The Beirut Declaration: The Wrong Road to Peace
The Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East affects us more deeply than we can ever come to understand. Within this past week, Iraq has ceased to export any of its oil to the U.S. in protest of the new Israeli offensive in Palestine. The embargo has caused fuel prices to shoot up, affecting, whether we know it or not, our every day lives.
Can you imagine a life without oil? Our society couldn’t survive. Cars wouldn’t start because they wouldn’t have any fuel, food prices would skyrocket, and there would be electricity shortages throughout the country. Peace in the Middle East is essential to insure the security of our oil supplies.
In the past, there have been many unsuccessful attempts to achieve peace. The most recent attempt came in the form of a Saudi Arabian peace proposal, now called the Beirut Declaration.
On February 17, 2002, a column by Thomas Friedmann appeared in The New York Times. In the article, Friedmann told of a conversation that had taken place between him and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, at a dinner in Riyadh. While at the table, Friedmann spoke to the Crown Prince of a column that he had written several weeks earlier, proposing a peace settlement between Israel and the Arab world, that was in many ways similar to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution Number 242 of 1967. Friedmann proposed Israel should give the occupied territories, as well as East Jerusalem, to the Palestinians, and in return the Arab world would “normalize” its relations with Israel.
Upon hearing this, the Crown Prince asked Friedmann if he had “broken into” his desk. Abdullah went on to explain that in his desk was a drafted speech proposing the exact same things. He said he had been considering giving the speech to the Arab League during its summit in Beirut, Lebanon, on March 26 and 27, but the “harsh measures” taken by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had caused him to put the speech back in his drawer (Friedmann).
This well calculated PR move had the exact effects for which Abdullah was hoping. The buzz created by the column, and subsequent interviews, allowed him to gauge the interests of other Arab nations and helped to impair US efforts aimed at toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It also served to rectify US-Saudi relations, which were dealt a severe blow by the events of September 11. Whether or not there was actually a speech in his desk during his dinner with Mr. Friedmann is still a mystery.
The peace “initiative”, as the media dubbed it, gradually gained momentum and was officially announced on March 27 at the Arab summit. The final proposal, designed to spark Israeli interest and draw the US into the role of a mediator between the opposing sides, was based on the following principles:
“A. Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon.
B. Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
C. Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
In return the Arab states will do the following:
Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region
Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace” (BBC News Online).
On the outside, this well-worded proposal seems a gracious offering of peace from the enemies of Israel; however, the Beirut Declaration restates the maximum Arab demands that, if obeyed, would mean the end of the Jewish nation. In order for Israel to exist and to preserve its integrity as a Jewish state, Israel should reject the Beirut Declaration.
While following the development of the peace proposal, a fatal flaw soon became painfully obvious. History has proven time and time again that for a peace agreement to succeed, it is imperative that each party involved in the deal be united within itself.
This is exactly why the Beirut Declaration will never benefit Israel and should be politely shunned, if the Israelis have any desire for self-preservation. The Arab nations are, and will continue to be, divided against each other. Few of the Arab governments truly support the initiative. Israel is the only united party involved in the deal.
Although this offer by the Crown Prince could be a legitimate attempt at establishing a lasting peace in the region, it will never, and could never, succeed in instituting that peace. The belligerent dispositions created by the thousands of years spent as warring Bedouin tribesman will not disappear in a mere 80 years.
Only 9 years ago, the cracks in the Arab world forced a US led coalition into an armed conflict in the Persian Gulf, a war that resulted in 100,000 deaths and the loss of millions, if not billions, of dollars in crude oil (Deese).
The roots of the Persian Gulf War extend back to yet another Arab conflict, the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. The Iran-Iraq War lasted for eight years, from 1980-1988. Even now, Iran and Iraq are at odds with each other. In the year 2000, both sides were still holding a reported 36,000 POWs. Three years ago, Saddam Hussein gave a speech in which he “vehemently blasted Iran” (Xinhua News Agency).
Both nations had sustained extensive damage to their economies by the end of the war in 1988. But, because of military build-up that occurred as a result of the war, Iraq’s military emerged from the war as one of the most powerful in the Middle East, just behind the strength of Israel’s military. Because of its military might, Iraq claimed that it was the leader of the Arab world and demanded that the rest of the Arab nations help it to rebuild its shattered economy. When many of them refused Hussein ordered the invasion of the small, but oil-rich, nation of Kuwait. Hussein accused the Kuwaitis of stealing from the Rumaila Oil Field, which lies under the border shared by the two countries, and of exceeding oil production limits imposed by OPEC, the majority of whose members are Arab nations.
