This blog entry is a letter responding to an invitation to join a group interested in discussing current affairs in a thoughtful manner. Two more such entries will be added here. As others are written, they will be included here.
Gentlemen,
First, again, thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I’m honored to be included and encouraged to express some thoughts. But now a couple of points. First, I’m a retired college professor and no answer from me is short. So, be prepared. Second, some background about Mr. Fareed and me. He is a Muslim, and I am a Jew. Between us, we have our biases. He will tend to favor Palestinian positions and I will tend to favor the Israeli side. That’s just the nature of things despite our efforts to honor facts.
These facts, as Churchill once said, “United wishes and good will cannot overcome brute facts.”[1] Frankly, most news casts, and particularly, their pundits, ignore brute facts and proceed blithely into false idiocies. Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, was a master at this art. So, for this essay, I’ll try to cite sources for each of my statements to ensure they conform to concrete facts. My promise if we are to achieve a good understanding of how the world got into this mess in the Middle East. Incidentally, reliance on facts should prevail in the Ukrainian war.
This discussion seems to have come from Dr. Clark’s research into the Balfour agreement. Taken at face value, it does indicate a separate state for the Jews and another for the Palestinians. In fact, there was some recognition of this possibility. However, the Balfour Agreement was a vague document that reflected the various attitudes of the Europeans and the Arabs.
In general, there was a misconception that Palestine was an empty land. As early Zionist leader, Chaim Weizman, claimed with apparent general agreement among his peers, that Jews should settle in Palestine as it “was underpopulated, with plenty of empty space.” This conceit belied the existence of 700,000 people whose roots in the area were very old. The Arab delegate, Feisel, did not generate any strong protest about a Jewish settlement, and, in fact, had a friendly meeting with Weizman in which Weizman donned an Arab headdress. From it, Weizman reported that Feisel did not “place much value on Palestine: ‘He is contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn’t regard as Arabs.’” Still, both men were cautious about a Jewish state. Weizman talked only about a “settlement” and Feisal hedged his support with a requirement of conferring with his father, the Hajaz king.
The British envoy, Balfour, was emotionally committed to finding a homeland for the Jews. This comes through clearly in the letter cited by Dr. Clark. There was another motive to this support: blocking French dominance in the region that stemmed “from an ancient claim to Palestine” as protector of the Catholics living in the area. A Jewish population was seen as an effective blockade. However, the British had made numerous promises to Arab leaders during the War in hopes of gaining their support against the Ottoman empire. Those promises were expected to be met. Consequently, British diplomats had a straddle a fine line between support for a nascent Jewish settlement by any name and meeting Arab aspirations in the Middle East.
The Americans had just returned from the war Europe to end all wars. They felt they had done their job and renounced their position as a world-leader in place of a rising sense of isolationism. Eventually, the Senate would discard Wilson’s dream of a League of Nations. But still another fact had arisen in America. The Jewish population had grown immensely during the early decades of the 20th century. Before WW I, American Jews numbered 250,000. Afterwards their population had grown to 3 million. Clearly, this number of voters meant something to American politicians even if they personally didn’t like Jews very much. [2]
There were people at the Balfour Conference who were clear in their ambitions. They wanted a Jewish state for Jewish people. Theit ambition ran counter to the vague statements and intentions of the envoys there. Weizman, would have perhaps wanted to advocate for a state, but he was cautious of pressing for it. That event would arrive in 1948 after the Holocaust when the United Nations, representing the majority will of world’s nations decided that indeed Jews needed a safe harbor. Immediately afterwards, Arab nations attacked in the War of Independence. Since then Israel has fought eight wars and a number of insurgencies. These conflicts would lead to world conferences and agreements such as the Oslo Agreement. As of now, Egypt and Jordan have honored their agreements even through very trying times.
