The Great Divide - Part 1

And the hard and fast questions that now need to be asked to give any hope of possible future Israel-Palestine accord.

The divide between Palestinian and Israeli thought on their history and respective plights is so great that any compromise or solution appears hopelessly out of reach. Indeed, it has been suggested that the reason for repeated rejections of peace plans by Palestinians is in part because there is no Arab word for 'compromise'. The closest translation is 'submission', which Islam dictates should only take place to Allah.

Even if Palestinian moderates did finally agree on a compromise solution, Palestinian radicals would reject it and still cling to a 'river to sea' Jew-free stance. The same could be said of the extreme Israeli side - as evidenced by the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli extremist over the Oslo Accords - though the proportion of radicals in Israel is far less.

As can be seen, in many cases with divisive claims, the truth lies somewhere in the middle: the claim one side that Palestinians were expelled by Israelis, the claim the other side that they fled under the order of Arab leaders - whereas in fact most fled simply due to the dangers and vagaries of war, as is the case with refugees in most wars.

But where doubt still exists, clarity can be gained by asking some hard and fast questions. Apartheid relates to racial divides within a country, so the main people to ask would be Arabs within Israel, who on Gil-Schuster videos claim to a man (and woman) that they are treated totally equally, with no divides or discrimination. Women interviewed claim that they feel they're treated better than they would be in any Arab nations.

Little point in asking Palestinians or their followers their views, because they're from another country/state; even if that state isn't yet fully formed. Indeed, there is a real life example with Britain's reaction to returning ISIS members. Shamima Begum has not only been denied re-entry to the UK, but has been stripped of her British citizenship. Three of the British ISIS executioners, nicknamed 'The Beatles' due to their mop-top hair, have also been stripped of their British citizenship and cannot return - one of them currently serving a long prison term in Turkey. Would the UK have been accused of 'apartheid' due to these very necessary immigration restrictions? No.

There was in fact a strong indicator of Arab opinion to Israel and Palestine a while back when the PA made a bid to rezone part of the West Bank bordering Israel. Known as 'The Triangle', the Arabs in that area were at that time part of Israel and the bid was that they would then come under the Palestinian Authority. A vote was taken and they opted strongly to remain part of Israel rather become part of Palestine - a rather telling stance.

With 'occupation' the hard and fast question to ask would be, 'Would Israeli soldiers and barriers exist in the Palestinian West Bank if there was not an ongoing threat of terrorism?' Given that between 1948 and 1985, there were few barriers and restrictions, with open passage too with Gaza, and the first part of the security fence and wall did not appear until 2004 - due to successive waves of suicide bombings in the preceding years - the firm answer would have to be 'no'. There is a direct correlation between the rise in terrorism and an increase in security and presence of Israeli soldiers in the West Bank. Without this, the PA's own security forces would be able to deal with everyday crime and there would be little or no Israeli presence.

In fact, a key question that's never asked by Israel's detractors is why on earth Israel would go to the trouble of building hundreds of miles of barriers and walls, installing countless checkpoints and deploying thousands of soldiers - at a cost of hundreds of millions - simply to aggravate the Palestinians and make them suffer. Yet that is often the picture painted. To any level-headed observer, it's obviously due to serious security concerns.

In the same way that when we have to queue for ages to board an aircraft, go through scanners and barriers, and sometimes have our luggage rummaged through or be subject to pat-down searches - or similar when we have to enter a concert hall or courtroom - we don't immediately say, 'Oh, they're doing it just to annoy us, make our lives difficult.' Once again, we find Israel the only country singled out for that.

While it might be understandable that the Palestinians would latch onto and champion these demonizing soundbites about Israel, given the troubled history between the two, it is somewhat baffling why those outside - particularly in the West, also troubled by terrorism this past thirty years - would latch onto and repeat them. Especially when they can so easily be debunked and disproven.

As shown, one way to bridge this divide is to have more integration between Israelis and Arab-Palestinians. As we see with the Arabs who are Israeli citizens, there is almost perfect accord. Move to nearby West Bank settlements such as Ariel and Beitar Illit, and we see almost the same. But as we move further away, we see less accord and more friction, with the divide and battle lines almost totally drawn by the time we reach Gaza. Which is why, again, it would create even more divides and hostilities to have a totally separated 'Jew-free' West Bank, which Abbas and the PA appear to be pushing for.

On the wider Arab map, we can see more accord between those closer such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, Bahrain and the UAE - as witnessed by the Abraham Accords - and less so from those further away such as Pakistan, one of the most hostile towards Israel. While not the only factor, distance does seem to foster less understanding. The sort of 'sympathy and understanding epiphany' that Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Eid experienced - when as a young child Israeli soldiers in the 1967 war offered his family food - would not have been possible with distance and barriers between them. The hate indoctrination of children by Palestinian hardliners would continue, with no contact or real-life experiences to countermand it.