The invasion caused a split in the Arab world a mile wide. Many Arabs supported Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, while others, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and the United Arab Emirates, opposed the invasion and even joined the US-led anti-Iraq coalition. Hussein still resents these states, calling them “traitors who sold their souls” (Xinhua News Agency).
During the war, Hussein attempted to force the Arab states out of the anti-Iraq coalition by coercing Israel to enter the conflict. As a result of launching “Scud” missiles at cities in Israel and Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein killed scores of Israeli and Arab civilians. He still holds a well-known grudge against Israel, making it even more dangerous for Israel to sign a deal that would leave it exposed to such attacks.
If the Arabs are not entirely at peace with themselves, can Israel expect them to be at peace with a nation who has been their mortal enemy for over 50 years? No, they cannot. Would you trust your life to a parricide?
But this was nearly a decade ago; the Arabs must have overcome their petty differences by now. Surely, today, they can proffer a peace that is sincere and which the Israelis can accept without fear of a rogue Arab state attacking them once they are vulnerable.
The Arabs cannot insure any such peace. The Saudi initiative was beleaguered with disputes and disagreements between Arab leaders from the start. Syria, from whom Israel won the Golan Heights in the Six Day War, never even pretended to support the initiative. Even the Palestinian Authority, the party who would most benefit from the proposal, was skeptical about the Crown Prince’s motives, wondering if it was only a ploy to repair Saudi Arabia’s image: “Arafat publicly supported Abdullah, though a senior official of the Palestinian Authority says that privately Arafat worries that the Saudi initiative is just meaningless talk” (McLeod).
The blatant lack of Arab unity behind the initiative became even more obvious in the weeks when the very idea of holding a summit came under attack from Arab scholars, who said that the peace proposal was pointless. Muhammed M. Saehib, the Palestinian ambassador to the Arab league, asked, if Israel were to give back the occupied territories, what else should the Arabs do? Would the Arabs still hold a grudge against Israel? These scholars believed that the Arab initiative was an empty suggestion; that Saudi Arabia was a boy who cried wolf.
When the Arab summit finally convened in Beirut, Lebanon, it was plagued by problems. Key Arab leaders never even showed up to voice their support, such as Egyptian President Mubarak and Arab leaders from Jordan, Qatar, Oman and Mauritania. These countries make up the handful Arab states that are at peace with Israel. The lack of support from these nations should serve as a warning to Israel not to accept the offer.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud even blocked Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian President, from attending the conference via videophone, resulting in the walkout of the Palestinian delegation. It’s as if the Arabs went to a party and then kicked the host out. According to The Christian Science Monitor, “Arab delegates were discussing ending the summit a day early, as participants began drifting away.”
Even if the Arab governments are united, Israel should still reject the Beirut Declaration, for the Arab peoples are not. If Israel agreed to the Beirut Declaration, it would cripple its ability to respond to the devastating terror attacks launched by such groups as the Hamas.
The Hamas Charter, drafted by the elders of the organization, reveals exactly how safe Israel would be from terror attacks if they affirmed the Beirut Declaration. The only thing the Declaration would succeed in doing would be in tying Israel’s hands behind its back.
“Israel will rise and remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had its predecessors… Peace initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Hamas. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing the faith” (The Hamas Charter).
One can clearly see that the only issue that the Arab world is united on is division. The Arab governments can’t even control their own peoples. The Islamic establishment, allowed to grow unchallenged, unchecked, for the past fifteen hundred years, is what really holds the keys to the hearts of the Arabs. After Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd suffered a crippling stroke in 1995, the Islamic establishment was allowed to grow completely unsupervised for just 5 years. Now, not even Saudi Arabia’s effective ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, who maintains unsurpassed popularity ratings with the Arabs, will dare oppose the Muslim clerics in his own country.
This religious aspect of the conflict brings to light another fault in the Beirut Declaration. In Section C of the Declaration, it states that in order for the Arab nations to normalize their relations with Israel, it must first “accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital” (BBC News Online). This portion of the Declaration would eventually cause even more violence between the two sides. The Orthodox Jews, who cannot even visit the Temple Mount without an armed guard at their side to restrain them, would be especially opposed to the transfer (Morris).
On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, called The Noble Sanctuary, or al-Haram al-Sharif by the Muslims, in an attempt to bring what he called “a message of peace”. While at the site, the then-candidate for prime minister visited the Western, or Wailing, Wall, all which is left of the Jewish Temple of Biblical times. Minutes after Sharon departed to calls of “With blood and soul we will redeem you, al-Aqsa!” from Palestinian youth, a riot broke out between the Muslims and the approximately 1,000 Israeli police who were guarding him (Greenberg). The next day the West Bank and the Gaza Strip erupted in violence, as fights broke out between IDF personnel and Palestinian militants.
