Pipes a man of war, not peace

R.S. RATNER SPECIAL TO THE JEWISH BULLETIN

As one who has long favored a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, and as an educator in the area of social conflict, I attended the talk given by Dr. Daniel Pipes at the University of British Columbia entitled, War in the Holy Land: Where Do We Go From Here? After hearing him speak, I could see why he angers those who search for a fair solution to the Middle East conflict.

Pipes has little regard for any of the peace attempts since Oslo, arguing that they all inevitably fail for two basic reasons. First, the Palestinians, he asserts, remain committed to destroying Israel, not seriously negotiating with it; and second, the various negotiations that have been conducted are nothing but "elitist" conclaves since they do not speak for the masses of people, particularly in Palestine and the Arab countries.

There are several problems with this analysis. If Israel requires a "protracted' display of commitment from the Palestinians to prove they are sincere about an agreement that ensures Israel's sovereignty, shouldn't the Palestinians expect the same commitment from the Israelis? Can the Palestinians feel at all confident when a substantial number of Israelis, including some of their leaders, reject the idea of a Palestinian state and prefer, instead, to annex all or most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip? How does this attitude differ from the aims of extremist Palestinian groups?

Indeed, Pipes further argues that the possibility of a sovereign Palestine state is only one of many outcomes that can arise out of developing circumstances, so Israel need not extend recognition at the outset of any talks, nor, perhaps, at any time in the future. Israel, he exclaimed, has proven itself as an established and successful state, whereas Palestine has no historical basis for asserting statehood – an absurd contention that overlooks even the United Nations' creation of two separate political entities in 1948.

On his second major point, it is, frankly, nonsense to argue that Israel should not negotiate (or pursue a diplomatic solution) until the Palestinian people, en masse, "have a change of heart" and recognize Israel's right to exist. Even the relations between Israel and some of its Arab neighbors, particularly Egypt and Jordan, belie this disingenuous notion, since leaders in those countries have been able to forge peace treaties with Israel, leading to better understanding and tolerance between once sworn foes. Of course, these relationships are at times tenuous and fragile, but prudent leadership and the growth of institutional exchanges do make for new perceptions and sensitivities. If peace-making is to be left to the moods of resentful masses who are, in turn, manipulated by militant fanatics (on both sides), how will peace ever be achieved?

It will not, and, in the meantime, children and adults die horrible deaths, young Palestinians choose, in desperation, to sacrifice their lives as suicide bombers, some Israeli soldiers refuse to follow orders that they regard as inhumane, yet are scorned by some of their countrymen as traitors, while others flee Israel for sanctuary in the West, and the Middle East careers along a bloody path of endless conflict. And as this scenario continues to unfold, Dr. Pipes counsels against negotiations until the Palestinians are sufficiently demoralized so that unfettered Zionist aspirations can be more easily fulfilled. Man of Peace? I don't think so.

R.S. Ratner is a professor emeritus in sociology at the University of British Columbia.

^TOP