Preoccupied with occupation

Back in 2002, Efraim Karsh wrote an article “What Occupation?,” which gave a history of how Israel came to control Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza as well as the overall beneficial effects it had on the Palestinians. I recommend the whole article, but his conclusion is excellent.

It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians’ rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued-and intensified-after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of “inhuman occupation” with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means.

Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham, a few years later wrote “Why Israel is free to set its own borders.” Like Karsh’s article it is well worth reading in its entirety, Krauss and Pham summarize their findings:

It is beyond the scope of this essay to consider why much of the world (including, alas, the United States) has seen fit to assign to Israel the unhappy epithet of “occupier.” But one of the most striking findings for those who do research in this area is that the term “occupied territories” seems to apply only to Israel’s administration of the West Bank (and, previously, Gaza). The term is rarely if ever used in discussing other bitter, long-standing territorial disputes. Indian Kashmir, for instance, is merely a “disputed region” in the eyes of the U.S. Department of State. Nor is it easy to find international actors ready to point an accusing finger at “occupation forces” in Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus or, for that matter, in Quebec, Catalonia, and Ulster. When it comes to the concept of “occupied territory,” Israel would appear–unjustly–to have a monopoly.

None of this is to suggest that Israel’s legal and historical claims to sovereignty in the West Bank require it to remain there. But neither is it required to consult either the Palestinian Arabs or the self-appointed representatives of the “international community” if it decides to withdraw from some territory and determine its own borders. As Ariel Sharon and now Ehud Olmert have argued, it may well be in Israel’s national interest to disentangle itself, as much as prudence requires, from the Palestinians and the territory in which they predominate. As many Israelis see it, to do any less might court the risk of Israel’s itself becoming an “occupied territory”–and at the hands of a far less benign power.

As Krauss and Pham conclude, the term “occupation” has the effect of forcing Israel to satisfy ever last demand of the Palestinians. As long as Israel is an occupier it is in the wrong and effectively responsible for the violence in the Middle East.

Let’s go back to Saeb Erakat’s interview with Al Jazeera last week. Erakat concludes with:

They will never have this. Like President Abu Mazen said in front of President Bush and PM Olmert: I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. East Jerusalem is an occupied area, just like Khan Yunis, Jericho, and Nablus were. Its status in international law will never be anything else. Therefore, any arrangements regarding East Jerusalem are categorically unacceptable.

Erakat uses “occupation” and “international law” as justifications for refusing any compromise on Jerusalem. I don’t think this is an accident. Erakat (and the Palestinian leadership) know that “occupation” gives them the ultimate veto on the peace process. Either Israel abides by Palestinian demands or it remains an occupier.

“Occupation” also serves a purpose for the international community and the West in particular. It makes the conflict in the Middle East both understandable and soluble. If Palestinian nationalism is fundamentally a function of antisemitism, it is neither. If terrorism is perpetrated without an understandable motive, it can’t be stopped. But if it is based on a pretext, then terrorism can be explained and perhaps understood. (“While I deplore the tactics, I can understand the feelings of dispossession …”) And it can also be defused.

So “occupation” is quite convenient from a diplomatic standpoint. It identifies the cause of the hostility that leads to terror and since the one government in the area that is guilty of “occupation” is susceptible to political pressure, the problem of terror has an achievable solution. Never mind that, as Karsh points out, since sometime in the mid 90’s 99% of the Palestinians no longer lived under Israeli control – despite some restrictions to their freedom, “occupation” is portrayed as more of an obstacle to peace in the Middle East than terrorism.

So the Palestinians can remain intransigent and embrace terror, but the pressure will be put on Israel to make peace. The preoccupation with “occupation” may be convenient, but it is ultimately counterproductive and destructive.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.