As the most holy site in Judaism, the Jews have proven that they will keep the Temple Mount no matter what the costs, as the fierce house-to-house fighting that took place in Jerusalem during the Six-Day War showed. The Israeli government could not restrain its own people if it gave away East Jerusalem.
The Western Wall is the only remaining portion of the Jewish Temple after the Romans razed it to the ground in 70 AD. In 1999, the Camp David Talks to finalize the peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians broke down over who would have sovereignty over Jerusalem, and more specifically, over the Temple Mount.
Even if the government of Israel gives Eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinians, the Jews would never accept it. The general consensus of the Jews is that conferring East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the Palestinians would be stripping Judaism of its birthplace. Giving away East Jerusalem would be presenting the infidels with the “heart of Zionism” (CNN.com).
Sara Kinnani, an Israeli woman, voiced the core of the Jewish fears. “If the Palestinians get sovereignty of the Temple Mount they’ll throw stones down on us” (Morris).
At the end of the 1948-’49 War, Jordan controlled East Jerusalem while Israel controlled West Jerusalem. Jordan’s first action as the ruler of East Jerusalem was to banish all of the city’s Jewish inhabitants. These Jews became refugees, but they were invited to settle in Israel, which they did. Similarly, during the same war, somewhere between 600,000 and 975,000 Palestinians were made refugees when they fled the oncoming wrath of the Arab armies (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East). These refugees settled in parts of Palestine that were not controlled by Israel, or they moved into neighboring Arab states. However, all of the Arab states refused to allow the Palestinian refugees to settle permanently in their lands. Instead, many of the refugees had to settle in refugee camps.
The Arab states still refuse to accept the settlement of any of the Arab refugees within their own countries; the Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, stated: “We cannot accept the settlement of any Palestinian refugees under any circumstances.”
During the Six Day War of 1967 an additional 300,000 Palestinians
became refugees after escaping the violence.
Today, there are nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees, of whom approximately 2 million live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The most of remaining 2 million live in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (UNRWAPRNE). Al-Awda, an Arab organization that agitates for the return of the Palestinian refugees, has estimated that roughly 2 million other refugees who have not registered themselves.
The longstanding Arab demand that Israel allow for the return of these refugees is encompassed in Section B of the Beirut Declaration. “[Attainment of] a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees [is] to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194” (BBC News Online).
This is yet another well-worded portion of the Beirut Declaration that, if accepted, would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution Number 194, agreed upon in the December of 1948, states “that the refugees wishing to return their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date” (Khouri). But Resolution No. 194 was drafted when there were, at the most, 975,000 refugees, not a confirmed number of 3.7 million.
If Israel, a nation of 6 million, were to let all of the refugees return, its population would double overnight (US Government). As well as being a humanitarian disaster, it would so alter the demographic characteristics of the state that Israel would cease to be the Jewish state it is today. Imagine if the population of our own nation suddenly doubled. The return of all of the refugees would be a catastrophe.
In the 1800s, the increased persecution of the Jews in Europe led to the foundation of the Zionist movement. Theodor Herzl, the creator of modern Zionism, became convinced, because of his experiences that the Jews would never be able to assimilate into a non-Jewish culture and the only remedy to this problem would be to create a homeland for the Jews.
The Zionist movement eventually led to the foundation of Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948. Israel truly is a homeland for the Jews. Even the government’s schedule revolves around the religious customs and holidays.
For Israel to allow the return of all 5.7 million refugees would be committing suicide. It would be like America, founded as a democracy for all peoples, suddenly becoming a Communist state. America, as it was meant to be, would simply cease to exist.
BBC’s Middle East analyst, Roger Hardy, says, “Even dovish Israelis see a mass repatriation as a demographic nightmare- Israel would simply cease to exist to be Jewish state it is today.”
If the Arabs are so eager to help the Palestinians with their dilemma, as they say they are, why don’t they take in the refugees, who are of their own race and religion; for that is the only thing they can do. Israel can never allow for the return of all the refugees.
Another disaster that could very easily result from the Israeli acceptance of the Beirut Declaration would be the complete eradication of the nation.
Section A of the Beirut Declaration calls for the “complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon” (BBC News Online).
Prior to the Six Day War of 1967, Syria held the plateau to the east of Galilee, called the Golan Heights. Syria had fortified the crests of the steep slopes of the Golan Heights after its defeat in the 1948-’49 War with Israel. From these fortified positions, Syria controlled the Hula Valley, the Sea of Galilee and the Upper Jordan Valley, a home to many Israelis. During the 1950s scores of Israeli civilians were killed by Syrian artillery and sniper fire from the Heights.
