The significance of the Zionist mission,
   Israel as a Jewish state, and
   Israel not being responsible for the Palestinian displaced persons.

All of these issues, which had roles in establishing the Israel state, are expressed with sweeping generalities, devoid of specifics and facts. Obfuscation, lack of clarity and an assumption that what is being related is correct often characterize discussions of these issues. No questions asked and nothing to explain.

Evidence contradicts the narratives that Israel’s supporters work diligently to create. Deconstructing the spurious Israeli narratives is an essential before constructing a base for Middle East peace.

The Zionist Mission

The Zionists portray themselves as a vanguard of Jewish thought and aspiration, leading the masses of Jewish people to freedom and fulfilling the promises denied to them by an adversarial world. History contradicts these portrayals, especially that of Zionism as a mass movement by the Jewish people. Zionist philosophy had little appeal to the Jewish people in the late 19th century.

The first Zionist Congress (1887) was to have taken place in Munich, Germany. However, due to considerable opposition by the local community leadership, both Orthodox and Reform, it was decided to transfer the proceedings to Basle, Switzerland.

Reform Judaism in a series of proclamations, which culminated in the 1885 Pittsburgh Conference, rejected the Zionist program (Note: Overturned in 1999 by contemporary Reform Judaism):

“We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning a Jewish state.”

The 19th century emancipation movements liberated West and Middle European Jews and permitted them to integrate into European society.

“Jews emerged as writers of secular literature, enriching English, French, and German literature with novels, short stories, poems, and essays. In Britain, Benjamin Disraeli, who converted to Christianity, wrote popular novels before becoming prime minister. Heinrich Heine, who converted to Christianity in order to earn a law degree in Germany, became one of the best-loved German poets.”

The Zionist agenda evidently preferred Disraeli to remain Jewish and not become Britain’s Prime Minister. Jews rejected this agenda, which they perceived as prompting nations to question the loyalty of their Jewish citizens, as serving to impede their advances, and as reinforcing a race-baiting theory that Jews engaged in international conspiracies. Anti-Zionist Rabbis insisted: “Zion exists everywhere but in Zion.”

Examine the Russian Jews. They had significantly more problems than other European Jews. Nevertheless, they didn’t consider Zionism as a relief for their difficulties. Between 1881 and 1914, 2.5 million Jews migrated from Russia—1.7 million to America, 500,000 to Western Europe, and almost 300,000 to other nations. Until 1914, only a mere 30,000 – 50,000 Russian Jews followed the Zionist call to Palestine and 15,000 of them eventually returned to Russia.

So, if not for Zionism, how did the Israel state arrive and swell into millions of inhabitants?

By 1914, Zionism had become a stagnant adventure. Somehow, and in some way, someone took advantage of the Allies victory in World War I to promote the Balfour Declaration, which approved “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.” The League of Nations’ certification of the British mandate in Palestine prevented the formation of a national Palestinian governing body and many English speaking European Jews came to work in the British administration Fly below the cloud of propaganda and rhetoric and the principal result of the original Zionist agenda is easily observed: People of uncertain circumstance (not dedicated Zionists) and favored by the Zionists have been transferred from their countries to a new land, while people of more certain circumstances and not favored by the Zionists have been displaced from their lands. The less favored have become refugees and, in many cases, been reduced to poverty.

The Jews who immigrated to Israel immediately after 1948 arrived for mainly economic and political reasons and not to fulfill a Zionist mission. Israel even claims the massive number of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East (Mizrahi) did not arrive voluntarily, but were forced out of their homes. Zionism has not persuaded a great number of Jews to leave their western nations, not deterred them from greatly participating in their nations’ economic and social gains and not prevented them from integrating themselves into their nations’ cultures. The Economist (Jan. 11, 2007) mentions that only 17% of American Jews regard themselves as pro-Zionist and only 57% say that “caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.”

In the last decades, Russians from the former Soviet Union, most of whom preferred to migrate to the United States, have been the principal immigrants to Israel. Many of them are dubious Jews or lost their Jewish roots during the Communist era. Orthodox Jews, who came for religious reasons and not to join their secular compatriots in common pursuits, are the fastest growing segment of the Israeli Jewish population. Where they settle, the secular Jews tend to leave. More aligned with Rabbis preaching mystical nineteenth century philosophies, these orthodox Jews isolate themselves from their fellow Israelis and from worldwide Jewry.

The dubious Zionists created a dubious Jewish state.

The Jewish State

By what authority did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaim, “The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people,” and “Jerusalem is the united capital of the State of Israel and the Jewish people?”

The Jewish people don’t have a central authority and no referendum of its 15 millions has been taken. PM Netanyahu might not care, but many Jews fear that their fellow citizens might one day ask: “You have a country, what are you doing here?” or suggest that Jews are more loyal to a foreign nation and are working for that nation.

It is difficult to characterize Israel as a Jewish nation. Avraham Burg, former Knesset speaker and former head of the Jewish Agency has been quoted as saying, “to define the State of Israel as a Jewish state is the key to its end.” The term ‘Jewish nation’ has never been adequately defined and there is nothing exceptional in Israel that identifies a specific Jewish morality, culture or Judaic atmosphere

The cool and breezy manner in which the Israelis express the words ‘Jewish state’ intends to create a comfortable feeling; nothing hostile towards anyone, just a satisfactory note to Jewish citizens. Cause for alarm is abundant. Israel has no written constitution. Its laws discriminate against its minorities and separate its citizens.

   (1) The entire Jewish population left Nazareth many years ago and established a new Nazareth. The new Nazareth receives substantial benefits from the government and has grown prosperous and modern. The old Arab Nazareth remains old.
   (2) In Haifa, the Arab population lives by the sea. The Jewish population lives in the hills.
   (3) Few Palestinians have been able to rent housing or buy property in West Jerusalem.
   (4) In Acre, immigrant Jews are able to acquire property but are not allowed to sell the property to Arab citizens.
   (5) Tel Aviv has contiguous populations but not mixed populations.
   (6) Few, if any Arabs, have been able to purchase government sponsored housing.
   (7) The separation of populations results in the separation of activities, recreation centers, schools and education.
   (8) Although some Arabs are able to obtain college scholarships, the large majority of college scholarships require previous military duty. Since Arabs are not allowed to serve in the Israeli army, few Arabs can obtain college scholarships.
   (9) Arabs don’t obtain many housing loans.
   (10) The state of Israel owns more than 90 percent of the land. Non-Jewish citizens cannot, except in rare occasions, purchase land.
   (11) Whenever the Israeli army wants to construct a military base, Arab property is expropriated for the endeavor.
   (12) Since marriages are performed by a rabbi, a Jew cannot marry a non-Jew within the boundaries of Israel.

Separation of ethnicities is most apparent in how Israel and most of the world differ in regarding nationality. It’s not just separation. It’s a de facto apartheid, which the words ‘Jewish state’ will tend to reinforce.

All Americans have both United States citizenship and nationality. Israelis have Israel citizenship, but don’t have an Israel nationality. Israel’s citizens have either Jewish, Arab, Druze, Samaritan, Circassian, Kara’ite or foreign nationality. Jewish nationals already have overwhelming preference in the Israeli state, Defining Israel as a Jewish state seems ominous; only an attempt to give some meaning to the preference, and reinforce it to an extent that being non-Jewish means you might as well leave

Add to the dangerous mix of laws, which favor the favored nationals, the declarations of Israel’s leaders. According to the Jewish Daily Forward (March 18, 2009): “Foreign Secretary Avigdor Lieberman was elected to the Knesset on a platform that would require a loyalty oath as a condition of Israeli citizenship. He has suggested transferring Israeli-Arab population centers to the control of a future Palestinian state.”

Israel today is a nation whose people have conditions, problems, purposes and values that are different from Jews around the world. The Israeli characteristics aren’t derivatives of a three thousand year-old part urban and part tribal society – but are associated with a specific 21st century industrial society. The specifics create an Israeli identity that is not aligned with the identities of Jews in other nations. Israel is attempting to make all Jews into good Israelis and redefine the meaning of being Jewish. This includes being agreeable to Fundamentalist Christianity, which is not agreeable to world Jewry, but is Israel’s best friend. Israel is strengthening a fervent antagonist of Jewish and progressive peoples.

Recall the conclusion of the King-Crane commission, which was appointed by President Wilson in 1919:

…a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted by the Peace Conference, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.

Israelis also make it seem that the route to the ‘Jewish state’ was a natural progression; disregarding their roles in creating the Palestinian displaced persons and the evictions of almost one million Palestinians from their lands.

The Displaced Persons

Israel did not permit Palestinians who left or were evicted during the 1948 and 1967 conflagrations to return to their homes and lands. Assets, businesses, property and household items were confiscated and the owners were not reimbursed. Israeli historian Benny Morris summarized the evictions well:

I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

Benny Morris used the correct phrase: “… if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate…” It was not legitimate. The choice was not between “having a Jewish state and not dispossessing the Palestinians.” The choice was between “not having the expanded state that Israel gained” and “dispossessing the Palestinians.” Almost all the evicted Palestinians were in the territory granted to the Palestinians. Not since the days of American expansionism has a group of individuals (Israel was not even a declared nation when the confiscations began nor had Arab armies attacked at that time.) invaded another land, seized the territory and cleared the area of the indigenous people.

Can anyone believe that Israel is not directly responsible for the Palestinian exodus? Did these people voluntarily decide to leave their homes, face starvation, have entire families commit suicide because of their desperation and then be willing to sit quietly in refugee camps? Are these verified reports of forced removals, terrorizing killings and destruction of more than 400 Palestinian villages only stories? Why were the villages destroyed? Why weren’t the villagers allowed to return? Why were vacant homes instantly occupied? In Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere, the western nations were firm in demanding prompt return of refugees and fought to achieve that demand. In other situations, refugees had been created, but wanton property and asset seizures were not a rule. In Palestine, Israel seized all properties and assets and allowed newly arrived foreigners to occupy vacant homes. No precedent for these illegal operations exists in the post World War II western civilized world. We have perpetrators telling victims; “Look it’s over, let’s forget it. You want restitution; it isn’t going to happen.”

Israel has revealed its nature; a nation built on actions normally termed war crimes by world institutions; a nation that does not follow international law; and a nation that does not heed United Nations Resolutions. Distracting and deceiving the world community with contrived and fallacious narratives permits Israel to continue its illegal maneuvers. Setting the record straight will straighten the road to Middle East peace.

Place the refugee situation in its proper context.

Israel did not permit Palestinians who left or were evicted during the 1948 and 1967 conflagrations to return to their homes and lands. Assets, businesses, property and household items were confiscated and the owners were not reimbursed.

Israeli historian Benny Morris summarized the evictions well:

I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the country. From the moment the Yishuv was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population. To uproot it in the course of war.

Benny Morris used the correct phrase: “… if the desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate… It was not legitimate. The choice was not between “having a Jewish state and not dispossessing the Palestinians.” The choice was between “not having the expanded state that Israel gained” and “dispossessing the Palestinians.” Almost all the evicted Palestinians were in the territory granted to the Palestinians. Not since the days of American expansionism has a group of individuals (Israel was not even a declared nation when the confiscations began nor had Arab armies attacked at that time.) invaded another land, seized the territory and cleared the area of the indigenous people. Hasn’t the world learned anything since Biblical times?

The exiled Palestinians are displaced persons and not refugees. The United Nations definition of a refugee is “a person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.” Most of the Palestinians wanted to return to their homes, but they were denied entry. Some of them walked back to their villages from Ramallah or Bethlehem, after leaving for only two weeks, and found their homes occupied by Iraqis or other foreigners and were forced to leave again. Similar to situations during World Ware II, displaced persons fled the fighting. These were persons “forced from his or her country, esp. as a result of war, and left homeless elsewhere.” After the world failed to repatriate the displaced Palestinians, they were identified as refugees, which permitted then to be relocated to any land except their own.

Other misconceptions need correction.

Contrary to the intensive propaganda that describes the Arab nations as failing to assist the Palestinians, almost all Arab states opened their lands to them. Jordan and Syria eventually allowed the massive number of displaced persons to share in the social benefits and engage themselves in the economy. In Jordan, almost all Palestinians became citizens. Syria granted the Palestinians social and economic privileges normal to its citizens. Palestinians trained and worked in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Arab Emirates and Egypt. Only Lebanon, to where Palestinians were forced after a conflict erupted between PLO leader Yasser Arafat and Jordan’s King Hussein, denied the Palestinians access to normal public life. All this was done by impoverished Arab nations, who did not have sufficient resources for their own people and were politically unstable.

The nation that has refused to assist the dispossessed Palestinians has been Israel – the principal perpetrator of the refugee’s condition. Israel boasts of assisting Jewish refugees from Arab nations, but fails to mention that Israel’s policies made Arab nations suspicious of their Jewish citizens and Israeli intelligence forces instigated their emigration, which Israel sought. The Mizrahi served to occupy vacated Arab homes, boost the military and swell the Israeli population.

Another bit of propaganda exclaims that Arab nation leaders urged against citizenship for the displaced Palestinians. Naturally. The Arab nations felt the Palestinians would forfeit the Right of Return if granted citizenship and they would relieve Israel of its own obligations to the dispossessed persons.

Resettlement of these ‘refugees is not the only consideration. Most of them are without passports or attachment to any nation. The Right of Return, a right usually available to anyone driven from a land, deserves to be implemented. Displaced persons have severely overpopulated Gaza, making it one of the most densely populated regions in the world and a tinderbox for social and economic upheavals. Gaza’s population needs to be severely reduced for the entire population to live comfortably.

Because the displaced persons are not a constituency and are powerless, their grievances remain at the bottom of the priority list. Some nations refuse to permanently accommodate them, which extends the problem to perpetuity, Due to insufficient space and resources in the West Bank (which has its own displaced persons camps) it will de difficult to relocate all of the displaced persons to a forecasted Palestinian state. Nevertheless, what does the world expect to happen to these long suffering persons; just continue to suffer for millennia and stir up terrorism? Rather than being an afterthought, the refugees should be the primary thought – where they stay, where they go, and how they are they are brought from their deprivation to take a deserved place in the world.

Naturally this will create problems for Israel, but didn’t Israel cause the problem? UN Resolution 194 clearly stated:

… that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.

Refugees have always been allowed to return to their homes. Here again, the western world shows its bias towards Israel, even when faced with Israel’s contradictory policies.

Israeli courts have ruled that any person can petition the court to claim land, even after 100 years, and, if ruled in the claimants favor, evict the dweller. Jews have won many cases. Although it’s documented that Palestinians owned about 90 per cent of the land before partition, no Arab citizen has been able to exercise that right.

The Zionists promoted an unproven and historically disputable claim that all Jews are refugees from the land of their forefathers and have the ‘Right of Return’ after 2000 years. Why don’t Palestinians, all with historically proven claims, have the same right?

Can the Palestinian displaced persons problem be conveniently resolved?

Start with the number of Palestinian displaced persons.

According to BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency & Refugee Rights, the displaced Palestinian and their descendents are estimated to number about 7.1 million plus 500,000 internally displaced persons (IDP) in Israel and the Occupied Palestine Territories (OPT). The latter IDP’s were forced from their villages but still live in Israel and the OPT. Figures are debatable but the Table below from Badil categorizes the refugees in an approximate and accepted manner.

Note: Not all refugees are in camps.

* In Jordan, most Palestinian citizens are still registered as refugees.
** In the occupied territories, the populations have an undefined citizenship.
*** In Syria, Palestinian refuges have access to most social services and economic opportunities but cannot obtain citizenship.
**** The other category is not exaggerated. Chile has 300,000 Palestinians and many other Palestinians are unregistered and scattered around the world.

After validating the number and authenticity of the displaced persons, they will be presented with several choices:

(1) During a five year period, nations where they reside will permit a portion of the displaced persons to become citizens. Almost all nations where Palestinians presently reside will probably offer citizenship, except for Lebanon, which fears another radicalized minority in its midst. Lebanon might allow a fraction, possibly about 100,000 persons to become citizens. Because the Palestinians are approaching a majority, Jordan might deny 200,000 Palestinians from receiving citizenship. In the other nations, Palestinians have become well established in the societies and contribute economically. Once the issue shows resolution and Israel concedes to meet its obligations, there will be no reason for these nations not to grant citizenship.

(2) Over a five year period, western nations will offer to receive 1,500,000 Palestinians as immigrants. This is actually an obligation. Consider that the Partition Plan was doomed to failure and could only lead to what happened; the expulsions of the Palestinians to enable a predominant Jewish population in a Jewish state. The partitioned Jewish state had 495,000 Jews and 325,000 Palestinians and limited arable area for expanding the Jewish community. The immediate seizure of territory and expulsion of Palestinians were predictable, necessary to allow the Mizrahi from North Africa and the Middle East to emigrate and have suitable housing. Iraqi families were immediately placed in homes vacated by Palestinian families. Israel is most responsible for the dispossessions and planned destructions of Palestinian villages, but the nations that voted for partition without care and without thought of the consequences (except for the U.S. State Department who expressed doubts about the success of the partition plan) must share the blame and make amends.

In the United States, the Palestinian communities have proven to be the best citizens, exhibiting exemplary behavior – quiet, diligent, cooperative, moral, studious, educated, and with little attachment to crime or need for welfare. The Palestinians will integrate and contribute well in all nations.

(3) Israel will vacate all areas in the West Bank and East Jerusalem that are in violation of the UN Resolutions. Except for Israelis or their descendants who can prove ownership of property in the West Bank and East Jerusalem before 1948, all other properties, installations, institutions and homes will revert to Palestinians. Since Palestinian families are large and generally have been able to exist with less square feet of space, the vacated housing should accommodate about 750,000 Palestinians. This is the least the state of Israel can do for the illegal seizure of Palestinian lands and the oppressed conditions in which subsequent generations have been forced to live.

(4) Israel will admit 300,000 Palestinians who can show prior ownership of seized land. This requirement has several purposes:

It provides a token resolution to a great injustice.
It informs the world that ‘human rights’ is not an empty phrase.
It makes certain that a precedent no longer exists that allows the more powerful to seize possessions from the weaker.
It removes a stain that would forever afflict the Jewish community.
It presents the Arab world with a more satisfying perspective of western nations..

How does this work out?

Let’s use the BADIL figure of 7.1 million externally displaced Palestinians and 4.6 million offers to permit them to remain and acquire citizenship. The latter includes the 2.2 million who are already citizens in Jordan, the 456,000 who are quasi citizens in Syria, all other areas where Palestinians have already been integrated, and Lebanon permitting at least 100,000 to remain. Those in the West Bank and Gaza are not included in the offers. Consider that 10%, or 460,000, will refuse the offers and we still have 3.0 million displaced persons to rehabilitate. Certainly out of that figure there will be 1.5 million persons, many from Gaza and the West Bank, willing to immigrate to the western nations and situate among Palestinian communities that already exist in the western world. That leaves 1.5 million DPs. We then have 750,000 in the West Bank and Gaza moving to new home in the West Bank and 300,000 from all DPs moving back to Israel. That leaves only 450,000 displaced persons to find new accommodations in Gaza and the West Bank.

The population in Gaza and the West Bank will shrink by about 500,000, hopefully mostly from Gaza, which is now too overcrowded. Israel’s population within the Green line will increase by about 500,000 settlers and 300,000 repatriated Palestinians for a total of 800,000.

At first glance, this all seems improbable. It isn’t. Examining it carefully, if the displaced persons are granted citizenship in lands where they live, it comes down to only about 300,000 displaced persons from Lebanon and 200,000 from Jordan who are presently in UNWRA run refugee camps and another 460,000 from other nations who might refuse citizenship. The other displaced persons from the West Bank and Gaza warrant consideration, but they are presently on Palestinian territory and can be easily addressed.

The problem is not forecast to be with the Arab nations. They will cooperate if they definitely know the western nations and Israel will cooperate. The problem is with the western nations and Israel, who have been delinquent in recognizing their participation in the tragedy and the violence that has developed.

Can anyone believe that Israel is not directly responsible for the Palestinian exodus? Did these people voluntarily decide to leave their homes, face starvation, have entire families commit suicide because of their desperation and then be willing to sit quietly in refugee camps? Are these verified reports of forced removals, terrorizing, killings and destruction of more than 400 Palestinian villages only stories? Why were the villages destroyed? Why weren’t the villagers allowed to return? Why were vacant homes instantly occupied? In Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere, the western nations have been firm in demanding prompt return of refugees and have fought to achieve that demand. The Palestinian situation is more insidious. In other situations, refugees had been created, but wanton property and asset seizures were not a rule. In Palestine, Israel seized all properties and assets and allowed newly arrived foreigners to occupy vacant homes. No precedent for these illegal operations exists in the post World War II western civilized world.

If western leaders stop behaving cowardly and do what they must do to resolve an unjust situation that can paralyze the world for perpetuity, the world will breathe more easily. The road to Middle East peace starts with the resolution of the Palestinian involuntary displaced persons and not with what least harms the East European voluntary displaced persons of Avigdor Lieberman and his crowd.

More noticeable is that Ashkelon has an important story, a narrative that describes the Middle East conflict. The story begins with the Canaanites of 1800 B.C.

Ashkelon’s archaeological park has a treasure; a Canaanite gate from the walled city that gave the modern city its name. The Canaanites constructed a port on the Mediterranean Sea and used the sea together with city walls to provide a unique defense against invaders. The archaeological park contains artifacts from the Canaanite and succeeding civilizations; Philistines, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Crusader, all of whom eventually ruled the area until the Mamluks destroyed Ashkelon in the year 1270 A.D..
Missing from the list of conquerors of Ashkelon are the Israelites. No substantiated history or archaeological finds indicate Israelite administration of the coastal areas. This lack of coastal identification is surprising because, if the biblical claims of the extent of David and Solomon’s realms are true, wouldn’t these empires include seaports and fortifications close to the defendable Mediterranean Sea? A Canaanite gate from 1800 B.C. is still extant, but not a single identifiable structure from the reported eras of David and Solomon has been uncovered along the coast.

