By Victor Davis Hanson
The U.N. need only take five simple steps.
Perhaps we ought to broaden our multinational and multicultural horizons by transcending the old comprehensive settlements, roadmaps, and Quartet when dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, a dispute which originated with the creation of Israel.
Perhaps we ought to broaden our multinational and multicultural horizons by transcending the old comprehensive settlements, roadmaps, and Quartet when dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, a dispute which originated with the creation of Israel.
Why not simply hold an
international conference on all of these issues — albeit in a far more global
context, outside the Middle East?
The ensuing general
accords and principles could be applied to Israel and the West Bank, where the
number of people involved, the casualties incurred, and the number of refugees
affected are far smaller and far more manageable.
Perhaps there could be
five U.N. sessions: disputed capitals; the right of return for refugees; land
under occupation; the creation of artificial post-World War II states; and the
use of inordinate force against suspected Islamic terrorists.
In the first session, we
should try to solve the status of Nicosia, which is currently divided into
Greek and Turkish sectors by a U.N. Greek Line. Perhaps European Union
investigators could adjudicate Turkish claims that the division originated from
unwarranted threats to the Turkish Muslim population on Cyprus. Some sort of
big power or U.N. roadmap then might be imposed on the two parties, in hopes
that the Nicosia solution would work for Jerusalem as well.
In the second discussion,
diplomats might find common ground about displaced populations, many from the
post-war, late 1940s. Perhaps it would be best to start with the millions of
Germans who were expelled from East Prussia in 1945, or Indians who were
uprooted from ancestral homes in what is now Pakistan, or over half-a-million
Jews that were ethnically cleansed from Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria
following the 1967 war. Where are these refugees now? Were they ever adequately
compensated for lost property and damages? Can they be given promises of the right
to return to their ancestral homes under protection of their host countries?
The ensuring solutions might shed light on the Palestinian aspirations to
return to land lost sixty years ago to Israel.
A third panel would take
up the delicate issue of returning territory lost by defeat in war. Ten percent
of historic Germany is now part of Poland. The Russians still occupy many of
the Kurile Islands, and Greek Cyprus lost sizable territory in 1974 after the
invasion by Turkey. The Western Sahara is still annexed by Morocco, while over
15 percent of disputed Azerbaijan has been controlled by Armenia since 1994.
Additionally, all of independent Tibet has been under Chinese occupation since
1950-1. Surely if some general framework concerning these occupations could
first be worked out comprehensively, the results might then be applied to the
much smaller West Bank and Golan Heights.
In a fourth panel, the
international conference should take up the thorny issue of recently
artificially created states. Given the tension over Kashmir, was Pakistan a
mistake — particularly the notion of a homeland for Indian Muslims? North Korea
was only created after the stalemate of 1950-3; so should we debate whether
this rogue nation still needs to exist, given its violent history and threats
to world peace?
Fifth, and finally, is
there a global propensity to use inordinate force against Muslim terrorists
that results in indiscriminate collateral damage? The Russians during the
second Chechnyan War of 1999-2000 reportedly sent tactical missiles into the
very core of Grozny, and may have killed tens of thousands of civilians in
their hunt for Chechnyan terrorists — explaining why the United Nations later
called that city the most destroyed city on earth. Syria has never admitted to
the complete destruction of Hama, once home to Muslim Brotherhood terrorists.
The city suffered the fate of Carthage and was completely obliterated in 1982
by the al-Assad government, with over 30,000 missing or killed. Did the Indian
government look the other way in 2002 when hundreds of Muslim civilians in
Gujarat were killed in reprisal for Islamic violence against Hindus? The
lessons learned in this final session might reassure a world still furious over
the 52 Palestinians lost in Jenin.
In other words, after a half-century of failed
attempts to solve the Middle East crisis in isolation, isn’t it time we look
for guidance in a far more global fashion, and in contexts where more lives
have been lost, more territory annexed, and more people made refugees in places
as diverse as China, Russia, and the broader Middle East?
The solutions that these
countries have worked out to deal with similar problems apparently have proven
successful — at least if the inattention of the world, the apparent inaction of
the United Nations, and the relative silence of European governments are any
indication.
So let the international
community begin its humanitarian work!
Greek Cypriots can advise
Israel about concessions necessary to Muslims involving a divided Jerusalem. Russians
and Syrians can advise the IDF on how to deal properly and humanely with
Islamic terrorists. Poland, Russia, China, and Armenia might offer the proper
blueprint for giving back land to the defeated that they once gained by force.
A North Korea or Pakistan can offer Israel humanitarian lessons that might
blunt criticisms that such a recently created country has no right to exist.
Iraq and Egypt would lend insight about proper reparation and the rights of
return, given its own successful solutions to the problems of their own fleeing
Jewish communities.
But why limit the agenda
to such a small array of issues? The world has much to teach Israel about
humility and concessions, on issues ranging from how other countries in the
past have dealt with missiles sent into their homeland, to cross-border
incursions by bellicose neighbors.
No doubt, Middle East
humanitarians such as Jimmy Carter, Arun Gandhi, and Tariq Ramadan could
preside, drawing on and offering their collective past wisdom in solving such
global problems to those of a lesser magnitude along the West Bank. –
Video of the week: ”The Story
About Christians In Israel That Was Never Told” http://tinyurl.com/pq9ogmn
You're dreaming in technicolor!
ReplyDelete