When Syria attacked Israel at the beginning of the Six Day War, Israel pulled off one of history’s most daring attacks on the Syrian positions in the Golan Heights. Under fire support from the Israeli air force, ground forces built access roads up the slopes of the Golan Heights, so to enable their tanks to repel the Syrians from their fortified positions.
At the end of the Six Day War, Israel had won most of Palestine from the Arabs. However, the Arabs learned from their mistakes in the war. When Israel emerged from the Yom Kippur War of 1973, its economy was severely damaged and the IDF had barely been able to endure the brutal fighting.
If Israel had not used the occupied territories as buffer zones during the Yom Kippur War, it would have been defeated. And if Israel accepts the Beirut Declaration and hands the occupied territories over to the Arabs, it will be defeated in the next war.
The occupied territories, as well as containing key geographical features of strategic importance, are important buffer zones. A buffer zone is a neutral area that separates two conflicting areas. In this case, Israel uses the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the occupied territories in southern Lebanon to shield the Jewish heartland from the phantom armies of its enemies.
If Israel gave away the occupied territories, it would be stripped naked of its armor, leaving just exposed flesh. Central Israel would only measure 8 miles wide, from the Mediterranean to the border. That’s only 8 miles between the Arab armies and the heartland of the Jews.
Central Israel is especially vulnerable to an attack from the West Bank. The West Bank’s geography is composed primarily of limestone hills, called the Judeo-Galilean Hills, which run north south the entire length of Israel. This feature makes the West Bank relatively easy to defend and hard to attack.
However, central Israel is composed entirely of the Coastal Plain. The majority of the Israelis live on this plain and most of the country’s industry is located there. A major aqueduct that supplies water to different areas of Israel runs within just 5 miles of the border. If Israel were attacked after it had given up these buffer zones, central Israel would become a 75-mile long killing floor.
Just imagine what would happen to the Jews if Iraq attacked them in this position. It would be a second Holocaust. The possibility of this happening is reason enough for the Israelis not to accept the Beirut Declaration.
The roots are deep and we may never see the peaceful conclusion of this conflict. The Jews and the Arabs have been adversaries for nearly 3,000 years, so why should we believe that they would end their struggle now?
But we should not let these kinds of thoughts stop us from attempting to obtain that peace. In this spirit, I have included my own thoughts on the issues addressed in the Beirut Declaration.
Before peace may even be discussed, it is imperative that a cease-fire be reached between the two sides. Some may ask, what good is this? Trying to achieve a cease-fire before achieving a lasting peace is pointless.
Do you really believe that you could civilly discuss a settlement with someone while at the same time engaging that person in an all-out fistfight? I didn’t think so. That is why the past attempts at peace have never worked. The two sides have never been completely at peace with each other.
The only way that a peace will be achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians is if there is a radical change in leadership on both sides. On one side, they have a septuagenarian who is also the founder and former leader of terrorist groups, while on the other side there is an aged, trigger-happy veteran who was court marshaled in the 1980s for allowing the massacre of 600 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Both of them must go and in their place be elected two leaders who will truly pursue peace.
It is necessary that Israel allow for the creation of a Palestinian state. Peace cannot be achieved until that state has been established. However, there must be some sort of symbiotic relationship between the two states, so neither can survive without the other.
Israel should vacate the West Bank and Gaza Strip of all Israeli settlers and allow for the return of as many Palestinian refugees as possible to these settlements. The rest of the refugees should be paid financial compensation for their losses, supplied by Western donors. A UN peacekeeping force should occupy the Golan Heights, as UNIFIL has occupied parts of the Lebanon-Israel border.
The only solution for Jerusalem that even has a chance of working is to make the city an international one, ruled by a “special international regime” under the United Nations (Khouri). Although this will be extremely unpopular with both sides, it is the only workable solution that will give both Muslims and Jews access to the holy sites in the city.
Although we should attempt to achieve peace in the Middle East, the Beirut Declaration is not the way to do it. The ratification of this proposal by the Israelis can only result in more conflict and violence, as history has proven with such treaties as that of Versailles.
Both sides could learn another valuable lesson from history if they would only study the American Civil Rights Movement. Non-violence would further the Palestinians cause much further in the eyes of the international community. Unfortunately, neither side seems believes that anything less than violence and killing will solve their problems. It is a tragic situation and one that has caused individuals on both sides more sorrow than any human being should ever have to endure.
The Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East affects us more deeply than we can ever come to understand. Within this past week, Iraq has ceased to export any of its oil to the U.S. in protest of the new Israeli offensive in Palestine. The embargo has caused fuel prices to shoot up, affecting, whether we know it or not, our every day lives.
Can you imagine a life without oil? Our society couldn’t survive. Cars wouldn’t start because they wouldn’t have any fuel, food prices would skyrocket, and there would be electricity shortages throughout the country. Peace in the Middle East is essential to insure the security of our oil supplies.
In the past, there have been many unsuccessful attempts to achieve peace. The most recent attempt came in the form of a Saudi Arabian peace proposal, now called the Beirut Declaration.
On February 17, 2002, a column by Thomas Friedmann appeared in The New York Times. In the article, Friedmann told of a conversation that had taken place between him and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, at a dinner in Riyadh. While at the table, Friedmann spoke to the Crown Prince of a column that he had written several weeks earlier, proposing a peace settlement between Israel and the Arab world, that was in many ways similar to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution Number 242 of 1967. Friedmann proposed Israel should give the occupied territories, as well as East Jerusalem, to the Palestinians, and in return the Arab world would “normalize” its relations with Israel.
Upon hearing this, the Crown Prince asked Friedmann if he had “broken into” his desk. Abdullah went on to explain that in his desk was a drafted speech proposing the exact same things. He said he had been considering giving the speech to the Arab League during its summit in Beirut, Lebanon, on March 26 and 27, but the “harsh measures” taken by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had caused him to put the speech back in his drawer (Friedmann).
This well calculated PR move had the exact effects for which Abdullah was hoping. The buzz created by the column, and subsequent interviews, allowed him to gauge the interests of other Arab nations and helped to impair US efforts aimed at toppling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. It also served to rectify US-Saudi relations, which were dealt a severe blow by the events of September 11. Whether or not there was actually a speech in his desk during his dinner with Mr. Friedmann is still a mystery.
The peace “initiative”, as the media dubbed it, gradually gained momentum and was officially announced on March 27 at the Arab summit. The final proposal, designed to spark Israeli interest and draw the US into the role of a mediator between the opposing sides, was based on the following principles:
“A. Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon.
B. Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.
C. Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.
In return the Arab states will do the following:
Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region
Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace” (BBC News Online).
On the outside, this well-worded proposal seems a gracious offering of peace from the enemies of Israel; however, the Beirut Declaration restates the maximum Arab demands that, if obeyed, would mean the end of the Jewish nation. In order for Israel to exist and to preserve its integrity as a Jewish state, Israel should reject the Beirut Declaration.
While following the development of the peace proposal, a fatal flaw soon became painfully obvious. History has proven time and time again that for a peace agreement to succeed, it is imperative that each party involved in the deal be united within itself.
This is exactly why the Beirut Declaration will never benefit Israel and should be politely shunned, if the Israelis have any desire for self-preservation. The Arab nations are, and will continue to be, divided against each other. Few of the Arab governments truly support the initiative. Israel is the only united party involved in the deal.
Although this offer by the Crown Prince could be a legitimate attempt at establishing a lasting peace in the region, it will never, and could never, succeed in instituting that peace. The belligerent dispositions created by the thousands of years spent as warring Bedouin tribesman will not disappear in a mere 80 years.
Only 9 years ago, the cracks in the Arab world forced a US led coalition into an armed conflict in the Persian Gulf, a war that resulted in 100,000 deaths and the loss of millions, if not billions, of dollars in crude oil (Deese).
The roots of the Persian Gulf War extend back to yet another Arab conflict, the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. The Iran-Iraq War lasted for eight years, from 1980-1988. Even now, Iran and Iraq are at odds with each other. In the year 2000, both sides were still holding a reported 36,000 POWs. Three years ago, Saddam Hussein gave a speech in which he “vehemently blasted Iran” (Xinhua News Agency).
Both nations had sustained extensive damage to their economies by the end of the war in 1988. But, because of military build-up that occurred as a result of the war, Iraq’s military emerged from the war as one of the most powerful in the Middle East, just behind the strength of Israel’s military. Because of its military might, Iraq claimed that it was the leader of the Arab world and demanded that the rest of the Arab nations help it to rebuild its shattered economy. When many of them refused Hussein ordered the invasion of the small, but oil-rich, nation of Kuwait. Hussein accused the Kuwaitis of stealing from the Rumaila Oil Field, which lies under the border shared by the two countries, and of exceeding oil production limits imposed by OPEC, the majority of whose members are Arab nations.
The invasion caused a split in the Arab world a mile wide. Many Arabs supported Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, while others, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and the United Arab Emirates, opposed the invasion and even joined the US-led anti-Iraq coalition. Hussein still resents these states, calling them “traitors who sold their souls” (Xinhua News Agency).
