Peace In The Middle East

China recently brokered a rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah, as it had earlier done between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Let's remember my plan for peace in the Middle East.

The way to peace in the Middle East is actually simple. We can look at resolving conflict in the Middle East as three successive challenges which began, of course, with the establishment of Israel in 1948.

The First Challenge was Arab nations at war with Israel, led by Egypt and Syria and sometimes including Jordan and Iraq. There were wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and, 1973. This challenge was concluded by Jimmy Carter bringing together Anwar Sadat, of Egypt, and Menachem Begin, of Israel, together to sign a peace treaty. Syria wasn't in on the peace treaty but it was considered that Egypt was the more powerful of the two.

But the Second Challenge was already underway. This was non-state Arab organizations at war with Israel. This challenge was concluded by Bill Clinton bringing together Yasser Arafat, of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), and Yitzhak Rabin, of Israel, together to sign a peace treaty.

There were outside developments along the way. There was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. This brings us to the Third Challenge, which is Iran's proxies at war with Israel. Iran has a lot of influence over Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the Houthis in Yemen.

Since the first two challenges were resolved this does mean that precedent is on the side of peace. History and precedent is a very powerful force in this part of the world. Not much happens without the precedent of what came before.

9/11, in which four aircraft were hijacked and used as missiles, had it's precedent in the earlier destruction of four aircraft. In fact it was on another September 11, of 1970. Four aircraft were hijacked, three to Dawson Field in Jordan, and a 747 to Cairo. News crews from around the world were invited. The passengers were released on September 11, and the planes destroyed by explosives the next day.

The most obvious precedent for the 2023 Hamas attack into southern Israel is the 1972 attack on the Munich Olympics. In both instances the attackers overcame a barrier and took hostages, and slaughtered others. Their demand was for the release of prisoners.

So that means that precedent is actually on the side of peace, because the first two Challenges have been met. The remaining Challenge is Iran and it's proxies.

Remember Jimmy Carter bringing Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin together.

Remember Bill Clinton bringing Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin together.

Now image someone bringing the Prime Minister of Israel and the President of Iran together. You may say that it will never happen but people were saying the same thing about the first two. This doesn't mean that there will be unanimity. Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were both later killed for making peace.

What about China? It was Xi Jinping that got Iran and Saudi Arabia to restore relations, and more recently brokered the peace between Hamas and Fatah. China would be taking a major step forward as a world leader if it could resolve this conflict in the Middle East.

The history isn't as bad as it may seem. There were Jews living in Palestine long before the establishment of Israel and they got along fine with the Arabs. There are other non-Moslems in the area, the Druze and the Samaritans. The main division in Islam is Sunni and Shiite but there are so many sects. The Jews would be like just another sect.

Jews, Moslems and, Christians all go back to Abraham by theology. Christians split from Jews over Jesus being the awaited Messiah. Moslems claim that the original scripture was corrupted and mistranslated and Muhammad dictated the Qu'ran to restore it. The Qu'ran acknowledges Jews and Christians as the "People of the Book".

Jews have a long history of living amongst others in the Middle East. The Babylonians destroyed the First Temple and took the Jews to exile in Babylon, but not as slaves. When the Persians later conquered Babylon Cyrus permitted the Jews to return home, and rebuild the Temple. But probably the majority of the Jews were doing quite well there and chose to stay. These Babylonian, or Iraqi, Jews were to play an important role in Jewish history, especially after the Temple was destroyed again, this time by the Romans, and Israel forced into the diaspora.

Since it was Persia that liberated the Jews should we be surprised that Iran has a long history of a strong Jewish community, at least until the revolution of 1979?

Can you believe that what is now Yemen once adopted Judaism as it's religion, more than 1500 years ago? And that a community of Jews lived in Yemen, until brought to Israel in recent times. The Queen of Sheba, who made a famous journey to visit King Solomon, was from what is now Yemen.

The connection of the Jews to Morocco is well-known. Jews have lived there since ancient times and many more joined them when they were evicted from Spain, following the Reconquista. In recent times Moroccan Jews had a settlement alongside the Temple Mount, and Morocco was prominent among the Arab nations restoring relations with Israel.

Jews and Arabs are actually related. Opposition to Jews is referred to as "antisemitism", but did you know that Arabs are Semitic too? The Hebrew and Arabic languages are related, although they use different alphabets.

What I think happened is that the Jews who reestablished Israel in 1948 were almost all from Europe. They were Europeans. So it wasn't really Jew against Arab, it was seen as foreign Europeans seizing Arab territory.

What if Abraham appeared outside the Dome of the Rock? What would he think of this conflict? He would be very upset.

Even though I know about the Apocalypse in the Bible I still have to do what I can to promote peace.

THE LEBANON PLAN FOR PALESTINE

What happens then with the Jews and Palestinians as a permanent solution? 

The most discussed solution is the so-called "Two State Solution". But that has been in discussion since I was a teenager. How practical is a Two-State Solution? If Israel and Palestine were two separate countries then one would have to have non-contiguous territory, and both want the Old City of Jerusalem as their capital.

The way I see it there is only one solution that could work. It involves using neighboring Lebanon as a model.

Israel is a democracy, and this gets it the support of western democracies. But Jews are heavily outnumbered by Arabs in the Middle East. About 20% of the population of Israel is Arab as it is. If Israel incorporated all of the descendants of Palestinians that were displaced by it's formation in 1948 then the Jews would be at, or close, to being outnumbered in their own country. And the very purpose of Israel is as the homeland for the Jews.

