citizens is four times higher than that in the surrounding Arab countries, moreover, it is also significantly higher than that of the oil rich Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Libya; see the World Fact Book). The new Muslim Israeli citizens would thus have a long way to go to improve their standard of living rather than sacrifice their livelihood to violent, religion motivated illusions. The experience of the last decade must have taught them that hatred and terrorism do not improve the standard of living, except for the corrupt terrorist leadership. Given a free choice, the new Israeli Arab citizens will adopt Western democratic values and abandon militant Islam. Israeli Muslims will have to make the same choice as Muslims in Italy, Germany, the Netherlands or the US. Notwithstanding potential abuses by unscrupulous politicians, if members of Muslim minorities chose to join militant international Islam to the detriment of their host countries, they will be crushed and expelled.
This proposed solution would alleviate terrorism while allowing Jew and Arabs to coexist in peace and prosperity. What is most important, it will allow the Jews in Israel to maintain a “separate and sustainable existence” as an ethical democratic society. It will also allow the “Palestinian” Arabs in the Gaza Strip to maintain a social and political structure of their choice under entirely unrestricted conditions.
Until a major reform takes place in Islam, giving up illusionary global supremacy and Jihadism, Israel will have to maintain its military superiority. Iraqi society may be the first to reject militant Islam, opening the door for a truly peaceful Middle East that will allow “separate and sustainable existence” of the multitude of peoples in the region.
Michael Anbar PhD
Amherst, NY
10-18-03