Which brings us to the year 1596 A.D.. In that year, the Arab village of al-Majdal in the Ottoman Empire, located close to the ruins of ancient Ashkelon, had a population of 559 inhabitants. An industrious village, known for a weaving industry that produced silk for festival dresses, Al-Majdal’s population grew to 11,000 by 1948. The poetic naming of their fabrics: ji’nneh u nar (heaven and hell), nasheq rohoh (breath of the soul), and abu mitayn (father of two hundred) signified the pride and originality of the Al-Majdal weavers.

Al-Majdal and its citizens suffered the fate of many Palestinian villages that hoped to escape the hostilities, but became engulfed in the 1948-1949 war in the Levant. Its residents sustained more than the usual injustices that were committed after the passage of United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Plan for Palestine.

Not well recognized is that the territory awarded to the Palestinians in Resolution 181 extended along the coast to present day Ashdod, 38 kilometers above Gaza. Al-Majdal had been awarded to the new Palestinian state. Also, not sufficiently explored is the reason that the Egyptian army, after its entrance into the war, refrained from entering deeply into territory awarded to the Jewish state. Egypt’s army captured the Yad Mordechai kibbutz, which was eight kilometers south of Al- Majdal, and stopped at Ashdod. Its army crossed the Negev (awarded to Israel), and attacked Jewish settlements in the advance. The Egyptian military proceeded to defend Beer Sheeva, which had also been awarded to a Palestinian state, and continued through Palestinian territory to safeguard Hebron and other parts of the new Palestine state. Egyptian military attacked Tel Aviv by air and sea, but the Egyptian army did not capture territory awarded to Ben Gurion’s government. Reasons given for the Egyptian failure to seize territory awarded to Israel include: damage done to the Egyptian army in a battle at Ashdod halted its advance, four Messerschmitt aircraft delivered by Czechoslovakia to Israel alarmed Egyptian soldiers, and battles with Negev kibbutzim deterred the Egyptian army. All of these reasons are conjectural and are not convincing.

Despite the over expressed statement that the Egyptians, together with other Arab armies, intended to “throw the Israelis into the sea,” the Egyptians did not have the military strength to accomplish the task, and the path taken by Egyptian troops indicate more of a defense of the new Palestinian state rather than occupation of the new Jewish state. The inescapable reality is that the Israelis figuratively threw the Palestinians “into the sea,” or at least into refugee camps, by being complicit in the leaving and expulsion of 750,000 of the 900,000 Arabs who inhabited the British Mandate and by barring their return to the lands and homes they had possessed for centuries. History needs a more in depth analysis of Egypt’s intentions in entering the war.

With war raging in their midst, the citizens of Al-Majdal retreated 15 kilometers to a haven in Gaza. On November 4, 1948, Israeli forces captured the city. In August 1950, by a combination of inducements and threats, Al-Majdal’s 1000-2000 remaining inhabitants were expelled and trucked to Gaza. According to Eyal Kafkafi(1998),¹ David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan promoted the expulsion while Pinhas Lavon, secretary-general of the Histadrut, “wished to turn the town into a productive example of equal opportunity to the Arabs.” Despite a ruling by the Egyptian-Israel Mixed Armistice Commission that the Arabs transferred from Majdal should be returned to Israel, this never happened. I was told that only two Arab families live in Ashkelon today.

The nightmare for the expelled residents of Al-Majdal did not end with their arduous trip to Gaza. Without going into detail, the years from 1950 until the present have been years of internment in refugee camps, brutal occupation, constant strife, military raids in their neighborhoods, destruction of facilities, denial of everyday life, denial of livelihood, denial of access to the sea, denial of access to the outside world. In 1994, after the signing of the Oslo accords, Israel constructed a 60-kilometer fence around the Gaza Strip and from December 2000 to June 2001 reinforced and rebuilt parts of the fence. Israel might be correct in presenting the fence as a necessary deterrence to infiltration, especially for terrorist acts. Personal terrorist bombings on southern Israel have declined dramatically but have been replaced by terrorist rocket bombings. Infiltration by Israeli forces into Gaza did not decline and bombings of Gaza homes and citizens continued. Whatever the reason, the lives of the surviving Al-Majdal refugees and their descendants evolved from being wards of the United Nations to virtual imprisonment in an overly crowded environment.

The 2008 Gaza war became a coda to the horrific drama that plagued the Al-Majdal and other Palestinian refugees. The massive destruction inflicted upon the Gaza people is well documented and can be reviewed by searching the Internet. The accusation by Amnesty International and other agencies of war crimes committed by Israel is incomplete. Eye witnesses verify intentional destruction of small industrial businesses, educational institutions, animal husbandry and withholding of irrigation that resulted in extensive strawberry crop losses; evidence that Israel also targeted the Gaza economy.

No discussion of Ashkelon is complete without reference to its neighboring Erez Crossing. For those entering northern Gaza, the crossing’s concrete walls and huge terminals, the traces of the 60-kilometer fence around the Gaza Strip in the distance, and an overhead balloon, hanging in the sky like a full moon, evidently surveying the entire area, shock the senses. A description by someone who exited Gaza through the checkpoint was complicated and difficult to be absorbed.²

The Soviet Union previously set the bar for tyrannical control. Those who passed through a Soviet checkpoint between East Germany and Berlin during the Cold war know the fear and uncomfortable feeling of this control. Enter a barren room and look around in puzzlement. Finally, after several minutes, a slit in the wall opens and a voice announces: “Die papieren bitte.” Place the papers in the slit and wait in the room without knowing the time length of the wait. Realize that the room is wired and all words are being heard while hidden eyes observe all movements. It’s a sweating and terrifying experience. The exit from Gaza through Erez seems magnitudes more terrifying. Israel has raised the bar.

But what happens when a Palestinian attempts to enter Israel from Gaza? A story related from a person whose credentials are impeccable and words can be trusted, went like this.

A Palestinian who had moved to Canada and had a Canadian passport, returned temporarily to Gaza. A friend in Ashkelon (who told me the story) invited the Palestinian with the Canadian passport for a visit. It took several weeks to prepare documentation, submit the necessary papers and obtain approval from the Israeli military for the visit. With everything certified the Palestinian proceeded to the Erez Crossing for exit to Israel. His friend waited at the checkpoint, and waited and waited. The Palestinian did not arrive. Six weeks later, the drama unfolded.

Israel security stopped the Palestinian, not because Israel suspected he had compromised its security – just the opposite – Israel compromised his security. If the man agreed to inform on his associates in Gaza, Israel would make life easy for him, allow him to travel and receive conveniences. He was finally released after six weeks of being held incommunicado. Other Palestinians, when crossing the border, have complained of similar insidious activities.

The creation of modern Ashkelon and its consequences contain elements that have been subdued in public discourse but have been a major contributor to the Middle East conflict and a guide for one side of the struggle. We have Israel seizing control of an ancient area, which had for millennia been controlled by others. UN Resolution 181, which awarded the area to the Palestinian state, has been violated in the seizure. The original inhabitants are expelled without cause. The Arab town of Al-Majdal is mostly destroyed and memories of an Arab presence are erased. The town’s name is slowly changed, evolving from Al-Majdal to Migdal-Gad, Migdal-Ashkelon and finally to Ashkelon; as if the city descended directly from the original bronze era seaport.

The victims are consistently oppressed and reduced to impoverishment. Foreigners occupy the properties of the dispossessed. Sorrow, pain and feelings of helplessness burst into violence against the injustice and oppression. Although the violence is minimal the retaliation is major. Al-Majdal has no escape from suffering.

Ashkelon has a story. It is the story of the Middle East conflict.

1. ”Segregation or integration of the Israeli Arabs – two concepts in Mapai”. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 30: 347-367, as reported in Wikipedia.
2. A definitive description appears in a BBC report by Paul Wood, BBC Middle East correspondent in Gaza City, “Middle East diary: At the Erez Crossing,” May 14, 2002.

For decades, Israeli authorities have spoken of a united Jerusalem — suggesting a spiritual quality to its message — as if Israel wants the home for the three monotheistic faiths to be solid and stable. By being guided from one central authority, a united Jerusalem also offers a preservation of a common and ancient heritage. However, Israel disguises the lack of a sufficiently supporting and verifiable historical narrative that could bolster its thrust to incorporate all of an artificially created greater Jerusalem into its boundaries. Coupled with inconsistencies and contradictions, Israel’s eagerness to create a greater Jerusalem under its total control becomes suspect. The intensive concentration on a ‘united’ Jerusalem reveals a hidden agenda that debases Jerusalem’s religious ingathering and heightens division, hatred and strife.

Examine the Holy Basin. The Holy Basin contains well marked Christian and Muslim institutions and holy places that have had historical placement for millenniums. Although people of the Jewish faith had major presence in Jerusalem during the centuries of Biblical Jerusalem, which included rule by King Hezekiah and control by the Hasmonean dynasties, their control and presence were interrupted for two millennia. Extensive commentary has enabled the two thousand years of lack of control and presence to seem as if it never happened and that today is only a short interval from the ancient years of Hezekiah. Almost one thousand years of Christian and Crusader rule and more than one thousand years of Muslim rule are politely ignored, while their tremendous constructions and creation are not credited. Almost everything becomes nothing and a minor something becomes everything. Myth replaces reality. Spiritual quality replaces actual presence.

Some remains of Jewish dwellings and ritual baths can be found, but few if any major Jewish monuments, buildings or institutions from the Biblical era exist in the “Old City” of today’s Jerusalem. The often cited Western Wall is the supporting wall for Herod’s platform and is not directly related to the Second Temple. No remains of the Jewish Temple have been located in Jerusalem.

According to Karen Armstrong, in her book Jerusalem, Jews did not pray at the Western Wall until the Mamluks in the 15th century allowed them to move their congregations from a dangerous Mount of Olives and pray daily at the Wall. At that time she estimates that there may have been no more than 70 Jewish families in Jerusalem. After the Ottomans replaced the Mamluks, Suleiman the Magnificent issued a formal edict in the 16th century that permitted Jews to have a place of prayer at the Western Wall.

The only remaining major symbol of Jewish presence in Jerusalem’s Holy City is the Jewish quarter, which Israel cleared of Arabs and rebuilt after 1967. During its clearing operations, Israel demolished the Maghribi Quarter adjacent to the Western Wall, destroyed the al-Buraq Mosque and the Tomb of the Sheikh al-Afdhaliyyah, and displaced about 175 Arab families. Although the Jewish population in previous centuries comprised a large segment of the Old City (estimates have 7000 Jews during the mid-19th century), the Jews gradually left the Old City and migrated to new neighborhoods in West Jerusalem, leaving only about 2000 Jews in the Old City. Jordanian control after the 1948 war reduced the number to nil. By 2009, the population of the Jewish quarter in the Old City had grown to 3000, or nine percent of the Old City population. The Christian, Armenian and Muslim populations are the principal constituents and their quarters contain almost the entire Old City commerce.

In an attempt to attach ancient Israel to present day Jerusalem, Israeli authorities continue the attachment of spurious labels to Holy Basin landmarks, while claiming the falsification is due to the Byzantines, who got it all wrong.

King David’s Tower’s earliest remains were constructed several hundred years after the Bible dates David’s reign. It is a now an obvious Islamic minaret.

King David’s Citadel earliest remains are from the Hasmonean period (200 B.C.). The Citadel was entirely rebuilt by the Ottomans between 1537 and 1541 AD.

King David’s tomb, located in the Dormition Abbey, is a cloth-covered cenotaph (no remains) that honors King David. It has not been verified that the casket relates to David.

The Pools of Solomon, located in a village near Bethlehem, are considered to be part of a Roman construction during the reign of Herod the Great. The pools supplied water to an aqueduct that carried water to Bethlehem and to Jerusalem.

The Stables of Solomon, under the Temple Mount, are more likely a construction of vaults that King Herod built in order to extend the Temple Mount platform.

Absalom’s Tomb is an obvious Greek sculptured edifice and therefore cannot be the tomb of David’s son.

The City of David contains artifacts that date before and during king David’s time. Some archaeologists maintain there is an insufficient number of artifacts to conclude any Israelite presence before David. In any case any Israelite presence must have been in a small and unfortified settlement

The Jerusalem Archaeological Park within the Old City, together with the Davidson Exhibition and Virtual Reconstruction Center also tell the story. Promising to reveal much of a Hebrew civilization, the museums shed little light on its subject. The Davidson Center highlights a coin exhibition, Jerusalem bowls and stone vessels. The Archeological Park in the Old City contains among many artifacts, Herodian structures, ritual baths, a floor of an Umayyad palace, a Roman road, Ottoman gates, and the façade of what is termed Robinson’s arch, an assumed Herodian entryway to the Temple Mount. The exhibitions don’t reveal many, if any, ancient Hebrew structures or institutions of special significance.

Well known archaeologists, after examining excavations that contain pottery shards and buildings, concluded that finds don’t substantiate the biblical history of Jerusalem and its importance during the eras of a united Jewish kingdom under David and Solomon.
Margaret Steiner in an article titled “It’s Not There: Archaeology Proves a Negative” in the Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, 1998, states:

…from the tenth century B.C.E. there is no archaeological evidence that many people actually lived in Jerusalem, only that it was some kind of public administrative center…We are left with nothing that indicates a city was here during their supposed reigns (of David and Solomon)…It seems unlikely, however, that this Jerusalem was the capital of a large state, the United monarchy, as described in Biblical texts.

West Jerusalem is another matter. With banditry prolific and Old City gates being closed before nightfall, living outside the city gates did not appeal to the population. Philanthropist Moses Montefiore wanted to attract the Jewish population to new surroundings and constructed the first Jewish community outside of the Old City. Yemin Moshe’s first houses were completed in 1860. From that time Jewish presence played a critical role in creating a West Jerusalem. Other institutions, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Russian Orthodox and Muslim soon ventured forth and acquired much property in the evolving West Jerusalem.

In 1948, After the Israeli army seized absolute control of West Jerusalem, the new Israeli government confiscated all West Jerusalem property owned by Muslim institutions. Reason — enemy property. Few Muslims and no mosques remain in today’s West Jerusalem.

One contradiction. By attacking and ethnically cleansing the Christian Arab communities of Deir Yassin and Ein Kerem, Israeli forces characterized Christian Palestinians as an enemy. Nevertheless, Israel did not confiscate all Christian properties, many of which are apparent in West Jerusalem. The Greek Orthodox Church owns extensive properties in West Jerusalem, many marked by its Tau + Phi symbol, which translates to ‘Sepulchre.’

Another contradiction. Israel has cared for the Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives and expanded it as a heritage site. Part of the famous Muslim Mamilla cemetery in West Jerusalem has been classified as refugee property and is being prepared to be demolished for the new Museum of Tolerance.

East Jerusalem reveals more contradictions. The desire to incorporate East Jerusalem into Israel contradicts the repeated warning by Israeli leaders that co-existence is not feasible and that it is necessary to separate the Jewish and Palestinian communities. Incorporation means accepting somewhere between 160,000 and 225,000 Palestinians into a Jewish state. Or does it? Whereas the older historical Jewish neighborhoods in West Jerusalem have their characters maintained or are rebuilt in their original style, the older Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem are entirely neglected (all of Arab East Jerusalem is neglected) or destroyed. How much deterioration and destruction can Palestinians absorb before they decide to leave?

Construction of Jewish homes in East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods proceeds and destruction of Arab homes, either declared illegally constructed or illegally purchased, continues. On 44 dunums of lands that previously belonged to Palestinian families, a private company has constructed the gated community of Nof Zion and conveniently separated Palestinian Jabal Al Mukabir from other parts of East Jerusalem. No Arabs need apply. The million dollar condominiums are advertised for American investors.

The Israeli ministry of Interior has approved a plan to demolish a kindergarten and wholesale market in East Jerusalem’s Wadi Joz neighborhood in order to construct a new hotel close to the Old City and near the Rockefeller Museum. The result will be the destruction of an Arab neighborhood and its replacement by Jewish interests, which will one day join with other Jewish interests.

These are only two examples of a master plan to replace the centuries old Arab presence in East Jerusalem with a modern Jewish presence. The ancient Arab presence in an ancient land is further divided by the Separation Wall, which runs through the East Jerusalem landscape and detaches East Jerusalem from the West Bank, making it unlikely for a Palestinian state to have its capital in East Jerusalem. The master plan extends the boundaries of Jerusalem to include the large Israeli settlement (city) of Maale Adumim. Between Maale Adumim and East Jerusalem, Israel proposes to construct the E1 corridor, which joins settlements in a ring and adds to the separation of East Jerusalem from the West Bank. The E1 corridor will divide the northern and southern West Bank and will impede direct transit between Palestine Bethlehem, which is south of E1 and Palestine Ramallah, which is north of E1. Construction of the E1 corridor, portions of which are owned by Palestinians, could prevent the formation of a viable Palestinian state.

So, if Israel is destroying Jerusalem’s heritage and subjugating its spiritual meaning, why does Israel want to unify Jerusalem?

Israel’s Hidden Agenda

Israel is a physically small and relatively new country with an eager population and big ambitions. It needs more prestige and wants to be viewed as a power broker on the world stage. To gain those perspectives Israel needs a capital city that commands respect, contains ancient traditions and is recognized as one of the world’s most important and leading cities. Almost all of the world’s principal nations, from Egypt to Germany to Great Britain, have capitals that are great cities of the world. To assure its objectives, Israel wants an oversized Jerusalem that contains the Holy City. That’s not all.

Jerusalem has significant tourism that can be expanded and provide new commercial opportunities as an entry to all of the Mid-East. An indivisible Jerusalem under Israeli control is worth a lot of shekels.

Israel competes with the United States as the focus of the Jewish people. It needs a unique Jerusalem to gain recognition as the home of Judaism.

By controlling all of the holy sites, Israel commands attention from Moslem and Christian leaders. These leaders will be forced to talk with Israel and Israel will have a bargaining advantage in disputes.

Whatever Israel gains the Palestinians are denied. Even if Israel agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state, it will direct its policies to limit the effectiveness of that state. Since East Jerusalem and its holy sites greatly benefit a Palestinian economy and increase Palestine legitimacy, Israel will do everything to prevent East Jerusalem being ceded to the new state of Palestine.

West Jerusalem only gives Israel a North/South capital. An indivisible Jerusalem gives Israel a forward look towards an East/West capital or a centralized capital of the land of previous biblical Jewish tribes.

The Zionist socialist ideals and the cooperative Kibbutzim received support and sympathy from idealistic world peoples for many years. Israel’s attachment to the Holocaust tragedy extended that sympathy and support to more of the world. With the end of the Zionist dream, the decline of kibbutz life and the over-popularizing of the Holocaust, Israel needs a new symbol of identity that captures world attention.

If Israel has legitimate claims to Jerusalem, then those claims should be heard and discussed in a proper forum. However, that is not the process forthcoming. The Israeli government is using illegal and illegitimate procedures, as well as deceitful and hypocritical methods to force its agenda. Israel is not presenting its case but is exerting its powers to trample all legal, moral and historical considerations.

The Museum of the Citadel of David has an inscription: The land of Israel is in the center of the world and Jerusalem is the center of the land of Israel.

This self praise was echoed at a West Jerusalem coffee house in a conversation with several Israelis. A youthful Israeli abruptly sat at the table and entered the conversation with the words: “All the world looks to Jerusalem. Jerusalem is the center of the world and Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Everyone needs Jerusalem and they will need to talk with Israel.’

And that is why Israel desperately wants its greater Jerusalem.

The serious aspect of the Israeli maneuver has not gone unnoticed by the Jerusalem activists who support a peace process that has legs and will arrive at a destination. A panel of Jerusalemites expressed their convictions in a meeting organized by the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information at the Ambassador hotel in East Jerusalem on May 20, 2009.

Dr. Gershon Baskin, CEO and founder of the IPCRI, chaired the meeting. Meron Benvenisti, well known iconoclastic political commentator and a former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, Rami Nasrallah, Director of the International Peace and Cooperation Center, and Sarah Kreimer, Associate Director of Ir Amim, constituted the panel. The incendiary content ignited many surprising and explosive statements.

Dr. Baskin started the proceedings with a controversial remark: “Jerusalem is the most segregated city in the world. Common spaces of Jews and Moslems don’t exist and each Jerusalem space has a distinct identity. Even Catholic institutions, which are physically close, remain socially apart.”

According to Baskin, the hospitals of Notre Dame and St. Louis, which are next to one another, emphasize the separation. Notre dame caters to Palestinian Catholics and St. Louis accepts Israeli Catholics. From these observations, Dr. Baskin concluded: “It is easy to draw lines of separation.” The Palestinians and Israelis can manage legal sovereignty without promoting physical separation.

Meron Benvenisti, an early and consistent critic of Israel’s policies, politely contradicted some of Baskin’s well known assertions. The former deputy mayor expressed displeasure with what he called a ‘peace industry.’ “The peace process is only a psychological process, established to give hope but no concrete results. Meanwhile Israel has expanded Jerusalem’s boundaries to assure the city cannot be easily divided. As a matter of fact, there is now no concept of what is Jerusalem.” A bombshell: many Palestinians, especially those who don’t relish losing their Israel residency, don’t want East Jerusalem to be detached form Israel. These individuals are major supporters of a united Jerusalem. Benvenisti also questioned the importance of sovereignty. He claimed the division is only sociological and that no demographic threat to Israel exists. Why? The Israelis are well united against the ‘other,’ and the Palestinians, although increasing in numbers, remain fragmented and constrained.

Despite his less than positive attitude, Meron Benvenisti proposed a significant plan: “The Palestinians should establish a ’shadow government.’ They should take advantage of their legal and social arrangements to form a quasi government that provides services and needs for the Palestinian community in East Jerusalem.” How that would be done, from where the finances would arrive, and how to gain acceptance from an Israeli government that sends its police to deter Palestinian cultural expression, were not adequately explained.

