Sunday, November 10, 2019
Elder of Ziyon
If the Arabs are trying to convince the Jews that giving up
land will bring Israel peace, they are doing a poor job of it. Unilateral land
for peace moves by Israel have been disastrous. The unilateral withdrawal of
Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon in 2000, with nothing gained in return,
strengthened the terror group Hezbollah, essentially collapsed Israel’s ally
the South Lebanon Army, and did not bring peace with Lebanon or their de facto
rulers Syria. Rocket attacks in the North continued and cross border attacks,
including attempted kidnappings, amplified until 2006 when a war lead to a
strong response on the side of Israel that served as a deterrent.
Gaza was always considered a
quagmire for Israel and most Israelis were tired of sending their children to
serve in the dangerous enclave. Many questioned Israel’s reason for being
there. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in the hopes that it
would serve as a model for transitioning territory to the Palestinian
Authority, short of a peace agreement. Israel uprooted 10,000 Jews and even
left the Palestinians housing and a commercial greenhouse. It was a huge
victory for the peace camp in Israel, who were certain that land is all it took
to end the conflict. At the very least, it would earn Israel capital in the
international arena. The Palestinians promptly destroyed the greenhouse and
Israel’s South has not enjoyed a moments peace ever since. In addition, the
international goodwill the peace camp was sure to follow never materialized. It
seemed, in fact, that Israel was punished for the move. Two years later, there
was a bloody coop in Gaza and the terror group Hamas gained power. The
situation continues to deteriorate. Hamas is strengthened. Residents of the
south in Israel endure thousands of rockets with little recourse. Unilateral
land for peace has been a disaster.
But, what about bilateral land for peace? Surely that has
worked. Look at Egypt. In 1979, Israel and Egypt agreed to an historic peace
agreement. In exchange for peace, Israel gave Egypt the Sinai peninsula,
captured in the 1967 war. By 1982, Israel completed a withdrawal from the
entire peninsula, uprooting Jewish communities, and handing the keys to Egypt.
On the surface it seems like a success. Before 1979, Israel and Egypt fought in
four wars (1948, 1956, 1967, 1972), in addition to constant skirmishes. Since
1979, there have been no wars. The problem is that the peace has been cold.
Incitement against Israel and Jews in Egypt, often sponsored by the government,
continues. Most Egyptians do not accept Israel’s right to exist and by
extension the peace agreement. The Sinai has become a hotbed of Islamist
activity, with ISIS establishing a stronghold in the peninsula. Hamas has
established smuggling tunnels into Sinai used to bring in weapons and materials
to attack Israel and shoot rockets. There have been concerns from Israel that
the peace could collapse. In 2008, Egypt conducted war game exercises against
an imaginary Israel. At no time was the concern more acute than when Mohamed
Morsi, a member of the extremist group the Muslim Brotherhood, an ally of
Hamas, won the presidency of Egypt. If not for his overthrow a year later, it
not hard to speculate that the peace would have fallen apart. It’s possible
that Egypt’s largest motivator for maintaining the peace is the $1.3 billion in
military aid that they receive from the United States. If that were ever to
disappear, would peace persist?
And so we come to Naharayim. It was suppose to be the
model of coexistence between the Jews and Arabs. On the heels of the first Oslo
Accords, Israel and Jordan signed a peace agreement in 1994. It was suppose to
usher in a Pax Romana in the Middle East. Israel and Jordan, two bitter enemies
to that point, no longer had any territorial disputes. Jordan has ceded their
claim to the West Bank, which they occupied in 1948 and then lost in 1967, to
the Palestinians. With peace between Israel and the PLO, rebranded the
Palestinian Authority, seemingly imminent, King Hussein and Israeli president Ezer
Weizman shook hands near Eilat and the future seemed bright. That Hezbollah was
still launching rockets into Northern Israel while the agreement was being
signed seemed like a temporary problem.
Between Israel and Jordan lies an area called the Jordan
Valley. Israel’s connection to the Jordan Valley is both historic but more
importantly strategic. It is strategic because it offers a natural barrier
between Israel and Jordan (and by extension other Arab countries to the East)
and a strong defensive position. In the Jordan Valley is a small town called
Naharayim, which in Hebrew means two rivers, because it is the junction between
the Jordan River and the Yarmouk River. The land was purchased by a Jew named
Pinhas Rutenberg, a staunch Zionist, who established the Palestine Electric
Corporation and began building hyroelectic power plants to modernize Mandatory
Palestine. One of those plants was located on the land that he would call
Naharayim.
The problem with Naharayim is that even though it was
legally bought by Jews and inhabited by Jews, it was on the other side of the
Jordan river, the Jordanian side. The river forms a natural border between the
two countries. So, when Israel and Jordan signed their historic peace
agreement, Israel decided in good faith to give this small piece of land to
Jordan. Land...for peace. However, there was an obstacle. Jews - Israelis -
were living on the land for over 70 years. They had built kibbutizim, working
farms, and made a living off the land. For several generations of Jews, it was
the only home they knew. This was not in the West Bank but rather Northern
Israel near Tiberias, one of the four holy cities in Judaism. Not wanting to
displace the Jewish residents, Israel agreed to give up the land and Jordan
agreed to lease the land back to Israel for 25 years, with an understanding
that the lease would be renewed in perpetuity. It was the model of cooperation.
