Ariel Sharon's "disengagement plan" is effectively not an unconditional retreat from the Gaza Strip, as it was originally sold and debated, since it undoubtedly involves certain conditions. For one, Sharon vowed not to retreat under fire, surely not as long as missiles are fired from Gaza. It is also conditioned on guarantees, practical or impractical, realistic or not, that the abandoned Gaza Strip will not become a strategic threat to the security of Israel, similar to threat from the abandoned Israeli "security zone" in South Lebanon.
The "unconditional" is truly conditional. Realizing this fact, the debate should be not for or against an unconditional retreat, but on the conditions attached to it, and whether those conditions can be met. One should debate the minimal conditions that will make this plan feasible, as well as alternative options available if those minimal conditions are not met, immediately or in the foreseeable future.
Today, after the "Palestinian" Arabs have officially picked a new political leader, Israel should have an interlocutor engage in negotiations on the array of terms and conditions of that "unconditional" disengagement. Moreover, the world, and especially the US, expects Israeli-Arab negotiations beyond the confines of that rather limited plan to "disengage" from the Gaza Strip. At stake are now not just a disputed strip of land, but also the very long-term existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, as well as recognition of a new Arab state west of the Jordan River. Evidently, these cannot be achieved by a unilateral disengagement or by continued anti-Jewish Arab hate-mongering and terrorism.
In his June 24, 2002 speech, President George Bush laid out the conditions for American support of the establishment of a new Arab state - a permanent stop to Arab terrorism, dismantling of terrorist organization, and the establishment of genuine democracy in the proposed new Arab state, which is expected to live in peace with the Jewish sate of Israel. Implied in the American conditions is, therefore, the requirement that the new Arab state will not endanger the security of Israel. Obviously, the Arabs must give up for good their intentions to destroy the Jewish state or subjugate it one way or another.
These necessary, explicit American conditions, however, should in no way be sufficient for the state of Israel. In order for Israel to relinquish sovereignty over a major part of the ancient Jewish homeland, there must be two additional, absolutely necessary conditions to allow Israeli recognition of that new Arab state. These conditions are:
1. That the Arabs recognize that their new state includes major parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, even if for the sake of peace the Jewish nation is ready to give up sovereignty over those territories. Although this might negate a basic premise of Islam, which seems to deny the existence of pre-Islamic cultures in land conquered by Muslims, this is a quite logical condition, just as the Arabs must recognize that Egypt is the homeland of the ancient Egyptians, whose antiquities are a major economic resource for Egypt.
2. That Jews can continue to live on legally acquired property in the new Arab state and that this centuries-old legal right of residence of non-Muslims in the Holy Land will not be abrogated by the government of the new Arab state. As this is the 21st century, Jewish residents in such Arab-ruled land must enjoy unmitigated citizens' right. This condition must be met in spite of the recent trend of the Islamists to banish all non-Muslims (who have always been second-class citizens) from Islamic countries.
International pressure on Israel from Europe and the US Administration, plus demography, seem to necessitate the establishment of a new Arab state in parts of historical Israel. The demographic factor cannot otherwise be resolved without mass expulsion of Muslims from the disputed territories. This is not feasible, in spite of the wishful thinking of some Jewish proponents, just as the expulsion of Jews from the land of Israel, or the extermination of all the Jews in the world, is an unrealistic, wild dream of Arab Islamists.
Most importantly, meeting the above two critical conditions could solve the seemingly intractable problems of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is basically ideological. It is ideology that leads to non-realistic territorial claims and to the current incessant violence. On one hand, we have the Jewish claim to sovereignty over the Jewish ancient homeland, based on a 3,000-plus-year-old history and religion, upon which Western Civilization is based. On the other hand, there is the religious premise of Islam, a relatively new religion, which denies the existence of claims by people of other religions to any territory that was ever conquered by Muslims. Moreover, the Islamist Arab leadership in the Israeli disputed territories even denies the validity of the pre-Islamic history of the Jewish people.
For millennia, the Jewish people have maintained the idea of Zionism; i.e., their aspiration to regain sovereignty over their ancient occupied homeland, possibly under the rule of a Davidic monarch, the Messiah. Islam, on the other hand, cherishes Jihad; i.e., a holy war aimed at killing or subjugating all non-Muslims in the world. This is why the Jihadists emphasize their animosity to Zionism, viewed by them as an antithesis of Islam. It is this ideological impasse, rather than territorial disputes, that have made the Arab-Israeli conflict the focal point of the clash between Western and Islamic civilizations.
In order for that conflict to be resolved, the Arabs must give up their notion that the Holy Land is "Arab land" and that the Jews have no legitimate claim to it. The Muslims maintain that Biblical Judea/Israel is a "Zionist myth". They also claim that the Jews of today are not descendents of the people described in the Bible, which, in any case, describes an irrelevant pre-Islamic "period of ignorance", in their view, that Muslims are supposed to ignore.
