What Went Wrong and What Comes Next in the Middle East?

First Quarter 2001

by Donald Kruse

Many American observers of the Middle East were shocked when Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat rejected the offer of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the Camp David summit last August. President Clinton could not disguise his disappointment and many American pundits chimed in with accusations directed at President Arafat for losing a chance for peace and a final end to the half century of struggle between Jews and Arabs. Instead of peace, the summit ended in failure and it was not long afterwards that the Palestinian rebellion broke out, leading to so much bloodshed and destruction. How could things have turned out so badly?

Why Were We Surprised?

Actually, no one should have been surprised by what transpired. It is true that Barak's proposals went considerably farther than any previous proposals. Nevertheless, they fell far short of what the Palestinians had been requesting and counting on as a result of the 1993 Oslo accords. For Arafat, the expectation had been that the handshake on the White House lawn in 1993 would be the prelude to a seven-year process, leading to a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, including Arab sovereignty in East Jerusalem. In other words, for the Palestinians, the end of the Oslo peace process was supposed to give Palestinians exactly what Israel had attained in 1948, namely, a state for its people regardless of where they live throughout the world.

Barak's offer at Camp David was intended to wrap up all of the so-called "final status" issues relating to borders, settlements, Jerusalem and refugees—the toughest issues of all. This Israeli effort to settle all of these issues immediately in a way that would give Palestinians so much less than they expected was doomed to fail. In retrospect, it can be seen that there was no way that the Palestinian leadership could, after 50 years of struggle, accept so little. The historic compromise embodied in the 1993 Oslo agreement had Arafat accepting an Israel defined by its original, pre-1967 geographical boundaries. Those boundaries contained about 80 percent of Mandatory Palestine. Palestinians (and most of the world community) believed that the remaining 20 percent of the land would, by September 2000, be the territory of the Palestinian state. Seen from this perspective, Barak's offer, launched without adequate diplomatic preparation, was insufficient for Arafat, whose political survival would have been put in serious danger.

Palestinian Rebellion

Once the peace process bubble burst at Camp David, the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians took a dramatic turn for the worse. To all Palestinians, it was now clear that the efforts of negotiating an agreement with Israel over the last seven years were largely futile and held no promise of future success. Moreover, Israel under Barak had continued to take more Palestinian land, build more settlements, keep Jerusalem closed, restrict Palestinians to their town enclaves, and maintain tight controls over all forms of economic life throughout the West Bank and Gaza. In brief, Israel's continuing military occupation, which dominates every facet of Palestinian activity, remains the pre-eminent fact of life despite the earlier hopes of Oslo.

The late-September visit of the leader of Israel's right-wing Likud Party, Ariel Sharon, with 1,000 armed security personnel, to the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) was the final provocation causing Palestinian desperation and anger to overflow. Thus began the vicious cycle of demonstrations by mostly unarmed Palestinians followed by Israeli repression often with heavy weapons. The disproportionate Israeli response has been condemned by the entire world (except the United States). What seems not to be understood by Americans is that the renewed intifada or rebellion is aimed at ending the 33-year Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. As Palestinian leaders have stated explicitly, the rebellion is not an attempt to destroy Israel as right-wing Israelis and their American sympathizers often allege.

What Next?

It is very difficult to predict what will happen next. At the time of writing, late in 2000, the political atmosphere is too uncertain. Unless President Clinton manages to bring about an unexpected breakthrough in last-minute negotiations, important questions crowd the table. Will the violence intensify? Will Israel elect a new prime minister? Will Arafat's health hold? Will the new American president bring something new to the table?

Several things are evident and should be kept in mind. First, the Oslo process has run its course and will need to be replaced by something else. Second, the Arab world is very angry with Israel (and the United States) over the disproportionate force Israel is using against the Palestinians and is in no mood to resume more normal relations with the Jewish state. Third, the Arab world—friends and foes among them—still controls a large percentage of the world's oil supply and there is a relationship between peace and oil in the Middle East.

In the face of all these factors, the new American administration should put high on its foreign policy agenda the need for a comprehensive reassessment of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This should include consultations with both parties as well as seeking out the views of Arab countries and our allies in Europe as well as the views of other potential players such as Russia and the UN secretary general. In fact, our entire Middle East policy, including relations with Syria, Iraq, and Iran, should be looked at anew, including our military deployments throughout the region, especially as they relate to the peace process.

There are also some demographic facts that should be kept in mind. Today, there are about five million Jews and four million Arabs living in Israel/West Bank/Gaza. Within 20 years, projections point to Arabs far outnumbering Jews. These two peoples claim parts of the same land and they must learn to live with each other. In 50 years of struggle, both peoples (except for extremists) have come to understand that neither side can defeat or eliminate the other. Israel even with all its military might will not by itself solve the Palestinian issue. And Palestinians have seen that Israel will not go away. However, without a just political agreement neither side will ever have a day of peace and Israel can never expect to be accepted as a real part of the Middle East.

At this critical point in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, it is clear that the Palestinians want an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank/Gaza and the establishment of the state of Palestine with its capital in East Jerusalem. It is much less clear what Israel is prepared to do. The question perhaps should be asked of Israel: Why not put an end to what is essentially an illegal occupation and why not encourage the peaceful establishment of the Palestinian state? If eventually this is what will most likely happen, why not bring it about sooner rather than later? As former president Jimmy Carter wrote recently, it is up to Israel to decide whether it wants land or peace. Let us hope that a new American administration in a new phase of the peace process will fully understand that peace can come only after justice arrives for the Palestinians and security is secured for Israel.

***

Living Stones

Christians now comprise less than two percent of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza. They are sometimes called the "forgotten faithful," because most western Christians are unaware that an indigenous church exists in Palestine.

The present generation of Palestinian Christians is one of the blessings the Lord has given the Jerusalem "mother church." Among the faithful are the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Michel Sabbah, and his staff of dynamic young priests, including Frs. Emil Salayta, Majdi Siryani, and Iyad Twal. In Galilee there is Fr. Elias Chacour, founder and president of the Mar Elias College and author of the seminal book on the Palestinian experience, Blood Brothers. Among the strong women leaders are Jean Zaru in Ramallah and Nora Kort in Jerusalem. In Bethlehem the forgotten faithful include Bishara Awad, president of the Bethlehem Bible College, and Dr. Salim Munayer, founder of the Musalaha reconciliation work. Dr. Mitri Raheb, Lutheran pastor of the Christmas Church in Bethlehem, has spoken frequently in Europe and North America, drawing on his book, I Am a Palestinian Christian. Retired Anglican priest, Naim Ateek, leads SABEEL, a Palestinian ecumenical theological organization in Jerusalem.

All of these Christian leaders cry out for justice for the Palestinian people and for the long-awaited creation of the Palestinian state to help stabilize society and staunch the flow of emigration. In 1980 there were about 25,000 Christians in Jerusalem; today just 20 years later, there are only about 5,000 left. Palestinian Christians long for the love and support of American Christians as they work for Jerusalem to become a shared city of peace for all the world.

[Donald Kruse is retired from the American foreign service. He served in the Middle East for four years. He now serves as vice president of the Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation (HLCEF), which works to provide spiritual and material comfort to Palestinian Christians. For more information on HLCEF, call 703- 242-0854.]