During the war, Hussein attempted to force the Arab states out of the anti-Iraq coalition by coercing Israel to enter the conflict. As a result of launching “Scud” missiles at cities in Israel and Saudi Arabia, Saddam Hussein killed scores of Israeli and Arab civilians. He still holds a well-known grudge against Israel, making it even more dangerous for Israel to sign a deal that would leave it exposed to such attacks.
If the Arabs are not entirely at peace with themselves, can Israel expect them to be at peace with a nation who has been their mortal enemy for over 50 years? No, they cannot. Would you trust your life to a parricide?
But this was nearly a decade ago; the Arabs must have overcome their petty differences by now. Surely, today, they can proffer a peace that is sincere and which the Israelis can accept without fear of a rogue Arab state attacking them once they are vulnerable.
The Arabs cannot insure any such peace. The Saudi initiative was beleaguered with disputes and disagreements between Arab leaders from the start. Syria, from whom Israel won the Golan Heights in the Six Day War, never even pretended to support the initiative. Even the Palestinian Authority, the party who would most benefit from the proposal, was skeptical about the Crown Prince’s motives, wondering if it was only a ploy to repair Saudi Arabia’s image: “Arafat publicly supported Abdullah, though a senior official of the Palestinian Authority says that privately Arafat worries that the Saudi initiative is just meaningless talk” (McLeod).
The blatant lack of Arab unity behind the initiative became even more obvious in the weeks when the very idea of holding a summit came under attack from Arab scholars, who said that the peace proposal was pointless. Muhammed M. Saehib, the Palestinian ambassador to the Arab league, asked, if Israel were to give back the occupied territories, what else should the Arabs do? Would the Arabs still hold a grudge against Israel? These scholars believed that the Arab initiative was an empty suggestion; that Saudi Arabia was a boy who cried wolf.
When the Arab summit finally convened in Beirut, Lebanon, it was plagued by problems. Key Arab leaders never even showed up to voice their support, such as Egyptian President Mubarak and Arab leaders from Jordan, Qatar, Oman and Mauritania. These countries make up the handful Arab states that are at peace with Israel. The lack of support from these nations should serve as a warning to Israel not to accept the offer.
Lebanese President Emile Lahoud even blocked Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian President, from attending the conference via videophone, resulting in the walkout of the Palestinian delegation. It’s as if the Arabs went to a party and then kicked the host out. According to The Christian Science Monitor, “Arab delegates were discussing ending the summit a day early, as participants began drifting away.”
Even if the Arab governments are united, Israel should still reject the Beirut Declaration, for the Arab peoples are not. If Israel agreed to the Beirut Declaration, it would cripple its ability to respond to the devastating terror attacks launched by such groups as the Hamas.
The Hamas Charter, drafted by the elders of the organization, reveals exactly how safe Israel would be from terror attacks if they affirmed the Beirut Declaration. The only thing the Declaration would succeed in doing would be in tying Israel’s hands behind its back.
“Israel will rise and remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had its predecessors… Peace initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Hamas. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing the faith” (The Hamas Charter).
One can clearly see that the only issue that the Arab world is united on is division. The Arab governments can’t even control their own peoples. The Islamic establishment, allowed to grow unchallenged, unchecked, for the past fifteen hundred years, is what really holds the keys to the hearts of the Arabs. After Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd suffered a crippling stroke in 1995, the Islamic establishment was allowed to grow completely unsupervised for just 5 years. Now, not even Saudi Arabia’s effective ruler, Crown Prince Abdullah, who maintains unsurpassed popularity ratings with the Arabs, will dare oppose the Muslim clerics in his own country.
This religious aspect of the conflict brings to light another fault in the Beirut Declaration. In Section C of the Declaration, it states that in order for the Arab nations to normalize their relations with Israel, it must first “accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital” (BBC News Online). This portion of the Declaration would eventually cause even more violence between the two sides. The Orthodox Jews, who cannot even visit the Temple Mount without an armed guard at their side to restrain them, would be especially opposed to the transfer (Morris).
On September 28, 2000, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount, called The Noble Sanctuary, or al-Haram al-Sharif by the Muslims, in an attempt to bring what he called “a message of peace”. While at the site, the then-candidate for prime minister visited the Western, or Wailing, Wall, all which is left of the Jewish Temple of Biblical times. Minutes after Sharon departed to calls of “With blood and soul we will redeem you, al-Aqsa!” from Palestinian youth, a riot broke out between the Muslims and the approximately 1,000 Israeli police who were guarding him (Greenberg). The next day the West Bank and the Gaza Strip erupted in violence, as fights broke out between IDF personnel and Palestinian militants.
