The Jerusalem Alternative: Moral Clarity For Ending The Arab-israeli Conflict

I was present at this symposium and attended many of its sessions. For me the major element was in hearing so many different voices who are essentially sympathetic to Israel, this at a time when the Jewish state is under propaganda attack from the extreme left and the extreme right everywhere. But the major idea of the Summit, it seems to me, is especially important. The idea that moral clarity about the conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East can come through understanding the historical reality seems to me a sound one. For if one has an idea of objective truth, and fairness- and if one believes in Justice then one should be able to weigh conflicting claims, and look to an answer for the conflict. The fact is that most of the claims of the Jewish side have been ignored and distorted by the other side since the beginning of the conflict. And there has emerged a strange process by where the Jews bend over backwards to understand and give to the ' other side' while the other side denies any Jewish claim and history to the Holy Land. This running away from Truth on the part of the Arab side, this refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the other is what has led to disastrous perpertuation of the conflict. Many outstanding people spoke at this conference, from former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Richard Perle, Alan Keyes, John Loftus. I would simply like to commend one speaker especially the historian Joel Fishman who gave a telling analysis of the connection between the Soviet - and Vietnamese conception of ' total war' and the strategy adopted by Yassar Arafat for destroying Israel. The key point here is that the aggressor will sacrifice the good and well- being of its own people in order to destroy the enemy. This explains Arafat's action when in September 2000 he opened up the latest terror war phase against Israel. It did not matter how much his own society suffered as long as he would move the process forward of destroying the enemy. Fishman's exposure of this line of thought made what seemed to be an irrational process ' rational'. On the whole this work gives great new insight into the Arab- Israeli conflict. And it makes it clear that without real change on the Arab side toward recognition of the reality and legitimacy of the other there can be no peace in the Middle East.

This is a great book about the Arab-Israeli conflict, the war on terror, and the prospects for peace. Three dozen people contribute their perspectives on these topics. The book consists of the best presentations from the first Jerusalem summit, held in October, 2003, in Israel's capital. That summit focused on developing a moral and efficient alternative to the failed Oslo process and mapping out ways to bring democracy and freedom to the Middle East. Here are some of the points from the summit: 1) US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is a good idea, and might at least remind people that Israel is here to stay with Jerusalem as its capital. 2) The present international bodies designated to protect international law have sunk into immorality, corruption, and inefficiency. The UN is morally bankrupt and can not function as the instrument of justice; alternatives must be considered. 3) Ultimately, Arabs must liberate themselves from their irredentism. But we Westerners can help by not leading them towards more of the same. 4) For the first time in history, nihilists will actually have the means to match their ends. That means that civilization is indeed at stake. 5) Panting for peace with terrorists merely makes terrorists the masters of the situation. What we need to do instead is defeat the terrorists. Otherwise, the only way we'll get "peace" is to let the terrorists do whatever they please with us all, "peacefully." 6) Peace can be accomplished only by facing the truth. Those of us who are for human rights and justice need to go out and support it with our words at the very least. We are speaking the truth. We have nothing to be ashamed of. Let's do it! 7) A new Levantine Arab state would be a bad idea. It would be a terrorist state, and it would endanger Israel (and maybe Jordan as well). And it would have absolutely no moral or historical justification. 8) Israel must neither rule over a million Arabs nor cede them complete sovereignty within the borders of the 1930s British Mandate. 9) Israel is not a foreign occupying power in Yesha. Thus no international law prevents Israel or its citizens from establishing civilian towns on state lands. 10) Israel in 1967 did not "occupy" a Levantine Arab "nation." University professors ought to be the first ones to point out this obvious lie. But for the most part, they haven't. 11) There can't be peace if anti-Jewish incitement doesn't cease, and that includes the force-feeding of propaganda to schoolchildren. There are several proposals for peace in the book. They emphasize the need to separate the combatants. A typical and excellent idea is to let Arabs vote in Jordanian elections and Jews vote in Israeli elections, independent of which side of the border they might actually live on. While I don't agree with all the ideas in this book (a wide variety of ideas are covered here), I find them all interesting, valuable, and sincere. Some peopl