Rami Nasrallah sees the conflict in more specific terms. “The Palestinians are struggling daily with survival. The Middle class and ‘elite’ have tired of the struggle and are fleeing to other places. This phenomenon reduces East Jerusalem to a city of the impoverished. Previously the undeclared capital of Palestine that contained one-third of the Palestinian economy, East Jerusalem has been severely crippled since the Oslo,’peace accords.’ Those spurious accords, by which East Jerusalem lost its autonomy, is the reason for the economic decline.” He added that Israel’s present thrust is to have the Holy Basin become the center of Judaism. Nasarallah’s statement coincides with many Israeli published statements that characterize ancient Israel as the center of the world and Jerusalem as the center of ancient Israel. He foresees only a shift from a harsh occupation to a harsher occupation.

The peace center director noted that Israel wants to avoid a bi-national state, which means either expulsion of Palestinians or acceptance of two independent states. His observation that Israel has not been able to obtain a Jewish character of Jerusalem might be correct. Central Jerusalem, close to and within the Holy Basin, reveals more identifiable Christian institutions and buildings than those of Jewish identity, and, except for the Haram al-sharif/Temple Mount complex, than those of the Muslim faith. He fears the conflict is shifting form a national conflict to a religious war.

So what to do? Rami Nasrallah’s suggestion is to create a ‘city of Bridges.’ Jerusalem needs two strong governments for two capitals. The city can be politically divided, enable cross-border cooperation and become an ‘open city.’ One problem: His admirable suggestion substantially contradicts Israel’s stated policies.

Sarah Kreimer, whose organization Ir Amim provides educational resources that realistically describe Israel’s settlement policies around Jerusalem but does not provide realistic solutions for halting the settlements, presented a legal position: “The Israelis and Palestinians should have an amicable divorce.” Her statement was later contradicted by Baskin, who noted that before a divorce there must have been a marriage and love.

The Ir Amim director contradicted her innocent statement with innocent remarks:

“The Israeli government is using divide and conquer techniques. It is trying to make the Old City more Jewish and capture it by using the usual ‘facts on the ground’ that will entwine the Palestinians. She suggested that Israel develop a transparent and inclusive process. The Palestinian institutions that were closed after 2001 should be reopened. Sarah Kreimer noted that her suggestions “were opposite to what is being done.” The unanswered question: Why would the present Israeli leaders change previous arrangements and modify anything to accommodate her suggestions?

Gershon Baskin, never short on words, very decisive and specific, added his own highly charged comments:

“The Palestinians didn’t realize that by signing the Oslo agreement they were agreeing to close many cultural centers. Israel claimed that the closings respected the Oslo agreements. Now, Israel claims that reopening requires a law from the peace agreement. As for the Holy Basin, the issue of who controls the Holy Basin only arose from the ‘peace agreements.’ And the constructions related to City of David and the ancient cemetery on the Mount of Olives are only excuses for expansion.”

Baskin summarized his views, which coincided with a later article by him in the Jerusalem Post.

“There is a change in Washington, which means the quartet will be used as the primary mechanism for resolving the conflict. The issue of Palestinian statehood has already been decided by the international community. Its directives will unfold over the years. The Security Council has stated it will replace Resolution 242 as a reference point. The Council has also decided on the size of the Palestinian state and that its borders be based on the 1967 demarcation line. Israel will no longer be able to annex territory, which includes land in a Jerusalem that will be the capital of two states.”

An interesting discussion that leads to this writer’s personal conclusions.

The significance of arriving at a just and agreeably acceptable solution to the status of Jerusalem in any peace accords cannot be underestimated. Jerusalem, the City of Peace, has always proved the ‘not theory’ of political discourse. Jerusalem has not been the City of Peace. The present trajectory of events has the debate on the future of Jerusalem serving to expand a constrained conflict to a wider Holy War. The present trajectory of events have the construction of a new Jerusalem leading to the destruction of the historical Jerusalem.

As one example, a panel on Changing Conceptions of Palestinian Nationalism provided new meanings to the Palestinian struggle and revealed Israel’s strategy for containing those meanings – a strategy whose result could vanquish the Palestinian people.¹

The Palestinians face a dilemma.

A consensus, which notes Israel’s continuous settlement expansion and failures to negotiate sincerely, considers a viable two-state solution is not attainable. A one-state solution, in which power is democratically shared, has gained adherents, but lacks practical implementation. However, a state is not only a matter of borders; it is a matter of survival. The Palestinians want to gain what all peoples need for survival – a self- identity that derives from being part of a state that protects its citizens. Loss of safety results in loss of trust and loss of self-identity.

Nationality and religion enhance identity and are an answer to ontological security. The latter two words are more than an esoteric expression. They define what the Palestinians lack and most need. The absence of ontological security has accelerated deterioration of the Palestinian community, a process caused by the severe Israeli repression.

Ontological security “is a stable mental state derived from a sense of continuity in regard to the events in one’s life…. Meaning is found in experiencing positive and stable emotions, and by avoiding chaos and anxiety. If an event occurs that is not consistent with the meaning of an individual’s life, this will threaten that individual’s ontological security. Ontological security also involves having a positive view of self, the world and the future.”

The need for ontological security forces communities to grasp at what is available to enhance their security. The Palestinians still contained in refugee camps have accepted a patriarch organization. Those in the cities seek connections and networks to provide employment and social arrangements essential for everyday living. Hamas has provided a greater feeling of trust and security than Fatah, and for good reason – when Fatah ruled Gaza, the leaders lived in sheltered villas, complete with Sri Lanka maids.

The dispossessed Palestinians survive as a common people by continuing to map the geographic past and communicating the past to future generations.

Many of the 418 villages destroyed by Israel after then 1948 war and most other Palestinian villages remain known from extensive village genealogy. Ancestral conversations recall village history and geography. History books, plays, songs, television and radio echo the repetition and awareness of the past. In Jordan refugee camps, shops and streets have been named after destroyed villages. After 1948, the names of fighters killed in the conflict have been suffixed with their ancestral locations. To emphasize a common identity, peasant attire have become national symbols. Many Palestinians, during a period when they were able to enter Israel, returned to their villages to retrieve artifacts and record the visits on video tape. And not to be undone, the youth find ways of keeping village memories alive. These memories connect the dispossessed Palestinians across their separated borders.

Another dilemma allows no chance for a Palestinian national movement to address both its own and Israeli national aspirations.

The purpose of returning the refugee to their homes motivated the Palestinian national movement. Unfortunately, when the PLO under Fatah leadership first proposed the two-state solution, it failed to understand the implications concerning the refugee crisis. What remains today in the area is one repressive state in which the military controls everything.

Sensing that a two-state solution is deteriorating into extreme visions of states with no secular paradigm, idealistic recommendations consider other proposals for a state. The two parties of the conflict should define forms of living together – a ‘we,’ from which will emerge a collective right; a multi-form of ethnic democracy.

A one-state option is doomed if Israeli Jews are not recognized with a national identity. This comes about by recognizing a distinction between Zionism and the establishment of a state for Jews. A revised Palestinian outlook should oppose present Zionist values. It should be inclusive, present a sense of equality and security for all, be multi-ethnic and welcoming and include power sharing. The Palestinians should find other means of resistance.

Israel’s grinding operations against and squeezing out of Palestinian will be worse.

More than 100,000 Palestinians will be forced to leave their homes. However, the combination of Israel and United States power is no longer paying dividends and has reached its limits of force.

These remarks succeed a historical brief that urges recognition of a cold fact: There is an Israeli nation. This phenomenon occurred because Europeans demanded the Ottoman Empire have a separate administration for the “Holy Land.” British craft denied the Palestinian community an identity and territory. Now, a temporal lag always leaves the Palestinians steps behind in activities and prevents them from framing the conflict rules. Entering the discourse is futile because it is a discourse they cannot win. Remaining aside earns them the reputation of being considered obstructionist. Nevertheless, Hamas’ Pyrrhic victory in Gaza and Israel’s failure to win in Lebanon have reinvigorated the Palestinian movement. This is happening despite the fact that successive Palestinian leaderships have committed grave errors and the Palestinians now have three separate communities, each of which has different concerns.

So what do these narratives tell us?

Israel will not concede to any viable two-state solution. Instead the Israeli government’s strategy denies the Palestinians any national identity which they helped create. This calculated denial will bring about the complete destruction of the Palestinian people.

The obvious objectives of the Israeli government’s policies towards the Palestinians are: separation and isolation into small enclaves, divisions of communities and families, prevention of viable economics, hindrance of interchanges with the outside world and denial of identity and ontological security necessary to sustain community life. Policies of constant terror, unauthorized entry into homes and villages, road barricades, checkpoints, harassments, breaking of bones and imprisonment of wage earners, and humiliations, all of which make life unbearable for the Palestinians, support the objectives. Generations of Palestinians grow up with a loss of safety and loss of trust. The loss of trust provokes infighting, quarreling among families and between communities. Imposed oppressive policies from without generate destruction from within. Psychological and physical damages take their toll and reduce the mental and physical health of the Palestinian population to precarious levels – to levels of doom.

The Israeli animated film Waltzing with Bashir showed the1982 Israeli incursion into Lebanon targeting and destroying the Palestinian Research Center in West Beirut, which contained records of Palestinian historical life. The International Responsibilities Task Force notes: “Clearly these assaults on the educational and research institutions of the Palestinian people long preceded the end of the truce in Gaza or even the election of Hamas. They have been going on for decades and constitute an attack directed at both the history and the future of the Palestinians.”

Erasing the villages and destroying the archived and documented history of the Palestinian people prefaced the continuous and forced reduction of Palestinian presence in the “Holy Land.” The Palestinians need a state not just to live within borders. They need a state that all peoples claim, especially those who are dispossessed, to assure ontological security and survive. Does the international community need more evidence to act swiftly and prevent a major tragedy? It’s never considered a genocide until it’s all over.

1. The article details the writer’s summary of the panel proceedings.

Propaganda is most effective when subtly planted and the reader remains unaware that a commentary is actually indoctrination. Sometimes the writer is not cognizant that what he has published has been moved by its propaganda effect — sources for the material are actually misleading and publication is facilitated when the commentary fits a particular agenda.

Two recent publications, a response by United States Senator Benjamin Cardin to an Amnesty International plea and an article in Newsweek magazine, “A Plan of Attack for Peace by Daniel Klaidman” (Jan. 12, 2009), demonstrate how far Israel’s supporters can reach to mislead the public. The former remarks, coming from a US Senator, are particularly insidious — careless disregard for a defenseless Palestinian community and an excuse for those whom Amnesty International considers to have shown a lopsided response to the recent violence and who have exhibited lackadaisical efforts to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

This article appears in two parts, each of which is a separate article.

Senator Cardin Echoes the Israeli Line

Amnesty International, a well-respected and politically neutral organization, expressed alarm at the events in Gaza and alerted its vast US constituency to prompt their senators to ameliorate the situation. Instead of replying to the urgencies requested by the message, Benjamin Cardin, US Senator from Maryland, responded with general and vague comments and used the e-mail opportunity to indoctrinate his constituents into believing that the violence and killing were all due to Hamas. An insensitivity to creating problems for Jewish people, which might arise from his remarks, added to Senator Cardin’s deceptive manner.

First the Amnesty International e-mail:

With innocent civilians, women and children dying every day, Congress must act.

Tell Congress to help get more humanitarian aid into Gaza and to suspend all transfers of weapons to Israel.

Dear xxxx,

20 days into the Gaza crisis and the humanitarian crisis there gets worse every day.

Over 1000 Palestinians have been killed; 398 women and children are dead, another 4500 injured, 750,000 lack access to water and one million are without electricity. Thirteen Israelis, including three civilians have been killed.

Each day that passes guarantees more innocent civilians will suffer. Tell Congress to act swiftly to help more humanitarian aid and workers enter Gaza and to suspend all transfers of weapons to Israel.

Almost 30,000 of you sent letters to Secretary Rice. Your letters together in concert with separate parallel actions from other Amnesty sections around the world helped bring about a positive vote at the UN late last week2-6. The UN passed a binding resolution 14-0 on January 8th calling for an immediate cease-fire.

But despite mounting evidence of war crimes, both Israel and Palestinian armed groups continue to defy the resolution.

It’s critical that Congress acts. Congress can take two actions that will make a significant impact on the ground:

1. Urge Israel to allow for increased humanitarian supplies into Gaza and press Egypt to allow more wounded Palestinians to seek medical treatment in Egypt.

The Israeli three hour truce to allow for humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza is not sufficient. A spokesman for the UN relief agency UNWRA said “When you are trying to feed 750,000 people a day in Gaza as we are, you need a permanent ceasefire. You can’t do that in a three-hour window.”

Although Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing allowing limited medical help in and injured Palestinians out, the number allowed to seek medical care outside of Gaza needs to increase dramatically. There are currently 4500 wounded Palestinians.

2. Suspend all transfers of weapons to Israel until there is no longer a substantial risk that they will be used for serious violations of human rights or international humanitarian law — such as in attacks that disproportionately kill civilians — while pressing all sides to stop unlawful attacks.

AI is calling for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and Palestinian armed groups. The US Arms Export Act of 1976 was passed to help guarantee that US-made weapons would only be used for legitimate self-defense and not for violations of internationally recognized human rights. The act requires the State Department to report to Congress when there is a ‘’substantial violation” of the law.

These demands comply with widely recognized international human rights law. Tell Congress to act now, and then please forward this email. Time has run out for the civilians of Gaza and Israel.

Curt Goering
Deputy Executive Director

Senator Cardin’s reply, complete with punctuation errors, to the Amnesty International message sent to him by a constituent.

Thank you for contacting me regarding the current conflict between Israel and Hamas.

I share your sadness at the suffering and loss of innocent lives on both sides of this conflict. The international community needs to take strong action to restart the peace process and provide more humanitarian assistance in Gaza .

Hamas’ actions to extend its reach deeper into Israel and its failure to end continuing attacks exacerbates the already fragile humanitarian situation for the residents of Gaza and undermines efforts to attain peace and security in the region. As a result of the fighting, Gaza City and its main medical center, Shiffa Hospital , have been left without electricity and hospitals are pushed beyond their capacity to handle the number of victims. Hamas seems to care more about inflicting damage on Israel than the protection and welfare of its own citizens.

Hamas poses a critical challenge to the regional peace process. Labeled as a terrorist organization but holding seats in the Palestinian government and acting as the controlling authority in Gaza , the organization’s leaders encourage violence and cling to the belief that Israel itself should be destroyed. Questions remain as to whether or not the organization should even be included in peace negotiations, but the fact remains that the threat Hamas poses to Israel is an obstacle to any negotiation efforts.

The U.S. has also continued to provide humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. It is equally important for the U.S. to take an active role in bringing stability in the region, so that all Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace. I share your concern about the continuing violence and loss of innocent lives in the region, and I support providing U.S. aid to the area. The continuation of violence between Hamas and Israeli forces is straining the progress . I urge Israel and the Palestinians take advantage of the current, high-level European efforts to broker a sustainable cease-fire and a negotiated peaceful settlement.

Rest assured I support continued aggressive diplomatic involvement. The U.S. objective must be for a peaceful and long-lasting resolution to this conflict. Again, thank you for contacting me on this important issue.

Please visit my website at http://cardin.senate.gov to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Note that Senator Cardin does not respond with specifics to any of the humanitarian demands and ignores Amnesty Internationals’ request to: “Tell Congress to act swiftly to help more humanitarian aid and workers enter Gaza and to suspend all transfer of weapons to Israel.”

The Maryland senator shows no regard for the Maryland citizen’s concerns and, in an about face, uses the email exchange to instruct the sender about the crisis.

Unsubstantiated rumors and private opinions that mainly describe Hamas’ “role” in the violence highlight his response. Note the unnecessary insertion of the computer-generated macro adjectives normally used to describe Hamas: “the organization’s leaders encourage violence and cling to the belief that Israel itself should be destroyed.”

Senator Cardin happens to be Jewish. This does not mean he cannot express support for Israel. However, a Senator of Jewish faith should recognize that unqualified support for Israel leaves Jews open to attack by those who suspect that elected Jews use their official office to promote Israel’s agenda regardless of its effects on the U.S. and the world’s peoples. Senator Cardin’s obvious propaganda thrust reflects poorly on the Jewish people and contributes to dangers confronting them.

Just an irresponsible response to a responsible email or another example of how far Israel’s supporters can reach to mislead the public?

Regardless of the conflicting views of events, an inevitable drift to war was set in motion for one overriding reason: Israel, international institutions and western nations refused to talk with Hamas.

A legitimately elected government requested halts to a punishing blockade and to attacks on its citizens in the West Bank and Gaza. Silence. More pleading and more silence. Finally, militants fire an uncontrollable salvo of rockets, positioned so no fatalities could occur, alerting Israel and a complacent world that Hamas could no longer permit its people to be starved into surrender.

Hamas’ demands deserved discussion. Instead, Israel responded with missile strikes, which instantly killed 250 Palestinians, assured retaliating rockets would finally kill Israelis and signaled an eventual violence against Gazans and a politically motivated invasion of the territory.

Did rocket fire, which had been happening continuously since 2002, cause the conflagration? The initial break in the lapsed truce, which caused no casualties, followed Israel’s neglect of Hamas’ pleas. Combine Israel’s ongoing refusal to give the slightest recognition to a democratically elected Hamas government with the world’s refusal to counter Israel’s intransigence and we have, not the reason, but the cause of the latest conflict.

The forces that control actions of the world community seemed to have been guided by only what served Israel’s interests rather than what was beneficial for the world, what would stabilize the Middle East and what would be helpful to the Palestinians. Although casualties are always disputed, most reports indicate that the inability to deter Israel’s attack resulted in the deaths of more than 1300 Palestinians, wounding of more than 5400, damage to more then 22,000 buildings, including United Nation structures, mosques, universities, a medical school and almost every police station. Predictions have Gaza’s flimsy gross domestic product being reduced by 85 percent or almost to nothing.

Hamas survived and Gaza was partially destroyed. A credible conclusion is that if Israel could not succeed in the former tactic, it was eager to accomplish the latter result.

If the reasons for the IDF attack were dubious, Israel’s control of press coverage sufficiently clouded reasons for the abrupt and unilateral cessation of hostilities. Speculation and analysis discloses several possible reasons for the rapid pullout. Israel of January 17, 2009 had no other choice but to cease its hostilities.

Israel’s complaint of extensive arms smuggling was proving doubtful

Similar to the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, Israeli forces slowly learned they had had nowhere to go except to kill more civilians. The Israeli forces neither exhibited many destroyed rocket launchers nor demonstrated harm to the supposed 10,000 Hamas armed insurgents. Except for the longer range Grad rockets, many of the rockets and mortars that shelled Israel were homemade devices. Therefore only the Grad rockets and some Qassam rockets, few of which did much damage, were smuggled into Gaza. Hamas demonstrated no military capability; that is no capability and not just limited capability– no surface to air missiles, no anti-tank rockets, no organized attacks on invading soldiers. Media descriptions of coming battles never materialized. Fighting, which requires two combatants, was an exaggerated word. Israeli forces moved forward without much fear of attack and with only ten reported deaths, of which five were accidental. Since Hamas didn’t display many weapons with which to fight, how much smuggling of meaningful armaments could have occurred? Neither facts nor images supported reports of weapons caches and weapons destruction. Israel’s soldiers must have felt contrite and questioned what they were doing.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We must give Israel the guarantee that weapons will not pass through that border.” Apparently that is an easy guarantee; aside from the rockets, relatively few weapons seemed to have been used, captured or displayed. Israel’s principal reason for its attack was being exposed as a hollow defense of its violent tactics.

Loss of moral high ground

The Israel government realized they were losing any moral ground they had and separating from it quickly. Even previously friendly nations, such as Qatar, were cutting contacts. Israel did what the U.S. often refused to do, declare victory and rapidly leave.

Prime Minister Olmert insulted President Bush

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s outspoken claim that he influenced President Bush to abstain at a UN vote, which directly contradicted a strong and convincing image that Bush was trying to convey during his last days in office, must have disturbed the departing president. Olmert sensed he could lose major support from an angered Bush and Rice and that added to his doubts of continuing the onslaught.

The extent of the damage was exposed

One event that might have changed Israeli opinion from almost entirely favorable to their government’s attack to doubt and uncertainty was the appearance on Israel TV of a renowned, admired and often interviewed Gaza Doctor Ezzeldin Abu al-Aish. The well-known doctor related the wanton killing of three of his daughters by an Israeli shell. A tragedy that could not be repudiated must have affected all Israelis to realize the barbarity of their actions. Enough was enough.

Unwillingness to challenge a new United States administration

Finally, Israel faced an unknown: how would the new U.S. administration react to its invasion of Gaza? No government wants to face a possible challenge from a new United States administration that it wants to please.

Hamas looked bad but, in the end, emerged with more credibility. Israel initially looked good but, considering the final result, lost much consideration by a world troubled with its violent operations.

So, what does this portend for a Middle East future?

The attack on Gaza cannot remain an isolated incident that slowly fades into history. This attack has been etched into the psyche of an embittered Arab world. Sympathy for the Palestinians has been extended worldwide. These phenomena have dictated a new look at the Middle East contestants and a new approach to resolving the conflict. It’s possible we will witness more talk of defending the Palestinians and less of securing Israelis, more efforts by Arab nations of uniting the Arab world and its factions and less efforts by the western world to dictate a path to unification, more attempts to resolve Middle East problems and less considerations to Israel’s agendas.

These directions already have a start. Lebanon’s success in forming a more representative government, in which Hezbollah plays an increased role, has led to renewal of relations between Syria and Lebanon. Add Iraq to the arrangement and a gap is bridged between Iran and the Arab world. If they keep that ball rolling, there could be a more unified Arab world.

This direction might have driven Israel’s aggressiveness, a sub-text that provoked Israel to remove an irritant on its southern flank preparatory to engaging its northern neighbors. Considering the productive direction of the northern Arab nations and the counterproductive result of Israel’s attack on Gaza, the future of the Middle East might be highly positive for the Arab nations and severely discouraging, if not fatal, for the land of Israel.

The drama has subtext; undisclosed reasons for Israel’s attack, unstated significance of the escalated conflict, and a non-clarified future for its final denouement. Search the entire landscape and we encounter happenings beyond the horizon. Missing from the debate are the disastrous consequences to the world community due to Israel’s aggressive actions.