Muslims fail to realize that even if all of the acreage in the Land of Israel were legally owned by Arab landowners, which evidently is not the case, it would still remain the ancient Jewish homeland, just as Latium will always remain the ancient homeland of the Romans. However, unlike the extinct pagan Romans, the Jewish nation continues to exist. The Jewish people has maintained for generations its culture and religion; they have not forsaken the claim to their historic Biblical homeland. As long as the Muslims do not give up their absurd claim, which challenges the histories of both Judaism and Christianity, there cannot be peace in the Middle East. There might be a temporary ceasefire, but no real lasting peace. If such peace cannot be achieved, there is no incentive for Israel to make any concessions to the Arabs.
On the other hand, there exists a Jewish religious premise that mandates full Jewish sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland. This mandate is the spiritual basis for the resettling by Jews of every square mile of their ancient homeland, resettling especially the historical sites of Biblical Israel. This is, however, irreconcilable with the fact that some of that land is owned by Muslim Arabs. While some Jewish religious zealots advocate expulsion (not killing!) of all these Arabs, these zealots are a minute, insignificant minority among Jews. The overwhelming majority of Jews, including religious and ultra-religious Jews, would be ready to live in Jewish holy or historical sites in parts of the Land of Israel even under Islamic political rule, if, and only if, that would facilitate the permanent, peaceful existence of a Jewish State on the other parts of the land.
Jews lived in two ancient Jewish capitals, Shekhem and Hebron, in addition to thousands of Jews living in Jerusalem, for many hundreds of years under Islamic rule. There is no reason that Jews should not be allowed to continue living in those areas as first class citizens even if some of that territory became part of a new Arab state. There is no reason that Jews should not build their residence on legally acquired land in two other ancient Jewish capitals, in the Shomron and Tirzah, as well as on the sites of the ancient Jewish temples in Shiloh and Beth-El.
The current idea of Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon - that a political solution associated with the establishment of a recognized new Arab state in parts of historical Israel must entail eviction of Jews from their legally acquired residences, as they have been evicted from some Arab countries in the recent past - is bizarre. Such a move would endorse the Islamic doctrine that non-Muslims, especially Jews, cannot reside on "Arab land", while Muslims are entitled to live as citizens with unmitigated rights on Israeli land.
This asymmetry extends beyond the boundaries of the Holy Land. While Christians are prohibited from owning real estate or living permanently as citizens in Arabia, Muslims are permitted to live as citizens in Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Canada or the United States. Moreover, following the premises of Islam, the latter Muslim immigrants are expected to take over, by all means possible, their non-Muslim countries of residence and subjugate them to Islam. This religion-driven, absurd asymmetry is the other stumbling block on the way to peace in the Middle East.
In other words, to achieve a lasting peace, the Arabs must not only recognize the historical rights of the Jews and Christians to the Holy Land, but Jews or Christians must also be permitted to live on legally acquired property anywhere in Arab states; certainly in the new Arab state proposed to be established in a part of the historical Land of Israel. Once the Muslims recognize Jewish history, the thorny issue of Jerusalem becomes a mute point. Also, the question of the final boundaries between Israel and the proposed new Arab state becomes then less acute; it becomes essentially limited to demographic and security considerations.
By accepting those two conditions, the leaders of the proposed new Arab state would, in fact, be giving up Islamism and joining the world of the 21st century, which is the true intention of President Bush. This is the dilemma that faces the current "Palestinian" leadership. Without this ideological change, there is no chance for peace in the Middle East. As things stand now, Mahmoud Abbas, the new Arab leader, seems to be reluctant to take such a truly bold step to achieve peace.
There is no chance for peace even if an ill-advised secular Israeli government intended to respect Islamic fundamentalist demands, while ignoring fundamental Jewish religious and historical premises. This is the gist of the current controversy over the planned eviction of Jews from territories intended for Arab sovereignty. This has resulted in unsightly internal strife between religious and non-religious Jews.
Ariel Sharon and his non-religious colleagues fail to comprehend that by legitimizing the Arab religious doctrine of "infidel-free Arab land", they also strengthen the validity of the Islamic premise that the entire Land of Israel, which was conquered and occupied by Arabs in the 7th century, cannot ever be permitted to remain under non-Muslim sovereignty. In other words, these non-religious Jews undermine the very legitimacy of their own state, encouraging the Arabs to continue trying to re-conquer it. Thus, Sharon's attempt to appease the Muslims guarantees the perpetuation of the Middle East conflict.
