Posted on 04/12/2002 11:25:03 AM PDT by knighthawk
As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell arrives in Israel, it is clear that there are three seemingly quite separate wars being fought in the Middle East at present. For the sake of simplicity let's say that one is being conducted in Hebrew, another in Arabic and a third one in English. Each is clearly illustrated in the media coverage of the conflict in Israel, the Arab world and the West. The basis and subtext of each war is different and one must read between the lines to deduce the true nature of the conflict.
The differences are apparent in the terminology used by the protagonists. For Israel, this war is a continuation of "ebb and flow," the term it uses to describe the Palestinian violence, which started in October, 2000. The Palestinians prefer the more loaded "intifada" (uprising). Israel terms its actions as defensive -- the Palestinians as offensive. Israel defines its operations as reprisal raids -- the Palestinians as re-occupation. Israel sees the conflict as a matter of Palestinian nationalism, while the Palestinians talk of a state (this is meant to reassure Israelis that they still subscribe to a two-state solution). Israel makes the demand for reciprocity, the Palestinians for more concessions.
These linguistic differences are important when examining the deeper rationales for the war.
The Hebrew version of the war is not about Israel attempting to defeat the Palestinians. Rather it chronicles a defensive response by Israel to the widely held belief among the Israeli political and military elite that Yasser Arafat is attempting to impose a solution on Israel by unleashing tactical violence to win political concessions.
In this respect, Mr. Arafat has done what no Arab leader since the late President Gamal Nasser of Egypt managed some 35 years ago, namely, unified Israelis. On a recent visit to Israel I was struck by the return of a feeling of national awareness and solidarity. Mr. Arafat, in attempting to push Palestinian nationalism, may have awakened a sleeping giant. Yes there are disagreements, but these are over tactics, and not war aims.
In Arabic, the war is viewed as one of national liberation of the Palestinian state from Jewish occupation. Surprisingly, given the fact that Mr. Arafat and the vast majority of the PA are secular in nature, there has been a strong religious streak to the justification for the war. This may well be because, in terms of justification, there is very little else that a Palestinian leader who was offered such a state by an Israeli Prime Minister at Camp David in 2000 -- and turned it down -- can do. In recent speeches in Arabic, Mr. Arafat has increasingly used religious and historic references to Islamic lands, sending martyrs to Jerusalem and talking of Palestine in terms of all the lands to the West of the River Jordan.
The Arabic press does not mention the Camp David summit of 2000, or the fact that the some 80% of Israelis still accept the creation of the Palestinian state. Ehud Barak, the then-Israeli prime minister, who offered these concessions, is portrayed as a hardliner, and the veteran dove, Shimon Peres, as a puppet of Mr. Sharon. Interestingly, the press in some Arab states argues Mr. Arafat was duped by Israel into signing the Oslo Accords in 1993, and that Israel has done little to enhance Palestinian security -- a novel departure from Western conventional wisdom. In closed, non-democratic, societies, however, the power of such messages remains very strong. Most Arabs I talk to -- and these tend to be academics -- really believe that Israel is to blame for most Arab hardships.
The English version of the war is the crudest, with complex issues analyzed in black and white. At the centre is the good guy-bad guy division, questions of right and wrong, and subjective interpretations of the concept of justice. Israel is often portrayed as the bad guy, and its actions in the West Bank are viewed as wrong. Many Western journalists attempt to give balance to what they see as the two central issues of the conflict; Israeli security needs and Palestinian nationalism, but like their political leaders fail to comprehend the deeper issues involved. At times their reporting is too underpinned by Western rational thought. They call for both sides to agree to address both security and nationalist issues, or in other words an Israeli withdrawal in return for a promise by Mr. Arafat to end Palestinian violence. If only it were that simple.
The truth is that this very Middle Eastern war is about gaining strategic advantage prior to agreeing to political terms. Israel is saying to the Palestinians, remember you cannot destroy us, and that you must lower your expectations in the political negotiations to come. In layman's terms, Mr. Arafat and his paramilitaries cannot lay siege to Israeli cites and settlements and force it into political concessions. For the Palestinians, the war represents the completion of the strategy started in October, 2000, of using violence to obliterate the memory of Camp David and win back Arab and international sympathy for Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian cause. The international community seems to miss these simple points. It needs to wake up to the true nature of the conflict if it is to help disengage the two sides and start some form of political dialogue in the future.
Neill Lochery is director of the Centre for Israeli Studies at University College in London.
This article is pure wishful thinking. The claim is that both sides are playing a dangerous game of posturing for future political gain. They two sides are morally equivalent, and merely in need of an enlightened negotiator to bring them together.
The Communists had a term for people like him: Useful Idiot.
To point out the obvious: Arafat is not looking for strategic gains in order to get better political terms. He has already turned down an opportunity to get everything he could possibly expect to get.
This war is partly about elimination of the state of Israel, and partly about attempted unification of all Arabs/Muslims in holy war against the West.
People like this author simply cannot understand any situation that does not fit into their morally equivalent mold. That the Arabs/Muslims might really mean what they say would mean they were evil - not morally equivalent at all. They are incapable of understanding this possibility.
These morally blind "useful idiots" infest the salons of Europe, and academia in America. They think of themselves as well educated, informed, well intentioned, and nice. They are very dangerous because they weaken us from within. These "nice" people are indirect allies of an evil that poses a threat to the very survival of civilization.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.