Media references to President-elect Barack Obama’s July 2008 speech during a visit to Israel in which he stated, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing,” incorrectly inferred he was speaking in late December 2008.

If the president-elect expressed himself in late December 2008, he might have said: “If my land was being blockaded so that my children were being impoverished and intermittently starved, their parents unable to find employment, all of them caged in a fenced area and not permitted to fish, fly or travel more than a few miles, while supersonic planes disturbed each night of their sleep and created a daily fear of a military incursion that could kill them, I would do everything to stop that and expect the Palestinians to do the same?” He could add, “I certainly would refrain from making things worse and ask for a continuation of the truce,” which is what Hamas did.

The media has not properly related the fact that Hamas did not stop the truce; the truce expired and not solely due to Hamas.

In order to continue the truce, Hamas issued two responsible demands (1) Israel halt its devastating economic blockade of Gaza, and (2) Israel observe a truce in the West Bank as well as Gaza. When Israel refused to meet these humanitarian demands, Hamas refused to continue the truce, an event Israel, who reluctantly agreed to the first truce, knew would happen.

During the years 2001-2007, the PLO and Fatah, who controlled Gaza, fired unguided rockets and mortars at Israel and increased the launching numbers each year. Those same years witnessed Israeli incursions into Gaza that destroyed Palestinian infrastructure; Arafat’s headquarters, airport, roads, factories, homes and also lives. Sanctions and a crippling blockade followed the mayhem. So, why did Israel accuse Hamas of incitement and escalate its punishment when the pattern had been the same for years? Did Israel welcome the aggressive behavior so its military could have reasons for more aggressive retaliation? Certainly seems that way. In addition to the casualties, the shocking Israeli actions have had a disastrous political consequence.

The Bush administration heralded a new dawn for a Middle East that was willing to accept the democratic process. The Palestinians responded with the election of Hamas to authority. And what happened? Hamas faced a “heads” you lose and a “tails” you cannot win game, engineered by the western democracies. If Hamas remained out of the political process, its cadres might have been routinely attacked. By being part of the democratic process and winning an election, Hamas and the Palestinians have been pulverized, which informs the Arab world and its Islamic organizations: No matter what you do, whether you stay out of the political process or enter the political process, you will be pulverized. What behavior can we expect from people who know they are going to be pulverized? Noting the decimation of Hamas after its application of Bush’s concept of democratic participation, won’t they react more aggressively? Due to Israel’s aggressive attacks, the world can expect to suffer increases in terrorism and rebellion. Jewish communities will be targeted. Without neglecting the intensive killing, this is the major derogatory result of Israel’s war on Gaza.

The launching of 200 unguided rockets and mortars to Israel, although they did not inflict human damage and did not have Hamas’ name on them — the projectiles are fired by several militant organizations — is inexcusable. Isn’t there a question here that demands an answer? Why were projectiles that inflicted no great damage fired into Israeli territory? Showing potential force without inflicting damage signals a threat. The strong signal intends to force an adversary to a negotiating table for a compromising truce and serves as a call to the world to note the seriousness of the situation. Why didn’t Israel try some form of negotiation, some form of indirect contact that would have not compromised Israel security? Would it not have made its people more secure by signifying it did not intend to suffocate the Palestinians with an illegal embargo and was willing to compromise? Why didn’t the world bodies immediately intervene and propose a compromise that would ameliorate the explosive situation? The reason: Nobody recognizes Hamas and therefore won’t talk with the authority Result: The only other route to resolve the situation is violence and casualties.

An honest presentation would include the observation that the initial 200 launches after the ‘truce’ ended caused no human damage and insignificant physical damage. Nevertheless, more emphasis has been given to artillery shells that damaged Israeli sidewalks than those that tore apart the bodies of 250 Palestinians. Videos show the rockets from Gaza mainly puncture without generating much explosive power. Secondary damage results from shrapnel and some structure collapse. A single Israeli missile has reduced buildings and their occupants to dust. Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper, January 2, 2009, verified the observations:

The threat that Hamas’ ballistic capabilities pose to the people of the Negev is less serious than initially presumed and the residents of the targeted areas are not demonstrating signs of panic, according to an interim analysis by the Israel Defense Forces of the situation nearly a week after the launching of Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.

Too often, we have mendacious and “plugged in” reports, such as that from Bob Joseph of CNN. From a CNN transcript:

BOB JOSEPH, REPORTER: As strategically targeted as Israel is, because of what Hamas is doing and because of them putting their missiles in playgrounds, near schools and hospitals, they have created an environment where they ensure that some civilians can get hurt. And what they target themselves is, they target children and schools and hospitals. That is what makes Hamas the most evil entity — one of the most evil entities on this planet.

According to Bob Joseph, rockets and mortars that have no guidance system or explosive power and have not struck any hospitals or playgrounds and might have slightly damaged one school, are targeted missiles. Israel’s massive number of well guided missiles that have hit universities, mosques, UN schools, children playing in fields and apartment buildings are not evil and are excusable.

In one attack on a UN school, The Guardian, 6 January 2009, reports:

The civilian death toll in Gaza increased dramatically today, with reports of more than 40 Palestinians killed after missiles exploded outside a UN school where hundreds of people were sheltering from the continuing Israeli offensive.

Israel insists that mortars were being launched from the school courtyard. Despite the threat and charged emotions, wouldn’t a humane invading military exercise care before sending shells into a school because some person was supposedly shooting from a schoolyard adjacent to where hundreds of innocent persons had taken shelter? Israel has lowered the bar to where completely one-sided warfare that includes harming and terrifying innocent civilians to any limit becomes acceptable. A world composed of maddening leaders has now made us all potential victims to any transgression on the all powerful.

Israel, for 60 years, has used security considerations as a reason for warfare and has not gained ‘security.’ Either Israel is using the wrong tactics to achieve security or security is a cover for other objectives. Considering that Israelis, most of whom only arrived in the last 40 years, live prosperously while Palestinians who tilled the land for generations live at subsistence levels, something must be skewed in the debate of who is doing what to whom. A militarily and economically strong Israel, which shows no damage to its infrastructure or property, poses as the victim, while the militarily and economically futile Palestine territory, which has had its infrastructure and property expropriated and often reduced to rubble by Israeli attacks, is labeled the aggressor.

Hamas might be an obstacle to peace, but the organization is not the principal obstacle. The principal impediments to peace are the illegal occupation and settlements, seizures of Palestinians lands, abusive checkpoints “and the blockade of Gaza. Does Israel have a security problem that can only be ameliorated by overpowering military force or is Israel using security considerations as an opportunity to humble the Palestinian people before consolidating its territorial gains and expansionist aims?

Every day it becomes clearer that the Gaza engagement is only a stage in Israel’s testing of new weapons and new strategies for its predictable battles with Hezbollah, Syria, Iran and who knows who else. Israel has more serious enemies then all other nations combined. The attack on Gaza explains that situation. We await endless wars by an apparent out of control military machine that will be followed by escalating threats to the world due to the increasing violence — a thoughtful gesture from world leaders supposedly dedicated to protect their citizens.

Designated by critics as the Prussia of the Middle East, an army that has a nation, Israel must recognize that a population already under siege due to sanctions and embargo while living precariously with lack of food, water, electricity and other essentials of life, is at the tipping point of total destruction. The only way for the Gaza Palestinians to leave the fenced and blockaded Gaza and escape the onslaught is by death. Can we assume that many Palestinians, the oxygen sucked from their lungs by the missile blasts, in their last gasp note a relief in their intensive suffering and murmur the words once spoken by Martin Luther King, “Free at last, free at last, thank God, I’m finally free at last?”

How many of the world’s peoples are scheduled to utter similar words in the near future?

Are world leaders totally ignorant of the events leading to the massive destruction of Palestinian life? Are they unaware of Israel’s provocations and shrewd manipulation of the facts which allowed them to seem innocent and carry out a plan to destroy the Palestinians? The facts are:

For two years Israel has illegally blockaded Gaza. BBC News (Heather Sharp, Gaza Under Blockade, Nov. 11, 2008) states that the area’s “1.5 million people have been relying on less than a quarter of the volume of imported supplies they received in December 2005” and “virtually no exports have been permitted.” A totally paralyzed economy has tried to exist with reduced fuel supplies, electrical outages and a lack of spare parts. Intermittent hunger and severe physical and psychological damage have been common. Include impacts on sewage treatment, waste collection, water supplies and medical facilities.

Despite a truce between Hamas and Israel, the Israel military continued its attacks on West Bank Palestinians. Some of the provocations:

According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, over the last two weeks, from December 4th – 17th, two Palestinians, including a civilian were killed by Israeli forces, ten Palestinian civilians were wounded by Israeli gunfire and three others were wounded by Israeli settlers in the West Bank. Four fighters with the Palestinian resistance, and an unarmed woman were wounded by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip.¹

Al Jazeera reports, Dec. 12, 2008, that Israeli forces, during the month, invaded Salfit, Hebron, Bilin, and Khan Younis, injured four Palestinians, and took 18 civilians into custody.

Settlers in the West Bank city of Hebron destroyed Palestinian property and attacked Palestinians after Israel Defense Forces evicted them from a building of disputed ownership. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and other Israeli figures branded the settler attacks as a “pogrom” against the Palestinians.

How did Hamas react to these provocations – quite normally.

In order to continue the truce, Hamas issued two responsible demands (1) Israel halt its devastating economic blockade of Gaza, and (2) Israel observe a truce in the West Bank as well as Gaza.

When Israel refused to meet these humanitarian demands, Hamas refused to continue the truce, as it had promised and as Israel knew would happen. Rocket fire by militants, not clearly identified with Hamas, sent mortars and rockets into Israel. Despite the intensive barrage, not a single Israeli was killed or wounded.

Note: Although any weapons fire against a civilian population is unjustified, rockets are not guided missiles and these mortars are mostly homemade devices that only propel a small explosive a short distance. No mention has been made of the constitution of the barrages – the number of mortars and the number of rockets.

So, world leaders, what do we note?

For two years the people in Gaza have been intermittently starved and left destitute by Israel actions. Israeli attacks on innocent Palestinians continue. Despite no Israelis being harmed in the December rocket and mortar barrages, Israel used the attacks as an excuse to devastate the defenseless Palestinians.

Inaction of world leaders to Israel’s scheme of using deadly provocation (similar to continuing West Bank settlements) to invite retaliation, and then using retaliation that actually did not cause casualties as an excuse for more deadly actions is paralyzing. Equally paralyzing is the lack of realization of the average American to the truth of the situation. If the people of Arizona are a model of US citizen thinking on this issue then the situation becomes more desperate. Take a peek at a forum of the Arizona Daily Star, and be startled.

Lebanon’s Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, considered a US ally in Beirut, described the Israeli attacks as a “criminal operation” and “new massacres to be added to its full record of massacres.” If the United Nations, European Union and the US administration cannot listen to the Middle East region’s leaders and prevent these atrocities against the Palestinian people, what hope do the democratic and peace loving populations of the world have when confronted with tyranny and aggression?

1. Dec. 19, IMEMC News

Since 1980, in response to the economic challenges posed by global competition, the U.S. has shown the following trends for sustaining its economy:

* Lower interest rates to promote borrowings, which have supported the service industry, consumer industry and mortgages for home construction.

* Escalated government deficits, except for a few years during the Clinton administration, which have pumped the economy.

* Excessive military spending, which also pumped the economy, and tied to military adventures, tried to assure a continuous and inexpensive supply of natural resources.

After 1999, added massages to the economy have been:

* Easy credit to capture the last segments of the populace that had little debt.

* Encouraging foreign purchase of US debt to support a trade deficit and enable imports that enrich multinational firms and maintain lower inflation.

These galvanizing methods were finally followed by:

* Dollar weakening to increase exports, despite insufficient revitalizing of domestic industry to support increased exports.

The excessive sustenance for the economy finally peaked with no new strategy to continue the effort. As a result, an economic fall rapidly accelerated.

Paulson’s thrust supports the financial system in order to reinvigorate credit but his plan can only provide a short term solution. The most this contrived process can accomplish is to return the economy to a stage of the previous 1-2 years. If the newly available credit is exhausted, and industry is not revitalized to a point above its previous “prosperity” level, the credit crunch will restart with added vengeance. Why bother?

All the bag of tricks for supporting the economy have been exhausted, except one, which Paulson, together with the Federal Reserve, is now trying – massive printing of money. What will be the result of this venture?

An excessive and artificially increased money supply leads to a weakened dollar which leads to higher interest rates. The higher interest rates lower investment and consumption. Lower investment and less consumption means lower tax revenues. Lower tax revenues means higher deficits. Increased deficits mean a still weaker dollar, etc., etc., etc., until eventual bankruptcy. A news article tells the story.

LONDON, Nov 27 (Reuters) – The spread or risk premium on U.S. Treasury credit default swaps, essentially the price investors are paying to insure against the U.S. government defaulting on its debt, hit record highs on Thursday. On Thursday ten-year U.S. Treasury CDS widened to 60 basis points from Wednesday’s close of 57.3 basis points, according to credit data company CMA DataVision.

That marks an increase of 10 basis points in only two days and an almost threefold increase since Lehman Brothers collapsed in mid-September.

An increase in exports, due to a lower dollar, can counterbalance the spiraling currency fall. This positive result has contradictions: (1) US export industries are not the problem, exports are high; it’s the domestic industries that need salvation and (2) foreign nations in the global economy will have their exports shrink, face recession problems and retaliate to augment their own exports.

Secretary of the Treasury Paulson’s contradictory and not too easily decipherable plans are more likely to either provoke a huge depression or bankrupt the US treasury. President- elect Barack Obama’s proposals for stimulating the economy by massive government investments in infrastructure and for job creation also lead to huge government deficits but promises to increase the tax base and tax revenue so that the deficits don’t regenerate. Nevertheless, if the president-elect polices are identical to President Roosevelt’s policies for attacking the Great Depression, the US can still expect trouble. Roosevelt ’s policies provided a short-term recovery for several years but eventually proved insufficient for correcting the economic decline. Novel and less conventional approaches will be necessary to restart a failed system.

The average increase of housing prices adjusted for inflation rose slowly until about 1999. Its dramatic rise indicates an equally dramatic readjustment still has a way to go.

The average increase of stock prices adjusted for inflation rose slowly until about 1995. Its dramatic rise indicates an equally dramatic readjustment still has a way to go.

The abrupt rise in credit, due to lax credit restrictions, fueled the housing bubble and the rapid increases in Gross National Product. Both followed similar trends. The steep slow of the curves indicates the trends are not sustainable.

The future of the U.S. might follow past occurrences where disinflation leading to deflation were eventually overcome by wartime inflation. The U.S. Rate of Inflation increased greatly during wartime periods of WWI, WWII, Korean War and Vietnam War. It has not increased during the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan (not shown).

The militaristic and totalitarian nations of Germany, Italy and Japan emerged more quickly from the Great Depression.

The statistics told the story and are still telling it.

Will the US follow a pattern by which it becomes totalitarian and more militaristic in order to emerge from a depression? Hopefully Obama’s team will read the charts with more ability and conviction.

“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

Fukayama repeated a thesis of often maligned Karl Marx that liberal democracy is an integral part of the capitalist system but refuted Marx’s assertion that, “capitalism would inevitably lead to increasing class polarization and class conflict,” and “through its own inherent processes of development it is destined to give rise ultimately to its own dissolution.” It now seems that both of these scholars have erred and the more prescient is Azar Gat, Professor of National Security at Tel Aviv University. In a Foreign Affairs article, “The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers,” Professor Gat argues that Fukuyama has not considered the emergence of imposing authoritarian nations, “which could ‘end the end of history’.” Gat proposes a challenge: “These authoritarian capitalist regimes could inspire other states to follow their model.” (Foreign Affairs, July/Aug 2007)

The New Statism

In a previous article, “The New Statism: The Rise of Corporate States,” Alternative Insight (Oct. 2007), this writer independently outlined a similar concept: “A new statism, in various prescriptions, exercises control over the political, moral, economic and social fabric of several nations and has the potential to control the destiny of the world.”

An earlier article, “The Socialization of America,” Alternative Insight (April 2005), stated: “The global economy has been pioneered by the United States but has not been a perfect fit for new pioneering nations. In order to provide prosperity for its people, the United States must implement policies that offset the deleterious effects of globalization. American history shows that private industry has never been the sole source of solutions to recurrent economic problems.”

The former article described several nations that can be described as “authoritarian capitalist” regimes. China and Russia are the most prominent, but India, Israel, Venezuela, Bolivia and Vietnam , and several autocratic Arab nations can also be considered New Statist. Their institutions include significant New Statist characteristics:

* The government allows free enterprise but might invest in some industries (mixed economy) and control industries related to national defense, natural resources, communications and media. In some cases it also has extensive land ownership.

* The government, by direct or indirect mechanisms, partially regulates international money transfers, international trade, wages, prices, internal investment and segments of the labor market.

* The government promotes nationalism, reinforces chauvinism and allies the education system with these efforts.

* The government exercises powers that lessen opposition and prevent excessive dissent.

The Earlier Challenge to the New Statism

George W. Bush pledged to carry democracy and free market economics throughout the globe. Apart from the new Central European nations established within the framework of the European Community, democracy has not flourished — just the opposite — the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia, have witnessed the expansion of Statism: state interference in economy with trappings of free market economics. This unforeseen trend has occurred for a good reason; emerging nations, which did not experience an early industrial revolution, sought alternative means to overcome the advantages of the established liberal democracies that arrived first with the most.

Competitive advantages for the established free market economies include a lead in advanced technology and well functioning transportation, distribution, sales and financial systems. Unable to readily compete with the global economies of western industrialized nations that, despite their democratic appearances, previously engaged in imperialist adventures to seize resources and markets and utilized slave, immigrant and imported labor to construct efficient and large scale production systems, major developing nations have been forced to control aspects of their economies — labor, finance, foreign trade, currency and prices — in order to effectively compete in a global economy. These New Statists regimes don’t have a defined ideology with fixed rules; just the opposite, each New Statist nation incorporates sufficient controls and authoritarian extensions to offset limitations and satisfy distinct agendas.

New Statism Responds to the Challenge

A mix of components from previous fascist and communist regimes and from present liberal democratic states has guided the New Statist nations to notable successes. Since 1979, China has exhibited uninterrupted growth, multiplied its Gross Domestic product (GDP) by a factor of ten and emerged as a world power with the 4th largest GDP. The other large Statist nation, Putin’s authoritarian Russia, has grown an average of 6% each year since 2001. Previously minuscule contributors to the world market, these two nations now account for about 7% of total world GDP.

Rightfully scorned by liberal and prosperous democracies for political despotism and economic failure, the centralized economies recognized two principal reasons for the failure; an inability to properly allocate resources and to motivate workers. To their credit they adjusted their economies to correct for the strangling lapses. The ‘iron rice bowl’ and guaranteed employment no longer exist in the New Statist nations. State planning has not entirely disappeared, but the overpowering command economies that allocated resources have been eclipsed by a combination of public and state owned enterprises, both of which are market oriented and competitive. Score one advantage for the Statist nations — they can more easily control the recurring problem of over-production, which periodically paralyzes the liberal democracies. Excessive production can be minimized and surplus that can’t be exported can be distributed to more deprived masses. If necessary, the government can subsidize the prices. Although still lacking political and economic democracy, the New Statist nations lifted populations from poverty and constructed impressive economies. Their economic advances pose a challenge to the welfare of the western world.

A shift of low wage consumer goods production to Statist nations (China, Vietnam) together with western nation reliance on resources from other Statist nations (Russia, Venezuela) stimulated economic expansion throughout the globe, and more notably in the Statist world. Result — capital flowed from the western world to emerging nations. The accumulation of capital and foreign exchange reserves ($1.9 trillion in China and $500B in Russia) has reduced the financial dominance of the western world and placed it on a delicate footing. As the Statist nations increase their economic and financial strength, they translate the strengths into increased political and military power.

The new Russia exemplifies the shifts in power. President Boris Yeltsin inherited a Soviet Union that oversupplied a lacking demand and had inconsistent supply for internal demands. He failed to transform the slim-downed Soviet Union into a nation modeled on free market economics. Vladimir Putin followed Yeltsin and succeeded in establishing a Russia that supplies natural resources for external demands and satisfies internal demands by external supply. Noting the derogatory effects of a previous “wild capitalism,” which included concentrations of production, resources and media in the hands of a relatively few oligarchs, Putin diverted the previous economic concentrations to his own government. The present Russian government overwhelmingly participates in defense industries, controls some banking enterprises, dominates in oil and gas resources, and owns several television stations and print media. Petroleum clout and monetary reserves exceeding $500B have aroused the dormant Bear. Russia displays a fearless nature and independent spirit.

The lack of international challenges to Russia’s invasion of Georgia signified the recognition of a more powerful Russian nation. Feeling powerful, Prime Minister Putin asserted a new role in the World Trade Organization (WTO) by saying that “ Russia should abandon some of the commitments it made during World Trade Organization accession talks.” On the same day, President Dmitry Medvedev “warned that Russia might cut its ties with NATO.” Add another important shift in power: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), after 2010, expects to lack flight capacity for sending manpower to its Space Station and might be obliged to purchase seats on Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft.

Putin has stated that U.S. hegemony is being challenged by a reinvigorated Russia and he seems eager to prove his statement. Despite western grumblings, Russia continues supplying Iran with nuclear material and Syria with weapons. Agence France-Presse, Oct. 7, 2008, reported that “A fleet of Russian warships, led by the nuclear-powered missile cruiser Pyotr Veliky, are due to take part in joint exercises next month with the Venezuelan navy near US waters, something which has not been done since the Cold War. The deployment follows the arrival of two Russian Tu-160 nuclear bombers in Venezuela last month also for exercises, an event that Chavez branded a warning to the US empire.”

The Times Online, Oct. 6, has Russia beginning “the most ambitious test of its strategic bomber fleet in almost a quarter of a century today. Up to 20 bombers are being sent into the air with full combat payloads to carry out live firing exercises of their cruise missiles.

