40th Anniversary

Yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of Day 1 of the Six Day War. We went to a commemoration held at American University's Kay Spiritual Center, but not sponsored by the university. I am embarrassed to say that I don't know the names of all of the panelists, but of the four, two were Aaron David Miller and Yuval Rabin, Yitzhak's son. The other two were Arabs who live in the Washington area. All are involved in peace, bridge building activities. None are considered 'radical'.

I was surprised at the size of the audience. There must have been 200 people there. We only knew or recognized a handful. Many were activists with various peace organizations. There seemed to be many more Jews than Arabs (not surprisingly for any number of reasons).

The question is where to go from here. Or, putting it maybe a bit better, is there any where to from here. There was clearly a lot of sorrow and frustration expressed by the panelists, but each still had a smidgeon of optimism. None could understand where that remain optimism comes from. All agreed that on so many issues the sides were so very far apart.

The support was still for the two state solution. Which was deemed the right thing to support, but only because there was nothing else to support.

I return to my own thoughts. I do not think that the two state solution is possible. I think it is a chimera. You cannot name a state today that is divided in this manner; Pakistan failed and split, for example. And particulary you cannot think of a successful such state which would be separated by an 'enemy', and an enemy with much more power.

So, I repeat what I have said before.

Look at Jordan. A successful country to be sure, but a parliamentary monarchy under a Hashemite (ethnic Saudi) king, when the population itself is virtually all Palestinian or Bedouin (the majority being Palestinian). At some point, the kingdom will fail, and a form of democracy will take root, with Palestinian interests controlling the country. At that time, I believe that pressure would build for a merger of the West Bank into Jordan (where it was before 1967). I think that there are many reasons for this, and I think a viable country would remain.

As to Gaza, immediate viability is impossible, but long term viability, as a separate state unto itself, is quite possible. Look not only at what Singapore has done. Look closer to home (Gaza being home for this exercise). The emirate have done quite well for themselves.

Gaza has the port, it has the work force, and it has the beaches. Imagine goods coming from North African into Gaza, being transported across Israel into an augmented Jordan. The pieces are there for an economically interdependent region.

What about Hamas? As one of the Arab speakers said last evening, democracy is a great thing, but to implement it when Hamas is powerful would be a disaster. As we can see from the current Palestinian experience.

Perhaps this true, but perhaps Hamas would have bigger fish to fry if it had a country to develop than focusing on its enemy, Israel.

If the Arab focus could be on internal development. If the occupation could end. If the Israelis could stay together without a common enemy. If the Palestinians could do the same........

Both sides seem to need each other as focal points for internal feels of solidarity and community. That has to change. And a large number of West Bank settlers will have to be relocated, most likely. But the world is filled with people who move, and if it is done in the context of a mutually secured agreement for security, who knows what the limits might be.

In the meantime, I go back to what Tom Segev said when we heard him last month. He said that the citizens of the region seem to have give up today on large goals with prospects of immediacy, and instead being content to simply manage and control the conflict, so it does not break out too often.

My guess is that Segev is correct, but I think this time of controlled tension can be used to develop the possibility of two Palestinian states, not one, although this is clearly contrary to majoritarian thinking today.