But who says that Israel has to fit the western definition of democracy? Neighboring Lebanon is a multi-faith society. There are Christians, Sunni Moslems and, Shiite Moslems. The plan of government in Lebanon is that the president is a Christian, the prime minister is a Sunni and, the speaker of parliament is a Shiite. Seats in parliament are divided between Moslems and Christians.

Let's forget about this impractical "Two-State Solution". Israel should be one country, including Gaza, the West Bank and, the Golan Heights. Palestinians will have full and equal citizenship. But certain top positions will be reserved for Jews.

This idea has a lot of precedence in the region. The Temple Mount, which is sacred to Judaism, Islam and, Christianity, is part of Israel. But the Israeli Government, to keep the peace, allows a Jordanian organization to administer it. There have been Moslem societies, with Jewish or Christian minorities, where everyone has lived peacefully together but certain positions have been reserved for Moslems. The first example that comes to mind is the Ottoman Empire, which once ruled all of this region. Another example is Spain, when it was ruled by the Moors.

I think this is the only practical plan. If anyone thinks that this isn't satisfactory and wouldn't work, you can see that the present arrangement definitely isn't satisfactory and definitely isn't working.

Never forget how important history is. King Solomon built the first Temple, but then his son Rehoboam provoked the ten northern tribes to separate from the other two. For two hundred years the two kingdoms were usually hostile to each other, one often calling in nearby foreign powers as an ally against the other. This went on until the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom and took it's population into permanent exile. They became known as the "Ten Lost Tribes". The Assyrians settled other people in their place and, by the time of Jesus, their descendants were known as Samaritans.

History is so important because we tend to repeat it, often without realizing it. Doesn't it seem that those two hundred years are being repeated today, with the Jews and the Palestinians? 

THE INDIA FACTOR IN THE MIDDLE EAST

I have always been interested in both science and history. We tend to repeat history, sometimes purposely but often without realizing it. It seems like a law of physics that history repeats itself. The human landscape is more complex than the inanimate universe with changing demographics, increasing population and advances in technology. But, other than that, it is almost like a law of physics that history repeats itself.

India and Palestine are far apart in geography but close in time. India became independent in 1947 and Israel in 1948. The founding of both countries resulted in displacements of people that have had long-term effects lasting to the present day.

With the independence of India the Subcontinent was partitioned into mostly-Hindu India and mostly-Moslem Pakistan. There were originally two halves to Pakistan, East and West. The two have since split into Pakistan and Bangladesh. Burma (Myanmar) was once part of India but had earlier been separated.

With the Independence of Israel the Arab, mostly-Moslem inhabitants of Palestine had to be removed to make way for the Jewish people. This is referred to by Palestinians as the "Nabka", or Catastrophe. The land did belong to Jews in ancient times but Arabs had long occupied it.

While the conflict over Palestine is the more obvious of the two situations there are several points of contention in India. 

One point of contention is over Kashmir. This is in the far north of both India and Pakistan. Kashmir was one of the Princely States that, upon independence, were given the choice to join either India or Pakistan. Those that were majority Hindu would obviously join India while those that were Moslem would join Pakistan. Kashmir was supposedly mostly Moslem but it's prince was Hindu and chose India.

Another point of contention in India is that the northern part of the country was once ruled by the Mughals, who were Moslems. Some Hindus claim that the Mughals demolished Hindu temples and built mosques in their places, and now Hindus have the right to reverse this.

A third point of contention in India, with regard to the Partition of 1947, is that the Sikhs, who live in the northern state of Punjab, should also have their own country. Although this seems to be more an issue with Sikhs in Canada than with those in India.

Not only did both countries undergo a mass relocation of people at independence but the geography of the two is amazingly similar. In the following illustration from the Wikipedia article "East Pakistan", Pakistan is shown at left in dark green, Bangladesh is at right in dark green, India is between them and, Kashmir is shown in light green.

In the following illustration, from the Wikipedia article "Israel", Israel is in dark green. The light green area to the left is Gaza. The light green area to the right is the West Bank. The light green area to the top right is the Golan Heights. Not only is the southern part of Israel shaped like a "V", just as is India, but the West Bank is congruent to Pakistan, Gaza is congruent to Bangladesh, and the Golan Heights is congruent to Kashmir. I find this to be really amazing.

In the following closer illustration, from the Wikipedia article "Palestinian Territories", we see how Palestine resembles Pakistan politically as well, although India is on a much larger scale. Just as Pakistan and Bangladesh split over politics so did Gaza and the West Bank. The West Bank is run by Fatah, which also ran Gaza although the two are not contiguous. But Hamas won election in Gaza, and then forcibly took control from Fatah. It was like a mirror image of Bangladesh separating from Pakistan.

The Partition of India took place nine months before the establishment of Israel, as described above. Since the two events were so strikingly similar, even though India involved far more people, I am sure that it must have had an effect on what happened in Israel. India had it's precedent too, the 1922 partition of Ireland.

What about the much-discussed but never implemented "Two-State Solution"? India was an ideal example of a Two-State Solution. Could it be that so many reflexively suggest this Two-State Solution just because this is what was done in India when maybe it wouldn't be appropriate for Palestine?

Does anyone remember Yasser Arafat International Airport? It was opened in 1998 and was to be a symbol of peace and progress. Bill Clinton attended it's opening. But the airport didn't last long and was closed because of combat. The runway is visible in the following image from Google Earth and we see that part of the airport is now being used for gardening plots.