CKNW Editorial
for October 11, 2001

It is idle to try to debate the Middle east problem on its merits for on each and every issue it is black or white. What Arabs maintain is so on one hand, Israeli's maintain the very opposite. I've spent considerable time over the past year trying to get a grasp on the issues in order to find common ground. The answer is that there is no such thing. The two sides can't even agree on why so many Arabs fled their lands during the 1948 War of Independence - Palestinians say they were forced from their lands which were then expropriated, Israeli's say that Arab leaders encouraged them to leave and that therefore they forfeited all rights. It might be argued that even if some or indeed all Arabs fled their lands because of the urgings of Arab leaders that they would still be entitled to compensation.

There is a paper circulating on the internet right now that purports to show that Arabs only controlled the area for a very brief time long ago, the argument being that the Jews who were there first have the principal right of occupation. This is shallow history at best and a gross distortion at worst. For much of the time leading up to the British Mandate from the League of Nations after World War I the land was under the suzerainty of Turkey which is neither Arab nor Jewish.

It is, of course true, that we can't escape history. But that doesn't mean that we cannot effect settlements that put ancient history on the back burner. If we are so bound in history that all modern agreements must faithfully take it into account there will be no settlements anywhere in the world ... because in every case under dispute there is an argument between the parties as to what happened in years gone by, and even where there is agreement, arguments persist on what the events meant.

The situation in Palestine, the name I will give as descriptive of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the lands in dispute must be settled on practical terms. If you go into history, for example, you might well want to give Jerusalem to the Iraquis since Mesopotamia under Nebuchadnezzar once controlled the city ... as of course did the Romans and the Turks and we would remember that until Moses led the Jews from Israel other Semitic peoples ruled the area. I'm struck by the similarity between the state of Palestinian history and Irish history. In both cases the extremes have their own absolute view of history from which there can be no deviation. Both Irish and Protestant fringes ignore, for example, the arrival of the Normans and the influence they had ... there weren't Normans under William the Conqueror but Norman knights in 1169 invited by the Irish Chieftain MacMurrough who petitioned Henry II of England for help. In other words, while the Catholic Irish might have resisted James II and rejected English rule the fact is that they invited it in the first place. That is one strand in the historical fabric of Ireland that is not raised. There are many more just as there are in Palestine.

here will not be and cannot be a settlement in the Middle East which makes everyone remotely happy much less liking one another. The solution must be political which is to say practical

It is even damned near impossible to come to any sort of constructive conclusion about modern events. The Israelis, who have seen their children die at the hands of Palestinian terrorists, blame this terrorism on Yasser Arafat. He says he has no control over the events. The answer is probably that while Arafat hasn't got absolute control he makes little effort, or perhaps I should say insufficient, effort to exercise the control he has. Moreover, the Palestinians are quick to document acts of Israelis that would qualify in anyone's dictionary as terrorist. Chairman Arafat can also say, with some justification, that the Israeli government keeps lurching between doves with whom he can deal and hawks with whom he cannot. The Israelis then say that the hawks come to power because of the perfidy of the Palestinians. And on it goes.

My own view is that the Palestinians must accept that Jerusalem must be shared (Israel has to accept that too) and that there will not be an opening of her border to all Palestinians that wish to return to their homeland. I'm not the slightest bit interested in UN Resolutions - Israel is just not going to agree to Jews in Israel being swamped by Arabs and that fundamental position must be accepted

On the other hand, Israel must dismantle the settlements in disputed lands and agree to some sort of monetary settlement for Palestinian refugees. With regard to the settlements, many argue that the Israelis have an historical right to settle there. Norman Spector says that they have more right to that land than he does to live in his Canadian home. I'm surprised at this sort of non sequitur from Mr Spector ... it may be that he has no right whatever to his home which hardly seems appropriate to this issue. What we're trying to do is bring about a settlement all can, however grimly and unhappily, live with.

There is no justification for what Osama bin Laden has done and wants to do.

But the fact remains that there will be no end to terrorism until the Palestinian question is settled. Perhaps there won't even be then ... many say that a settlement will simply mean that the existence of a settled Palestine question becomes even more of a focal point for terrorism because Israel's legitimacy will be that much more firmly established

Even if that is so, we are not seeking the hearts and minds of terrorists but of rank and file Muslims throughout the world. This can only begin to happen when the Israel-Palestine Authority question is settled.

What is just as worrying in this region is that most Arab countries are ruled by people who do not command a majority of support from the people.

Within the legitimate oppositions is a willingness to make common cause with the Mullahs for the good reason that an overthrow of the government without their help is difficult if not impossible.

However, first things first. The United States is critically involved in the Palestinian question because it finances and to a large extent arms Israel. It cannot abandon Israel to its fate because whereas Israel's enemies can lose any number of wars - and have - Israel can't afford the first loss. Left to her own devices, Israel would fight to the death and that would unquestionably being nuclear weapons into the picture.

So, it is not a matter of history if only because no one can agree to what that history is and what its implications are. There must be a pragmatic settlement and the United States must, as it targets terrorists, also move to remove that which gives Islam reactionary forces grudging and sometimes more than grudging respect from moderates in the region and throughout the world.

Time is, I fear, very short.