Al's Opinions

Two writers have articles in the CURRENT section of today’s Los Angeles Times. One, by Aaron David Miller, is entitled “A new, messier Mideast.” The other, by Jonathan Chait, is entitled “Backing Israel is the best of a set of bad choices.” Although the titles of the articles neatly summarize the articles themselves, and though the writers come to different conclusions about American policy in the region, both writers, in common with most American commentators, are concerned with the techniques used by the various entities in the region. It seems that almost no American gives any thought to the basic causes of the various conflicts in the region.

For example, American commentators want to see Hezbollah disarmed and converted to a political party in Lebanon. No pundit seems to give any consideration to whether Hezbollah might have some legitimate grievances against the Jewish State. A similar “moral clarity” exists regarding Hamas. Our Republican Administration regards Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations and refuses to talk to them. Syria and Iran, who provide support for Hezbollah, are “states that harbor terrorists” and our Administration refuses to talk with them also. Our government concentrates on the “terror” and ignores the complaints and grievances that lead individuals to join organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas that practice “terror.”

I assert, and I don’t think anyone disagrees, that our present administration has no expectation of finding a peaceful solution to the troubles in the Mideast in the near future, say, within the life time of people now alive in the region. There is no way that the troubles can be solved or even managed as long as we are not willing even to look at the grievances that members of Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and other organizations have with Israel. Defanging and defunding Hezbollah is not a solution. The anger and frustration will still be there. Innocent Israeli citizens will continue to be at risk from missiles and suicide bombers. Innocent Palestinians and Lebanese citizens will continue to be at risk from Israel’s retaliation for acts launched from their territories.

I have traveled to many countries during my life, but never to Israel or other countries near it. The closest I ever came to Israel was a tour of Egypt in 1990. The closest I came to Israel was the city of Alexandria. I may, therefore, be a bit pretentious in listing what I believe are some of the grievances that Israel’s neighbors have. What I write here is based on things that others have written.

1. Israel was placed in a region that had for centuries been occupied by indigenous people. We now call these people Palestinians. Many Palestinians were forced from their homes and their farms to make room for Jewish immigrants from Europe and America. Many Palestinian refugees have been living ever since in refugee camps in various parts of the region. These refugees want to return to their homes and farms. Israel refuses to allow them to return. That is a grievance that has not been addressed.
   
2. Israel has created a “reservation” for the Palestinians. There is a de facto boundary between the Jewish area and the Palestinian area. In addition, the Palestinian area has been divided by roads and road blocks into small sections. Any Palestinian who moves from one section to another must wait for long times at the various road blocks.
   
3. In 1990 an agreement was brokered between the government of Israel and the Palestinian authority. Under this agreement, there would eventually be a Palestinian state alongside Israel, in territory that Israel had not yet claimed for Jewish immigrants. However, several other conditions had to be met first before the boundaries and other properties of the state could be decided. In the mean time, Israel continued to build settlements in the area supposedly assigned to the Palestinians. More Palestinians were gradually forced from their homes and farms by Israel’s actions required to protect the settlers from the rage of the people they were displacing.
   
4. A subsequent Israeli government effectively ignored the 1990 agreement and continued to expand the settlements into the Palestinian enclave. It was apparent to some observers, including me, that the Israeli leaders in power at the time were determined to push ahead with a program of ultimately reclaiming all of the Biblical land of Israel for Jewish immigrants and to remove the indigenous population to other Arab-speaking countries in the region. I remember many years ago seeing a map of Israel owned by a co-worker. The map showed the Biblical provinces of Israel, all in one nation, with no room whatever for Arab Palestine.
   
5. Israel claims all water rights in the lands still occupied by Palestinians for the use of Jewish immigrants. The settlers get their fill of water. What’s left over is given to the Palestinians. As a result, Jewish farms in all of Israel and in the settlements are supplied with irrigation water. The Palestinians have to make do with much less water than the Jewish immigrants. In fact, the question of who gets the use of the available water was a big stumbling block in previous negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authority. I suspect that Israel’s insistence on keeping control of the water was one of the reasons that Yasser Arafat was unwilling to accept Ehud Barak’s proposal during the last years of the Clinton administration.

There are, of course, many other grievances, but the preceding list is an example of topics that the United States has refused to get involved with. Our administrations have been motivated more by political survival than by a desire to find solutions to the problems associated with Israel and its neighbors. For religious reasons, many Americans, both Jews and Christians, give uncritical support to Israel. No President dares to do anything that would give that large bloc of voters a reason to vote for the other party in the next election.

The United States has more leverage than any other country with Israel. Israel is the largest recipient of American foreign aid. A President could simply cut off the supply of money if the leaders of Israel refused to follow his directions. A president could simply tell Israel to evacuate to the recognized international border between Israel and the Palestinian territory and abandon the protection of settlements on the Palestinian side. The occupants of the settlements would then have to decide whether to stay and live in Arab Palestine or move into Israel proper or, perhaps, return to their countries of origin. Giving the settlements back to Palestine and dismantling the system of road blocks would go a long way toward undermining support for Hamas and Hezbollah among Palestinians and Lebanese. However, considering present political reality in the United States, these things aren’t going to happen.

We will, instead, continue to muddle along. Successive Presidents will be as sensitive to the fundamentalist Jewish and Christian voters as past Presidents. Hezbollah and Hamas may be destroyed, but a new set of terrorists or guerilla freedom fighters (the name depends on your point of view) will spring up to continue to harass the government and residents of Israel.