He ordered an end to the sub-rosa talks which had been underway with Jordan. Instead of diplomacy, ben Gurion decided, there would be a policy of deterrence, defeat, and intimidation directed against the Arab state until they finally sued for peace--on Israeli terms.
And that is precisely what Israel did. For the next sixteen years (with time out for an offensive war waged as part of what can accurately be termed an international criminal conspiracy to make aggressive war with Britain and France in 1956) Israel conducted a "war of the borders," which the Israeli historian Benny Morris determined on the basis of both interviews and the use of Israeli and captured Jordanian government documents was completely unjustifiable.
The "war of the borders" can be best epitomised by the criminal raid and slaughter of civilians conducted by Detachment 101 under the command of a man who later was Israel's prime minister, "Arik" Sharon. Women and children of this Jordanian border village were pinned in their homes by heavy automatic weapons fire as incendiary grenades were hurled into the structures. Later the government of Israel compounded the felony by lying as to who or what was actually culpable for the atrocity.
In 1967 Israel upped the ante by waging a land grab war just as had been predicted by the staff of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA three years earlier when the Johnson administration first contemplated and then concluded the sale of long range fighter-bombers and main battle tanks rather than the more defensively oriented short-range equipment recommended by the JCS.
Brushing off American counsel and advice as well as UN resolutions, the Israeli government did not seek to trade land for peace. Instead, under a succession of ministries the state went about creating what were publicly termed, "facts on the ground." These "facts" were large scale completely modern "settlements" (eg towns and cities) complete with all the features and amenities of modern life in an industrialised economy and Western society. The "facts" were also created with the view of providing significant military obstacles to any attack across the river Jordan and into the West Bank.
These "settlements," these "facts on the ground," are central to the disputes raging around how peace might be given a chance today. The "two state solution" first offered by Saudi Arabia and later revived without more than cosmetic changes by the Arab League and, most recently, by King Abdullah II of Jordan, demand an Israeli withdrawal from the "settlements" as well as all the territory taken in the 1967 war.
Apparently the Arab League members (and now the member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference) expect that to achieve peace the Israelis will resettle a few hundred thousand of their citizens and hand over the developed property lock, stock and barrel as a turn-key project to the Arabs "displaced" by the War of Independence and the Six Day War. This seems to be embedded in the proposal's wording as well as by statements from King Abdullah as well as the OIC.
From the Israeli perspective this logic and the rhetoric in which it is typically expressed would give credence to the correctness of David ben Gurion's formulation. The Israelis, or at least a significant portion of them, are evidently quite willing and able to overlook the way in which the ben Gurion policy has bred a legacy of hatred and incited nationalistic aspirations thus putting the leaders of even the more 'moderate" Arab states in a position that is quite harmful to their health if they are seen as treating on a realistic basis with the "Zionist entity."
In short, the decision taken by the irrascable ben Gurion fifty-eight years ago as well as the overly muscular and prolonged way in which it has been put into action for all these long years gives Arab leaders few, if any, options beyond that of seeking the impossible. Or giving war and terror more turns at bat.
Then there is Jerusalem. Way back when, near the start of the second phase, the interstate phase of the two part Israeli War of Independance, the subject of Jerusalem was put to one side in the undercover discussions between King Abdullah I and the Israelis. They could quickly agree that the Jewish forces would not fight the Jordanian Arab Legion as long as it operated only in those areas assigned to the Arabs by the UN. Jordan agreed not to send its forces into the areas assigned by the UN partition plan to the Jewish state. Since the UN had made Jerusalem a corpus separatum, the gods of battle would determine which side would hold what part of the city. The Jordanians took the Old City and the Israelis took the new parts of the place.
In 1967 the gods of war smiled completely on the IDF and a new, unpleasant, controversial "fact on the ground" was created. Now, both Israel and the advocates of a Palestinian state claim an undivided Jerusalem as their capital. Religion and history conspire to make the fate of Jerusalem even less susceptible to adjustment through negotiation than the matters of the "settlements" and the alleged Arab "right of return."
Then there is the seemingly trivial matter of whether or not Israel will be acknowledged as a "Jewish state" by Israel's Arab interlocutors. Israel was established as a Jewish state. It has always been described as such. That is what it always has been. But, the Arabs cannot bring themselves to admit this reality or other features of reality.
The reality is brutal. The Arab negotiating stance (if that term is accurate considering the record for intransigence) does nothing but encourage an Israeli continuation of the ben Gurion formula. This implies that the "roadmap" to peace or the orchestrations of the "Quartet" are most likely to continue as exercises in futility. The same may be said of the Obama administration's focus on pressuring Israel into concessions which are substantial in return for the promise of nothing much from the other side.
The Gods of War (and terror) must be wetting their lips in anticipation of what is to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment