Reject the Rejectionists

“Israel could be such as beautiful place if we only had peace.”

It was hard to disagree with these words spoken by the quiet, almost, saintly looking caretaker at the Tombs of the Prophets whose family had Jewish, Muslim and Christian members. Although considered a holy place by Jews, Moslems and Christians, the tombs were looted long ago, leaving a few circular underground passages cut into the rock. There was not much left there, but it was cool and had a rare sense of calm away from the hard-sell and rancorous divisions of modern Jerusalem. The tombs were located near the foot of the famous Mount of Olives, which overlooks the city.

Although the city was smaller than I expected given its importance, Jerusalem had a stark beauty born from its ancient beige buildings and surrounding arid rocky landscape. The city's crenellated 500 year old Ottoman walls, collection of varied churches, and ancient city gates all surrounded a maze of pedestrianized streets and rooftops filled with solar water heaters and TV antennas. Above it all was the stunning golden Dome of the Rock on top of Temple Mount. The place was truly breathtaking. Even better, back in May 2002, it was relatively safe: The talks at Camp David between Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat were still months away from collapsing.


The Death of Peace

The current intifada or uprising began when than opposition leader Ariel Sharon made a visit to Temple Mount on September 28, 2000. He didn’t go to pray, since religious Jews are banned from the place by their religion. Instead, Sharon went to provoke the Palestinians into violence by rubbing their faces in Jewish control over the place. He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. By causing a riot in Islam’s third holiest place during a critical time in the peace negotiations, he severely undermined its chances for success. Of course, this kind of provocation was not new for Sharon. He had a long record of rejecting peace: In 1953, he led Israeli troops on a raid in Qibya in Jordan, killing 69 civilians and earned Israel censure from the U.N. He was found guilty by the Israeli government of allowing Christian militias to massacre hundreds of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon in September, 1982. He is a long-term supporter of Jewish settlers who occupy increasingly large chunks of the West Bank. Most recently, Sharon was the mastermind of a plan intended to forcibly and permanently transfer large parts of the West Bank to Israeli control.

Prospects for peace only worsened when Yasser Arafat rejected Barak’s proposal that would have given the Palestinians an independent state on more than 90 percent of the West Bank and Gaza. Barak even offered them parts of East Jerusalem, an offer once considered unthinkable in Israel. Barak’s offer was still not good enough for Arafat – the PLO Chairman insisted on Israel allowing exiled Palestinians to return to Israel. Since the exiles and their descendents number in the millions, a solution on Arafat’s terms would have soon turned Israel into an Arab majority state, effectively ending its Jewish character. By demanding Israel’s self-destruction as the price for peace, Arafat marked himself along with Sharon as a rejectionist. Like Sharon, Arafat had not changed since his younger days: He never repudiated the Palestinian National Charter of 1968, which calls for the elimination of Israel in Articles 15, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. Even after signing the first Oslo Agreement in 1993, Arafat continued to call for the complete "liberation" of Israel: "You have to come and fight a jihad to liberate Jerusalem, your precious shrine. . . . No, it is not their capital. It is our capital."


Rejectionism Triumphant

What is a rejectionist? A rejectionist rejects peace as a way to resolve conflict and seeks to destroy or completely emasculate the other side. Although they may use the rhetoric of compromise for public relations purposes, rejectionists are dedicated to maximalist goals that make peace impossible. By insisting on the right of return for Palestinians to Israel, Yasser Arafat defined himself as a rejectionist. By taking large chunks of the West Bank and by forcing the Palestinians into an unbearable situation, Sharon is the same. For these reasons, it is hard to be optimistic about Sharon’s plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, especially since Israel is planning to maintain control over its borders, air space and access to the sea.

Rejectionism is often sneaky. On the Israeli side, Sharon expresses a willingness to negotiate but sets unreasonable conditions. Is it really possible to demand the complete cessation of terrorist acts as a precondition to talks? What if warring parties only agreed to negotiate after the fighting stops? Meeting this condition is impossible because it gives extremist groups hostile to peace a huge incentive to attack Israel. By giving an effective veto on negotiations to Palestinian extremists, Sharon further demonstrates his own extremism. On the other side, Hamas and the West Bank settlers are also rejectionists since they seek to destroy Israel. As long as these players remain in charge there can be no peace.

Tragically, when the Camp David talks collapsed, it began a long string of victories by rejectionists. Prime Minister Barak fell and was replaced by Ariel Sharon in February 2001 as Arafat continued his corrupt and incompetent grip on the Palestinian Authority (PA). The Palestinians' increasingly miserable living conditions and the venality of the PA only boosted support for groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Feeling under siege, Israeli voters continued to support the hard-line Sharon government. The results have been devastating: More than 2,500 Palestinians and over 900 Israelis have died. Although, Israeli casualties have fallen since they began building their barrier wall, neither side is really winning this fratricidal war.


Israel: Slow Poison of the Intifada

Even beyond the carnage, the rejection of peace has greatly harmed Israel. Buffeted by a relentless wave of suicide bombers, it has become a country living in fear. The continued state of siege contributed to a serious downtown in the economy. Growth is either low or negative. Unemployment rose from 8.8 percent in 2000 to 10.9 percent in early 2004, despite falling immigration. Construction fell by 16 percent from 2000 to 2003. Israel’s budget deficit was a huge 5.6 percent in 2003 compared to 3 percent in the late 1990s. The costs of holding on to Israel’s expanding settlements in the West Bank will only push up military spending further.

Although a recovery in technology spending may help Israel’s economy, continued conflicts dissuade investors and, most seriously, could spur depopulation. Without peace or good economic prospects, many of the country’s brightest and best educated Jewish citizens are leaving. Since 2000, more than 210,000 have left - and many others are considering it. The continuing conflict also threatens to end the immigration of Jews from the former Soviet Union. Driven to Israel by anti-Semitism and poverty in their home countries, 700,000 Jews came to Israel, bringing along outstanding technical and cultural talents. The violence in Israel has started to change minds, especially since many young Russians face the possibility getting stuck fighting for the Israeli Army in the Occupied Territories. Ironically, most Russian Jews would rather now immigrate to Germany. Not only does rising emigration and falling immigration undermine economic growth, but it threatens to drain away Israel’s politically vital Jewish population. The faster Jews leave, the weaker Israel becomes.

Failure to make peace threatens Israel in another serious way. Faced with a grim future of repression and territories devoured by Israeli settlements, the Palestinians may opt for a “one state” solution by demanding full political rights within Israel. Higher Palestinian birth rates mean that they will be a majority of the population in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza within several years, allowing them to dominate any democratic government. A Palestinian campaign for the vote would put Israel in an extremely difficult position of choosing between apartheid, ethnic cleansing or consenting to death by the ballot box. Although Sharon is trying to hive the Palestinians off into South African style Homelands starting with Gaza, Israel’s diplomatic standing would suffer gravely if it were to deny a non-violent Palestinian request for the vote. Not only would Israeli apartheid destroy its democratic credentials but also it would undermine many of the diplomatic gains made since the bad old anti-Israeli boycott days of the 1970's. It would also bitterly split Jewish opinion, possibly even undermining US support. The threat is real - a recent Palestinian poll put support for the one state solution at 28 percent, despite no encouragement for the idea from the Palestinian leadership.


Palestinian Ruination

Even beyond the appalling death toll, the 3.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza continue to suffer gravely from the intifada. Not only do Palestinians frequently find themselves in the line of fire or subject to arrest and search, but their economy is in shambles. The conflict has resulted in a 50 percent reduction in incomes because of job losses, the disruption of normal economic life and loss of markets for Palestinian exports. Since 2000, Palestinian poverty sharply increased as they lost 135,000 relatively good-paying jobs in Israel. The West Bank and Gaza are plagued by 50 percent unemployment, increasing malnutrition and growing health problems. More than 60 percent of Palestinians live below the poverty line of US$ 2 per day and survive mainly on handouts. The situation in Gaza is particularly grim with 80 percent of the population living below the poverty line.

Beyond this, the conflict and the continuing Israeli occupation have severely disrupted personal lives. Families members cannot travel to be together. Children are unable to go to school. Palestinian vehicles are marked with distinctive “P” licenses and prohibited from using many roads. Life has denigrated into a constant drudgery of checkpoints, blockades, searches and detours. Palestinians almost literally live in cages. Desperation makes the glory of suicide bombing and the promise of an afterlife in Paradise seem pretty compelling. Suicide bombing is also effective given Israel's vastly superior military capabilities. It's hard to use F-16s and nuclear weapons against such a well-hidden and widely dispersed enemy. Suicide attacks are a brutally effective weapon of the desperate and powerless.

Hopelessness, poverty and repression are creating a cult of religious extremism and death in the West Bank and Gaza, which threatens the long-term health of Palestinian society. An ideology that glorifies self-destructive religious fanaticism and rewards parents who send their children off to be martyred is no basis for nation building. This bloody mindedness can be hard to undo: Even if Palestine were to become independent, what kind of place would it become? Yet, without a solution, the cult of death will grow. The increasingly distant hopes of independence are both physically and spiritually killing the Palestinian people. If this continues for another thirty years, what will they have left?


Other Losers from War

There are others who stand to lose by the current rule of the rejectionists. By aligning itself so closely with Ariel Sharon, the U.S. faces the danger of being targeted by Palestinian Islamic Terrorism. The last thing America needs is more enemies bearing suicide bombs. The unresolved conflict also inflames anti-Americanism in the Middle East and throughout the Moslem world. These negative feelings about the US have consequences -- it hurts exports, attracts more anti-American terrorists and has helped make post-2003 Iraq even more ungovernable. The US’s foes in Iraq already are talking of links with the Palestinian radicals in a new “Arc of Resistance”. The intifada is beginning to metastasize around the Middle East. It could grow further.

Jews outside Israel are also put at risk from the continuing conflict. The strong support of many Jews' for Israel has led to an association between the two. This has played a role in rising anti-Semitism, especially in Europe. In the future, Jews may face the increasingly uncomfortable position of supporting a repressive and possibly apartheid state. Support for Israeli apartheid would gravely damage the image of Jews everywhere and likely split the Jewish community irrevocably. A brutal Israel is harmful to Jews everywhere.


The Long Way Out

The only way out is for each side to reject its own rejectionists, whether they are political leaders or extremist groups. Unfortunately, this will be extremely difficult to do in the short-term because of the growing cycle of hatred.

If it wants peace, Israel must get an agreement with the Palestinians. This will be tough for many Israeli voters to accept because the carnage and fear from the bombings have stoked tremendous anger. Frustrated voters are still convinced that the best response to the terrorist threat is to retaliate -- and build a wall. Although outrage is a fair emotional response to atrocity, it is not always helpful. Since the new wall was not designed to run along the 1967 border, Palestinians and Israelis will still be living near each other after it is complete, creating new opportunities for terrorism. Securing every outlying settlement will require increasing restrictions on the Palestinians, only deepening their desperation. This will likely mean more potential suicide bombers – who will look for softer targets. If things deteriorate further, the anger might move overseas as it did during the 1970's or they might finally embrace the one state solution, effectively checkmating Israel morally.

Sharon's response to the terrorist threat is counterproductive since it does not address the causes of Palestinian anger. Sharon's plans have done little to give Israelis security but the war has drained them spiritually and economically. Even worse, Sharon's overreach could threaten the continued existence of Israel. As it stands now, only the Labor Party seems inclined toward peace, but it has been unwilling to come out from its post-2000 bunker and make its case against Sharon's destructive policies. Until Labor gains enough courage to communicate and Israelis look beyond their rage, there is little hope for peace. In the end, it might take fatigue from years of fighting to change Israeli minds.