As the most holy site in Judaism, the Jews have proven that they will keep the Temple Mount no matter what the costs, as the fierce house-to-house fighting that took place in Jerusalem during the Six-Day War showed. The Israeli government could not restrain its own people if it gave away East Jerusalem.
The Western Wall is the only remaining portion of the Jewish Temple after the Romans razed it to the ground in 70 AD. In 1999, the Camp David Talks to finalize the peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians broke down over who would have sovereignty over Jerusalem, and more specifically, over the Temple Mount.
Even if the government of Israel gives Eastern Jerusalem to the Palestinians, the Jews would never accept it. The general consensus of the Jews is that conferring East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the Palestinians would be stripping Judaism of its birthplace. Giving away East Jerusalem would be presenting the infidels with the “heart of Zionism” (CNN.com).
Sara Kinnani, an Israeli woman, voiced the core of the Jewish fears. “If the Palestinians get sovereignty of the Temple Mount they’ll throw stones down on us” (Morris).
At the end of the 1948-’49 War, Jordan controlled East Jerusalem while Israel controlled West Jerusalem. Jordan’s first action as the ruler of East Jerusalem was to banish all of the city’s Jewish inhabitants. These Jews became refugees, but they were invited to settle in Israel, which they did. Similarly, during the same war, somewhere between 600,000 and 975,000 Palestinians were made refugees when they fled the oncoming wrath of the Arab armies (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East). These refugees settled in parts of Palestine that were not controlled by Israel, or they moved into neighboring Arab states. However, all of the Arab states refused to allow the Palestinian refugees to settle permanently in their lands. Instead, many of the refugees had to settle in refugee camps.
The Arab states still refuse to accept the settlement of any of the Arab refugees within their own countries; the Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, stated: “We cannot accept the settlement of any Palestinian refugees under any circumstances.”
During the Six Day War of 1967 an additional 300,000 Palestinians
became refugees after escaping the violence.
Today, there are nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees, of whom approximately 2 million live in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The most of remaining 2 million live in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (UNRWAPRNE). Al-Awda, an Arab organization that agitates for the return of the Palestinian refugees, has estimated that roughly 2 million other refugees who have not registered themselves.
The longstanding Arab demand that Israel allow for the return of these refugees is encompassed in Section B of the Beirut Declaration. “[Attainment of] a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees [is] to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194” (BBC News Online).
This is yet another well-worded portion of the Beirut Declaration that, if accepted, would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
The United Nations General Assembly Resolution Number 194, agreed upon in the December of 1948, states “that the refugees wishing to return their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date” (Khouri). But Resolution No. 194 was drafted when there were, at the most, 975,000 refugees, not a confirmed number of 3.7 million.
If Israel, a nation of 6 million, were to let all of the refugees return, its population would double overnight (US Government). As well as being a humanitarian disaster, it would so alter the demographic characteristics of the state that Israel would cease to be the Jewish state it is today. Imagine if the population of our own nation suddenly doubled. The return of all of the refugees would be a catastrophe.
In the 1800s, the increased persecution of the Jews in Europe led to the foundation of the Zionist movement. Theodor Herzl, the creator of modern Zionism, became convinced, because of his experiences that the Jews would never be able to assimilate into a non-Jewish culture and the only remedy to this problem would be to create a homeland for the Jews.
The Zionist movement eventually led to the foundation of Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948. Israel truly is a homeland for the Jews. Even the government’s schedule revolves around the religious customs and holidays.
For Israel to allow the return of all 5.7 million refugees would be committing suicide. It would be like America, founded as a democracy for all peoples, suddenly becoming a Communist state. America, as it was meant to be, would simply cease to exist.
BBC’s Middle East analyst, Roger Hardy, says, “Even dovish Israelis see a mass repatriation as a demographic nightmare- Israel would simply cease to exist to be Jewish state it is today.”
If the Arabs are so eager to help the Palestinians with their dilemma, as they say they are, why don’t they take in the refugees, who are of their own race and religion; for that is the only thing they can do. Israel can never allow for the return of all the refugees.
Another disaster that could very easily result from the Israeli acceptance of the Beirut Declaration would be the complete eradication of the nation.
Section A of the Beirut Declaration calls for the “complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon” (BBC News Online).
Prior to the Six Day War of 1967, Syria held the plateau to the east of Galilee, called the Golan Heights. Syria had fortified the crests of the steep slopes of the Golan Heights after its defeat in the 1948-’49 War with Israel. From these fortified positions, Syria controlled the Hula Valley, the Sea of Galilee and the Upper Jordan Valley, a home to many Israelis. During the 1950s scores of Israeli civilians were killed by Syrian artillery and sniper fire from the Heights.
