Editor's
Note:
We continue searching for voices of reason to bring to
you. We see so little understanding of the Middle East
on Cable television shows. It is as if ignorance has
been raised to the ultimate virtue when discussing the
Middle East. Today we have a thoughtful essay written by
a recent graduate of Rutgers University.
Palestine-Israel -- what if? -by Roger H. Lieberman
Israeli historian Benny Morris -- the very same Benny
Morris widely credited for exposing the organized
expulsion of Palestinian Arabs by Zionist forces in the
1948 War -- has recently set a new low in discourse on
the Middle East crisis.
In an opinion piece published without a second thought
by The Los Angeles Times, Morris made the outrageous
argument that if Israel had "finished the job" in 1948,
by conquering all of Palestine and expelling the rest of
its native population, there would actually be "peace"
in the region today. And if that's not disgusting
enough, this Israeli version of Mr. Kurtz -- the
sadistic villain of Joseph Conrad's immortal novel
`Heart of Darkness' -- advises Israel's present regime
to engage in further, intensified ethnic cleansing of
Palestine at the soonest "practical" date.
I will not engage in a lengthy denunciation of Morris,
as there are surely many good men and women --
Palestinians, Israelis and others -- who can accomplish
that task more effectively. Instead, I shall pose a
different kind of historical question -- one motivated
not by hate and contempt for human rights, but by
heartfelt concern for the well-being of all Middle
Easterners, irrespective of religion or ethnicity. I
shall then contemplate how our lives today might be far
better had events half a century ago played out
differently.
What if Palestine, the land between the Mediterranean
Sea and the Jordan River, had not been divided by
sectarian strife in the late 1940s? What if the United
Nations General Assembly in 1947 had rejected proposals
to partition Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state
upon the termination of the British mandate and,
instead, supported the creation of a single, democratic
state, guaranteeing equal rights for all of Palestine's
inhabitants? What if such a state had taken root in
Palestine and succeeded? How would the Middle East and,
for that matter, the wider world, appear to us today?
Some may react to these questions with incredulity.
After all, it is taken for granted by mediocre
commentators that divisions between Jews and Arabs over
Palestine's future were too irreconcilable for any
alternative to partition to be taken seriously.
Nevertheless, enthusiastic support for a one-state
solution did exist in some circles -- including among
many respected Jewish thinkers.
Judah Magnes, president of Hebrew University, argued
emphatically that the human geography of Palestine made
partition impossible without bloodshed and that the
historically tolerant relationship between Jews and
Arabs made a single state the most desirable framework.
Several members of the international commission then
assessing the situation in Palestine shared Magnes'
views. It is therefore conceivable that, had the
Palestinian Arab leadership shown genuine enthusiasm for
a multiethnic Palestine -- and greater sympathy for
European Jewish immigrants seeking to rebuild their
lives after the devastation of the Holocaust --
sufficient support would have been presented in the
court of international opinion to over-come the Zionist
campaign for a separate Jewish state.
If a democratic, secular state of Palestine, founded
upon the principle of "one man, one vote", had emerged
to take its place among the nations in 1948, the
groundwork would have been laid for a stable and just
society in the Holy Land. Such a state would have
adopted a sensible, non-discriminatory immigration
policy, which would have allowed a fair number of Jewish
refugees from war-ravaged Europe to settle and acquire
Palestinian citizenship.
The leading intellectuals, politicians and businessmen
of both the Arab and Jewish communities, that is, those
with a shared belief in democracy, would have formed the
backbone of the government. With the aid of responsible
leadership, an interwoven society of Jews and Arabs --
all identifying themselves as "Palestinians" -- could
then have evolved, rooted in a common love for
scholarship, commerce and the land itself.
The benefits of a secular Palestinian democracy would
have emanated far beyond Palestine's borders, into the
wider Middle East. First, and most obvious, the
emergence of a tolerant government based in Jerusalem
would have prevented the outbreak of regional warfare
and the catastrophic Palestinian refugee crisis.
Lebanon's precarious political structure would not have
been shattered by the fallout of an Arab-Israeli
conflict -- thus giving it time to evolve into a more
just and cohesive society, instead of the charnel house
of fratricidal warfare that claimed over 150,000 lives.
The large Jewish communities of Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and
other Arab countries would not have suffered the wave of
intolerance they experienced in the aftermath of the
first Arab-Israeli war, and would still be vibrant and
active parts of those countries' cultural, economic and
political life. Finally, no climate of perpetual
military confrontation would have been present to foster
appalling dictatorships and thus, no excuse would have
been available for a small-minded imperialist like
George W. Bush to unleash his hordes on the region.
Some may find such speculation about alternative Middle
East scenarios a waste of time, and many may find it
depressing to ponder the good things that might have
happened, but didn't, thanks to prejudice, greed and
stupidity. For me, such postulation has a serious
purpose: to create a framework for building a better
future. The fact is that even after 55 years and the
deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, the
fundamental human reality of Israel-Palestine remains
the same. As Magnes observed all those years ago, the
two peoples of this land are simply too interconnected
to separate into rigid, ethnocentric polities. If
anything positive has come of Ariel Sharon's mad dash to
build "Greater Israel", it has been to reinforce this
age-old truth.
I fully realize that zealous nationalists of both Jewish
and Palestinian Arab persuasions may take umbrage in my
call on them to give up narrow, purist formulations of
nationhood. But the dire nature of our times demands
that such a stand be taken. What is being asked of both
parties in the struggle for Palestine does not mean
giving up any freedom, except the "freedom" to act
irresponsibly.
*************************************************************************************
The writer recently received his Bachelor of Science
Degree in Geology, from Rutgers University, in New
Brunswick, New Jersey. This originally was printed in
The Jordan Times.
************************************************************************************* |