However, if Israel were to get a non-rejectionist government, the desperate state of Palestinians will make it difficult to coax them into moderation. One route should be to reduce their economic woes and dependence on Hamas: Israel should allow the entry of Palestinian workers and allow normal trade to resume, easing poverty and giving people something decent to do. To help further boost formation of alternatives to Hamas and Arafat, Israel should not only stop disrupting the formation of moderate Palestinian civil society organizations but allow outside actors to boost them financially. Removing the onerous travel restrictions on Palestinians would give moderates a chance to come together and the local economy a chance to grow. Current circumstances only favor those willing to brave harassment, inconvenience or even death in order to organize. In other words, only fanatics thrive in the current environment. To encourage mutual understanding, Israel should expand its limited experiments with mixed Arab-Jewish schools and fully embrace rights of Arabs living in Israel. Above all, it should begin peace negotiations with all Palestinian factions with no preconditions.

The last three years of rebellion, repression and poverty have left the Palestinians in a disastrous state. Unfortunately, just like the Israelis, Palestinians believe that the way to freedom is by terrorizing the other side so much that they give up their strategic goals. However, in the calculus of the Middle East, power is the paramount issue. For example, many Arabs saw the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon as weakness, despite the fact that Israel left because it had already accomplished its aims. The important point to Arab rejectionists was that Israel withdrew, which gave them hope that force could drive Israel out of the Occupied Territories – or even into oblivion. Because of this perception, Israel felt the need to assassinate Hamas leaders in March - April 2004 before pulling out of the Gaza Strip. By killing its most famous enemies in daring strikes, Israel showed its power before having to "lose face" because of a Gaza withdrawal. This "Will to Power" has locked Israelis and Palestinians into a cycle where one vicious act leads to more of the same.

Even if Israel elects a decent government, peace and freedom can only come when popular Palestinian opinion realizes that murder and religious extremism are ultimately self-destructive -- and that ordinary people have something positive to gain from peace with Israel. Only when this happens, people will withdraw support from rejectionist leaders and groups such as Yasser Arafat and Hamas - and seek to build alternative political and economic institutions. The world community, including the United States, should support the development of these developments. Unfortunately, the prospects of this happening, absent a daring and effective Palestinian leader, are small.

Until the Palestinians find a productive way to vent their anger against the Israeli occupation, there is little hope of better times. Continued failure may eventually move them to a non-violent campaign for human rights and the rejection of violence, especially against civilian targets but this is unlikely soon. However, it could be more effective. Although in the language of the Middle East non-violence can be perceived as weakness, this approach is not meant to be soft on Israel but to gain international support. This would also create the basis for the Palestinians to press for one person, one vote if Israel remains unresponsive.

Above all, they need a new generation of leaders willing to stand up to extremists. Although this will require great personal courage, the benefits of peace make support for non-rejectionists a mark of true patriotism. Both Palestinian leaders and people need to turn against the extremists who are leading them to destruction. At the basic level, there is no hope for peace until the average person realizes that suicide bombers cannot help Palestine win its freedom: The bombers only strengthen Israeli extremists and undermine the Palestinian cause.

The US and international community also have major roles to play. Unfortunately, in the short-term, President Bush’s support for Sharon’s land grab on the West Bank has the potential to put the US in harm’s way. To help redeem itself as a fair broker, the US should treat both sides to the conflict fairly - and sanction any side that undermines peace. The US must also show concern for people on about both sides of the conflict, not just Israelis. Highlighting Israeli human rights violations in the Occupied Territories would be a helpful first step. The promise to set up a South Africa style Truth and Reconciliation Commission could help resolve long-standing human rights complaints on both sides. Fairness could do much to restore credibility to US policy in the Middle East. Although there are some profound cultural differences between Americans and Arabs, polls by Zogby and others show strong support for democracy, personal liberty, educational opportunity, and economic choice.

In the immediate future, the US should also press Israel to allow Gaza to become something more than a pitiful subjugated Bantustan. The US could also assist the development of civil society to create an alternative to fundamentalists. Creating an alternate welfare system to Hamas’s network of kindergartens, pharmacies, schools, clinics and other social services would be especially useful. International help in establishing a secular skills oriented education system would also assist the Palestinian economy. The US could also offer a Free Trade Agreement and support for reconstruction to a democratic Palestine that has signed a peace treaty with Israel. To boost Israeli interest in cooperation and to distance the US from rejectionism, it should support Israeli governments that toward peace - and cut aid to rejectionist governments.