When Syria attacked Israel at the beginning of the Six Day War, Israel pulled off one of history’s most daring attacks on the Syrian positions in the Golan Heights. Under fire support from the Israeli air force, ground forces built access roads up the slopes of the Golan Heights, so to enable their tanks to repel the Syrians from their fortified positions.
At the end of the Six Day War, Israel had won most of Palestine from the Arabs. However, the Arabs learned from their mistakes in the war. When Israel emerged from the Yom Kippur War of 1973, its economy was severely damaged and the IDF had barely been able to endure the brutal fighting.
If Israel had not used the occupied territories as buffer zones during the Yom Kippur War, it would have been defeated. And if Israel accepts the Beirut Declaration and hands the occupied territories over to the Arabs, it will be defeated in the next war.
The occupied territories, as well as containing key geographical features of strategic importance, are important buffer zones. A buffer zone is a neutral area that separates two conflicting areas. In this case, Israel uses the West Bank, the Golan Heights and the occupied territories in southern Lebanon to shield the Jewish heartland from the phantom armies of its enemies.
If Israel gave away the occupied territories, it would be stripped naked of its armor, leaving just exposed flesh. Central Israel would only measure 8 miles wide, from the Mediterranean to the border. That’s only 8 miles between the Arab armies and the heartland of the Jews.
Central Israel is especially vulnerable to an attack from the West Bank. The West Bank’s geography is composed primarily of limestone hills, called the Judeo-Galilean Hills, which run north south the entire length of Israel. This feature makes the West Bank relatively easy to defend and hard to attack.
However, central Israel is composed entirely of the Coastal Plain. The majority of the Israelis live on this plain and most of the country’s industry is located there. A major aqueduct that supplies water to different areas of Israel runs within just 5 miles of the border. If Israel were attacked after it had given up these buffer zones, central Israel would become a 75-mile long killing floor.
Just imagine what would happen to the Jews if Iraq attacked them in this position. It would be a second Holocaust. The possibility of this happening is reason enough for the Israelis not to accept the Beirut Declaration.
The roots are deep and we may never see the peaceful conclusion of this conflict. The Jews and the Arabs have been adversaries for nearly 3,000 years, so why should we believe that they would end their struggle now?
But we should not let these kinds of thoughts stop us from attempting to obtain that peace. In this spirit, I have included my own thoughts on the issues addressed in the Beirut Declaration.
Before peace may even be discussed, it is imperative that a cease-fire be reached between the two sides. Some may ask, what good is this? Trying to achieve a cease-fire before achieving a lasting peace is pointless.
Do you really believe that you could civilly discuss a settlement with someone while at the same time engaging that person in an all-out fistfight? I didn’t think so. That is why the past attempts at peace have never worked. The two sides have never been completely at peace with each other.
The only way that a peace will be achieved between the Israelis and the Palestinians is if there is a radical change in leadership on both sides. On one side, they have a septuagenarian who is also the founder and former leader of terrorist groups, while on the other side there is an aged, trigger-happy veteran who was court marshaled in the 1980s for allowing the massacre of 600 Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Both of them must go and in their place be elected two leaders who will truly pursue peace.
It is necessary that Israel allow for the creation of a Palestinian state. Peace cannot be achieved until that state has been established. However, there must be some sort of symbiotic relationship between the two states, so neither can survive without the other.
Israel should vacate the West Bank and Gaza Strip of all Israeli settlers and allow for the return of as many Palestinian refugees as possible to these settlements. The rest of the refugees should be paid financial compensation for their losses, supplied by Western donors. A UN peacekeeping force should occupy the Golan Heights, as UNIFIL has occupied parts of the Lebanon-Israel border.
The only solution for Jerusalem that even has a chance of working is to make the city an international one, ruled by a “special international regime” under the United Nations (Khouri). Although this will be extremely unpopular with both sides, it is the only workable solution that will give both Muslims and Jews access to the holy sites in the city.
Although we should attempt to achieve peace in the Middle East, the Beirut Declaration is not the way to do it. The ratification of this proposal by the Israelis can only result in more conflict and violence, as history has proven with such treaties as that of Versailles.
Both sides could learn another valuable lesson from history if they would only study the American Civil Rights Movement. Non-violence would further the Palestinians cause much further in the eyes of the international community. Unfortunately, neither side seems believes that anything less than violence and killing will solve their problems. It is a tragic situation and one that has caused individuals on both sides more sorrow than any human being should ever have to endure.
