Thoughts on return from Middle East trip – June, 1988

•  Despite repeated attempts to so assert, criticism of an Israeli Government policy is not ipso facto anti-Semitism. The Israeli body politic itself is currently very much divided on the issue of the Occupied Territories , just as was the case vis-à-vis the invasion of Lebanon . The tendency of those on the Israeli right to label as ‘anti-Semite' any gentile who has the temerity to criticize is reprehensible, as is the tactic of referring to one of their own who disagrees as a “self-hating Jew.”

•  The State of Israel continues to struggle for its existence, but the struggle takes place as much within as without. Perhaps it is to some degree a struggle for self-determination. The traditional wrangling between right and left, mainstream Zionist and Revisionist and to some degree the Ashkenazi and the Sephardim are confused, perhaps exacerbated and in some cases superseded by the dichotomy between the secular and the religious Jew. This debate, such as it is, directly affects Israel 's relationship with the U.S. and, immediately, the Palestinians.

•  The Intifada, as the uprising in the West Bank and Gaza is known, has changed the political context in the Middle East . Whether one believes it spontaneous and indigenous in origin, directed by and creature of the PLO, or run by the “Unified National Leadership,” it is the outgrowth of the frustration, grief, anger and despair of a subjugated people whose legitimate aspirations have been ignored for years.

•  Much of the impetus for the Intifada derives from the policy of establishing Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories . Tens of thousands of Israelis have responded to the lure of cheap land made available as enticement. A significant portion of these settlers are religious zealots, fundamentalists whose vision of “Eretz Israel” includes the dream of reclaiming the Biblical lands of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as part of God's Promised Land for His Chosen People. These settlers are well armed and antagonistic. They are seen as provocateurs and vigilantes by many Israelis who find them an embarrassment and an impediment to working out a “Land for Peace” formula. To the Palestinian, whether the settler is there for religious or financial reasons he is evidence of the Jews' desire to drive out all Arabs and take their land.

•  The Intifada has put a human face on the Palestinian at the same time as it has laid bare the repressive face of the Israeli military response. Public relations efforts will not long quiet the stirring of world opinion. Perhaps as painful is the growing domestic acknowledgement of the need for reassessment of the individual Israeli's vision of himself and his country.

•  “Palestinian” and “terrorist” are not synonyms. Thoughtful, courageous, articulate Palestinians from the Islamic and Christian communities are readily available. Virtually all agree on demands for the right of Palestinian self-determination, the establishment of some sort of national entity (state, confederation, etc.) in the Occupied Territories and an internationally supervised conference in which to negotiate same. Virtually all Palestinians view the PLO as their legitimate representative body.

•  Yasir Arafat is regarded throughout most of the Arab World, and certainly within the Palestinian community, as the only leader capable of holding together all the disparate elements and organizations within the PLO. Further – and this will come as a surprise to many Americans – he is seen as a moderate who is the only one capable of making and honoring an agreement acceptable to all parties.

•  Secretary Schultz, thanks to the Cold War thaw, has finally recognized the need for a truly international peace conference, including the Soviets. But in the same breath the U.S. makes a mockery of its self-described position as “honest broker” by refusing to speak to the PLO and denying the possibility of a Palestinian State .

•  Israelis fear Arabs will wipe them out or drive them into the sea. Arabs fear Israelis will destroy them or drive them off their land. Much is made of “242 and 338” (U.N. resolutions intending to demarcate the two lands, remove Israeli troops from the Occupied Territories and begin the process necessary for a ‘two-state' solution), “recognition,” “implied recognition” and “terrorism” on both sides. Israelis know that the PLO represents the Palestinians. Arabs know that the State of Israel is here to stay. In the absence of a courageous leader from either side willing to make an unambiguous, forthright declaration for peace and coexistence, an international peace conference is an absolute necessity.

•  Israeli demands for recognition, peace and respect for national integrity within secure borders are reasonable and should be met. No less should be granted the Palestinians.