President Medevev summed it up: “Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday that Washington had forfeited its place at the heart of the world order and he called on Europe instead to work with Russia on a new security pact.” (Reuters, Oct. 8, 2008)

China is more subtle in flexing muscle. Its superlative architectural constructions for the Beijing Olympics, the quality of the stadiums and swimming pool, the unique and original ceremonies and the giant earthworks completed in a relative short period of time — subways, boulevards, neighborhood renovations, anti-pollution controls, and immense tree plantings — demonstrated the cooperative spirit, innovation and agility of the Sino socio-economic system.

While the western nations are stagnant and remain uncertain about future capital expansion, China prepares a multitude of programs; a bullet train system between Shanghai and Beijing, subways for 15 cities, 97 new airports, 15,000 miles of roads, which includes an expressway over the mountains to Tibet and an undersea tunnel to Taiwan. The latter two projects might seem exaggerated, but the Peoples Republic ’s Transportation Ministry has them on the drawing board.

Coincident with the giant projects is a growing giant financial system that rivals the western world’s banking system. Due to havoc in global financial markets it is difficult to obtain accurate information on bank assets. Nevertheless, the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CRBC) estimated the total foreign and domestic currency assets of Chinese financial institutions at 8.45 trillion U.S. dollars, as of June 2008. Compare that sum with an estimated 2008 Citibank assets of 1.2 trillion U.S. dollars.

The advances of the China and Russia Statist systems don’t convince Fukayama. Still defending his original thesis, the scholar who stopped the world believes that “In lieu of big ideas, Russia and China are driven by nationalism, which takes quite different forms in each country.” He also trusts that “ China ’s development model works well only in those parts of East Asia that share certain traditional Chinese cultural values.” These statements might be true, but are they the issue? The Industrial Revolution hastened the development of the liberal democracies. The post Industrial Revolution is a reshaped world where New Statism in various forms is covering the globe, in the Indian continent, the Middle East and parts of Latin America.

Look at India. A May 2006 World Bank report states:

“In India, there are 240 Public Sector Enterprises outside the financial sector. These enterprises produce 95 percent of India ’s coal, 66 percent of its refined oil, 83 percent of its natural gas, 32 percent of its finished steel, 35 percent of its aluminum, and 27 percent of its nitrogenous fertilizer. Indian Railways alone employs 1.6 million people, making it the world’s largest commercial employer. Financial sector SOEs account for 75 percent of India’s banking assets.” Although India is not an economic powerhouse, it is a nuclear equipped nation. Everyone wants India on its side.

The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, despite some parliamentary governing, are principally autocratic nations with mixed economies. Oil wealth goes to ruling families and supports a plethora of private enterprises, government welfare and massive internal and external investments. The words ‘Sovereign Wealth Fund,” which are government investment funded by foreign currency reserves but managed separately from official currency reserves, are closely linked to the oil rich nations. According to Morgan Stanley Investments, Sept. 2008, The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority leads all Sovereign Wealth Funds with a worth of $875B. Saudi Arabia has a comfortable $300B and Kuwait’s Investment Authority pools $250B. All this translates into economic clout and political power. Investments have been directed to Third World nations who have found a more cooperative source for their capital needs. In a reverse twist, economically troubled western investment bankers, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch as examples, have had equity injections from the Middle East sovereign funds, which are now perceived as stabilizers for the disturbed liberal market economies.

In Latin America, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador wave the Statist banner.

Venezuela President Hugo Chavez failed to acquire dictatorial powers, but has nationalized oil, telephone and electric companies. By using Venezuela ’s vast oil reserves to increase his regional influence, the Venezuelan president expects to diminish U.S. influence. As noted before, Chavez is willing to team with Russia and participate in challenging U.S. world hegemony

Bolivia’s President Evo Morales is more cautious than Chavez and doesn’t have the resources the Venezuelan manages. Nevertheless, the Bolivian President nationalized Bolivia ’s gas reserves and is prepared to do more. Morale’s demonstrates his new found boldness in words and deeds: “We don’t have to be afraid of an economic blockade by the United States against the Bolivian people,” Morales said when he politely asked the U.S. ambassador to leave because of U.S. support for government opposition groups.

Ecuador President Rafael Correa, after being elected president in January 2006, informed the national assembly he will pave the way for socialism. The Ecuador President has threatened to expel foreign oil companies if they fail to lift dwindling output in the OPEC nation.

The Challenge of the New Statism

A case can be made that it wasn’t the U.S. economic engine, but China’s economy that fueled the American and other national economies during the last decade. Export of high priced industrial goods and commodities to China provided huge markets for Western and Asian surplus. The People’s Republic’s massive production and exports of low priced goods to leading industrial countries contained inflation. Currency flows from trade with China served to increase trade between all nations. Increased resource and material demands reopened mines, pumped oil, and enriched the Third World nations that were rich in natural resources. China became the new engine in the world’s economic system.

And that is from where the challenge of the New Statism begins.

The emerging nations were previously dependent upon the industrialized western world for products and capital. Now, the industrialized western world finds itself reliant upon the New Statist nations for raw materials and natural resources, whose prices the western democracies can no longer control, dependent upon imports of inexpensive goods, in competition with several new nations for markets and seeking capital from resource rich nations. The previous competitive advantages of the industrialized world have been severely reduced in the more controlled Statist environment.

A greater challenge by the Statist nations lies in their becoming less reliant on the western democracies and more cooperative with one another. With Russia supplying the material resources and China supplying the labor for manufacturing, the emerging Statist nations have the capability to control resource distribution and value added manufacture.

The democratic capitalist nations previously extracted the material resources and inexpensive labor of a Third World for benefit of the western societies and domestic oligarchs. The developed world guided the destiny of the lesser-developed world. Third World nations now extract capital from the developed nations and use their own material resources and inexpensive labor for either direct or indirect benefit for their own peoples. The New Statist nations can guide the destinies of all nations, and this is happening.

China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan compose the Shanghai Cooperation in Central Asia (SCO), a mutual-security organization launched in 2001. India could soon be included. Trilateral summits of Russia, China and India predict a strategic alliance between these large and growing nations. A joint communiqué by the foreign ministers of three countries in New Delhi on February 14, 2007 “expressed their conviction that democratization of international relations is the key to building an increasingly multipolar world order.”

With the liberal political and economic world suffering from an economic downfall, emerging nations might be less likely to adopt the free market model and more likely to consideration the autocratic Statist paradigm as an attractive alternative to liberal democracy. Even the free marketers are shelving their concepts and applying Statist solutions for private problems. Rather than an end to history, the liberal democracy movement has become only a stage in history. As predicted by rejected and non-conventional economists, a new stage of history is unfolding.

Usually when someone requests a huge loan, the person arrives at the loan office with a detailed plan, which is backed up by considerable analysis, a legal framework and relevant financial documents. During the Senate and House hearings of the Paulson plan to rescue the banking system, neither Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson nor Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke submitted an analysis, a prepared ledger or specific reasons to authenticate their demands for a federal purchase of troubled securities from the banking system. The two government officials didn’t even seem to have a pencil and pad on the table for their use. Questions for details of the “plan” or recommendations for alternative measures always received a monotonous response: “There is no alternative to prevent a catastrophe and time is short to prevent a financial meltdown.” The participants then proceeded to contradict their propositions.

In response to limiting compensation for executives of enterprises that will participate in the rescue plan, Secretary Paulson originally claimed that the suggestion would inhibit many companies from agreeing to the bailout. Since the Treasury Secretary intimated that inability to sell the downgraded assets would prove disastrous to financial institutions, can anyone believe that a CEO would prefer to permit an enterprise to spin into nowhere rather than accept a lower salary? Would the U.S. government allow a CEO in desperate need to dictate to those who are leading the cavalry charge? Although reports have Paulson compromising with the compensation proposal, the initial response damaged his credibility.

Paulson’s sense of urgency stifled debate. Won’t it take several months to assemble the funds, examine the books of the institutions, and prepare a mechanism for sale of the troubled assets? How could a few days of intensive debate and disclosure of facts delay the rescue mission? If that wasn’t sufficiently puzzling, Paulson’s lack of activity after the acceptance vote of his plan was incomprehensible. He had no mechanism in place to move his plan into action. Considering his constant rhetoric of immediacy, why wasn’t some form of administration in place with detailed assignments and readiness to immediately perform required responsibilities?

Most curious was the covert manner of the government’s financial managers. Both of them replied to relevant and meaningful questions with one consistent and simple answer: “Our way is the only way and delay can bring economic catastrophe.” The covert manner leads to questions: “What is the referenced economic catastrophe and why the breathless urgency?” Are Paulson and Bernanke referring to a complete breakdown of the financial system in which hundreds of banks will fail and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) will exhaust funds that insure deposits?

If so, why not slowly give the $700 billion directly to the FDIC by replying to each of the insurance agency demands for funds as it rescues financial institutions? The obvious reason is that the massive number of bank failures will overwhelm the system’s ability to assist the banks, and the FDIC will be forced to retain the banking operations. Similar to government operation of the mortgage industry by seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and government operation of the insurance industry by control of AIG, the government will be forced to operate the banking industry by its seizure of troubled banks. In effect, the U.S. banking system will be nationalized.

Has a possible complete breakdown of the financial system forced Paulson and his associates to maintain silence on the extent of then catastrophe? Loose lips not only sink ships; they can force bank runs and turn a manageable turndown into an unmanageable financial disaster. If the conjecture has a basis, and Paulson’s objective is to preserve an effective private banking system, then the Paulson plan has merit. Nevertheless, unless it is backed up by unusually clever policies, the plan will only be a temporary expedient for delaying the sorrowful inevitable — an economic breakdown of gigantic proportions.

Injecting cash into an almost defunct banking system and removing illiquid assets from its balance sheets will enable financial institutions to be re-capitalized and conform to FDIC requirements. The banks will remain solvent — a worthwhile endeavor. Nevertheless, a danger exists that the financial obligations of the United States will have passed a point of no return. The enormous increase in the national government deficit, forecasted at $700B, could lower the value of the dollar and increase interest rates. This awkward combination could then increase prices and unemployment. The latter combination will decrease tax revenues and escalate the already increasing deficit and interest rates. The rescue plan can become an uncontrolled feedback mechanism that soon tears itself apart; the U.S. government could go bankrupt. Unless those preparing the $700B bailout are able to show that a government bankruptcy is definitely impossible, then what seems to be a remote possibility can become a valid prediction. The dire consequence is sufficiently frightening. Any indication that the bailout is only an expedient measure that buys time and does not address the actual problem is shocking.

The credit crunch, failures of sub-prime loans, and bank bailouts are manifestations of the real problem. And what is the major problem? It is the trade deficit, which siphoned money out of the country and dictated an uncontrolled credit expansion to finance domestic spending. The trade deficit continues, but the credit expansion has reached its end. Two graphs tell the story.

Figure 1: Trade Balance of Payments

Figure 2: Credit Outstanding

The first graph describes the trade balance of payments and shows the resulting deficit, which has grown steadily since the mid-1980s (except during the 1991 and 2002 recessions) and rapidly since the late 1990s. The present $900B trade deficit is still rising and cannot be easily contained. With manufacture of basic goods, such as clothing, electronics and plastics having been shifted to developing nations, the U.S. consumer presently has no alternative and must purchase these imported goods from external suppliers. Add a dependence upon imports for crude petroleum, steel mill products and refinery products and also the excessive consumption of imported raw materials and automobiles and we learn that the totality of reliance upon imports severely limits the domestic income and funds that are available for spending on domestic production.

To compensate for the lack of domestic savings, the U.S. economy opened its gates to foreign savings. Foreign investment and purchase of U.S. Treasuries served to re-circulate dollars, which relieved the pressure on the dollar, and financed purchases of imports and domestic production. These mechanisms are only partial solutions to low domestic savings and cannot continue forever. The investments and their profits must be repaid and this is now happening. The Balance Of Payments Account can no longer be supported by foreign savings and investment, which means the U.S. has no supports for the flight of its jobs and capital.

The shift of capital and manufacturing to the low wage nations has shifted purchasing power to the workers of these nations and decreased the purchasing potential of American workers. Maintainability of this shift is possible if the U.S. runs a positive balance of trade and foreigners purchase more U.S. goods and services. This has not been the case. Instead a continuous credit expansion has been used to finance an unsustainable trade deficit and the sales of domestic production. The next figure describes the credit expansion.

The Credit Outstanding curve shows steady growth since 1970 and accelerates rapidly after 1998, coincident with the time the trade deficit increased rapidly. Debt has obviously been used to finance imports and domestic consumption by substituting credit for the lack of internal purchasing power. The total debt, which consists of government, consumer, corporate and all other financial debt instruments reached $40T in 2004 and is now about $50T.

Federal government deficits, which have become unwieldy, financed a part of U.S. growth. Credit did the rest; fueling the seemingly perpetual motion economy of continuous growth. Theory predicted, as for all perpetual motion machines, it would soon grind to a halt. Adhering to the principle that “a rolling loan gathers no loss,” and utilizing artificially maintained low interest rates, creative financing, credit card expansion and finally sub-prime mortgages for the last batch of available spenders, system financiers increased the money supply and enabled purchasing power, especially for the home construction industry. Free money, rather than free enterprise, more accurately characterized the U.S. economic system, which has been hit by a four times whammy: (1) Credit markets have reached their limit, (2) foreign investment can no longer finance the trade deficit, (3) the federal debt seems too high to support adequate fiscal stimulus plans, and (4) a sizeable number of debtors cannot repay loans.

The U.S. advanced a global economic system that has created difficulties for itself, and been more beneficial to emerging nations. In the faster growing nations of China, India and Russia , mixed economies have advantages that are not easily overcome. By control of currency exchange rates, wages, prices, production facilities, health care expenditures and pension plans, the authoritarian statist nations respond more quickly to challenges and gain a competitive edge in the global economy. The United States has no choice but to become more social and align government and industry in common goals that will correct the dangerous trends. A pull-back in economic progress cannot be subdued, but a total disaster can be prevented. Although isolated recommendations are difficult because of the interdependence of factors that govern an economy, here are starters for thought:

Lower the trade deficit by limiting consumption of superfluous imported goods, diminishing energy needs, withdrawing from foreign adventures and decreasing foreign assistance.

Cut the budget for defense spending, earmarks, pork barrel, and non-expedient services, which will lower the deficit, strengthen the dollar and provide funds that more directly attack the financial problems.

Direct tax policies so those with definite needs will receive government benefits and those who have only superfluous needs will supply the funds, Redistribute wealth and soften the calamity on the lower and middle classes.

Plug tax loopholes that will also lower the national deficit and gain resulting benefits.

Revive domestic manufacture of essential industries — steel, metal products, commodities, and autos — which will increase payrolls and make the domestic economy less dependent on credit.

The United States has superior technology, highly productive agriculture, abundant natural resources, escalated productivity, developed transportation, efficient distribution, massive infrastructure, educated population and a blessed variable climate; reasons to be optimistic that an economic powerhouse can find an acceptable solution to a major economic crisis. One reason to be pessimistic is due to the free market purists and flag waving “patriots” who will fight the distressing situation with slogans and empty words. Their deceptive concepts might prevail to the ultimate bust.

Another impediment to solution is the mindset of the American people. The U.S. consumer has become like The Great Gatsby believing in “the green light, the orgiastic future that year by year recedes before us.” The Paulson plan, although an important stopgap, is only a “boat against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” Negative trade balance leading to using credit to finance domestic production is the major problem. Is it difficult to convince a mindset to place the reverence of survival before the desire for imported IPods?

Will the Paulson plan fulfill its intentions or will it worsen what it wants to correct?

The health of the financial system is a major problem, but is it the problem, and does it disguise the true problem?

Let’s examine the first consideration. Will the Paulson plan fulfill its intentions or will it worsen what it wants to correct?

A Treasury statement claims that “Paulson would have authority to buy home loans, mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-related assets and, after consultation with the Federal Reserve chairman, other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.” By gaining authority to become a buyer of last resort for mortgage-linked assets that few other financial institutions in the world want to buy, the Treasury expects to reduce mortgage foreclosures and quickly create regulation for a new financial system.

Relieving “bad” banks of worthless securities in order to increase their reserves and their ability to lend and spreading the ‘junk’ among many “good” banks that already have sufficient reserves and won’t feel any deterioration in their balance sheets is an expedient approach to the banking crisis. Nevertheless, there are many, many questions:

(1) Why doesn’t the Treasury provide an auction mechanism for direct sale of these assets rather than buying them and then trying to sell them to others?

(2) Since those selling the assets to the Treasury are normally those who purchase these assets, who is available to buy the assets?

(3) Isn’t the Treasury speculating with these assets, betting it can beat the odds and sell what nobody else can sell?

(4) Should the U.S. government be allowed to speculate with taxpayer money?

(5) Won’t the government be subsidizing and rewarding the “bad” banks while making the “good” banks less good?

(6) Since the sub-prime and other deceptive mortgages artificially raised housing prices, similar to having claques at an auction, aren’t housing prices artificially high? If so, how can Paulson’s scheme prevent foreclosures? The only buyers at the elevated prices were those who received the extraordinary mortgages. That crowd is no longer available to purchase homes. Considering present home ownership in the U.S., is there a sizeable portion of the American public that has sufficient down payments and income and will be willing to purchase homes at elevated prices? If so, why aren’t they buying the real estate now when interest rates are low?

Questions on the possible detrimental effects of the taxpayer commitment:

(1) Will this plan generate a huge increase in the government deficit, which will lower the value of the dollar and increase interest rates? Both seem likely.

(2) If the dollar decreases in value, won’t commodity and import prices rise? These negative effects will increase production and consumer costs.

(3) Has an analysis that includes the possible deterioration in the dollar and augmented commodity prices, especially in petroleum, been included in the presentation to Congress?

(4) Will higher interest rate rises offset benefits (if any) from the Treasury’s plan?

(5) Could a combination of a decreased dollar and increased interest rates set in motion a regenerative effect by which the economy deteriorates, unemployment accelerates, tax receipts are lowered, the dollar drops further, interest rates rise more, etc., etc.?

(6) Is this an all or nothing plan by which if the plan fails to accomplish its purpose, it will be counterproductive or catastrophic?

(7) If the plan fails, is there a backup plan in place that will take over?

(8) Are there other financial problems — e.g., credit card debt, auto loans — that are also troubling?

Let’s examine the second consideration. The health of the financial system is a major problem, but is it the problem, or does it disguise the true problem?

Why was it necessary to pump up and manipulate the credit system in order to enable the U.S. consumer to make large scale purchases? Obviously, the American worker did not have the savings or wages to finance the purchases. Foreseeing a dead-end economy, the financial wizards in charge decided to use unsavory credit expansion to greatly enhance their profit margins rather than expand wages and face a possible reduction in profit margins. The relative stagnation of the U.S. manufacturing system and inability to compete in global markets, reflected by huge trade deficits, prompted the financing of consumer spending. The ‘housing bubble’ is a result of the actual problem, which has the U.S. free enterprise system on hold by its failure to compete with more controlled and regulated nations, such as those in China and Southeast Asia. Add to the problem, the financial burdens due to the Bush doctrine. While the U.S. plows its defense manufactures into the ground and freely distributes capital to “defend democracy,” other nations erect permanent institutions that assist them to move forward and invest their capital wisely. The U.S. structured globalism to benefit its economic system. The more regulated Statist nations have structured their economies to make globalism work for them.

In a previous article,¹ the writer outlined the notion: “A new Statism, in various prescriptions, exercises control over the political, moral, economic and social fabric of several nations and has the potential to control the destiny of the world.”

Another article,² stipulated: “The global economy has been pioneered by the United States but has not been a perfect fit for new pioneering nations. In order to provide prosperity for its people, the United States must implement policies that offset the detrimental effects of globalism.”

Many developing nations incorporate Statist characteristics in their political system. Poland, South Africa, Indonesia, Singapore and India have State Organized Enterprises (SOE) and, to some degree, have incorporated essential features of the new Statism. Resource rich states, such as Venezuela and Bolivia have embarked in a Statist direction. China and Russia are the most prominent nations that represent the new Statism.

The most essential reasons for the failures of the previous centralized economies were their inability to motivate workers and properly allocate resources. The former Socialist nations recognized the reasons for the failures and adjusted their economies to correct for them. The ‘iron rice bowl’ and guaranteed employment no longer exist in the new Statist nations; freer labor occurs in most industries. State planning has not entirely disappeared, but the overpowering command economies, which allocated resources, have been eclipsed by more market oriented economies that control demand and distribution. Although still lacking political and economic democracy, the new Statist nations have lifted masses from poverty and constructed impressive economies. Their economic advances pose a challenge to the prosperity of the western world.

The Statist world incorporates low wage consumer production. Its economic successes have generated excessive demand, created resource and material shortages and increased prices of raw materials. Capital has flowed from the western world to an emerging world. The accumulation of capital and reserves (1.3 trillion dollars in China, $500 billion in Russia, and $75 billion in United Arab Emirates) has diminished the financial dominance of America and Europe.

The Bush administration is lost in rhetoric and will not recognize that the nation is declining — economically, socially, and politically. Elevated productivity gains are no longer feasible and the mixed economies of the fast growing nations of China, India and Russia have advantages that are not easily overcome. The mixed economy allows controls of currency exchange rates, wages, prices, production facilities, health care expenditures and pension plans, which enable a quicker response to challenges and yield a competitive edge in the global economy. The United States has no choice but to become more social and align government and industry in common goals that will correct the dangerous trends. Some general concepts:

• Cooperation between industry and the public, rather than free-wheeling economics, will enable more rational decisions and predictable operations.
• Changes in life style that conserve energy (smaller cars, smaller houses) will lower energy prices, assist in the balance of payments and direct spending to domestic products.
• Distribution of wealth will increase spending on vital goods and reduce spending of superfluous goods. It will also bring citizens closer together, increase faith in the system and ameliorate social problems; e.g.: crime, poverty, drugs.
• End of military adventures will reduce military spending, reduce the deficit and allow re-direction of wasteful military programs to more beneficial social programs. Development of a National Pension plan, properly prepared of course, will resolve the Social Security and pension crises.
• Development of a National Health plan, properly prepared of course and similar to those in other western nations, will resolve the Health crisis.
• Agreements on “outsourcing” will limit job losses.
• Development of an immigration plan will preserve jobs for American citizens and prevent competition for wages.