The Gaza Strip had been controlled through these times by Egypt and used as a refugee camp until the Six Day War when Israel took it. It controlled the territory in keeping of their apparent policy of “You start the war; we keep the land.” The Oslo Agreement directed the establishment of a Palestinian government that would be under direction of Palestinian Authority. This authority was directed by Yasser Arafat who “renounced ‘terrorism and other acts of violence’ against Israel.’” This pledge was quickly broken, and the U.S. labeled the PLO a terrorist group. Subsequently, in 2005, under the direction of Israel’s prime minister, Ariel Sharon, Jewish settlements were evacuated and the IDF left the territory. In 2007, by elected victory, Hamas replaced the PLO and has remained its government since.[3]
The political position of Hamas is the establishment of a Palestinian government over the entire territory. It has never recognized the legitimacy of Israel. At best, it accepts Israel’s existence as a “fait accompli.” As cited in Wikipedia:
In 2007, Hamas signed the Fatah–Hamas Mecca Agreement.[335] At the time of signing this agreement, Moussa Abu Marzouk, Deputy Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau, said regarding the recognition of Israel: “I can recognize the presence of Israel as a fait accompli (amr wâqi‘) or, as the French say, a de facto recognition, but this does not mean that I recognize Israel as a state.”[4]
The policies of Hamas throughout its tenure have been the destruction of Israel and establishment of a Palestinian state. It has engaged in limited warfare that can be identified as “asymmetric.” This type of warfare can be typified as “guerilla warfare” in which the weaker nation engages in protracted insurgencies; attack and retreat; and usage of unlawful, civilian attired troops. Its purpose is the exhaustion of the larger, conventionally equipped nation such that it will accept the political terms of the weaker state.[5]
Included in its weaponry is the use of human shields. As defined in Wikipedia, these actions are the “deliberate placement of non-combatants in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets.”[6] An example would be housing combat forces in a hospital. Such actions are considered to be war crimes under the Geneva Convention and Rome Statute.[7] In the current war, usage of human shields not only provide some modicum of protection for its military and political forces, it also offers a political advantage of currying international outrage when news reports parade images of terrible human suffering.
This tactic puts Israel in a difficult, tenuous position. Since civilian populations wear no uniforms, they cannot be separated into “weapons of war” and innocents. Therefore if Israel forbears from attacking any of them, they leave Hamas with a significant military advantage. If they attack the civilian population at large, as they have done to obliterate the militarized segment, they incur international wraith as has happened. “They can’t win for losing” is a good way of describing their situation.
This type of warfare has a long history in America. Out Revolution was largely fought by irregular forces in asymmetric warfare against Britian. There are two books that describe well the problems Britain faced in combatting these insurgents. They are Cornwallis and the War of Independence and Redcoats and Rebels. Later we fought a prolonged asymmetric war against the Indians. A good book about them is The Origins of Native Americans. Finally our colossal failure in Viet Nam.
The great writer about war, Carl von Clausewitz, once stated that all wars are politics raised to a higher level of intensity. That dictum can be seen in this essay about the Middle East conflicts. Political leaders have been deciding the fate of Middle Easterners for more than a century. Thousands have died as a result: Muslims and Jews alike. In the UN decision to create Israel, Palestinians were forced from their homes never to return. I have personally spoken with refugees from this action. They were bitter. Israelis can be likened to the White settlers who decimated the Indians. Yet, Israel exists and will continue to exist just as the United States exists and will continue to exist. Will we give our land back? Not a chance. As Senator Hayakawa once allegedly quipped when asked about returning land, “Never. We stole the land fair and square.” Neither will Israel return its land.
These leaders are all following the calculus of their political positions. Consequently, from their perspective the questions must be asked: “Why should Hamas make peace with Israel?” “Why should Netanyahu stop bombing Gaza civilians?” “Why should President Biden completely adopt Fareen’s ideas?” From this perspective, the answers to these questions become clear: because it’s expedient not too. This means that pundits and leaders alike must study the positions of the antagonists and decide why change becomes an advantageous expedient. This does not imply morality. That is irrelevant in these negotiations. Real Politic is the incubus of these actions. Several Arab and Jewish leaders have tried to follow this idea. Anwar Sadat and Yitzak Rabin were assassinated by fellow countrymen for their efforts. Such were the sacrifices made for steps toward enduring peace that led to normal relations between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. It’s a dangerous busine
[1] Churchill’s Statement About Stubborn Facts. https://search.aol.com/aol/video;_ylt=AwrErS9XPuZlQDIAM7FpCWVH;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzIEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Nj?q=churchill%27s+statement+about+stubborn+facts&v_t=loki-keyword. 4 March 2024
[2] MacMillan, Margaret. Paris 1919. New York, NY: Random House. 2001. Chapter 28.
[3] “Gaza Strip.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip. 5 March 2024.
[4] “Hamas. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Etymology. 5 March 2024.
[5] “Asymmetric Warfare.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare. 5 March 2024.
[6] “Human Shield.” Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield. 5 March 2024.