Gordon L. Weil
In medieval times, kings had court jesters who could give
them serious warnings or advice, candy-coated with humor.
America may now have its own court jester: Jon Stewart on Comedy Central’s “The Daily
Show.” Perhaps he’s worth our attention,
even when it concerns a subject as difficult as the Gaza War.
Israel exists in a hostile corner of the Middle East. It was created in 1948 to provide a homeland
for the Jewish people, in an area that was also the home of the Palestinians.
Nazi Germany had shown that, without their own territory, Jews might always face
the risk of mass killing.
Israel’s survival has depended on a combination of factors. Almost its entire Jewish population is trained
and armed for defense. The government
has one of the best intelligence operations in the world. It projects its power into neighboring
countries to quash remote efforts to organize attacks against it. And it has the unwavering support of the U.S.
When Israel was created, much of the Arab population of
Palestine either fled or was driven out in what Arabs would call the
“Nakba.” But Israel continued to have
Palestinians within its borders, but did not rule parts of the territory that
remained under Palestinian control.
Threatened by internal Palestinian dissidents, surrounding
Arab countries and terrorist groups, Israel assigned its highest priority to its
national security. The U.S. was its guarantor, even if not formally.
As Israel became more secure, repelling failed military
attacks, it occupied parts of Palestine that were adjacent to its
territory. Gradually, Israel has moved
toward ultimately absorbing the occupied territories and maintaining dominance
over the Palestinians.
That policy has been expected to provide security for
Israel. It implied that the Jewish state
would keep Palestinians under its control, even if they had limited
self-government.
For the Palestinians, this outcome is unacceptable, and some
are willing to engage in armed resistance. Desperation has led to the formation
of terrorist organizations whose agendas seem focused on continual efforts to
disrupt the Israeli plan. The murderous October
7 Hamas attack on Israel reflected enormous Arab frustration and anger with
what their future might be.
The bottom line is that Israel wants to be a secure state
able to protect itself, and the Palestinians want the ability to govern
themselves independently. These seem to
have become mutually exclusive goals.
Sensing the Hamas attack offered it an opportunity, Israel’s response
both in Gaza and the occupied West Bank has been to move toward complete
control.
The U.S. and other countries have always favored two equal side-by-side
states. This is not what Israel wants. But it is doubtful that its military control
of the entire territory of Palestine would bring regional peace or enable it to
completely control the Palestinians.
From American post-Civil War Reconstruction to Russian oppression of Ukraine,
history shows this policy does not work.
Israel rejects a two-state solution, because it lacks confidence
that the Palestinians would refrain from using their homeland to launch
continual attacks on the Jewish state.
In short, Israel seems to believe that a two-state solution fails to
provide what is most essential – security.
Along comes Jon Stewart.
With humor and feigned modesty, he advances a way to make the two-state
solution work. He proposes stationing a
buffer force all along the border between the two states. At crossing points,
each state could control the passage of people and goods.
Stewart suggests a force staffed and financed by neighboring
Arab countries. Israel would get security and the Palestinians would get their
own country. Yet it’s impossible to
believe that Israel would find Stewart’s arrangement durable or better than
complete control of Palestine.
The neighboring countries should provide financial
support. So should the U.S. and European
nations who now pay to arm one or both sides, trying to patch over an
impossible regional security situation.
The border force patrols could be staffed by three elements:
Israelis, Palestinians and well-trained third-party soldiers from countries
outside the region.
Israel seeks to impose its own unilateral solution to its
security needs, so rejects international involvement with the Palestinian
problem. But the world community has
great concern about Middle East peace, and Israel is somewhat dependent for its
security on the U.S. and Europe, and cannot go it alone.
Stewart’s proposal may be labeled naïve and
impractical. Yet, after 76 years,
nothing else has worked. Maybe the
buffer force is not the best solution, but it’s something new and that alone
makes it worthy of serious consideration. Perhaps there are other ideas still
to be explored.
The U.S., as Israel’s prime military backer, should take the
lead. The bloody Hamas-Israel
confrontation requires America to do more than just plead for peace and pass
the hat.
No comments:
Post a Comment