The Paulson Plan is another patch in a worn out American socio-economic system. The plan might be a temporary solution to a problem but it is not a solution to the problems. It disguises the actual problems, which are the stagnation of U.S. manufacturing, an inability to compete in the changed global economy, an unworkable banking system that is constantly in trouble, and the demand for unsupportable credit to promote growth. United States’ history shows that private industry has never provided solutions to recurrent economic problems. Changes in life style and a return to the social awareness that characterized the Roosevelt era might be more applicable solutions for assuring a revitalized America.

1. “The New Statism, The Rise of Corporate States,” Alternative Insight, Oct. 2007.
2. “The Socialization of America,” Alternative Insight, April 2005.

Using slogans of democracy, freedom, and nation building as the path to peace and stability, the U.S. in the last ten years has brought neither peace nor stability to the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean. Guided by encouraging words rather than meaningful deeds, the U.S. has deceived itself with illogical maneuvers, hypocritical behavior and contemptuous meddling in the Arab world. Smug attitude and self-interest prevents a Bush administration from realizing that invigorated Middle East nations can stabilize themselves. The present inward looking U.S. administration would never contemplate that Iran and Saudi Arabia could lead the advance.

What! Iran and Saudi Arabia, two implacable foes and authoritarian nations governed by Islamic law, are going to cooperate and lead their fellow Middle East neighbors to a long desired exit from turmoil and solidify their presence as progressive forces in a family of nations? Maybe not entirely; maybe only a cool meeting of minds rather than warm embraces. But why not, if this rash route for achieving peace and stability might be the only possible approach for accomplishing the extraordinary mission, and if the lack of its occurrence presages a destructive conflict between the two opposing Islamic nations? Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and King Abdullah must comprehend that they are being drawn into a clash and should preferably get together before they pull themselves apart.

The Arab nations of the Middle East realize that the U.S. will secure the monarchies as long as these governments protect U.S. interests – until now. U.S. failure to protect its interests in Iraq portends an eventual failure to secure the Middle East governments against internal and external conflicts. Middle East stability dictates reconciliation between the Arab world and Iran, between Sunnis and Shiites, and specifically between Saudi Arabia and Iran. By cooperation, Iran and Saudi Arabia can stabilize and democratize Iraq. This does not mean that the two authoritarian nations should be excused for suppression of internal democratic movements and be able to avoid responsibility towards their own peoples. Nor does it mean that their accord should be allowed to prompt an arrangement that subverts other nations or constructs an anti-American coalition. It only means that, by peculiarities of international politics, these nations happen to have significant power to resolve a crushing situation. The world should be aware of this unique power and use it to advantage. Trace the situation. It methodically leads from U.S. failures, which predict a U.S. loss of influence, which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims will create a political vacuum, which is filled by oil rich Iran and very oil rich Saudi Arabia, which merits a repair of the Sunni and Sh’ia divide and which leads to Middle East peace and stability. Start with the factors that produced a U.S. loss of influence.

Illogical Maneuvers — The U.S. military overthrow of Saddam Hussein removed a countervailing force to Iran and expanded the Islamic Republic’s power and influence. The U.S. participation in an ongoing civil war in Iraq, its cooperation with Israel in the latter’s conflict with Lebanon, the continuous and ineffective saber rattling against Iran, and inability to resolve the Israel/Palestinian conflict have lowered U.S. prestige to that of a barely tolerated benefactor.

Hypocrisy — Support of autocratic monarchies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf State nations has strengthened these regimes and delayed them from extending sufficient freedoms to their populations, including Sh’ia. The latter ethnicity is important because U.S. proclamations of freedom of religion and minority rights, except for Iraq, are rarely applied to the Sh’ia — just the opposite — the victimized and mostly powerless Sh’ia, who have been attacked by Sunnis from India to Saudi Arabia, are constantly portrayed as aggressive, terrorist prone and always ready to seize control. This depiction disguises government corruption, reinforces Sunni domination and exaggerates a Sunni/Sh’ia divide that seeks amelioration.

The U.S. has never recognized that the Shiites, who are an overwhelming majority in Bahrain (55-70%), have only five of 22 cabinet positions, 8% of total governmental posts, and 18 appointed (by the King) members of 40 in a Shura council.

Although a more positive trend is occurring, the desert kingdom has discriminated against its Sh’ia minority (5-10%). A 2001 Human Rights Watch Report:

Shia Muslims, who constitute about eight percent of the Saudi population, faced discrimination in employment as well as limitations on religious practices. Shia jurisprudence books were banned, the traditional annual Shia mourning procession of Ashura was discouraged, and operating independent Islamic religious establishments remained illegal.

Contemptuous Meddling — The U.S. has taken several initiatives to resolve problems of Middle East nations. From Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush, U.S. presidents have sent the U.S. marines to Lebanon and naval armadas to the Persian Gulf in order to “solve” Middle East problems. Iraq has been attacked on two occasions.

After all these military adventures, the Middle East remains with its problems and seems ready to explode. By this time, Arab leaders must recognize that the U.S. cannot solve their problems and can exacerbate them. Consider Iraq.

U.S. involvement in resolving an Iraq crisis that it created gives an appearance of providing a solution that favors U.S. interests, and structuring Iraq as a vassal of the U.S. Imagine the feelings of the Arab leaders who contemplate an Iraq allied with the U.S., a nation allied with Israel , and the three nations forming a dynamic combination that can dominate the entire Middle East — a neo-con victory over the Arab world.

Iran and Saudi Arabia border on Iraq and are nations most affected by an unstable and insurgent Iraq. Self-interest forces Iran and Saudi Arabia to frame the future of Iraq. History shows that the former nation fears a Sunni dominated government at its border, and for good reasons; these include a possible reawakening of former disputes between Iraq and Iran that led to war, an adjacent space for Iranian dissidents to operate, and the natural tendency to co-opt Iran into Iraq’s ethnic disputes in order to protect the Sh’ia.

Similar to Iran, Saudi Arabia fears a Shiite dominated Iraqi government. Despite insufficient proof, the Saudi monarchy has been accused of assisting elements of the Sunni insurgents in their battles against the sectarian Iraq government and has been quoted as pledging support for Sunni militias who defend themselves against Shiite militias. Jordan’s King Abdullah has pledged support against what he views as an attempt to establish Shiite dominance from Iran to Lebanon.

A Shiite dominated government in Iraq that suppresses Sunnis will infuriate Saudi extremists. The porous Saudi border (The kingdom mentions building a barrier between the two countries) will become a superhighway for insurgents from Saudi Arabia racing to assist insurgent Sunnis and for Shiites arriving from Iraq in order to foment rebellion in Saudi Arabia. Battle trained Saudi insurgents returning from Iraq become an eventual threat to the kingdom.

A sectarian government in Iraq increases the probability of a continuous and crushing civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis. The strife could undermine and consume the opposing Islamic states. A stable and non-sectarian Iraq at their borders relieves these states of responsibility to assist opposing factions and limits charges of neglecting brethren from attack. A non-sectarian government serves as a buffer between Shiite Iran and Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. An added advantage is that a non-sectarian government is more likely to unite Iraq and prevent Kurdish independence. Iran will relish that situation. Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, Executive Director, Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP) has said it well: “Saudi King Abdullah, who always favored change in his kingdom, is smart enough to understand, as any common sense individual will, that a fire next door can burn his own house down.”

What should these two antagonists do? What they do might be less important than what they not do. Pacification of Iraq depends upon halting increase of hostilities between Sh’ia and Sunni groups. Iran and Saudi Arabia should make sure they don’t assist any side in promoting civil war. With that known, they can use their influence with ethnic representatives to bring about a reconciliation that favors a non-sectarian government whose direction has no favoritism and no connection with adjacent states.

Is cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia far fetched? Major problems exist between Iran and the Arab states — territorial disputes, threats of closing the Straits of Hormuz, Arab states’ alliances with the United States, claims that Iran supports a Sh’ia uprising in Bahrain, and the Sh’ia /Sunni divide. Nevertheless, events indicate that Iran and Saudi Arabia are tending to diminish antagonisms and more eagerly cooperating in stabilizing their Middle East.

On March 4, 2007 the Iranian president and Saudi leaders had official talks in which they “pledged to fight the spread of sectarian strife in the Middle East, which was the biggest danger facing the region.” Following this meeting, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, on Oct.4, 2007, highlighted what he has said is the emergence of a “power vacuum in the region,” and indicated Iran’s readiness to fill that vacuum, while encouraging cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia to achieve that goal. On August 18, 2008, seven Arab countries, including Kuwait, announced their intentions to reopen their embassies in Baghdad. The Arab Interim Parliament (AIP), which has been active in addressing Arab Nations’ social and economic affairs, stated on August 25, 2000, “it was examining a proposal to have its chairman hold a dialogue between the Arab and Iranian nations.”

A series of economic agreements between Iran and Gulf State demonstrate a recognized dependence. London-based economic weekly MEED reported on August 3, 2008 that UAE-based Quest Energy and an Iranian company are developing a project to build a 1,000 megawatt power plant in Iran. On August 17, 2008, the Saudi Press Agency reported that “Iran signed a deal to export gas to Oman that could open new export routes well beyond the neighboring Arab state.”

The Sunni/Sh’ia divide shrunk slightly with an arrangement between Hezbollah and Salafists, belligerent foes in Lebanon. Ya Libnan, August 18, 2008, reported that the two sectarian forces signed a memorandum of understanding that briefly: (1) Condemned any Islamic group that assaults another, (2) Abandoned incitement, which creates trouble and allows enemies to take advantage of the situation, and (3) Confronted the American agenda, which creates division.

The territorial disputes between Iran and the Gulf states started long before the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Tehran’s independent actions, such as constructing two naval offices on the disputed island of Abu Musa in the eastern Persian Gulf, has fueled the dispute and angered Gulf State leaders. Nevertheless, many of the world’s adjoining states have territorial disputes that linger for centuries and the antagonists remain friendly.

Gulf States’ anxiety that Iran will try to close the Straits of Hormuz is mainly due to Iran’s previous attempts in the tanker war during the Iran/Iraq war. On the other hand, Iran fears the Gulf States acquiescence of the presence of U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf is an attack on its sovereignty and invites interference with its shipping. Freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf emphasizes the need for cooperation. Removing the U.S. warships will lessen confrontation and reduce fears.

The Sunni/Sh’ia divide, portrayed as a religious conflict, is actually an economic conflict. Caliphs and Imams who centralized rule of each of the two Muslim sects no longer exist as temporal leaders, and therefore no leadership, other than spiritual Imams, is a focus for a divide. Differences between the two Muslim groups on Mohammad’s succession, Muslim prayer and Koran interpretation incite resentment between Muslim’s extreme religious leaders, but are not sufficiently significant for many of the 1.2 billion Muslims to waste their time and energy in futile battles. A Muslim is defined by adherence to the five pillars of Islam. Both Sunnis and Shiite follow those principals and are therefore ‘fellow’ Muslims. The masses of Islam are no different than the masses of Protestants who don’t care to whom and how their neighbor prays.

Similar to Northern Ireland, where Irish Catholics protested against their second class citizenship and economic persecution by English Protestants, the deprived Sh’ia minorities (majority in Bahrain) legitimately protest their economic subservience. Hezbollah has led the venture to equality in Lebanon, and due to their efforts, despite contrary western propaganda, Lebanon is evolving to a more democratic, egalitarian and stable state. Anti-Shiitism is one of the most punishing of the anti-isms and is aggravated by a western world that excuses nefarious policies by its anti-Shiitism. Recognition of the rights of the Sh’ia will diminish the Sunni/Sh’ia divide.

Iran and Saudi Arabia fear that each nation wants to overthrow the other. This type of fear disturbs all authoritarian and sectarian nations that create dissension and then seek scapegoats for their despotism. U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and the kingdom’s close relations with U.S. administrations support Iran’s arguments. Arab hostility to Iran occurs from an issue reflected in a recent statement by former Iranian diplomat Adel Al Asadi: “Bahrain had suffered due to Iranian interference in its affairs through various undercover operations, especially the recent disturbances by Bahraini youth.” Bahrain Salafist Member of Parliament Jassim Al Saidi exploited Al Asadi’s words to berate Iran. Note that Adel Al Asadi is a dissident diplomat who left Iran, and has not had his words verified. Charges of Iranian interference in other nations usually surface from dissidents and are rarely verified. In contrast, the Bush administration has made bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East an essential part of its foreign policy program; interpreted as intending to replace the authoritarian regimes. Bush’s words have not caused alarm or had an effect on policies of Middle East authoritarian nations.

An Iraq that evolves into a non-sectarian and independent democracy initiates a hopeful path to stabilization of the entire Middle East. This task cannot be accomplished before the western world recognizes its role in aggravating the problems of the Middle East. Instead of inciting division and hatred, and juggling Middle East lives to favor their own interests, shouldn’t western agencies and governments encourage an Arabian and Iranian reconciliation?

More intrigue, confusion and sinister characters than Watergate preceded the drama of the May 14 announcement. Several books, articles, documents, memoirs and letters from past generations have detailed how a miniscule group of insiders prevailed over recommendations from the experienced and famous U.S. State Department of “wise men.” An embattled clique, surrounded by powerful detractors, struggled against all odds and succeeded in its endeavors. It is the story of the Zionist mission. It is the story of Israel.

The relevance of the 1945-1948 events to today’s occurrences has not been sufficiently explored. We have the initiation of a trend whereby the supporters of those who derailed State Department Near East policy were able to morph it into Middle East policy and subsequently shape global policies. We have turmoil from previous events provoking a continuous turmoil in the Middle East. We have the George W. Bush administration functioning much different than the Harry S. Truman administration, and, despite the contrary operations, we have both administrations framing Middle East polices that favor a Zionist cause.

The Bush executive department features a President who does not display individual thoughts, continually accepts unverified information with scarce analysis from state department, defense department and intelligence agencies and from advisors and certifies foreign policy formulated by others. In the late 1940’s, Harry S. Truman, an individualistic and thoughtful president, contradicted his State and Defense Departments, which contained some of the most recognized thinkers of U.S. history, and who in turn contradicted him and his advisors in declarations that shaped the Middle East: the UN Partition Plan of Palestine and the recognition of the state of Israel. U.S. Middle East policy seemed to evolve in a darkened room, with opposing departments bumping into one another, and each giving their own interpretations to statements and events.

Truman’s State Department consisted of the most leading luminaries of any U.S. State Department. George C. Marshall, United States military chief of staff during World War II, first military leader to become Secretary of State and later a Nobel Prize recipient, had Loy Henderson, Robert A. Lovett, Dean Rusk, Warren Austin and other known figures in his department. They capably analyzed situations, separated U.S. interests from personal interests and formulated erudite presentations to enable foreign policy decisions. Although many of them were not entirely supportive of the UN partition plan, the State Department followed Truman’s directives until sensing the partition plan could be counterproductive and might cause more violence than it intended to resolve. The record indicates the State Department used obscure language and a covert approach to interpret Truman’s words and then attempted to modify U.S. policy from partition to seeking UN guidance for a temporary trusteeship.

President Truman postured himself as being motivated by a single conviction; the displaced Jews who had survived the World War II Holocaust needed and deserved an immediate home. Nevertheless, Truman vacillated in his arguments and contradicted his statements. Although he railed vehemently against the steady stream of advocates for a Jewish state, he retained several presidential advisors who pursed one purpose; promoting a new Jewish state. A suspicion remains that his motives had a political constituent; the Democratic Party craved the financial and voting support of Zionist organizations and their allies.

Clark Clifford, Truman’s chief consul and a promoter for a Jewish state, quickly became one of the president’s closest assistants. Although he was not Truman’s principal assistant, a post held by John Roy Steelman, Clifford behaved as if he were titular chief of staff by acting unilaterally and somewhat sinister in actions that proved decisive. The evidence points to Clifford favoring election expediencies in developing policies that led to the creation of the state of Israel.

But, that’s the end of the story. The shortened story begins at the end of World War II and with the refugees that swelled the displaced persons camps.

Most accepted numbers have about 8 million displaced persons (DP) wandering Europe at the end of World War II. This number quickly diminished to 1.2 million, of which 100,000 were Jews. In succeeding years Polish Jews who returned from their displacement in the Soviet Union and other Jews who left communist controlled areas, swelled the Jewish DP population to 250,000. By 1948, the displaced persons remaining in western European camps were estimated at 800,000, of whom 140,000 were Jews. About 400,000 of the DP were Catholics from Poland, Ukraine and other Eastern Europe nations, who had worked in German labor camps and factories and did not consider a return to their original homes. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum reports that eventually 170,000 of the 250,000 Jewish DP migrated to the then British Mandate, 65,000 to the U.S. and the remainder to other nations. Of the 170,000 Jews who migrated to the Mandate, many were not concentration camp survivors, others went there by default, and some left Israel in the succeeding years. Comparing the number of actual survivors of the Holocaust who eventually made Israel their home to the more than one million Jewish inhabitants of Israel in 1950 indicates that care for the survivors was not a major factor in the creation of Israel.

Until 1948, the plight of the displaced persons could not be easily resolved. The United States was already involved in returning millions of its armed forces to their homes, in the repatriation of captured enemy soldiers, and in preventing mass starvation in Europe. A possibility of a post-war depression and mass unemployment guided America’s political thinkers. In addition, the U.S. had no laws that permitted the immediate admittance of the displaced persons, nor could it show favoritism. Unable to legally bring them to America, Truman became most concerned with the Jewish displaced persons and petitioned Great Britain to allow them to immigrate to Palestine. British Prime Minister Clement Attlee cited the 1939 White Paper, which specified a definite number of applicants, as a limiting factor. He also suspected new immigrants would burden Britain’s over-stressed mandate and cause added troubles to the existing emergency. In later years, he and all of Great Britain became angered with executions of British soldiers by a Jewish terrorist group and by its bombings of Palestine infrastructure. Truman could not prevail over Attlee.

What to do? After presentations by an Anglo-American inquiry commission and a joint cabinet committee (Morrison-Grady) failed to achieve welcoming peace proposals, on April 26, 1947, a tired and irked British government requested the UN General Assembly to consider the Palestine problem. On May 15, the UN created the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). The committee outlined a partition plan with the city of Jerusalem under a UN trusteeship. Truman instructed his state department to support the partition plan. UN Ambassador Warren Austin and the state department’s Near East Division, led by Loy Henderson, doubted that partition could resolve the situation. Austin favored a single state and the Near East Division favored not disturbing the Arabs.

During the months of UNSCOP’s efforts, Truman complained of pressure by pro-Zionist groups. The former president relates:

The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been there before but that the White house too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders–actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats–disturbed and annoyed. Some were even suggesting that we pressure sovereign nations into favorable votes in the General Assembly.¹

This harsh rhetoric was mild compared to other Truman’s statements concerning the Zionists and its American leaders, especially Cleveland’s Rabbi Silver. In a memorandum to advisor David K. Niles, the president wrote:

We could have settled this whole Palestine thing if U.S. politics had been kept out of it. Terror and Silver are the contributing cause of some, if not all of our troubles.

On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly gave its approval to the UNSCOP Partition plan. Approval only meant agreement in principle. No effective means for transferring the principle into an operational result had been determined. The lack of enforcement provoked more conflict in Palestine. Each side strived to gain territory and advantage. The uncontrolled mayhem steered the U.S. State Department to adopt the concept of a temporary trusteeship for the area. Believing it had President Truman’s approval, the State Department instructed the U.S. delegation to the United States to petition for a special session of the General Assembly and reconsider the Palestinian issue. In his presentation, UN Ambassador Warren Austin proposed the establishment of a temporary trusteeship for Palestine.

Truman denied giving a green light for the presentation and wrote in his diary: “This morning I find that the State dept. has reversed my Palestine policy. The first I knew about it is what I see in the papers. Isn’t that hell!”² His fury arose from his embarrassment of having assured Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, whom he highly regarded, that the U.S. would not depart from the Partition Plan and would not entertain a temporary trusteeship. Although the correspondence wording is vague and subject to interpretation, from which the State Department took advantage, evidence of Truman’s awareness and permission for the speech is given by White House staff member George McKee Elsey. In his memoir, Elsey writes:

In fact, as I quickly learned in delving into the record and querying White House and State Staff, Truman had personally read and approved some days earlier the Austin speech, which outlined a plan for U.N. trusteeship of Palestine when the British Mandate ended in May in lieu of partitioning the area into separate Jewish and Arab territories.³

The contradictions in U.S. Near East policy led to a policy that became completely confused as the May 15 date for the British exit neared, and the Zionists prepared to declare their state and present their credentials for recognition.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly, March 25, 1948, President Truman clarified his nation’s temporary endorsement of a UN Trusteeship for Palestine that did not prevent a future partition. The pleased State Department instructed Ambassador Austin to proceed with deliberations of the Trusteeship proposal. As if not cognizant of the UN trusteeship discussion, Truman prepared to recognize the soon to be formed state. On May 12, two days before an expected announcement by the Jewish Agency in Palestine, an angered George C. Marshall and Robert Lovett confronted Truman and demanded reasons for his haste in wanting to grant recognition. The president selected his counsel Clark Clifford, who was not involved in foreign policy, to clarify the reasons for the intended recognition.

Clifford’s principal reasons for instant recognition: The UN Security Council could not obtain a truce in hostilities; partition would happen in fact; the U.S. would eventually have to recognize a new state, and it was preferable to get the jump on the Soviet Union.”

