Friends,

Rarely has focus on strife in the middle east taken on such a universal cast and sustained a coalescence of solidarity on both sides for as long as this period of the conflict. Why? Probably for a number of reasons. I suspect the great disappointment by many of the failed peace process in which so many pinned their hopes has resulted in political turmoil in the leadership of both the Palestinians and Israelis. Other contributing factors are world uncertainty stemming from the war on terrorism, the continual rise of religious Islamic fundamentalism, and the general economic malaise in the western world.

When people are in distress sustained by uncertainty, disappointment, frustration and anxiety, they tend to question many significant aspects of their world and lives and identity. Such is happening amongst many of our fellow Jews as well as so many others. Knowledge and sustainable facts can help us navigate these uncertain times with the solace that the world is still a rather predictable one and that it is sustained with a long term trend of progress and perfectibility despite many forks and roadblocks along the way.

With this in mind, I want to share with you certain distortions that are commonly propagated in general discourse and in the public realm relating to the middle east conflict and my response with an explication of the actual reality. It is my hope that this may help you in your own thoughts or in responding to others. For some of you this may not represent anything you have not been aware of before, for some it may be quite revealing, and for some it may enlighten you just a little bit. In any case I hope it will help all deal with the current state of affairs whether it represents reinforcement, confirmation, or enlightenment.

1. The charge has been made over and over again that Israel is an aggressor of Arab lands occupying their territory and oppressing their population illegally.

   REALITY: Israel has not occupied one scintilla of Arab land that it either was not granted by the world's nations in the United Nation's mandate of 1948 or through acquisition in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and finally the Yom Kippur War. In each case, it was Arab countries that either threatened or actually initiated war with the State of Israel with the goal of either annihilating the state or decimating it. I know of no country that wins a war and takes over the territory of its enemy and gives up that territory unilaterally without a political settlement of some sort.
     

2. The charge has been often made that Israel is a foreign presence that took land of a settled people and has displaced whole populations while imposing their domination and will in an unjust occupation of the region.

   REALITY: No country in the immediate region with the possible exception of Egypt has had a legitimate historical claim on its approximate boundaries generally unchanged through the course of history through wars or colonial occupation. The boundaries of every other Arab confrontational state have vacillated over time due to the impreciseness of colonial occupation, internal revolutions, and tribal warfare. Historically, Jews and their ancestors have as legitimate a claim to territory in the general vicinity as any other culture. In fact, the religio-cultural identity of the ancient Hebrews with that of modern day Israelis have a lot more in common than the tribal and cultural differences between indigenous Arab populations and more recent Arab interlopers in some Arab countries. This particularly applies to Saudi Arabia , Jordan and the rest of the west bank territory.
      

3. The statement is made by many Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority that if Israel just gives back all the occupied territories obtained from the last wars and settled the refugee problem and divide Jerusalem then they will recognize Israel as a sovereign state and respect her borders.

   REALITY: Every Arab state including the Palestinian entity or what is left of it has a disconnect between its governmental leaders and their pronouncements supported by a ruling elite and the masses of their population. The masses are largely poor uneducated people who are susceptible to the extremism of political and religious forces. They see Israel in apocalyptic terms threatening their way of life and existence. They view Israel as the Western invasion within their midst; an extension of Western colonial domination. The governments of these Arab countries, every one which is authoritarian and non democratic, are trying to reach modernity and acceptance in the world community. They walk a fine line in trying to deal with Israel and the western world and satisfying the emotional needs of its population. Therefore any settlement would have to provide some reconciliation with this contradictory state of affairs and some stability and protection for the continuity of an agreement. Politicians in the flourishing democracy of Israel appeal to a wide spectrum of differences of opinion in its population. Arab and Palestinian leaders certainly exhibit dual messages in their rhetoric for foreign consumption and that for their own population. It is this uncertainty of intentions and ability of enforcement of any agreement that makes reaching a settlement so difficult. And of course it breeds an environment of distrust that must be broken for any settlement to be reached.
      

4. It is frequently remarked that the Israeli occupation of the territories has brought brutality and oppression to the Palestinian population.

   REALITY: Yes, foreign control in the midst of a hostile and resisting population is bound to result in harsh measures whereby some of the occupiers, laboring under the stress of constant threats and hostility, may act in inappropriate and brutal ways. But such measures have always existed in Palestinian territory by occupying Arab governments. It is nothing new to Arab populations in every Arab country in the region. One suffers under the yoke of oppression no matter whether it is meted out by Arab or Jew. It is not a new state of affairs brought on by the Jewish occupation. Nevertheless this does not justify brutality. It only points out that one country occupying another is not a desirable state of affairs. It brutalizes both the occupied and the occupier. What seems to be important is that brutality is a behavior that is antithetical to the general psyche of the Israeli population. More than a few of its soldiers protested their own occupation during the first intifada and it has also occurred during the present intifada. Seventy five percent of the Israeli public consistently favors an eventual end to the occupation. But it is only reasonable that this could occur in exchange for a settlement that will provide security for Israel.
      

