A New Approach to the Middle East Conflict

(Based on the works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe)

The Middle Eastern Conflict has proved one of the most intractable in modern times. For over 100 years there has been so much disinformation and dishonesty promoted by the Arab world and marketed by most of the world’s media that so many people – including many Jews – have lost sight of the crucial and fundamental argument that must be dealt with before Peace can be actually be achieved. Ever since the Jews started coming back to Eretz Yisrael at the end of the 19th Century, and especially since the founding of the State, at the heart of all the Arab rhetoric lies one basic claim: “You are intruders. This is our land. We had been living here for centuries and then you decided to take it from us.”

Once it has been established that the Jews have a valid right to the Land of Israel, then the violence, hatred, and disregard for life that has characterized the Arab position can be judged for what it is. Unless that right is established, the Arabs will always claim that they have a valid goal i.e. reclaiming a land that they feel is theirs. Once validity is granted to this goal, the debate as to whether or not all means (including violence) are acceptable to attain this goal, becomes a matter of philosophy.

What then, is our claim to the land? – G-d’s promise in the Torah. G-d told Abraham:[1] “I have given this land to your descendants.” For one-and-a-half thousand years the Land of Israel was our home, and ever since then, Jews everywhere have longed to come home to their eternal heritage – to Jerusalem, the site of the Holy Temple;[2] to Hebron, the burial place of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;[3] and to Bethlehem, where Rachel weeps for her dispersed children and awaits their return.[4] Even throughout the two thousand years during which our people wandered from country to country, Israel has remained the national home of every Jew. From the beginning of the exile until this day, no matter how farflung his current host country might be, every Jew has turned to face the Holy Land in his thrice-daily prayers.

So central is this principle to our faith, that Rashi, the foremost of the traditional commentators on the Torah, begins his commentary by stating:

Rabbi Yitzchak said: The Torah should have begun with the verse,[5] “This month shall be for you the first of the months…,” for this introduces the first Commandment given to Israel.

Why then does it begin with the narrative of Creation?…

So that if the nations of the world say to Israel, “You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the seven nations [of Canaan],” Israel will reply to them: “The entire world belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever He pleased. Of His own will He gave it to them, and of His own will He took it from them and gave it to us.”

From this perspective the entire Land of Israel – not only the coastal region, Jerusalem, and the Galilee, but also Judea, Samaria, and indeed every tiny portion of the land – is part of an organic whole, an indivisible and sanctified unity. In this spirit, the Great Assembly of Agudas Yisrael, an assembly of Jewry’s foremost sages in the pre-Holocaust era, declared in 1937:

The Holy Land, whose boundaries were prescribed by the Holy One, blessed be He, in His holy Torah, was granted to the nation of Israel, the eternal people. Any sacrifice of the Holy Land that was granted to us by G-d is of absolutely no validity.

This explanation is, moreover, the only rationale that cannot be refuted by the Arabs or the Americans. They also accept the Bible and believe in the truth of its prophecies. The Koran does not dispute the Jews’ right to the Land of Israel. And can you conceive of an American president telling his people that G-d’s promise to Abraham is not relevant? Indeed, the connection between the land and our people is so well established that everywhere it is referred to as “the Land of Israel.”

For this reason, it is important to emphasize that this connection is rooted in the Bible’s prophecies. It would not be desirable to base our claim to the Land of Israel on the Balfour Declaration or international agreements of the present century, for these agreements could be countermanded by other ones. After all, how favourable is the United Nations to Israel today?

Nor is the fact that our people once lived in the land sufficient in and of itself to establish our claim to it today. If the American Indians would lodge a claim to all of America, would it be granted them?

When the Bible’s prophecies serve as the basis for our claim, then many other arguments are effective in reinforcing the position. But when this foundation is lacking, we have difficulty refuting the gentiles’ claim: “You are robbers, because you took by force the lands of the… nations.”

After thousands of years of exile, our people have returned to our land. Every portion of the land over which Jewish authority is exercised was won in defensive wars in which G-d showed overt miracles. Now when G-d grants His people land in such ways, should it be returned? Is it proper to spurn a Divine gift?

The most immediate step to solving this problem is to settle the entire land. Wherever there is open space in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan, settlements should be established. There is no need to displace Arabs; there is ample empty land.