Ideal peace in the Middle East will take place only when the whole world, Christians and Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, will agree that in the Land of Israel, no Jew lives on "Arab land". On the contrary, it is the Arabs who live on ancient Jewish land. This situation can not be changed, even if Arabs are granted political sovereignty over parts of this land.
The "unconditional" is truly conditional. Realizing this fact, the debate should be not for or against an unconditional retreat, but on the conditions attached to it, and whether those conditions can be met. One should debate the minimal conditions that will make this plan feasible, as well as alternative options available if those minimal conditions are not met, immediately or in the foreseeable future.
Today, after the "Palestinian" Arabs have officially picked a new political leader, Israel should have an interlocutor engage in negotiations on the array of terms and conditions of that "unconditional" disengagement. Moreover, the world, and especially the US, expects Israeli-Arab negotiations beyond the confines of that rather limited plan to "disengage" from the Gaza Strip. At stake are now not just a disputed strip of land, but also the very long-term existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, as well as recognition of a new Arab state west of the Jordan River. Evidently, these cannot be achieved by a unilateral disengagement or by continued anti-Jewish Arab hate-mongering and terrorism.
In his June 24, 2002 speech, President George Bush laid out the conditions for American support of the establishment of a new Arab state - a permanent stop to Arab terrorism, dismantling of terrorist organization, and the establishment of genuine democracy in the proposed new Arab state, which is expected to live in peace with the Jewish sate of Israel. Implied in the American conditions is, therefore, the requirement that the new Arab state will not endanger the security of Israel. Obviously, the Arabs must give up for good their intentions to destroy the Jewish state or subjugate it one way or another.
These necessary, explicit American conditions, however, should in no way be sufficient for the state of Israel. In order for Israel to relinquish sovereignty over a major part of the ancient Jewish homeland, there must be two additional, absolutely necessary conditions to allow Israeli recognition of that new Arab state. These conditions are:
1. That the Arabs recognize that their new state includes major parts of the ancient Jewish homeland, even if for the sake of peace the Jewish nation is ready to give up sovereignty over those territories. Although this might negate a basic premise of Islam, which seems to deny the existence of pre-Islamic cultures in land conquered by Muslims, this is a quite logical condition, just as the Arabs must recognize that Egypt is the homeland of the ancient Egyptians, whose antiquities are a major economic resource for Egypt.
2. That Jews can continue to live on legally acquired property in the new Arab state and that this centuries-old legal right of residence of non-Muslims in the Holy Land will not be abrogated by the government of the new Arab state. As this is the 21st century, Jewish residents in such Arab-ruled land must enjoy unmitigated citizens' right. This condition must be met in spite of the recent trend of the Islamists to banish all non-Muslims (who have always been second-class citizens) from Islamic countries.
International pressure on Israel from Europe and the US Administration, plus demography, seem to necessitate the establishment of a new Arab state in parts of historical Israel. The demographic factor cannot otherwise be resolved without mass expulsion of Muslims from the disputed territories. This is not feasible, in spite of the wishful thinking of some Jewish proponents, just as the expulsion of Jews from the land of Israel, or the extermination of all the Jews in the world, is an unrealistic, wild dream of Arab Islamists.
Most importantly, meeting the above two critical conditions could solve the seemingly intractable problems of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is basically ideological. It is ideology that leads to non-realistic territorial claims and to the current incessant violence. On one hand, we have the Jewish claim to sovereignty over the Jewish ancient homeland, based on a 3,000-plus-year-old history and religion, upon which Western Civilization is based. On the other hand, there is the religious premise of Islam, a relatively new religion, which denies the existence of claims by people of other religions to any territory that was ever conquered by Muslims. Moreover, the Islamist Arab leadership in the Israeli disputed territories even denies the validity of the pre-Islamic history of the Jewish people.
For millennia, the Jewish people have maintained the idea of Zionism; i.e., their aspiration to regain sovereignty over their ancient occupied homeland, possibly under the rule of a Davidic monarch, the Messiah. Islam, on the other hand, cherishes Jihad; i.e., a holy war aimed at killing or subjugating all non-Muslims in the world. This is why the Jihadists emphasize their animosity to Zionism, viewed by them as an antithesis of Islam. It is this ideological impasse, rather than territorial disputes, that have made the Arab-Israeli conflict the focal point of the clash between Western and Islamic civilizations.
In order for that conflict to be resolved, the Arabs must give up their notion that the Holy Land is "Arab land" and that the Jews have no legitimate claim to it. The Muslims maintain that Biblical Judea/Israel is a "Zionist myth". They also claim that the Jews of today are not descendents of the people described in the Bible, which, in any case, describes an irrelevant pre-Islamic "period of ignorance", in their view, that Muslims are supposed to ignore.