More understanding could also be nurtured among university students, who seem to latch onto every possible rebel 'freedom-fighter' cause, without really understanding the history of conflicts or - in the case of Israel-Palestine - realizing that 40-60 years ago most student bodies in the West supported Israel, and with good reason. Then it was a small, embattled nation, many of its people fresh from the holocaust, surrounded by five or six much larger aggressive Arab nations bent on its destruction.

There was a video a while back that captured the extent to which the current student body is misguidedly anti-Israel. A young man waved an ISIS flag for over an hour on the main steps of Berkley University, and was ignored and even received a few thumbs-up. Within ten minutes of waving an Israeli flag there were shouts of outrage and protest.

But does all of this equal 'oppression' of Israeli Jews? While Israel has the far stronger army and Israeli soldiers and checkpoints are still visible on the West Bank, on the surface that becomes hard to buy into. But when we look at the duck's feet frantically paddling beneath the surface, we see a different picture.

The constant demonization of Jews and Zionists in Palestinian schools, online and in the Arab media - terming them evil and aggressive, sons of pigs and dogs and less than human, calling for their destruction and glorifying martyrdom - is hardly different to the attitude to Jews in the early days of Nazi Germany. Where similarly they were depicted as shadowy and untrustworthy, 'lesser beings' and a danger to German society.

But at the outset in Nazi Germany, this took the form of restricting Jews to certain areas or from various businesses and activities - which today we see with BDS, restricting Israeli companies from operating in the West Bank. Or area restrictions, as we see with Hebron in that while the Palestinian population restrictions are focused on, kept to a 75% area, far less attention is paid to the Jewish population restricted to that remaining 25%. Or if Jews should drift into Arab areas such as Jenin or Ramallah, they risk being stoned or knifed. The removal of all Jews from Gaza in 2004 and risking attack, kidnapping or death if they should venture in. And if Abbas and the PA finally get their way, all Jews would be cleared and barred from the West Bank in any final peace deal.

In fact, in Nazi Germany initially there were no widespread calls among the German public for Jews to be killed - it was enough for their activities to be restricted or them kept to specific areas, later to become ghettos and camps. Indeed, at the Wannsee Conference when the 'final solution' was decided, it was kept from the German public that there would be a mass extermination programme of Jews.

So in that sense, with the constant calling for the death of Jews, martyrdom and revering of terrorists who have killed Jews by Palestinian extremists – and the widespread cheering for October 7^th, with even recently Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah hailing it as a ‘great achievement’ - it could be viewed that their stances are far worse than those of the wider German public initially in Nazi Germany. The only component missing is that of mass killing, though with October 7th - or indeed with the death toll of Israeli civilians from 40+ years of terrorist attacks - that too has come to part fruition. If the Hamas militant forces had been stronger and the Israeli forces weaker, that October 7th death toll would have been far higher. Or indeed if Hamas rockets were stronger and there was no Iron Dome the Israeli side. The intent to kill is there, regardless of how successful it has been.

Paradoxically, the same intent to kill is not there the other side, even though the Palestinian death toll often ends up far higher. As said, due to lack of bomb shelters or protection and the habit of militants to immerse themselves deep among the civilian population or in tunnels under sensitive areas such as schools, hospitals, UN Centres and refugee camps. That lack of intent to kill by Israel unless first provoked and attacked can be seen from the fact that, after its peace deals with neighbouring Egypt and Jordan, 56 years ago and 32 years ago respectively, hardly a single hostile bullet has been fired between the two.

If there was one thing Israel has been guilty of it's that their reaction to being attacked is often extreme - too extreme for some. As can be seen from the reaction to the rising death toll now in Gaza. As this started rising, the horrors of the initial October 7th attack were all but forgotten, the sole focus was on the Palestinian plight in Gaza. Though this hardline stance from Israel is perhaps better understood when considering their past history of pogroms, expulsions and mass-killings, culminating in the holocaust. As a result, they've made the firm declaration, 'Never again!' And perhaps now see that this will indeed happen again and again unless Hamas is eradicated, so are left with little choice.

In turn, Hamas were no doubt aware that Israel's reaction to October 7th would be harsh and could have ended the war at any time by releasing the hostages, but have opted to let their own people suffer, meanwhile using that rising death toll to further demonize Israel. While also massaging the figures to both increase the toll and give the false impression that mainly women and children were being killed. A perfect storm of demonization.

So, the difference between the two sides is that one stems from of an initial intent to kill and the other - if indeed Israel is in turn guilty of oppressing the Palestinians - derives from this more reactionary, retaliatory or ultra self-defensive stance. Without the initial intent to kill or acting on it from Palestinian extremists, that resultant reaction would never take place. Israel would be perfectly happy to live alongside a calm and peaceful Palestinian State, the same situation they've now enjoyed for decades with neighbouring Egypt and Jordan.