This should not be done with fanfare. The idea is not to create an image, but to create a reality. When the land is settled by Jews, it will become obvious to all that we consider this as Jewish land, not theoretically, but practically. Indeed, the fact that settlement is the issue which the Arabs protest most vehemently should make it clear that it is Israel’s highest priority. It is the most pragmatic means at Israel’s disposal to change the balance of power in her favor. Once widespread settlement becomes a fact, it will be impossible to turn back the clock. The Arabs outside Israel will appreciate that the borders will not be moved back. And the Arabs inside Israel will understand that their future exists in coexistence with the Jews and not with struggle against them.

Unquestionably, there will be protests at the outset. They must be met with resolution. When this is done, the Arabs and the other nations will ultimately realize the reality: Israel is serious about defending her self-interest; this land will not be given away.

For this purpose, it is important that new settlement be broad in scope. The same clamour of protest will be raised by the Arabs whether a new home is added to an existing settlement, or one new settlement is founded, or the entire land is settled. So why hold back?

Indeed, self-imposed restrictions against settlement actually invite more pressure and protest. For it becomes obvious that these restrictions are being imposed only because in essence there are Israelis who feel that they don’t really belong there. Settling the land without restriction, by contrast, broadcasts a message of confident self-esteem. It shows the entire world that Israel is doing everything possible to maintain her security and will not be halted in that endeavor.

It is hard to believe, but it is happening. The primary US interest in the Arab countries has always been oil. And yet today, when conservation programs, solar energy, and other by-products of advanced technology have reduced the world’s dependence on oil, the Arab bias in American foreign policy has grown instead of being reduced.

It does not make sense. There is no question in anyone’s mind that Israel is America’s only reliable friend in the Middle East. No one has forgotten that only slightly more than two decades ago that Abbas’s predecessor Arafat, Assad, and others were openly declared enemies of American policy. Their speeches are on record. All that is necessary to do is open the archives of any newspaper. Indeed, anti-American slogans are so much a part of their rhetoric that even today they occasionally voice them. The burning of the American flag at populist rallies in these countries is far from ancient history. Nevertheless, in three-way negotiations, they are getting the upper hand.

So what happened? The fundamental difficulty is that Israel has not had the strength to stand up against pressure. What she has won on the battlefield, she has surrendered at the negotiating table.

It is true that America pressured Israel. But America did pressure or would have also pressured the Arabs. When an American president or negotiator sits down with Arabs and Israelis, his intent is the bottom line: that an agreement be signed. He is not so much concerned with the nature of the agreement. He assumes that each party will watch out for its own self-interest. What he is concerned with is that the parties walk out of the room having signed an agreement. And to make sure that objective is reached he will use both a carrot and a stick.

What has happened? Time and time again, the Israelis have buckled under pressure. Even when all the cards were in their hand, they have given in to Arab demands. Take, for example, the Camp David agreements: Carter needed a treaty for his election campaign. Sadat needed a treaty to put himself in the American camp. He had already burnt all his bridges behind him. Who had the strongest position? Begin. And yet he gave in to all the Arab demands.

Of course there was pressure, intense pressure. But if Begin had said “No,” that same pressure would have been exerted on Sadat, and he could not have afforded to say no. Nevertheless, Begin conceded.

This did not happen only once. On the contrary, a pattern was established. When an agreement was necessary, pressure was applied on Israel, and almost inevitably, she conceded.

And so, it became almost a knee-jerk reaction in the State Department: Apply pressure to Israel; it works.

Also, the logical basis for the Israeli position became weakened, for the red lines were always being redrawn. The Americans never really knew what was really not up for negotiation.

The proof of the argument is that on several occasions, Israel has stood firm, and refused to compromise her position – for example (until Peres and later Olmert) on the status of Jerusalem. In these instances, despite the fact that there were Arab demands and American pressure, when the Arabs saw that Israel was firm and would not compromise on these issues, they were removed from the agenda.

After 60 years of concessions which has only invited more pressure, more conflict and more war, it is time for Israel to try a new approach: to stand firm and tell the Arabs – and the world: “NO!” Politely of course, but firmly and proudly. We must tell the world that we will not give up even one centimetre of the land given to the whole Jewish people for all time – it simply isn’t ours to give up! We cannot and will not sacrifice the security of our people for pieces of paper based on non-existent Arab “goodwill;” and we will fully settle the whole of Eretz Yisrael so that all will see that it is indeed the land of Israel (the Jews who live there). This approach, G-d willing, will indeed help settle this conflict, once and for all.

Notes:

1 Genesis 15:18.

2 I Kings, ch. 8.

3 Genesis, ch. 23.

4 Jeremiah 31:14-16

5 Exodus 12:2.

SPECIAL THANKS TO “SICHOS IN ENGLISH”