CKNW Editorial
for October 17, 2000

There are some issues in the world today which almost require a university degree to understand and the memory of an elephant to comment upon. The situation in the Balkans is one such issue. An area with perhaps a dozen nationalities, several religions and two alphabets combined with a history that only a handful of people really comprehend though lots think they do. Ireland is another although because so many of us spring from British Isles or Irish stock we think our prejudices equip us well enough to be experts. And there is the situation in the Middle East.

With the recent troubles it's easy to simply pick a point and criticize. Ariel Sharon should not have taken the walk he did. That he was entitled to is obvious - just as Northern Irish Protestants are entitled to march down streets rubbing Catholics noses in the Battle of the Boyne. But Sharon should have known better and he bears his share of responsibility. On the other hand, how come Arafat, after numerous pledges, cannot keep law and order in his streets? And why can't Arafat make a deal which to all independent observers is a good deal for both sides?

But to begin to answer these questions you have to go back to the diaspora shortly after Christ and understand the wandering Jews who, without a homeland, settled all over Europe. Some became dedicated citizens of their countries - Germany, for example, could not have waged World War I without the financial wizardry of Walther Rathenau, a Jew. Many, however, plagued by vicious pogroms and lesser discrimination, supported a return to the Holy Land. Even those differed in intensity with the Zionists being the right wing, so to speak. You must go back to the Ottoman Empire which held most of Arab land until 1918 and understand that the Turks are not Arabs and although there was a common religion there was by no means a common culture.

We must look at the actions of Britain, already involved in Egypt, given a post war mandate by the League of Nations to govern Palestine at the same time France was mandated to look after the Levant ... and at the artificial Arab states, usually controlled by Britain, that came into being in other Arab lands. Then one must consider the uneven, to put it most charitably, handling by Britain of the question of Jewish emigration to Palestine, the Arab riots of the 30s, the closing of emigration just as the Nazis were slaughtering Jews by the millions then the creation of the State of Israel, something Arabs who were in the majority, fought bitterly against.

At this point a very important issue arises - was the state of Israel a national entity and was it thus entitled to protect itself? If it was - and who can really argue otherwise - was it entitled to keep lands it took in the original Arab-Israel war, which disposed thousands of Arabs whose descendants still live in refugee camps and what about lands it took later as spoils of war?

This is an important question for Arafat is having a great deal of trouble putting his own words into writing, namely that the state of Israel has a right to exist ... which could be used to recover some of those lost lands. It is hardly surprising that amongst Israelis there are profound differences as to how the state of Israel can be best protected. There are hawks and doves and changes in government over the years - especially recent years have reflected this national dichotomy.

Into all this mix must be placed the overwhelming fact that the lands in question contain the holy places of three great religions.

And then there is the question of American politics. The United States bankrolls Israel and in many parts of the United States Jewish opinion is a huge factor in elections, be they presidential or congressional. There are not enough Arabs in the US to make any impact

What's all this in aid of? Just this - the foregoing understates the problems in coming up with any fixes, quick or otherwise. And it underscores, I hope, the need to balance opinions on actions in the Middle East, no matter how outrageous they may be, with a good deal of perspective.

For the event can never be understood on its own - it is part, and just a small part of what is one of the great insoluble problems of the world, perhaps the hardest of all to solve. To win in the Middle East is to minimize the catastrophes you can only, at best, postpone. And matters there must always been seen in that light.