5. It is sometimes pointed out that Israelis discriminate against Arabs in their own land and are no better than authoritarian Arab regimes.

   REALITY: The first part is true, the second is false. Yes, Israeli Arabs have always been treated as second class citizens but Israelis also discriminate against its own Jewish citizens. Like the United States, Israel has the most diverse population of the world's nations. Other than the relatively few Jews who for centuries remained in Palestine during the mandate period and those who came during the first yishuv (immigration wave) in the early 20th century, after statehood in 1948 Jews came from all over the world and almost every conceivable culture, bound only by their sense of Jewishness and oppression. Because of the external threat from Arab countries, Israel has never had a chance to go through a social revolution resulting in a significant integration of its disparate population. As a result discrimination has existed between Ashkenazi (European) Jews and Sephardi (Jewish largely from Arab lands) Jews, poor and wealthier Israelis, Ethiopian and Indian Jews and lighter skinned ones, and now Russian Jews and Israelis.

   Yet the second class status of Israeli Arabs has still afforded them greater integration in rights and opportunities in Israeli society than most minorities in Arab societies. As a result Israeli Arabs have a higher standard of living and far greater educational, health, and political opportunity than most Arabs in surrounding lands. Nevertheless, for the first time Israeli Arabs have more overtly supported the Palestinian intifada, a clear sign of their lack of integration in Israeli society.

   In contrast Islam never went through a period of enlightenment, thus failing to afford its Arab adherents an opportunity to reconcile its theological doctrine with the modern world. This factor combined with the widespread poverty and educational ignorance of the neighboring Arab populations has led to the Islamic extremism of the large number of Arab poor. The inequities in their society is very great and, fed by their religious and some of the more radical and secular political leadership, leads to an extremely hostile rejection of foreign elements within their midst. This condition has been a major contributor to the inability of Arab governments and ruling elites to reach a meaningful accommodation with the State of Israel as well as to make a significant transition to modernity in their own societies.
      

6. Some contend that a chance for real peace ended either when Yitzchak Rabin was assassinated, Ehud Barak failed in his peace efforts, Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister, or that Yasser Arafat can never make peace nor will anyone following him be able to get enough support to successfully conclude a peace agreement.

   REALITY: People tend to associate individual leaders as the embodiment of the whole society from which they emerge. We tend to place more empowerment in their hands and demonize or make them more heroic and indispensable than they really are. We therefore understand events and their course as an inextricable and inevitable link to the fate of a country's leaders. Yet individuals are only on the world scene for a relatively short period of time and are just as much controlled by circumstances beyond their control as they are able to shape events. Leaders reflect circumstances which precede them and in turn have a limited effect on events that succeed them. History takes on a direction that is beyond the absolute control of any single individual or leader. It is truly an extraordinary leader whose actions play a significant influence in the direction of events for long periods following their disappearance from the stage of history. One must be very careful in projecting the fate of a country or permanent state of affairs based on an individual leader in power for a relatively short period of time.

   There is no question that David Ben Gurion helped forge an Israeli state that has allowed it to be a dominant player on the middle eastern stage to this very day. Equally, Yasser Arafat has played a pivotal role in shaping a Palestinian identity. A crucial difference between the two leaders is that Ben Gurion had put into place both institutional structures and political and social elements that have allowed Israel to develop, grow, prosper, and be able to defend itself that has had a lasting effect. Yasser Arafat has been shaped more by events and splintered groups than one who has directed a movement. The modern history of the Palestinian people and movement are embodied and symbolized in his persona but he has never been able to control and direct events on his own. The world and political leaders too often have incorrectly empowered him because of an illusory attribution of power to his authority. Yet his position as leader has always been tenuous and his direction has always been a result of a compromise entailing the least resistance among many continuing centers of competing power and authority within the Palestinian movement.

   Placing too much faith for resolution in individual leaders on both sides in resolving the conflict, whether they are Begin, Rabin, or Arafat, has led both people and interested government leaders down a frustrating illusory path of hope only to end in a seemingly endless intractableness. The Arab and Palestinian and Israeli conflicts has strewn the whole political landscape with ruined careers and dashed hopes. Yet a careful look at the history of the conflict would demonstrate a definite line of progress leading toward more significant positive and sustained intercourse. This path has had uneven fits and starts but the eventual direction is very clear.

   What is also clear is that conflict resolution can transcend moments in time, even generations in history and that each time frame represents a piece of the final mosaic. We must be cognizant that there is nothing ordained that our wishes must be attained within our time nor that history ever stands still. One can hope to influence its course but can never dictate the results with certainty. The danger lies when people lose hope.

 Knowledge is empowerment. It is my intent that these remarks enables us to have a clearer understanding of the events that have occurred and are presently happening so that we will not be confused and give up hope for the future. One must be involved and engaged in some way to shape the future. One must guard against misinformation and confusion to cloud the vision of what is and what can be. May it so be the will of God, Kein Y'hee Ratzon.