Clifford’s arguments are easily rebutted. (1) More significant than whether or not the Security Council could obtain a truce was that the UN council was engaged in discussions hoping to achieve a truce. Recognition would close the discussions and prevent the truce. (2) If the Trusteeship was approved and implemented, an entity unilaterally invoking a partition scheme would violate the UN dictates. (3) Clifford’s simple explanation that the U.S. must recognize the new state quickly because the U.S. must recognize the new state was a statement and not a clarification. (4) As for the Soviet Union, Clifford was only echoing the alarm of Phillip C. Jessup, a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN, who, according to Robert J. Donovan, cabled UN affairs officer Dean Rusk that the Soviet Union wanted recognition to use Article 51 of the UN charter to protect the new state and thus gain a foothold in the Middle East.⁴ This view is obviously specious because Article 51 only pertains to defense of member states and the new nation did not become a UN member until one year later. Besides, wasn’t it advantageous for the U.S. to have the Soviet Union recognize the new state before it did? The State Department could then claim it had no choice and would lose less favor with the Arab states.

Marshall vehemently questioned why a domestic affairs advisor was determining foreign policy. Truman replied that he had invited Clifford to make a presentation, which made it it obvious that Truman did not want history to record his words and so asked his campaign manager to speak for him. Sensing that politics and the forthcoming presidential election had become overriding factors in a significant foreign policy decision provoked the dedicated George C. Marshall to utter the most insulting words probably ever directed by a cabinet official to a president: “If you follow Clifford’s advice, and if I were to vote in the next election, I would vote against you.” Clark Clifford mentions that the Secretary also insisted that these personal remarks be included in the official state department record of the meeting.⁵

The transfer of advice on Near East affairs from the state and defense departments to a huge group of non-professional lobbyists continued. Assistant Secretary of State Robert Lovett determined to change Truman’s intentions. For some unknown reason, rather than calling the president directly, he channeled his inquiries through Counselor Clark Clifford. The president’s counselor didn’t speak to the president about most of Lovett’s urgencies, but assumed a new role whereby he spoke for the president. In response to Lovett’s request to ask Truman to delay recognition, Clifford confesses,

Saying (to Lovett) I would check with the President, I waited about three minutes and called Lovett back to say that delay was out of the question. It was about 5:40 and the State Department has run out of time and ideas.⁶

Within a few minutes, one of the most bizarre chain of events that had ever occurred in U.S. diplomacy unfolded.

Clifford states he called Dean Rusk and asked the UN affairs officer to inform Warren Austin, chief of the U.S. delegation to the UN, that the president intended to recognize the new Near East state within fifteen minutes. His call bypassed protocol; usually the assistant secretary of state should be the first informed and that person then informs other staff members of decisions. He then quotes a surprised Rusk as retaliating with the remark: “This cuts directly across what our delegation had been trying to accomplish in the General Assembly — and we have a large majority for it.” Rusk supposedly called Warren Austin who went home without bothering to inform the U.S. delegation of the news.

Truman’s rapid signing of the document that recognized the ‘new state of Israel’ (after learning the new state would be called Israel, the words ‘Jewish state’ were crossed out and the words ‘state of Israel’ were inserted) angered members at a United Nations meeting on the Trusteeship. The entire U.S. delegation threatened to quit because they had not been properly informed of the announcement and felt ridiculed. Cuban Ambassador Belt, who had three hours earlier engineered the steering of the Trusteeship proposal through a UN committee, also threatened to leave the United Nations, due to what he perceived as U.S. duplicity. May 14 was an enviable day for the new state of Israel, but an unpleasant day for the 160 year old American republic. The diplomatic solution to the Near East crisis had been settled, but the conflict had not been resolved.

U.S. State department officials erred in their concerns that, in the immediate years, the Jews in Palestine awaited an undesirable fate. They were correct in their conviction that the Partition Plan would not resolve the hostilities. Right or wrong, George Marshall’s State Department acted honestly, with knowledge and in what they believed were the rightful interests of the United States

President Harry S. Truman correctly perceived the tenacity of the Zionists. He erred in his judgment that the Partition Plan would resolve the conflict. More importantly, Truman did not consider that the placing of 100,000 displaced Jews to Palestine would also the mean the placing of weapons in the hands of many of these persons and the eventual displacement of 900,000 Palestinians. Whereas, the European DP camps could provide temporary shelter for those who would undoubtedly within a few years find permanent homes and citizenship, several million Palestinian displaced persons still languish with stateless identification in refugee camps. Truman could claim that his support for partition won him the election and that was preferable to having Governor Dewey, who also supported partition, gain the White House. Nevertheless, the post-election provided him with an opportunity to show he was not captive to the Zionist enterprise. What did he do? He only half-heartedly pressured Israel in 1949 to resettle displaced Palestinians. This token maneuver is verified by George McGhee, the U.S. coordinator on Palestine Refugee Matters. Joshua Landis states:

…McGee threatened the Israeli ambassador to the U.S. that if Israel did not accept 200,000 refugees, the US would withhold $49 million worth of Export-Import Bank loans to Israel. The Israeli Ambassador was unimpressed with McGhee’s threat and responded that McGhee “wouldn’t get by with this move.” The Israeli Ambassador boasted that “he would stop it….”⁷

True to his word, the Ambassador was able to nip McGhee’s threat in the bud. That same afternoon, the White house phoned McGhee to say that the President would have nothing to do with withholding loans to Israel. Never again would a State Department official under President Truman attempt to intimidate Israel on the issue of refugees.

Landis claims the U.S. President then tried to resolve the Palestinian DP problem by offering the Syrian government $400,000,000 dollars in exchange for settling up to 500,000 Palestinians in the fertile plains between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. A president of a nation was willing to burden his own nation in order to relieve Israel of its obligation to the Palestinian refugees. Truman limited his concern for the welfare of unfortunates to those of western origin. In retrospect, he behaved circumspect and his compassion for the victimized depended on their value to the Democratic Party.

It was not perceived that the intensive lobbying that guided Truman’s 1948 decisions and subdued the power and recommendations of government agencies were a precursor to control of future U.S. government Middle East policies. A humanitarian suggestion brightened the parade of witnesses that bothered Truman and this suggestion managed to convince many of the correctness of the cause. However, despite the darkened perspective by Israel’s frightful oppression of the Palestinians, the same forces continue to maintain U.S. foreign policy to favor their direction. Truman’s electoral victory, that defied all predictions, is carved into candidate psyches. It has made others sense that winning elections depends upon support from those who also support Israel.

The boldness of the few to use America’s capitol to determine moments of history has encouraged them to use America’s capital to extend their interests. The recent celebration of 60 years of the Israel nation on the Washington Mall substantiates this claim.

Almost all African nations, several European and Asian nations, and some of immense size such as India, were created or recreated in the aftermath of World War II. Their celebrations seem mute compared to the continuous celebrations of Israel. Nations and their peoples have a right to celebrate, but why on America’s most hallowed ground, where on July 4, the nation’s Mall hosts the celebration of the American Republic? Is it considerate to incorporate a vast celebration of a foreign nation on the Washington Mall and diminish the uniqueness of the Washington Mall as America’s expression of its heritage and destiny? Is it sensible to allow a psychological link of America’s cultural, social and political identities to that of a foreign nation? But, this is how Israel came to be, continues today and likely will continue into the future.

1. Harry Truman, Memoirs, Volume II, p.158.
2. Quoted in The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman, p.127.
3. George McKee Elsey, An Unplanned Life, p. 161.
4. Robert J. Donovan, Conflict and Crisis, The Presidency of Harry S. Truman, p. 380.
5. Clark Clifford, Memoir, Council to the President, p. 13.
6. Ibid., p. 22.
7. Joshua Landis, “Early U.S. Policy toward Palestinian Refugees: the Syria Option” in The Palestinian Refugees: Old Problems – New Solutions, University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, OK, 2001, pp. 77-87.

Those who propose a single-state do so because they sense the two-state solution is nonviable and those who propose two-states do so because they sense the one-state solution is unacceptable. The argument is doomed to irresolution because Israel has overwhelming military power, faces no countervailing power, doesn’t intend for the Palestinians to have a viable state and won’t approve a single state for all. If Israel intended to allow a viable Palestinian state, would the Israeli government proceed in the continuous construction of West Bank settlements? Would the present Israeli government demand recognition as a Jewish state and then concede to evolve into a multi-ethnic state? The endless debate concerning the shape of a Palestinian state allows Israel to comfortably proceed with its own agenda — seizing most of the West Bank, populating desirable lands with its own citizens, capturing aquifers and reducing the Palestinians to impoverishment.

Israel proceeds with a “we must have all or we will someday have nothing” program, which insinuates Israel will be destroyed unless it destroys all of its antagonists. The Palestinians react with a “if we lose, we lose everything” program, which insinuates they will be destroyed unless they stop Israel. The two antagonists have succeeded in establishing a “no win-no win situation” that affects the security and stability of the world and must be resolved by the world’s institutions. Starting with more salient arguments might provide an approach that turns minds to a solution. If the arguments seem to favor one side it is only because oppression and threat favor one side; the side of the oppressed and the threatened.

   (1) Is Israel proceeding with an agenda that ignores destruction of the Palestinians?

   (2) Is this agenda part of a larger agenda that intends to reshape the Middle East regardless of the destruction committed against Arab people?

   (3) Will these policies threaten the peace and security of the entire world?

   (4) If the threat is real should the world’s international institutions, including the European Union, take immediate measures and force a solution.

Engaging in these arguments stimulates a dialogue that exposes the dangerous trajectory of the situation, and is preferably resolved before other arguments can be entertained and for a corrective solution to be learned and applied.

Is Israel proceeding with an agenda of oppression that ignores destruction of the Palestinian people? United Nations resolution 181 created an Israeli state which the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) sized at 498,000 Jews, many of whom were more recent immigrants to the region, and 407,000 indigenous Arabs. During the 1948 war, Israel captured territory, by which the new nation grew to an area that had contained 650,000 Jews and 900,000 Palestinians. After hostilities ceased, the population of the expanded Israel state, due to added Jewish immigration and Palestinian population transfer, contained 1,013,900 Jews and only 159,100 Palestinians. Regardless of the reasons for the dispossession of the 750,000 Palestinians, illegal dictates allowed few Palestinians to return to their legally owned lands. The Ben-Gurion government succeeded in creating an almost all Jewish state from lands in which Jews had been less than 40% of the population, and in which almost all Jews had arrived or been born in Palestine in the previous twenty seven years. Jewish population is given at only 83,790 in 1922 when Arab population reached 668, 258.

After the 6-day war in 1967, all Israeli administrations constructed settlements in the West Bank. The settlements, combined with bypass roads, checkpoints, guard posts and a separation wall have completely strangled the Palestinian economy and social fabric. The post 1967 history with reference to a map below describes the catastrophic situation.

   (1) Israeli military seized the Jordan valley and hills in the West Bank.

   (2) The Israeli government destroyed forests and agricultural lands to clear land for settlements. These actions desecrated a Biblical landscape, supposedly treasured by those who desired the new housing. West Bank Palestinian life received its initial confrontation and deterioration.

   (3) All Israeli governments constructed settlements with permanent infrastructure for settlers regardless of hindrance to Palestinians. The settlements, which are declared illegal in UN Security Council Resolution 446 and by Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention, encroached upon the physical, social and economic well being of the Palestinians. Derogatory effects on their life angered the populace, motivated it to protective actions and impelled the more desperate to terrorist attacks

   (4) Israel constructed roads in order to enable settlers to bypass Arab villages.

   (5) Israeli military blockades many Palestinian village roads to prevent their interchange with Israeli only highways. These impediments hinder Palestinian exchanges and shipments of goods to markets. Palestinians who resist have been violently subdued. The subjugation prompted retaliation in form of more suicide attacks against Israeli military and civilians.

   (6) The Israeli military, citing a need to prevent additional suicide attacks, instituted checkpoints to secure use of all roads. The maneuver choked Palestinian movements and incited still more suicide attacks.

   (7) The Israeli government, beginning in 2002, and despite an International Court of Justice ruling on July 9, 2004, that declares Israel’s Separation Wall to be illegal under international law and demands that it be dismantled and all victims compensated, constructs the wall. The given reason for the wall is prevention of all suicide attacks. Nevertheless, the routing departs from the Green Line, expropriates Palestinian land and aquifers deep in the West Bank, separates the Palestinian population into several fenced enclaves and detours the wall so that major West Bank settlements are included in Israel. The plan incorporates the Jordan valley into Israel, enables Israeli forces to surround the West Bank cities of Jericho, Hebron, and Ramallah, and completely encloses the West Bank cities of Qalqiliya and Tulkharm, forcing inhabitants to enter or leave by only a guarded gate and at prescribed times. All of this occurs while Israel destroys the only airport in Gaza, consistently bombs Gaza factories and strangles Gaza commerce and links with the world by controlling airspace, sea lanes and passage to neighboring Sinai.

Israel must have planned the barrier long before starting construction in 2002. It takes years, possibly decades, to propose, discuss, design, ratify, develop, gather materials, allocate resources, budget (done in secret), pour concrete and construct a barrier of this enormous size; estimated at a final length of 703 KM. The route and shape of the “Separation Barrier,” its passage around Israeli settlements together with a network of roads, separates West Bank cities into enclaves. The complementary activities heighten the suspicions that the settlements, roads, checkpoints and the wall constitute a unified agenda. The agenda leads to a question: Is the barrier construction the final contributor to the economic and social destruction of the Palestinian people?

Reports and statistics tell the story; foreign aid is maintaining Palestinian existence. A World Bank report, West Bank and Gaza: Economic Developments and Prospects — March 2008, states that “Real GDP in 2007 is expected to be about $3,901 million, some 14 percent lower than its peak in 1999,” and foreign assistance is maintaining the Palestinian economy: “A combination of borrowing, remittances and increased aid that flowed around the PA has propped up GDP in the past two years and has allowed both public and private consumption to remain strong.” Nevertheless, “Despite large inflows of aid, the shrinking economy has led to increasing poverty. Unemployment in WB&G stands at nearly 22 percent up from only 10 percent before the beginning of the Intifadah in 2000.The percentage of Gazans who live in Deep Poverty has been steadily increasing, rising from 21.6% in 1998 to nearly 35% in 2006. With the continued economic decline in 2007 and the implementation of even more strict closures on Gaza, the current Deep Poverty rate is certainly higher.”

Excerpts from a report by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Consolidated Appeals Process: Humanitarian Appeal 2007 for Occupied Territories, 30 Nov. 2006 relate another part of the story.

Since the beginning of 2006, political, economic and social conditions have sharply deteriorated for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt). A political impasse has taken hold, characterised by economic and military pressure by Israel including the withholding of Palestinian customs revenues, increasing divisions within the Palestinian Authority, and the diversion of direct international assistance away from key Palestinian Authority institutions.

Poverty rates stand at 65.8% and continue to rise; food insecurity has risen by 13% during 2006. Restrictions on the movement of Palestinian goods, workers, businessmen, officials and public service providers have intensified dramatically

The Gazan population is undergoing a virtual “siege” by historical standards. Normal market mechanisms have faltered and aid dependency has risen. Palestinian goods have consistently been unable to move out of the strip, businesses have closed and have moved elsewhere. Exports are a tiny fraction of what the Agreement on Movement and Access foresaw in November last year.

The number of checkpoints and roadblocks in the West Bank has increased by 40% through 2006. The West Bank is being divided into increasingly small pockets, the checkpoints diverting Palestinians off the main roads that are reserved for Israelis to reach their settlements. Jerusalem, the cultural and economic heart of Palestinian life, is open only for those who hold the correct permit which excludes the vast majority of Palestinians. And the Jordan Valley is now off-limits to all but a few Palestinians living there or working in Israeli settlements. In addition, over half of the 703 km-long Barrier route has been constructed, despite the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, which declared the route in contravention of international law.

…for most residents of the oPt, the situation at the end of 2006 was worse than in 2005 and holds little reason for hope in 2007. As explained in this document, the United Nations Country Team predicts that the current impasse will endure well into 2007.

Could the policies that have impoverished the Palestinians been intentional? It is impossible that Israeli governments remained unaware that their efforts in the West Bank and Gaza would impoverish the Palestinian people. It is inexcusable that once noting the obvious results of these efforts that a government would not amend its direction in order to prevent a total breakdown of a people’s life. It is inconceivable that a government would defy world institution laws and the appeal for a change in course in order to remedy the disastrous consequences inflicted upon the Palestinians. It is obvious that Israel’s polices have prepared the complete destruction of the Palestinian people.

Is this agenda part of a larger agenda that intends to reshape the Middle East regardless of the destruction committed against Arab people? The last sixty years have witnessed several wars in which Israel has expanded from the original partition plan to control of all Mandatory Palestine. The Golan has been seized from Syria and its territory cleared of almost all Syrian inhabitants and their previous villages. Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt during wars in 1956 and 1967 and was forced to relinquish its occupation. In several wars, Israel occupied Lebanon until the Litani River and was responsible for mass displacement of Lebanese civilians, almost 1 million in the 2006 war. The Christian Science Monitor reports that:

In the June 6-to-Aug. 25 period (1982) of fighting following the Israeli invasion, another 17,825 people were killed and 30,103 wounded in Lebanon, according to the best available sources. These figures do not include those killed in Israel’s overrunning of west Beirut in mid-September nor in the massacres in the city’s Palestinian camps a few days later. Nor is the continuing toll from internecine warfare in Tripoli, the Shouf region, and the Bekaa Valley taken into account.

Concurrent with the horrors inflicted by several wars, the political aspirations of Arab nations have been subdued. All pan-Arabic and nationalist movements, emphasized by Egypt’s Gamal Nasser, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Libya’s Muammar al-Gaddafi, Syria’s Hafez al-Assad, and others, have been suppressed. Sudan and Syria, two Arab nations that openly counter Israel’s policies, are stressed, the former with continuous civil war and threat of dismemberment; the latter with open military attacks that tend to weaken and destabilize the regime. Lebanon remains in a state of near anarchy, mainly due to western pressure to limit Hezbollah power, despite doubts of the present power sharing arrangement.

Iraq, that exhibited the greatest potential to become a Middle East power, has been almost completely destroyed and is in danger of being dismantled. Israel participation in this venture is obvious from its incessant promotion for toppling the Saddam Hussein regime, its closeness to the Neocons, who are accused of preparing the U.S. attack against Iraq, and reports of Israel’s training of Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq.

The latest interference in Middle East nations has Israel’s Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz threat to consider ”all options to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons.” Israel’s urgings to the U.S. to take the necessary measures to prevent a nuclear equipped Iran, or it will perform the task, is a tactic for initiating regime change in Iran.

What do the years since Israel’s inception show? Clearly, the Middle East is being arranged in accord with western interests regardless of the turmoil, damage and loss of life to Middle East peoples.

Will these policies threaten the peace and security of the entire world? The policies have already resulted in damage to the world community. The terrorism in western nations is more directly related to western support of oligarchic Arab regimes and Israel’s oppressive actions.

Radical Islam terrorizes the western nations. Nevertheless, western policies create an anger in Middle East Muslims, which is slowly spilling over to worldwide Muslim protest, that compound the threats. A catastrophe that portends the destruction of an indigenous Arab people foments possible worldwide upheavals, assassinations and terrorism as responses from those who feel they have been victimized. The Middle East nations lack military power, but have economic clout to severely disturb western interests. Oil delivery is a potential weapon. The worldwide investment from petroleum income can be directed to unsettle financial institutions. The growing population and wealth of Middle East nations can be used to prejudice markets. A never ending Israel drive that increases antagonism is producing a fear that a nuclear catastrophe can occur from the clash with Israel’s attempt to secure a dominant position in the Middle East.

Should the world’s international institutions, including the European Union, take immediate measures and forcibly prevent Israel from accomplishing its purpose?

Middle East leaders don’t agree on many issues, but one issue in which they seem to concur is that a just solution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict precedes resolution to other Middle East political problems. Fifty nine percent of the European Community (EU) in a 2003 EU poll selected Israel as the major threat to world peace. Shouldn’t the EU listen to its citizens and respond to their pleadings?

What do nations and world authorities recommend when it has been indicated that crimes against humanity, uninterrupted killing and destruction of a community have been documented. United Nations Resolutions, institutional reports and International Court of Justice decisions have agreed that Israel has committed grevious crimes against the Palestinian people. Shouldn’t the world’s institutions act as they have always proposed to act against severe transgressions on human rights and possible genocide — sanctions, trade embargos, nullification of treaties, denial of economic and social assistance, end of diplomatic relations, support for the oppressed, and war crime tribunals — harsh language for harsh oppression.

The initial injustice was the dispossession by a newly formed Israel government of Palestinian land, bank accounts, businesses and other assets. UN Resolution 181 clearly stated: “No expropriation of land owned by an Arab in the Jewish State (by a Jew in the Arab State) shall be allowed except for public purposes. In all cases of expropriation full compensation as fixed by the Supreme Court shall be paid previous to dispossession.”

The constant attempt by Israel authorities to depart from the original UN resolution and create a Jewish state from immigration while ignoring the rights of its Arab citizens aggravates the injustices. Although the UN Resolution characterized the two states as Jewish and Arab, the thrust had a Jewish state initially composed of a Jewish majority and an Arab state initially composed of an Arab majority, and “Persons over the age of eighteen years may opt, within one year from the date of recognition of independence of the State in which they reside, for citizenship of the other State.”

The Israel administrations have demonstrated an arrogance and lack of gratitude for the world community’s creation of the Israel state. The UN partitioned the land so that the Jews, who composed only 1/3 of the area’s population, and most of whom had arrived in the area in the previous 20 years, received 56% of Mandatory Palestine. This included the Negev, which housed few Jews, and which the Zionist claimed they needed for expansion, but have used for military purposes. Samioh K. Farsoun in his classic book: Palestine and Palestinians, (p.88) estimated that Jewish and Zionist organizations owned about 24% of the arable land and 7% of the total land. Most Jews lived in the cities of Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem. If the UN proclaimed a Jewish only state and population transfers occurred, the Jews would have had less than ½ of their allotted territory. The Zionists never contemplated transfer of Jews to a Jewish only state — just the opposite — they succeeded in the transfer of Palestinians out of the Jewish state, the incorporation of most of the planned Arab state into the Jewish state and the transfer of almost all Arabs out of their own planned state.

U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the distinction between a state designated as Jewish and a Jewish state when he recognized the new state. The U.S. president crossed out the words “Jewish state” and substituted the words “state of Israel.”