One unexpected spin-off action of the current Gaza war has been the ICC issuing an arrest warrant for Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu. A number of nations have raised doubts about its validity, but when the leader of Austria, Hitler's birthplace, terms it 'absurd', you have to raise a stronger eyebrow. I suppose its issue would be warranted - if the war stats from Hamas could be deemed accurate; if the IDF hadn't gone to great lengths to move civilians from one area to another and pre-warn with millions of leaflets and text messages, unlike any other nation army; if the IDF in past wars - and this one would no doubt be the same - didn't have a civilian to combatant ratio of 1.2 to 1, a third that of NATO or US forces; if Hamas had released all the hostages and Israel had continued with the war. But that's an awful lot of 'ifs' to answer in order to pursue prosecution.

Then too the issue of double-standards. Where was the arrest warrant for Bashar Al-Assad, after a civil war of thirteen years costing the lives of 620,000 people (though apparently one is now being considered, 12 years after the event). Or the arrest warrants for Tony Blair and George W. Bush for leading a misguided war into Iraq which ended up costing the lives of 600,000 - 800,000. At least Netanyahu is pursuing a real and identified cause and culprits - hostages held and Hamas. As much of a tyrant and butcher Saddam Hussein had been, he had no involvement in 9/11 and there were no WMDs.

But how to bridge that great divide and what does the future hold? While the UNSCOP plan of 1947 decided on partition, a survey at the time raised serious doubts as to whether a Palestinian State on part of that divide was viable. Declared taxes both at the national and provincial level were scant, and there didn't appear to be sufficient funds for necessary social infrastructures such as schools, hospitals, roads, lighting, etc.

The same is partly true today, though for different reasons. While income and taxes have increased, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is still heavily reliant on outside aid, as are the Palestinian people through UNRWA and other aid organizations (though with the advent now of GHF, perhaps UNRWA’s days are numbered). Also, strands of terrorism and Jew-hatred run so deeply through Palestinian society that if there was an election tomorrow, very likely Hamas - or whatever remnants of it were left after the current Gaza war - would be voted in.

This is possibly why for the last fifteen years there have been no new elections in the Palestinian territories. The PA remains the incumbent authority with Mahmoud Abbas at its head. The electoral process has clearly not so far worked for the Palestinian people.

But if we look at probably the best example of a post-war situation aiming for peace - that of Nazi Germany after WW2 - we can see why. But how might the lessons learned in post WW2 Germany be applied in a Palestinian situation? And what hope of success might they have?

******

(Part 2 will look at this in more detail, along with some actions that surprisingly – whether by design or default – have already started to move in that direction).

******

John Matthews - Notes from the Edge. If you like my articles and wish to receive them regularly - 2-3 a week on Israel, Middle East and World Affairs, plus now a comedy spoof and two thrillers in serial form - then I look forward to getting your subscription.

*** SPECIAL OFFER***

I will be continue offering a FREE book to all new subscribers: Past Imperfect, an intense groundbreaking crime thriller set between England, France and the USA, exploring the link between two young boys thirty years apart. This will be in Word for Windows form, which you can either read on your computer or transfer to your Kindle. For all those who have already subscribed to me, I make the same offer of this free book if you add Notes from the Edge to your ‘Recommend’ list.

But for those choosing a paid option to compensate me for my regular weekly articles, I will be offering THREE extra FREE books: ‘Letters from a Murderer’, a classic murder mystery exploring whether Jack the Ripper has found fresh killing ground in 1890s New York; ‘The Crescent Wars’, focusing on the Lebanese Civil War and a British journalist investigating a large scale banking plot behind the war; and ‘The Vienna Writers Circle’, following two Jewish cousins, part of Sigmund Freud’s circle of writers and intellectuals, as they strive in 1938 Vienna to save themselves and their families from Nazi death camps.

******

John Matthews is an experienced writer and journalist. The author of 24 books, including two centred around WW2 and the holocaust in the name of J.C. Maetis (his father’s original Jewish name) his first experience of writing about the Middle East came as a war correspondent covering the last years of the Lebanese Civil War, which led to his second book, ‘The Crescents of the Moon’. He has since written on the subject for a number of journals, including The Times, Sunday Times, Newsweek, The Independent and The Spectator. He was also in the run-up to the millennium editor of European Brief, the main magazine for the European Parliament, editing the likes of Tony Blair, Al Gore and Henry Kissinger on subjects ranging from the fall of the Berlin Wall and European unity, climate change and nuclear fusion to, once again, the Middle East. He lives in London with his wife and family.

******