Confederation or Confusion

Abbas resigned when Arafat refused to relinquish control to him over the PA security forces needed to dismantle Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Hamas sent out suicide bombers, and, would you believe, Israel responded; so, guess what, Hamas has called off its agreed truce with the PA. The Road Map which had practical difficulties from the beginning has run into a dead end.

Recently, I wrote a column alluding to the number of proposals put forth to accomplish peace in the Middle East. Most really end up in calling for a bartered truce as was the case with the Egypt/Israeli “peace.” So, I went ahead and proposed one which I’ve considered for a number of years, only to be shot down each time I proposed it. It was the simple concept of a Confederation among the State of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Kingdom of Jordan. It would be a structured co-existence between those nations to their mutual benefit, to their economy, their security and, most importantly, their quality of life.

At the convention, some members asked me what this thing called Confederation is all about, and how it could effectively be used in the pursuit of a peace; or, on the other hand, why do you bother to write about such nonsense?

Is Confederation a Utopian concept or a fantasy? Considering who the parties are—both direct and indirect—it is very likely that if the concept of Confederation were now employed in some form, it might be user friendly over a generation or so. If honestly pursued now, Confederation—in the short run—lends itself to reconciling matters of mutual concern such as security, water rights and distribution and—in the long run—to resolving those concerns using a studied approach which could ultimately result in a reduction or the elimination of many of the educational affronts to ethnic and racial differences.

As it now stands, the concept of Two independent states does not seem to lend itself to such a true peaceful resolution. This is especially so, since both states would not be equal in their sovereignty. As now forecasted, Israel would be cut in two to allow a Gaza highway to the West Bank and would further have its boundaries made almost meaningless so as to allow almost full access to its territory for Palestinian workers and vendors.

This sort of unfettered universality of access between independent states would not fly internationally if imposed among the world’s nations. So, if such action is not acceptable among the other nations of the world, why should it be reserved solely for just the Jews?

So, to resolve that quandary, some have said that it would easily go away if there was some form of Palestinian geographic contiguity. If you look at the map, that result should be very easy to attain if you eliminate Israel entirely in a final solution to obtaining peace in the Middle East.

To add to the road blocks to the Road Map, there is now added a proposal for the Palestinian right of return. But what does it mean? Does it mean a simple right of Palestinians to come back to live there, or does it mean the right to come back and be given everything you and/or your family had when the other Arab nations made you a refugee for political purposes--a purpose developed to avoid the imposition of democracy and, as an added benefit, Jews as forces in the Middle East. Got to say, that it has some validity if universally applied throughout the world community. Then, the Jews and their families could return to Germany, France, Belgium, Russia, et al, and receive back everything they had when they left or were deported to death camps. The Road Map Quartet should jump at the opportunity of making that right universally acceptable—hell, they would have an excuse to steal back their colonies.

Thus, as visualized, the creation of two states would merely be a way of bringing about an uneasy truce and not a true peace without fully exploring and fully spelling out the terms and conditions of the relationship so as to eliminate an illusion of solution. As a matter of fact, the concept of peace for land, which is one hell of a slogan, can only really work out, to international satisfaction, if the land to be given is all of Israel.

What lesson can we learn from all of this? In the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, when it comes to our understanding and non-workings of foreign affairs, its negotiations and solutions, it is manifest that the United States must realize and find itself in lockstep with Israel in recognizing and acquiescing in the certainty that, when all is said and done, the victor must become the loser. The United States has had that imposed upon it from its Allies, friends, the United Nations, all shoved down its throat in America’s war against terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere.

Now that I have completely confused the issue, I can now sit back and await the day when I can say “I told you so”—would you believe that I revel in fantasy rather than in reality?