Selective Memory Is a Problem when dealing with the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict

A well repeated Arab saying dealing with conflicts states: al bad'azlam, the initiator [of a conflict] is the wrong one. So if you are trying to figure out who is wrong in the current round of violence around Gaza all you have to do is figure out who started it. But the moment you begin this search you will find yourself in a more complicated bind namely figuring out what is your starting point, time wise.

One thing is evident in this region, people have very erratic memories. Israeli protagonists these days talk repeatedly in a very short term frame of mind when it comes to Gaza. However when it comes to settlement activities in the West Bank, they talk about a divine promise to Jews thousands of years ago.

Chronology might be the most important keys to understanding the Middle East. Every act can be seen as a reaction to something that happened before it. Who is right often depends on where you start. Take for example the current Israeli bombardment on Gaza. Israelis insist that the bombing of Gaza is a reaction to the Qassam attacks coming out of Gaza to Israeli towns.

Hamas says that their rockets are a direct result to the siege on Gaza placed following the Islamic movement won elections early in 2006. Israel says it withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Palestinians say that by controlling land borders, sea and air, the Israelis have not ended their occupation of Gaza, Furthermore they say that all Palestinian territories are occupied and Israel must end the 1967 occupation and remove Jewish settlements built on the West Bank. Israel says that Jews have a God given right to settle anywhere in what they consider is their Biblical land inherited by God to Abraham exclusively for Jewish use.

Looking back a few decades is revealing from another point of view. Israelis regularly declare that their occupation of Arab territories was legitimate because the areas where conquered in self defense and as a direct result of an Arab initiated attack on them back in June 1967. But when you press Israelis that the 1967 war which the Israelis themselves call the six day war started and ended in the month of June, they point back one month earlier. Israelis and their defenders repeatedly say that the Israeli preemptive war was taken because of Egypt's blockade on their red sea port of Eilat. According to Israel the demand of President Nasser for the withdrawal of UN troops in the Sinai and the sea blockade were nothing short of a declaration of war thus justifying the Israeli occupation of Arab territory.

The fact that a siege is considered a declaration of war is completely forgotten when the case being discussed is the Gaza strip. It is as if the Israelis think that the rest of the world has a short memory or that the Palestinians of Gaza are somehow children of a lesser God and that they are not allowed to consider the Israeli siege on them a declaration of war justifying their military response.

It is clear that in order to distinguish right from wrong both sides need to agree on a starting point. Many today believe that the natural starting point for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the late 40s which witnessed the UN partition plan and which was initially the legal basis for the creation of Israel. If the partition of mandatory Palestine is an accepted starting point, then a logical conclusion to the conflict would require that an end to both direct and indirect occupation of the Palestinian half of the partition plan is in order. Irrespective of time and chronology, trading land for peace continues to be the most logical and appropriate way to address the conflict which has bridged the 20th and 21st centuries.

Daoud Kuttab is an award winning Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University. His email is [e-mail]

Comments

[chaos4700]

09:23 AM on 01/03/2009

Excellent article. Only when all of the facts are acknowledge can a fair analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian situation take place.

[BigPictures]

09:58 PM on 01/05/2009

Many world's problem requires a more effective world government, the United Nations. According to the UN resolution, if the Arabs renouce violence, Israel is obligated to return the Arabs land. Hamas should voice their complaints about Israel peacefully. For a weaker power, the path to its people's dignity is through non-violence principle of Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Israel should consult the UN regardiing how to deal with the Hamas' rocket attacks. The Abrabs Peace Initiative based on the UN resolution is a good principle for permanent Middle East peace. If Obama really wants to break away from Bush's policy and become a true leader of the world, he should find ways to strengthen the UN. One problem with the UN is it is not democratic, so a better UN would be more democratic. Many work needs to be done in international law. Until powerful nations decide to adhere internation laws, there will be no peace on earth. For example, the veto power of the UN security councile present a conflict of interests, which should be abondonded in order to be more democratic.

[Daoud Kuttab]

06:30 AM on 01/03/2009

The Arab peace plan which continues to be publicly endorsed by Arab and Muslim countries is the best proof that Arabs want a peaceful solution including an agreed upon (meaning Israeli has to agree) solution to the Palestinian refugee problem

[Libarchist]

04:32 PM on 01/03/2009

In this day and age; it would seem that the Arab Peace Plan, is not possible.

Why not create a new plan, written by both the Israelis, and the Arab nations?

For example, if I was to draft one for the Israelis, I would say,, that the West Bank and Gaza would have all its citizens evicted, over a five year period.

