Letter: what chance of peace in Israel-Palestine?

Above: Sadat, Begin, and US President Carter signing the Camp David Accords, 1978

“… the threat of possible defeat could make Israel take a more pragmatic line.
It was the relative success of the Arab forces when it crossed the Suez Canal
and retook Sinai, enabling Sadat to start the reconciliation process,
which could have led to a long-term solution
but was stymied by Netanyahu and those who killed PM Rabin."

When in Poland recently I had a meeting with a Jewish friend who did not see anything wrong with the mass killings in Gaza, for the reason that (a) Hamas governed Gaza is an organisation that claims that the killing of non-believers and especially Jews (this is certainly not supported by the Koran or the early interpretations of the Koran) and so Israel has the right to defend itself against such fanatics and (b) Gaza elected Hamas and so is responsible for the Government there, just as Germany was responsible for the election of Hitler and the Nazis; hence all Gaza and its people are fair game in there carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing, and (c) there is no such thing as a Palestinian identity or people; all are Arabs and so the people who call themselves Palestinians are not really a separate nationality.

This explanation helped me understand the 'justification' claimed by the current theocratic government of Israel. But there is a need to look at the facts again. Hamas was elected by a majority of Gaza's residents in 2006 and the Palestinian Authority (Fatah) driven out. Since then there has been no new election that could be considered free and fair. Secondly, the success of Hamas was largely due to the reaction many Palestinians had to the incompetence and corruption of the PLO and Fatah leadership. It was less connected with ideological desire than a desire for a new 'cleaner and more effective' government. While Hamas has extremist views, there still exist a large number of Christian Palestinians, even in Gaza.

Secondly, the growing support for Hamas in the West Bank is related to the growth of illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories. Hamas are seen as the only political body willing to fight this incursion and annexation of land by the Israeli administration. Now with the mass slaughter of innocent people, the result of Israel's determination to wipe out Hamas completely, the tacit support for Hamas grows rather than diminishes. Yes, many in Gaza are tired of the fighting, many understand that Hamas uses civilian areas to hide in (this is a guerrilla war, so that must be expected) and many just want peace at any price. But the way Israel is pursuing this will not win the hearts and minds of Palestinians, nor of people in UK and elsewhere horrified by the indiscriminate killing of Palestinians.

On the question of there being no Palestinian people and hence no right to an independent state. Well, this is all in words and perception. The Jews themselves are made up of different branches of Jews. Arabs, likewise have many branches. The division of the lands of the Middle East were drawn by the colonial powers (UK and France). The US led the creation of a State of Israel. So what are legitimate claims to statehood? Arafat woke the collective consciousness of the Arabs living in Palestine, to think of themselves as Palestinians. Just as many of the Jews who now live in Israel, come from families that for generations lived in Europe, North Africa, and some Arab lands and did not see themselves as Israeli or even Jewish until Hitler made that clear, but now call themselves Israelis.

So Arabs who have lived for generations in Palestine distinguish themselves from other Arabs by calling themselves Palestinians. Previously they had been part of Trans Jordan, but the ruling class in Jordan is basically Bedouin, while the Palestinians are traditionally more settled agrarian communities. So it is understandable that they see themselves as different and believe they have a separate identity - Palestinian. So such an argument used by Israelis and Jews is very weak and certainly does not justify illegal occupation and the forcing of these people from their land.

My Jewish friend complained that the British are not demonstrating so noisily against Russian incursion and killing in Ukraine (I think this is not strictly correct) and neither for peace in the Sudanese civil war, nor the Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs. So she interprets this focus on Gaza as being anti-semitic, because the Israeli State is targeted by the masses in UK. I tried to point out that Ukraine is different. We are supporting Ukraine with weapons and training to fight the Russian aggressor, while we are not doing anything to help the Palestinians, and certainly not supporting Hamas with weapons.

The sad thing is that the continuation of occupation and abuse by the occupiers and now the huge slaughter of civilians in Gaza makes a two-state solution more necessary but less and less feasible, both from the point of view of redrawing the boundaries of Israel/Palestine.and the hostility felt by Palestinians with treads to Gaza. Any state of Palestine would inevitably harbour hostile thoughts about Israel and this provides the excuse that Israel has used since the mistaken United Arab war on the fledgling state of Israel in 1948, that it needs to protect itself by ever-increasing the land under its control. So it is possibly understandable that Israel is reluctant to accept a Two State solution. It would perhaps be different if the US and UK supported the ruling of the ICJ in their declaration on the illegality of the occupation and construction of Settlements. But I am afraid we have to be real about this possibility.

So is there a chance of peace? I think little, for with the support of the US and most Western Countries, Israel feels secure. Israel knows that these countries will never let Israel be defeated. Yet the threat of possible defeat could make Israel take a more pragmatic line. It was the relative success of the Arab forces when it crossed the Suez Canal and retook Sinai that enabled Sadat to start the reconciliation process, which could have led to a long-term solution but was stymied by Netanyahu and those who killed PM Rabin. Later efforts by Clinton with PM Barak and Arafat were of little point as both leaders of Israel and the US were on their way out and Arafat knew he could not compromise if this compromise was not fully supported by both the other parities.

Recent history of Israeli/Palestinian relations suggests that when the Israeli leader is seen as a strong man, they are able to persuade the population of Israel to compromise. It was the hawkish PM Begin and later the hawkish PM Sharon that did made some compromises and moves to peace, so is it wishful thinking that Netanyahu could feel strong enough and respected enough to agree to sit down and develop a long-lasting peace? Probably not, for Netanyahu is not strong and clings to power by involving extremists, who would never accept any such compromise as their stated aim is a reflection of Hamas, to rid the land of most Arabs. So until an alternative Government is in place, there is little hope for peace. This means that a stronger stand is required by the Western supporters of Israel to cut arms supplies and impose financial sanctions on Netanyahu, to weaken his support in Israel and hope that an election will bring about a leader that understands that the influence of Hamas can never be totally eradicated while nothing is offered to the Palestinian people to appreciate that peace is a better option for them all.

Alistair Blunt

Hampton Wick