(Editor’s Note: In the report of the Iraq Study Group, the authors write about the Arab-Israeli conflict on page 55: “Political engagement and dialogue are essential in the Arab-Israeli dispute because it is an axiom that when the political process breaks down there will be violence on the ground…. The only basis on which peace can be achieved is that set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and in the principle of “land for peace.” James Baker III has been involved in the inner circles of the Federal Government for over 20 years. He could not possibly be so naïve as to believe that the Arabs are now ready to make peace with Israel if only they had another 10,000 sq. km of land being held by tiny Israel. Now that he is finished with the Iraq Study Group, perhaps he should travel to northern Alaska to give more ice to the Eskimos. The following story further explores this issue in a satirical manner. See also, Baker Report on the Roadmap plan:
Land for Pieces
By Israel Zwick
Of the 79 recommendation of the Iraq Study Group, at least two link the Arab-Israeli conflict to the wider turbulence in the Middle East. Recommendations 13 and 14 on page 55 state the following:
RECOMMENDATION 13: There must be a renewed and
sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive
Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon and Syria, and
President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution
for Israel and Palestine.
RECOMMENDATION 14: This effort should include—as
soon as possible—the unconditional calling and holding of
meetings, under the auspices of the United States or the
Quartet (i.e., the United States, Russia, European Union, and
the United Nations), between Israel and Lebanon and Syria
on the one hand, and Israel and Palestinians (who acknowledge
Israel’s right to exist) on the other. The purpose of these
meetings would be to negotiate peace as was done at the
Madrid Conference in 1991, and on two separate tracks—
one Syrian/Lebanese, and the other Palestinian.
This is only part of the recent diplomatic activity emphasizing a return to “peace negotiations” based on the Madrid Conference, Saudi Initiative, or Geneva Plan. Despite the failure of previous written agreements, Arab leaders and their supporters in Israel and the United States, are suggesting even more conferences and agreements rather than actions on the ground. However, if the statements from the Arab and Palestinian leaders are carefully studied, there appears to be a problem with English usage. It’s not clear if the problem stems from the translation into English, or the meaning and usage of English words and phrases. It seems that the Palestinian spokesmen have the words “peace” and “piece” confused. That is, what they really mean is to return to “Piece Talks.” Judging from their statements and actions, the Palestinians believe that the result of the talks will be, “We will sign a piece of paper so that the Israelis will give us a piece of land that will enable us to blow up Jews into little pieces, and to destroy Israel piece by piece.”
So the whole Arab-Israeli conflict just seems to be a matter of semantics. If we can just define the word “peace” for the Arab leadership, then the whole matter can be resolved simply and amicably. Using a variety of online sources, a search for “Middle East Peace” has resulted in the following definitions, all of which can be implemented without elaborate conferences or agreements.
1. Peace means that the Arabs will renounce violence and resolve disputes through negotiation and compromise. The IDF and PA security forces would coordinate their efforts to end violence so that both Israelis and Arabs can enjoy a harmonious relationship in safety and security. There would be no incitement to hatred and violence.
2. Peace means that Israel and the PA would work together to promote commerce between Jews and Arabs.
3. Peace means that Israel and the PA will develop a climate that will encourage high-tech firms to build research and assembly facilities in the area.
4. Peace means that Israel and the PA will promote joint tourism to encourage millions of Christian tourists to return to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth.
5. Peace means developing and sharing modern transportation facilities.
6. Peace means sharing techniques for water and energy conservation.
7. Peace means joint research projects to develop new sources for water and energy.
8. Peace means academic exchange programs between Israeli and Arab educational institutions.
9. Peace means developing a joint emergency response team that will be able to respond to disasters quickly and efficiently.
10. Peace means sharing health information and resources so that regional health problems can be quickly resolved.
11. Peace means developing athletic competitions and cultural exchanges that would promote acceptance and understanding between the different cultures.
This list is by no means exhaustive. Additional searches would probably yield many more definitions of “peace.” Yet, so far the PA leadership has not given the slightest hint that they have any concept of what the word “peace” means. Their concept of “peace” is the systematic obliteration of the State of Israel in incremental stages involving small “pieces” of land. They still believe that they will benefit by blowing up people, buildings, and buses, into little “pieces.” That means that all of the peace plans that are on the table now, such as the Roadmap, Realignment, Population Transfer, Saudi Plan, and Geneva Initiative, are all useless. They are complex solutions to a very simple problem. What we really need is the Webster Plan. The Arabs need to learn what the word “peace” really means. So all we have to do is send their leaders a copy of the new Webster’s Unabridged, and peace will be just around the corner. This plan would have a much better chance of success than all those other plans that have been proposed by Baker, Carter, Blair and the other great leaders and diplomats of the world.