Then, that area would be called Israel, then over a one hundred year period, if no violence was done by the Arab nations, then Israel, would create a city called Palestine... for another fifty years, and if no violence took place between everyone, then there could be a two state agreement that would be signed at that time in the future.

[chaos4700]

01:52 AM on 01/04/2009

Evict all of the Palestinians from what remains of their homeland? You do know that, besides being an atrocity, that would completely defy UN Resolution 181, which recognizes both Israeli and Palestinian statehood simultaneously? I hope you're being sarcastic because your plan isn't a peace plan, it's an unconditional surrender to Israel.

[Libarchist]

05:11 PM on 01/02/2009

Good article.

I don't t think there ever was a starting point; but one could be created.

Most of the politics in the Middle East is centered around the hot button issue of religion; which in itself will create Controversy,then violence.

Why not create a universal law in the Middle East, that all sides would agree with?

As a half Jew pacifist; I have researched it, and frankly the Arabs should work with the Israelis to write such a agreement, as a new starting point. The UN, and most of the Western world wants the conflict to continue, but both the Arabs and Israelis have a personal reason to want it to end.

[chaos4700]

01:53 AM on 01/04/2009

We already have such laws. They're called UN resolutions, and it's about time Israel starts complying with them.

[MichaelR]

04:54 PM on 01/02/2009

It seems like that Mr. Kuttab suffers from the same selective memory that he has diagnosed with Israelis. He selectivley forgets to say that it is Hamas' stated goal to wipe Israel out. The seige that Mr. Kuttab complains of is the result of both of Hamas' stated long term goal and its current desire to arm itself with missles to strike at Israel, which it has done from the day Israel withdrew from Gaza. Instead of blaming Israel's "seige" on its failure to stop attacking Israel, maybe the Palestinians should blame Hamas from waging a low intensity war (killing dozens and terrorizing thousands) and holding its own citizens hostage to the fact that sooner or later any government will respond with overwhelming force to secure the safety of its civilians. Why should Israel be an exception?

Second, when looking further back in history one has to ask why the Palestinian LIBERATION Organization was founded in 1964, three years prior to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Of course, it was to liberate Tel Aviv and Haifa from "occupation."

Third, even though the PLO (or the PA) now states it "only" wants to liberate the WB and Gaza, it refuses to withdraw its demand that Palestinian "refugees" be allowed to return to Israel. Hence the two state solution that they endorse is a mirage, since allowing millions of decendants of refugees to enter Israel, will certainly lead to the ultimate destruction of Israel as a Jewish state.

[Libarchist]

06:51 PM on 01/02/2009

I don't think he was saying that....he was looking for a positive way to understand the evil, that both sides have been suffering with throughout history.

If both sides got their greatest minds together; including religious minds, and created a universal agreement of peace, perhaps -- using Americas separation of church and state principle as a starting point in the future...that may be a practical way to stop the wars.

[Akin]

09:42 AM on 01/03/2009

I think, as an observer somewhat removed from this discussion, but concerned nevertheless, I would like to make a few points.

Firstly, Prof. Kuttab, your article is actually quite enlightening, even to people who support different sides of this conflict. I think it is wholesome to see the conflict from all perspectives before pronouncing right & wrong. You are honest enough to state your palestinian roots, and therefore would naturally lean on their side. But your solution is certainly quite reasonable and civilised, and merits further consideration on both sides.

I also have to say that Michael's riposte does fill in a few gaps, and makes me realise that it is near-impossible for belligerent protagonists to tell the whole story - sometimes simply because of where we are standing (not necessarily because we intend to decieve with intent). One man's liberation is another man's terrorism; Self-defense equals Setback (Naqba); etc, etc...

Please, let there be a way for the sake of the hurting, for a reasonably acceptable SOLUTION to emerge... though I have some clues, I am just wise enough to not claim to know what it precisely is.

[stardust835]

03:04 PM on 01/02/2009

Thank you for a clear, informative editorial.

[Romulus]

02:53 PM on 01/02/2009

Okay. Let's go back to the partition. In 1948, the Arabs refused to accept a two-state solution and non Palestinian Arab armies invaded Palestine. Are you saying that today all Arab nations are willing to accept the partition as defined in 1947?

[chaos4700]

09:09 AM on 01/03/2009

So you're blaming Palestinians for the acts of their surrounding countries? Talk about collective punishment to the extreme.

[gakabani]

08:54 AM on 01/04/2009

You forget that the partition of Palestine in 48 did not involve the exclusion or expulsion of its indigenous population. The thousands of Palestinians evicted and thrown into the dessert was not part of the resolution. A state does not convey a title of property! You need to separate both. The right of return is implicit in the resolution.