March, 2002

My Hope for Peace in the Middle East
Tom Mayer, Department of Sociology

Hope is indispensable to human betterment. In the absence of hope policies founded upon revenge and/or despair usually prevail. Yet is there any reason to be hopeful about peace between Palestinians and the Israelis in the near future? A very plausible answer would be "no". Official Palestinian leadership is corrupt, ineffectual, and largely discredited among its own constituents. The most politically energetic Palestinians appear committed to a long term war of attrition against Israeli society a central tactic of which is suicide bombing.

Israel shows no inclination to end its 35 year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza or to allow the Palestinians a genuine state. The current prime minister of Israel is a war criminal who, notwithstanding five decades of contrary evidence, believes in crushing the Palestinian national movement by force and conspires to incorporate all Palestinian lands into Israel. Most discouragingly, this prime minister and these policies presently enjoy the support of the Israeli majority.

The United States, the other prime actor in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is thoroughly preoccupied by what our leaders call terrorism. This preoccupation legitimates a unilateral foreign policy galling to many other countries, an open ended militarism with undefined and readily expandable targets, and a resounding unconcern with matters of social justice. American political opinion currently expresses itself through a flood of American flags pasted almost everywhere. These are intended to show support for the victims of September 11 as well as political solidarity, but in reality they symbolize uncritical acquiescence to whatever domestic repressions or foreign adventures our leaders undertake. One of these adventures is virtually carte blanche support for the present Israeli government. Although many countries despise American support for Israeli repression, U.S. economic and military power is so overweening that no other government (or international agency) can effectively intervene within the Middle East political arena.

In the face of these disheartening realities, what hope can exist for peace in the Middle East? My own hope, such as it is, rests upon four distinct pillars: (a) a widely shared sense of justice, (b) the impracticality of current policies, (c) recognition that world peace is closely linked to peace in the Middle East, and (d) broad consensus on the general lines for resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Briefly consider each of these pillars. International norms of justice may be pallid and insubstantial, but Israeli treatment of the Palestinians still violates these norms. Indignation is amplified by the political and cultural context. The modern state of Israel was nurtured and sustained by imperialist power in the Middle East, first British and then American. Thus Israeli treatment of the Palestinians evokes much of the resentment felt against imperialism as a whole.

Suicide bombers cannot destroy Israeli society. They can only undermine the more progressive tendencies within Israeli culture and validate its repressive chauvinistic aspects. Neither can military force crush the Palestinian national movement or create enduring security for the citizens of Israel. The policies of Prime Minister Sharon disempower the more conciliatory sectors of the Palestinian national movement and strengthen the wing committed to armed struggle. Meanwhile the United States war on terrorism, if it continues to adumbrate arbitrary "axes of evil", will surely evolve into a full scale catastrophe - perhaps resembling Vietnam - that dwarfs the losses of September 11.

Nor can continued violence in the Middle East remain localized. On the contrary, such violence will sabotage even those brief and imperfect episodes of peace the world has experienced during recent decades. The lucrative resources, geographic nodality, and religious resonance of the Middle East region help explain its potency as a conflict detonator. Equally important, however, are the deep cultural and moral ties between Palestinians and Israelis on the one hand and sympathizers all over the globe on the other. Any Middle East imbroglio inevitably stirs passions around the world.

The general terms of a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians have been obvious for a long time. The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza must end, and Israel must return to its pre-1967 boundaries (perhaps with minor border adjustments). Israeli settlements in the occupied territories - settlements in complete violation of the Geneva Conventions - must be fully dismantled. Israel must acknowledge the unabridged sovereignty of a Palestinian state governing the West Bank and Gaza, and Jerusalem should be under joint Israeli-Palestinian administration. The Palestinian state, for its part, must recognize the full and unabridged sovereignty of Israel within its pre-1967 borders, and Palestinian territory cannot be a base for military operations against Israel.

Perhaps the most perplexing issue concerns Palestinian refugees. These refugees must be compensated economically for their losses and allowed to return wherever in the region they wish. Foreign powers, particularly the United States and Britain which helped create the current predicament, must shoulder a large share of the rapatriation expenses as well as opening their own borders to refugee immigration. Although these expenses will be formidable, they remain extremely small compared to the value of world peace.

A two state settlement is a necessary step, but I do not think it can or should be the ultimate resolution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The long term economic viability of the Palestinian state is at least doubtful, and relations between the two states may not be amicable. Demographic trends could easily render Jews a minority within Israel proper. A state founded upon the principle of ethnic or religious hegemony will not be truly democratic. Enduring peace in the Middle East mandates that the Palestinian and Israeli states evolve towards a unified, democratic, secular, and economically integrated polity. Such a polity would guarantee the security of each person and protect the practice of all religions. Joint administration of Jerusalem might provide a starting point. Herein lies my own hope for peace in the Middle East.

IN THIS ISSUE:

The opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors, and do not represent those of the Boulder Faculty Assembly, CU faculty at large, or the University of Colorado.

Submissions are requested and responses to these articles are welcome. Click here to provide an online response. Submissions may be sent via e-mail to Thomas.Mayer@Colorado.edu.

Click here for the names and contact information of the membership of the BFA Communications Committee.