Muslims fail to realize that even if all of the acreage in the Land of Israel were legally owned by Arab landowners, which evidently is not the case, it would still remain the ancient Jewish homeland, just as Latium will always remain the ancient homeland of the Romans. However, unlike the extinct pagan Romans, the Jewish nation continues to exist. The Jewish people has maintained for generations its culture and religion; they have not forsaken the claim to their historic Biblical homeland. As long as the Muslims do not give up their absurd claim, which challenges the histories of both Judaism and Christianity, there cannot be peace in the Middle East. There might be a temporary ceasefire, but no real lasting peace. If such peace cannot be achieved, there is no incentive for Israel to make any concessions to the Arabs.
On the other hand, there exists a Jewish religious premise that mandates full Jewish sovereignty over the ancient Jewish homeland. This mandate is the spiritual basis for the resettling by Jews of every square mile of their ancient homeland, resettling especially the historical sites of Biblical Israel. This is, however, irreconcilable with the fact that some of that land is owned by Muslim Arabs. While some Jewish religious zealots advocate expulsion (not killing!) of all these Arabs, these zealots are a minute, insignificant minority among Jews. The overwhelming majority of Jews, including religious and ultra-religious Jews, would be ready to live in Jewish holy or historical sites in parts of the Land of Israel even under Islamic political rule, if, and only if, that would facilitate the permanent, peaceful existence of a Jewish State on the other parts of the land.
Jews lived in two ancient Jewish capitals, Shekhem and Hebron, in addition to thousands of Jews living in Jerusalem, for many hundreds of years under Islamic rule. There is no reason that Jews should not be allowed to continue living in those areas as first class citizens even if some of that territory became part of a new Arab state. There is no reason that Jews should not build their residence on legally acquired land in two other ancient Jewish capitals, in the Shomron and Tirzah, as well as on the sites of the ancient Jewish temples in Shiloh and Beth-El.
The current idea of Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon - that a political solution associated with the establishment of a recognized new Arab state in parts of historical Israel must entail eviction of Jews from their legally acquired residences, as they have been evicted from some Arab countries in the recent past - is bizarre. Such a move would endorse the Islamic doctrine that non-Muslims, especially Jews, cannot reside on "Arab land", while Muslims are entitled to live as citizens with unmitigated rights on Israeli land.
This asymmetry extends beyond the boundaries of the Holy Land. While Christians are prohibited from owning real estate or living permanently as citizens in Arabia, Muslims are permitted to live as citizens in Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Canada or the United States. Moreover, following the premises of Islam, the latter Muslim immigrants are expected to take over, by all means possible, their non-Muslim countries of residence and subjugate them to Islam. This religion-driven, absurd asymmetry is the other stumbling block on the way to peace in the Middle East.
In other words, to achieve a lasting peace, the Arabs must not only recognize the historical rights of the Jews and Christians to the Holy Land, but Jews or Christians must also be permitted to live on legally acquired property anywhere in Arab states; certainly in the new Arab state proposed to be established in a part of the historical Land of Israel. Once the Muslims recognize Jewish history, the thorny issue of Jerusalem becomes a mute point. Also, the question of the final boundaries between Israel and the proposed new Arab state becomes then less acute; it becomes essentially limited to demographic and security considerations.
By accepting those two conditions, the leaders of the proposed new Arab state would, in fact, be giving up Islamism and joining the world of the 21st century, which is the true intention of President Bush. This is the dilemma that faces the current "Palestinian" leadership. Without this ideological change, there is no chance for peace in the Middle East. As things stand now, Mahmoud Abbas, the new Arab leader, seems to be reluctant to take such a truly bold step to achieve peace.
There is no chance for peace even if an ill-advised secular Israeli government intended to respect Islamic fundamentalist demands, while ignoring fundamental Jewish religious and historical premises. This is the gist of the current controversy over the planned eviction of Jews from territories intended for Arab sovereignty. This has resulted in unsightly internal strife between religious and non-religious Jews.
Ariel Sharon and his non-religious colleagues fail to comprehend that by legitimizing the Arab religious doctrine of "infidel-free Arab land", they also strengthen the validity of the Islamic premise that the entire Land of Israel, which was conquered and occupied by Arabs in the 7th century, cannot ever be permitted to remain under non-Muslim sovereignty. In other words, these non-religious Jews undermine the very legitimacy of their own state, encouraging the Arabs to continue trying to re-conquer it. Thus, Sharon's attempt to appease the Muslims guarantees the perpetuation of the Middle East conflict.
Ideal peace in the Middle East will take place only when the whole world, Christians and Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, will agree that in the Land of Israel, no Jew lives on "Arab land". On the contrary, it is the Arabs who live on ancient Jewish land. This situation can not be changed, even if Arabs are granted political sovereignty over parts of this land.