The fire next time

AT PENPOINT

The Gaza Peace Plan has had the advantage of leading to a ceasefire, though no one trusts it to last. Gazans were cruelly disappointed in arch when the January 36 ceasefire broke down. This time too the same point of breakdown exists: hostages.

Like the January 26 agreement, the current peace plan is essentially a ceasefire and an agreement to exchange prisoners. It is in the exchange of prisoners that the deal might collapse. One of the more perturbing signs is that the withdrawing Israeli forces are not handing over to anyone. At some point, the Israeli government can decided to stay put, in which case the ceasefire could again collapse.

Though there is an agreement to hand over the security of the Gaza Strip to an international force, no country has made any troop commitments. Though there is supposed to be an administration of Palestinian technocrats, no name has been put forward, let alone anyone accepting the task. Though the committee and the funds (not committed by anyone either) are supposed to be supervised by a Peace Council headed by Donald Trump, its composition is still up in the air.

British ex-PM Tony Blair is the only person who has been mentioned, and every shade of Palestinian opinion has expressed opposition to him having a role. Finding someone who will act neutrally will be hard enough, finding someone acceptable to all sides will be even ore problematic. Whoever is chosen will find his integrity impugned no matter what he does, by one party or the other.

The real reason is that the proposed peace plan sweeps under the rug the real problem, which is the existence of Israel. Israel once had a number of pluses for Western nations. It allowed them to put the problem of a racial minority outside of its own countries, and it provided an outpost of the West in the exceedingly important oil-producing Middle east. Not to forget its proximity to the Suez Canal. Its usefulness was shown in 1956, when it went to War with the Arab states after Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal.

There was no Salahuddin in the present episode, but that does not mean there will not be. It is upto the West what sort of Salahuddin emerges. The West should remember that Salahuddin tore down all the protective alliances the Kingdom of Jerusalem had built. It is not just Israel at stake, but also its Arab allies, who are also Western allies.

Israel might well be compared to the Crusader state set up after the 1099 conquest of Jerusalem by the First Crusade. That too represented an attempt to turn the Holy Land into a replica of Europe. The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Counties of Edessa and Antioch were imitations of the feudal system prevalent in Europe, just as much as Israel pretends to be a democracy. Just as much as the Arab states around Israel are engaging it diplomatically, with some going as far as to recognize it, so did the Muslim states around it engage with the Crusader states, some going so far as to from alliances with them against other Muslim states.

It was only with the advent of Salahuddin Ayyubi that the Muslims found a leader implacably opposed to the Crusader kingdom, and devoted to jihad.

It is perhaps a paradox that the Crusaders slaughtered all the Jews or Muslims they could find in Jerusalem when they took it, and made sure that for the century of their occupation, they made sure that neither was allowed into it. At that time, while the Crusaders viewed Muslims as pagans, heathens, an attitude which the West has adopted, especially after 9/11, and which the Israelis encourage; they viewed Jews as Christ-killers, something which Zionists have ensured that churches no no longer preach, or even hold true.

One of the interesting similarities between the Crusader state and Israel was how both depended on foreign support. Foreign support for the Crusaders came in the form of successive crusades, a total of eight over just under four centuries. However, only the first three made an impact; the First taking Jerusalem, the Second reinforcing it, and the Third just failing to succour it. The Fourth Crusade was supposed to retake Jerusalem, but got a little distracted, taking Constantinople instead and establishing the Latin Empire.

The remaining crusades were all failed ventures, even though their aims were more limited than the conquest of Jerusalem, which became an ultimate goal rather than an immediate one. It is easy to understand the European fascination with Jerusalem. They were Christians, after all, and their citizens went to the Holy Land on pilgrimage, just as Muslims went to the Masjid Al-Aqsa. Indeed, before oil, the pilgrimage provided a reason for interference, and one of the issues of the 19th century was whether France or Russia was the protector of pilgrims. (Before the 19th century the Ottomans had brooked no interference in Jerusalem, and had themselves been protectors of any pilgrims.)

Because of this, the Palestine issue is not simply one of national liberation, though that is an important component. Palestinians draw support from the rest of the Islamic world because of Masjid Al-Aqsa. In a post-Christian world, Israel cannot expect the same support for its Biblical claims. The Muslim world has not shown the same rise of disbelief that would make Palestine any less a touch-button issue.

It is now up to the backers of Israel whether they are willing to pull the plug on Israel themselves, or they want to have it pulled by a modern Salahuddin. They should realize that the ceasefire means the release of the pressure Western governments are facing from their own electorates, who seem to be coming out of the Holocaust guilt that Israel has exploited for so many years, who seem to be realizing that Israel has been using that guilt not just to extract heavy aid packages, but to commit horrid atrocities on the Palestinian people.

However, as long as the occupation continues; indeed, as long as Israel continues to exist on Palestinian land, Palestinians will make trouble. The defanging of the PLO by the Oslo Accords of 1992 meant that the Palestinian people moved towards Hamas, who refused to concede Israel the right to exist. Hamas made no concession, and thus won support. The PLO’s cooperation with Israel in policing the West Bank won them even more dislike.

Though Israel insists upon it, and is backed by the USA, Hamas will not go away. Even if it is cowed down, some other political force will emerge. That is what Israel really has to fear. The latest episode showed that its policy of ‘mowing the grass’, in which there have been four wars, excluding the current one, with over 2800 Palestinians killed. The present conflict may be seen as the most massive ‘lawnmowing’ exercise yet, with at least 68,000 Palestinians killed.

Has it worked? This exercise has been compared to An-Nakba, called the ‘second Nakba’, the first being the 1948 displacement of about 750,000 Palestinians, and the killing of 13,000 to 16,000. However, it is unlikely to have worked, and the Palestinians will seek a Salahuddin.

Salahuddin was not an Arab. He was a Kurd, and was the soldier son of a soldier father. He was not an Egyptian, though he made Egypt his powerbase, and had gone there to assist his uncle. And he carried within him an unshakeable conviction about the need for jihad.

There was no Salahuddin in the present episode, but that does not mean there will not be. It is upto the West what sort of Salahuddin emerges. The West should remember that Salahuddin tore down all the protective alliances the Kingdom of Jerusalem had built. It is not just Israel at stake, but also its Arab allies, who are also Western allies.