To finally resolve the Palestinian refugee crisis, the US and the world community should offer permanent residence and financial settlements to each family that renounces its right of return. Even in the absence of a peace agreement, countries should consider committing funds to this purpose under UN auspices.

To protect Israel and themselves, Jews outside Israel should speak out against Israel’s current rejectionist leadership and support its removal. Unfortunately, moderate and liberal Jews are often silent because of apathy or are intimidated by fundamentalist all-too-willing to accuse them of treason. As a result, Jewish rejectionists dominate the debate – and have gotten away with creating the impression that being pro-Israel means supporting an extremist Prime Minister. True loyalty to Israel means supporting policies that are in the state’s long-term interest: Peace through a two state solution. Supporting a brutal Prime Minister is the real affront to Judaism's moral traditions.

Jews opposed to Sharon's policies need to speak out and organize. They also need to reach out to Moslems and Christians opposed to the carnage in Middle East to demand change in Israel's policies. For example, they should call upon the U.S. to cut aid to Israel based on its spending for settlements, a practice pioneered by the first President Bush. Liberal and moderate Jews should also act as a counterweight in the Democratic Party to the appeals of religious Jews and fundamentalist Christians in the Republican Party who support Sharon. Jews, like Moslems, need to police their own rejectionists because the possibility of a backlash exists – 70 percent of Americans believe US support for Israel makes terrorism against the US more likely. According to recent polling, Europeans already see Israel is a major threat to world peace. With Bush's support for Sharon, many Arabs believe the US and Israel are "joined at the hip." Not only is strong support for Israeli extremism fanning anti-Americanism but it is also increasing anti-Semitism.

Despite large Israeli settlements on the West Bank, peace is still possible. One part of the deal could be to propose an immediate cease-fire to Hamas: You stop bombing us and we’ll stop targeting your leaders -- and we'll move forward on talks. In the end, any workable deal requires each side to understand and respect the "red lines" of the other. The Palestinians need to have a state with enough land to be viable and with a working economy. Israel needs to reduce its terror problems and boost its economy. Despite the large West Bank settlements, land for peace is still possible if Israel is willing to swap land or even sell back some communities to the Palestinians. Palestinians also need to give up their dream of returning to homes inside Israel.

If all else fails, Israel would be best served by a unilateral separation created ending the occupation and building a wall between Palestinians and Israelis on or near the 1967 border -- which should be completely sealed. To keep the peace, the border should be patrolled by US and UN troops since the Palestinians trust the latter and Israel only the former. Hopefully, in a few decades, when bitter memories fade and the Palestinians have lived out of occupation, peace may be possible. But the current invasive wall will not stop the carnage. In its current form, Palestinian anger will focus on soft targets on the outside of the wall or even on targets overseas.

The terrible irony of this conflict is that both groups -- Israeli hard-liners and Palestinian extremists -- view themselves as the legitimate representatives of their respective people's interests and believe they are pursuing reasonable objectives. The truth is the opposite of this, but they don't see this because of their own anger, religious fervor or political repression. Fanaticism comes when people are so angry and desperate they dehumanize their enemies. Desperate people have so little to lose, which is why they are willing to blow themselves up just to get at the enemy. The lure of a Paradise in the next world only sweetens the pot.

Given the current rejectionist leadership and popular anger on both sides, there is little hope for any improvement in the near term. Extremism is ascendant for now. Failure by each side to control its extremists has resulted in a brutal cycle of violence, poverty and despair. It threatens the existence of Israel and is destroying the lives of millions of Palestinians. The conflict could threaten America with more terrorism and bolster anti-Semitism. In the end, rejectionism is not something noble - it is base hatred masquerading as noble conviction. It gives the illusion of deep commitment but in its destructiveness to each side, it is not patriotic. It is treason.