Nations and international institutions behave more responsibly and act more effectively when they recive an impetus from their citizens. Chauvinism and cultural preference impede many who consider themselves progressive and champions of human rights from recognizing the perilous situation and responding to its tragic appearance. Human rights is not a selective mechanism where wrongs can only occur outside one’s camp. Permitting an oppression to its ultimate conclusion qualifies as permitting any crime, any injustice, any transgression on human life.

The solution starts with each individual recognizing the horrific consequences of the present trajectory of the crisis and being aware of the elements governing it:

Unproven narratives that are contradicted by history and archaeology are not factors in decisions. Biblical claims, even if true, are not relevant in the 21st century. Nevertheless, history and archaeology contend the biblical narrative that the Hebrews were a significant civilization in the Middle East and that Jews are definitely a common people, all of whom trace their heritage directly from biblical Hebrews.

Solutions to the crisis have always been biased towards consideration of effects on Israel and ignored the catastrophic effects on the Palestinians. The media constantly declares that Hamas will not recognize Israel, which is their right, but does not note that Israel has never recognized Hamas and has always tried to destroy the elected Palestinian leadership.

Stateless and displaced Palestinians cannot continue languishing in refugee camps in Lebanon as non-citizens and in Syria as limited citizens. Isn’t the right of return for dispossessed persons a legitimate right that is protected by UN General Assembly Resolution 194?

Religious extremists cannot have a role in resolution of the crisis. The Religious Right and Jewish extremists who quote prophecy to validate their positions cannot objectively seek a solution; they can only impede a solution.

Justice must prevail and injustices corrected. Isn’t that a given in the civilized world?

The solution evolves from the world governments and its citizens understanding the choices and forcing a decision. The international community has the choice of forcing Israel to return to the nation that the United Nations declaration intended or allowing an eventual destruction of the Palestinian people and worldwide disturbances. The former choice resolves the crisis. The latter choice provokes it forever. The provocation divides the world into those who want to preserve life and those who don’t care if they lose their soul.

Maybe they are a selected group of well-trained talkers for foreigners; a subtle means to convince the unwary that Hezbollah’s followers are just everyday guys and gals. Maybe, but observations and events were inconsistent with the media’s drastic descriptions of the militant Lebanese Shiite movement. The Party of God has insufficient support for exercising political control of Lebanon and knows it doesn’t have the numbers or the strength to turn the Levant into an Islamic Republic. Hezbollah’s clerics don’t indicate they intend to force Shari’a upon their constituencies. More an amalgam of differing viewpoints — religious, social, political and militant — Hezbollah is solidified by a common struggle for the dispossessed and a battle against corruption.

Meetings with Hezbollah and Lebanese officials together with a trip to southern Lebanon, as a member of a Council for National Interest peace delegation, revealed much about the nature of the Party of God. The voyage started in Beirut.

The tenement building in Beirut is indistinguishable from the adjoining buildings in a Shiite district of Beirut. Hezbollah followers crowd the sidewalk to greet and lead to a simple apartment on an upper floor. Sayyid Nawaf Al-Musawi, the head of Hezbollah’s International Relations, is dressed in conventional clothes. The only indication of religious fervor is the beads he rotates in his right hand. He sits relaxed but talks seriously and with conviction. The female translator’s minor errors and dubious translations of colloquial expressions are politely excused. The head of Hezbollah’s International Relations has a lot to say — about everything.

The Region

“In Iraq there is a severe humane problem — same as in Palestine. The West Bank is now a prison. The US gives no importance to the Iraqi people. US policy is based on Israel safety and Middle East oil.”

“America is creating chaos and the region is under its hegemony. The regime is increasing the problems rather than resolving them. Now they are talking about a new war in Iran . Iraq was weak, but Iran is strong and it will be a much harder war. A barrel of oil and a barrel of gunfire will create a catastrophe that is beyond comprehension. A disaster is happening and Americans are given a story that is false. They were lying about WMDs in Iraq and now they are lying about nuclear issues in Iran. They told the people that the Iraqis would welcome them as liberators. This is an example of a delusion to the citizens of the US. American citizens deserve to know the truth. Colin Powell gave false information to the UN but he thought it was the truth. When someone tries to find the truth he is called a terrorist. America operates on misleading evidence.”

Governing Lebanon

“The one who rules must be accepted by all the others. Now the minority is ruling, but this is supported by the U.S. Why does the U.S. want this? For the benefit of the Israelis. We are a movement only against Israeli attack and Israeli occupation. We support unity. We encourage consensus. The Vatican, the Arabs want unity in Lebanon, but the American influences in Lebanon do not want this. We want a multi-ethnic nation and not as in Israel, which calls itself a Jewish country even though 1/4 of its citizens are Christians and Muslims. We cannot have an election with 50% plus one because the text of the constitution is clear — there has to be a 2/3 majority. A person elected by 50% plus one is not the President and only an imposter.”

Israel

“Hezbollah will never recognize Israel. Israel (Palestine?) should be a democratic nation where all religions exist together and have equal freedom. In the 1919 Paris meeting, the Zionists presented a document which coveted South Lebanon and delineated four river basins they wanted to own.”

“Sayyid Nawaf Al-Musawi ended his conversation with prophetic expressions”

“We don’t judge you on the basis of your stand on Israel. Do not judge us on that issue.”

“There are natural ties between Shia Lebanon and Iran. They have the same source. The fifteenth Century Iranian studies came from Lebanon.”

“The geography of Lebanon enabled the Shia to stay. It is tough to conquer Southern Lebanon because of its geography.”

Leaving Beirut for the South of Lebanon is similar to leaving any metropolis — traffic jams, new expressways, roadways that cut through residential areas. The Paris of the Middle East has lost much of its charm. It is heavy until the view of the blue green Mediterranean waters calm the atmosphere. Banana groves, similar to those that camouflaged the Hezbollah rocket carriers during the 2006 summer war, are prominent. Also prominent are posters of Rafiq Hariri, the assassinated and previous Prime Minister.

After the Sunni city of Sidon, a peaceful countryside of groves and orchards, with newly repaired bridges that cross ready-to-be-paved roads, leads to Tyre. The Shiite city has freshly sanded beaches and a picturesque seaside promenade. The poster have changed — they now feature Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s political leader.

Tyre is the home of Sheik Nabil Kaook, Hezbollah commander of South Lebanon. The Sheik narrowly escaped death when Israeli warplanes bombed his home in 2006 war.

In his presence, women are not greeted with handshakes, but with hands respectfully placed over the heart. The women sit veiled and separate from the men. The cleric is well groomed and well tailored — his white turban shows his status and his brown cloak matches the brown chair on which he sits, Words are spoken politely and softly. Nevertheless, the message, interspersed with feelings for the dispossessed, is harsh and accusatory: The Hezbollah Sheik has one succinct message: “The United States took the decision to go to war and to continue the war. It treats Lebanon as just another occupation.”

Tyre is also identified with the Al-Sadr foundation, which manages an orphanage under control of Rabab al-Sadr, sister of disappeared Shiite cleric Sayyid Musa al-Sadr. Shi‘a clerics who have the title of sayyid claim descent from Muhammad. Sayyid Musa al-Sadr is more famous than his designation. His life, a story of dedication, success and an eventual mystery, reveals strong links between Shiites from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon.

Born in Qom, Iran in 1928 to a Lebanese family of theologians, Musa al-Sadr studied theology in Najaf, Iraq. Being related to the father of Iraq’s Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraq was another home for him. In 1960 Musa al-Sadr moved to Tyre, his father’s birthplace. He soon became recognized as a strong advocate for the economically and politically disadvantaged Shi’ite population. His role in establishing schools and medical clinics throughout southern Lebanon led to the 1974 founding of the Movement of the Disinherited, whose armed wing became Amal, the other Shiite party in Lebanon. While successfully improving economic and social conditions for a disenfranchised Shiite population, he made enemies of landlords, corrupt officials, political establishment and members of the Palestinian Liberation Oganization. In 1978, while attending a conference in Libya, Musa al-Sadr mysteriously vanished. No clue to his disappearance has ever surfaced.

Musa al-Sadr‘s eventual disassociation with, what was then, a corrupt Amal, created other groups, some of whom later coalesced into Hezbollah. On February 16, 1985, an “Open Letter to the Downtrodden in Lebanon and the World,” alerted the world to Hezbollah’s formal existence.

Elegant chalets grace the barren hills of southern Lebanon. Many of them are homes of expatriate Lebanese, who have always been principal contributors to Lebanon’s economy. The expatriates from Sierra Leone , Gulf States and many from Dearborn , Michigan and other U.S. cities, send funds to their Lebanese relatives and purchase properties throughout Lebanon. Southern Lebanon has many retired Dearborns who have returned to their families and to a land they always cherished. But that’s not all — informed persons claim Southern Lebanon has diamond and drug smuggling that help finance Hezbollah and local communities. For expediency and revenue, the Party of God can depart from being a religious movement.

The elegant chalets emphasize the destruction to villages during the 2006 summer war. Bint Jbiel, “the daughter of the mountain,” rested in a path of the invading Israeli army. Israel ’s military dropped leaflets that ordered the population to leave the village. The inhabitants obeyed the order and now the old city, not the new part, is 70% destroyed; a mound of rubble that includes the 600 year old mosque. Homes along a near by dirt road are pocked with shell and bullet holes, evidence of tanks having discharged random fire at empty houses for no apparent reason except they were close to the path of the tank. A total of eighteen Israeli tanks broke down, crashed or were destroyed by Hezbollah ambush during the Israeli invasion.

The Israeli border is several kilometers away. From a hill close to the mined border with Israel, the deputy mayor of Marjayoun pointed to the verdant fields of Northern Israel. He claimed that in 1948 Israel seized one kilometer of Lebanese territory and that the houses in the distance are mainly empty.

Damage weary Lebanon is not confined to the border area. Timur Goksel, former senior advisor to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), who has been in Lebanon for twenty years, noted he had never witnessed so much wanton destruction. He said that Iran funds an Iranian Hezbollah that has no connections with Lebanese Hezbollah. Five hundred million dollars of these funds are being used to repair war-damaged southern Lebanon. In contrast, the U.S. is contributing 34 million dollars to repair a large bridge. Timor Goksel refutes the March 14 majority party charge that Hezbollah is obstructionist: “The Shiites (not all Hezbollah) are 30% of the country and cannot rule on their own. They want to have a role in the government and they want to be a mainstream party.”

Principal leaders in the Lebanese government support Goksel’s evaluation. Former general Michel Aoun, Christian head of the Change and Reform parliamentary bloc, wants what Hezbollah wants; a new parliament where the new majority will be accepted. Aoun’s bloc has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Hezbollah. He insisted the MOU is not an alliance but a strategy for integrating Hezbollah into a mutual defense of Lebanon.

Pictured ex-general and Maronite President of Lebanon, Emil Lahoud, agreed with Hezbollah’s determination to follow constitutional law and only elect a president with a 2/3 quorum. The Lebanese president describes Hezbollah as “one hundred percent Lebanese. Hezbollah takes material assistance from Iran and would take it from the devil if necessary to protect their country. They are not terrorists.”

Fawsi Salloukh , Lebanon ’s Minister of Foreign Affairs talked from a prepared document that severely criticized Israel and the United States. He also wants a new election and not a litigious issue. He doesn’t believe Iran wants to dominate Hezbollah and stressed its natural for Shiites in Lebanon and Iran to establish good relations.

Forgotten amidst the rhetoric, but mentioned by Michel Aoun and Emil Lahoud are simple facts: Hezbollah has had electoral alliances with Saad Hariri’s Future Movement, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and Noah Berri’s Amal. In 1999, Hezbollah members of Lebanon’s engineering syndicate formed a coalition with the Phalange Party, a rightist Christian group, and the National Liberal Party, both allies of Israel during the civil war.

The Halifee restaurant in the Dahieh neighborhood is considered a popular dining place for Hezbollah followers; only two blocks from the Haret Hreil Hussineyeh mosque, whose senior cleric is Hezbollah religious leader Mohammad al-Husein Fadlalalh. Israeli bombers, during the July 2006 war, leveled the cleric’s home, as well as part of the surrounding area. The restaurant crowds with persons enjoying the food, enjoying the elegant surroundings, enjoying the evening. There is no indication of a particular type of person; no sign of a distinctive Hezbollah character.

La Terase is a restaurant located on Hadi Nasrallah, a street, named after Hasan Nassrallah’s deceased son. Huge craters from Israeli bombing still remain in the adjacent neighborhood. Enter la Terrase and first have a choice of a coffee bar. Go deeper and there is a cafeteria. Further in is a small restaurant. Climb the stairs and enter a huge restaurant surrounded by couches on which linger multitudes of young couples; drinking coffee, engaged in conversations and quiet embraces — hardly images of Hezbollah.

Innocent Americans were killed on September 11, 2001 by Al-Qaeda terrorists who considered the World Trade Center to be imperialist land — the center of the U.S. establishment. Innocent Lebanese were killed on July 15, 2006, one day of many bombardments that contributed to vast destruction of the Dahieh district by Israeli military who considered Dahieh to be Hezbollah land – the center of the Hezbollah establishment. The U.S. and Hezbollah establishments still exist. Many innocents died in both places. The U.S. remembers the day 9/11 as a bitter memory. Lebanon had a mid-summer nightmare of smaller 9/11s; angry memories the residents of Dahieh will forever retain. The western world rightfully memorializes America’s tragedy but neglects Lebanon’s equal tragedies. It is that neglect which created Hezbollah, sustains Hezbollah and makes Hezbollah popular throughout the Arab world.

Who can speak for Palestine? The West Bank Palestinians are economically and politically separated from their relatives in Gaza, and both operate separately from the Palestinian community in the Diaspora. Hamas is divided. Fatah is divided. The Palestinians have no cohesion to create a unified voice, no power to present a coherent voice, no means to manage a compromising voice. It seems that the Palestinians have no voice, but the appearance is deceiving; the Palestinians have potent voices of international law and international reason. A major problem is they lack active support from an international community that has been negligent in providing the necessary means to implement United Nations (UN) resolutions and mandating accepted international laws.

Legal voices have been quietly suppressed; their arguments confined to conferences and journals. These voices are receiving a renewed impetus to take the stage in this decades old struggle and be heard before international institutions, and for good reason; the route described by international law might be the only road that has a solution which brings peace with justice to the Middle East. A disparity between contenders that does not allow for meaningful negotiations has provoked the international community to re-examine resolutions that censored Israel’s checkered development.

Several interlocutors have presented the need for intercession of international law in the Palestinian/Israeli dispute. (Isn’t the use of law the accepted measure for resolving international disputes?) Many of the legal opinions support the Palestinian case before the court of law. These opinions from respected international legal experts, which give a voice to the Palestinians, cannot be conveniently summarized. Nevertheless, some of their more cogent arguments illuminate the legal thrust.¹

Ohio State University Law Professor John Quigley, in a lecture at a 1999 Case University symposium — The Legal Foundations of Peace, and prosperity in the Middle East: The Role of Law in a Palestinian-Israeli Accommodation — explored the issues to be addressed in final status negotiations.

“The United Nations had long viewed the rights of the Palestinians as being in jeopardy, particularly since the 1967 war, when Israel occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River, two sectors of historic Palestine that it had not occupied in 1948. As suggested by the United Nations General Assembly, an international conference would be convened with certain principles understood in advance to protect the rights of the Palestinians. These rights would include the right of return for displaced Palestinians, the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people and their right to establish a state, an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including Jerusalem, and a rejection of the permissibility of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The United Nations had previously determined Israel to be in violation of international law on these issues. Thus, protection of rights was built into the contemplated peace process.

That approach was abandoned, however, in 1991, when the United States and the Soviet Union hosted a conference in Madrid to promote instead a negotiation between the two parties alone, rather than an international conference, and with no explicit prior specification of the rights to be protected.”

Borders: “Belligerent occupation yields only a right of temporary possession, not title to territory. The sovereign right of the legitimate sovereign remains intact, even though it is not able to exercise control. Thus, even apart from what Resolution 242 may mean, Israel is under an obligation to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and West Bank.”

Settlements: “Under the law of belligerent occupation, the establishment of civilian settlements is unlawful. Article 49 of the Geneva Civilians Convention states, “The Occupying Power shall not … transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies “

Displaced Persons: “The only exception to a right of return is that in which a person voluntarily takes on a new citizenship in a manner that indicates a renunciation of residency rights in the former locale. The right of return is not defeated by a change in sovereignty in the territory from which a person was displaced… This norm requiring a state to repatriate the displaced is followed in international practice. In dealing with military conflict situations, the United Nations Security Council requires states to repatriate the displaced.”

“An Israel-P.L.O. agreement that fails to vindicate the legally protected interests of Palestinians would leave claims of individuals to be resolved by whatever international mechanisms that may be in a position to consider them. Rather than resolving the outstanding issues, such an agreement would let these issues fester, causing difficulties for decades to come.”

Jerusalem: “In the absence of any legal base put forward by Israel itself, various scholars have argued, in support of Israel’s claim to sovereignty in Jerusalem, that Palestine had no sovereignty when Great Britain abandoned in 1948 its League of Nations role as mandatory power in Palestine. According to this argument, Palestine was open to occupation by whoever might take it, and on this basis Israel has sovereignty over whatever territory it controls, including west Jerusalem from 1948, and east Jerusalem from 1967. This theory enjoys little following, however, because under the League of Nations arrangement, sovereignty lay in the community of citizens of Palestine, not in Great Britain. A population under a League mandate was deemed to be a subject of international law with a legal interest in the territory that was separate from that of the mandatory power. In Palestine under the mandate, the inhabitants carried a Palestinian citizenship. When Britain withdrew, the community of citizens was entitled to exercise sovereignty. The majority of that community of citizens was represented by a political organization, the Arab Higher Committee, that was recognized by the United Nations, and which asserted a right to establish a government for Palestine. Thus, Britain’s departure left no void of sovereignty…The international community has given little support to Israel’s claims over Jerusalem. Regarding the eastern sector, it has considered it to be under belligerent occupation, and therefore not subject to appropriation by Israel. Regarding the western sector, it has continued to view the proposal for an internationalized status as viable, and nearly all states that maintain diplomatic relations with Israel have declined to locate their embassies in Jerusalem.”

In another article, Professor Quigley argues “that the conflict is best understood — and poses the greatest chance of ultimate resolution — in the context of international law.”²

Under the established norms of international law, the Palestinian people have been unlawfully displaced and have a right to repatriation that is not able to be negotiated away through the international political process…The displaced Palestinians should not have to lobby for their right of return vis-à-vis Israel or vis-à-vis the Palestinian leadership. The right is guaranteed by human rights norms. Just as a state that tortures is obliged to desist without being cajoled and without negotiation, so a state that refuses to repatriate is obliged to desist, namely, by repatriating.

Anthony D’Amato, Leighton Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law presents controversial opinions in his legal survey of the conflict in an article:

… the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact of 1928, as definitively glossed by the International Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, has abolished forever the idea of acquisition of territory by military conquest. No matter who was the aggressor, international borders cannot change by the process of war. Resort to war is itself illegal, and while self-defense is of course legal, the self-defense cannot go so far as to constitute a new war of aggression all its own. And if it does, the land taken may at best be temporarily occupied, but cannot be annexed. Thus after all the wars, the bloodshed, aggressions and counter-aggressions, acts of terror, reprisals, and attendant UN resolutions, nothing has changed the legal situation as it existed after Resolution 181 in 1947. The legal boundaries of Israel and Palestine remain today exactly as they were delimited in Resolution 181.³

Professor D’Amato examines another aspect of the controversy:

In my view, the controversy does not solely concern Israel and Palestine. Palestine, it will be recalled, was a Mandate under the League of Nations. Unlike the League’s other mandated territories, it was not transferred to the UN Trusteeship Council when the League dissolved in 1946. But the lack of transfer does not mean that the mandate expired, any more than the death of a trustee would terminate a trust. The “administration” of the Palestine Mandate legally devolved upon the General Assembly. In 1947, the General Assembly passed a resolution partitioning the Mandate into two areas, one to be governed by a new Jewish state and the other to be governed by a new Arab state. Although Israel became a state in 1948, Palestine did not become a state. In my reading of this (admittedly complex) history, the Palestine Mandate has therefore never legally been terminated. Until it is terminated-that is, until a new Arab state is created-the General Assembly retains its supervisory powers over the Palestine territory. While the extent of that supervisory power is disputable given all the events that have occurred since 1947, at the very minimum it entitles the General Assembly to retain a legal interest in the proper disposition of the mandated territory.⁴

International law is neither precise nor entirely accepted by all nations. Nevertheless, it has been used together with other means to resolve similar conflicts in South Africa, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. The Palestinian-Israel conflict begs for the force of de jure and the forces of nations; the same economic, political, material and military forces used to resolve previous disputes. Those who are concerned with the effects on Israel by imposition of international law should realize that if Israel is lessened by international law, it will only be due to Israel having ignored international law; if Israel is reshaped by the context of international law, it will only be due to Israel having distorted the context of international law in order to reshape the Middle East in accord with its own vision.

Everyone should realize that the conflict goes beyond the Israelis and Palestinians. This conflict has bred terrorism, caused other severe conflicts, stimulated arms races, strengthened religious extremists; brought death and destruction to many parts of the globe and has a tendency to engulf our entire civilization in a cataclysm. The international community must be assured that the solution is not worked to suit the agenda of a relatively few; but correctly responds to the alarms of all.

The inability to force responses to UN resolutions and provide a legal context to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a principal reason for continuation of the decades old conflict. The corollary is that only enforcement of UN resolutions and adherence to international law will resolve the conflict.

1. Note: The specific arguments are only presented in order to demonstrate that the legal aspect is most important in resolving the struggle and that the Palestinians have a sympathetic legal voice. There is no intent to conclude these are the only legal opinions and that these opinions are the final conclusions from international laws governing the dispute.
2. “International Law and the Palestinian Refugees,” Hastings International and Comparative Law Review, 2005.
3. “The Legal Boundaries of Israel in International Law,” JURIST, April 8, 2002.
4. “The West Bank Wall,” JURIST, February 24, 2004.