So much so, that they built a park near by called the “Island of Peace”. It was
suppose to usher in a new era of coexistence in the region. Both Jews and
Arabs, Israelis and Jordanians, could enjoy the park. Land...for peace. But
like so many things in life, things aren’t always at as they seem.
If the peace with Egypt was cold, the peace with Jordan
was freezing. Incitement against Jews and Israel in Jordan continued. Not only
could antisemitism be found in Jordanian media and schools, but in the
Jordanian parliament itself. For example, Jordanian MP Yahya al-Saud supported
terrorism against Israel, not uncommon in the parliament, but even publically
called to “liberate our holy places from the plundering Jews”. Another MP,
Khalil Attieh, went on Jordanian TV and railed, “It is an honor to incite
against the Jews. It is a great accomplishment to provoke and incense them.” He
also publically called Jews “descendants of apes and pigs” and stated “Hating
the Jews is a great honor for me and it makes me walk with my head high because
they are worthy of hatred...They are not decent people. Any man of honor should
hate the Jews.” These are not isolated incidents. They often praise terror
attacks against Israel in the parliament, including the Har Nof synagogue
massacre in Jerusalem, where terrorists killed 5 worshipers with axes, knives,
and gun. They have also blocked the extradition from Jordan to the United
States of Ahlam Tamimi, the woman who helped carry out the Sbarro Massacre in
2001 at a pizzeria in Jerusalem where 16 were murdered, including eight
children 18 or younger (two of which were toddlers aged 2 and 4). She often
goes on Jordanian television laughing and praising her roll in the murders,
saying “I admit that I was a bit disappointed, because I had hoped for a larger
toll.”
But through all that incitement, the Island of Peace
persisted as a symbol of cooperation. That is until 1997, three years after its
creation, when a group of Jewish school girls aged 13 and 14 were on a school
trip to visit this historic park - the park of peace. On that day, there was no
peace. A Jordanian soldier named Ahmed Daqamseh decided he wanted to kill some
Jews, went to the park now part of Jordan with no Israeli protection, and
started shooting the children. He killed seven girls and wounded six others.
Reviled by some, a hero to others, he was sent to prison in Jordan unrepentant,
proud of what he did. His mother telling Al Jazeera, “I am proud of my son, and
I hold my head high. My son did a heroic deed.” Why did he go to jail in
Jordan? Because, the land has been handed over to Jordan three years earlier.
It was no longer under Israeli jurisdiction. You would think that for the
murder of seven children and near murder of six others one would spend more
than ten years in jail, but the calls to release this national hero started in
the Jordanian parliament shortly after his imprisonment. In 2017 he was
release, not quietly, but with great fanfare. There were parades on the street.
People handed out candy. The symbol of coexistence became the symbol of hate. A
memorial exists to this day for those seven young girls. There are no parades
for them. Only a lifetime misery for the families. No one hands out candy, only
tears.
This brings us to 2019, the
twenty-fifth anniversary of the historic peace agreement between Israel and
Jordan, and the expiration of the twenty-five year lease to the Jewish farmers
who live near the Island of Peace park, and who make a living from it - the
automatic lease renewal in perpetuity. Except, it never happened. Jordan
decided that they did not want to renew the lease. They stated that they never
meant to renew in perpetuity. The problem is, they didn’t even renew it once. Jewish farmers be damned. On
November 10th, Jordan took back possession of the land. Jews who
live and work there, some for multiple generations, on land bought by their
ancestors, have an uncertain future. Even if the Jordanian government agrees to
let them stay, how long will that last? When will they finally tell then to get
lost once and for all? That is the problem with “Land for Peace”. Land is
tangible and peace is intangible. Once you hand over the land the other side
possesses it. You possess nothing in return. If the peace gets broken, the land
does not get returned. Here is the land, but where is the peace? It’s a
cautionary tale for the Israelis. I support a peaceful resolution between the
two ethnic groups, Jews and Arabs, that share the tiny strip of land between
the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. I’ve even supported land for peace.
But it’s become increasingly harder to argue with those that say it doesn’t
work. Israel’s neighbors are not helping with the argument. How can you
convince an Israeli that exchanging land for peace will work or that it is the
best solution when it has been so ineffective until now. It’s becoming apparent
that for peace to work, something tangible has to be exchanged for something
tangible.
Disclaimer: This article is meant to highlight the potential pitfalls of theoretical, asymmetric land for peace deals only. It is not intended to criticize any peace deals Israel has signed with her neighbors nor oppose any future peace agreements. The author believes in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians without preconditions.
