Lakewood the Thinking City

ISRAEL AND PALESTINIANS --

Two difficult points:

On October 15, the Great Decisions group met to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Among the more interesting questions brought up were these:

What is a “Palestinian state?”

According to one participant, the Israelis and the Palestinians may both talk about a Palestinian state, but they attach different meanings to the term.

Israelis refer to a sort of protectorate, with Israel controlling the armed forces, foreign policy, etc., to prevent any possibility of attack. This would not be a true state, because it couldn’t decide basic questions for itself. It would be more like the Indian Reservations in the United States. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have a real state in mind.

The Israeli notion of a Palestinian state, on this view, is an unsatisfactory and unstable middle way. It will never bring peace. Israel should either grant the Palestinians complete independence – allow them a true state – or else absorb the West Bank and Gaza into Israel proper.

The vicious cycle of instability and underdevelopment

Presumably the reason why Israel is unwilling to allow a true Palestinian state is their fear that such a state would be dangerous. So the question arises: How can the U.S. lessen hostility and violence toward Israel?

Hostile, violent attitudes, it was said, result from poverty and lack of education. The lack of education was challenged – according to one report, many Palestinians are well educated, but they cannot use their education to make a living because there are no jobs. What is needed, then, is industries locating in the West Bank and Gaza. But industries will not locate there as long as those areas are unstable and prone to violence. So there is a vicious cycle.

No decisive solutions to this problem appeared. One participant said that we should get rid of Sharon and Arafat. (But they were both democratically elected.) Another suggested withdrawing all arms shipments and payments. (But payments of $2.5B or $3B to Israel and Egypt are the consequence of the Camp David agreements.)

In general, the group believed we should take a broader and more unbiased view of the Middle East and its rulers. For example, it was said that those ruling over the Palestinians had a typical view of their own people – viewing them as chattel. How this lordly attitude can be changed was not clear. One suggestion was a strong and pervasive Peace Corps for the Middle East.

Back to Lakewood the Thinking City Home Page