The Hopes for a New Middle East

The Abraham Accords have reforged relations in the Middle East, which Joe Biden will see up close for the first time as president this week.

By
22

HEBRON, West Bank—In the city of Hebron sits a 2,000 year-old building, built by King Herod the Great. Jews know it as the Tomb of the Patriarchs. 

For Jews, Christians, and Muslims, the building is why the city holds immense religious significance: It is the burial site of biblical patriarchs and matriarchs shared by the Abrahamic religions.*

One the Jewish side of the building, the walls are lined with religious texts and areas where residents gather to pray and reflect. Visitors shuffle by quietly to visit the tombs of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah.

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
22
By
Comments (22)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Mathias

    Reposted that last comment twice by accident. Oops!

    Collapse
  2. Mathias

    Sure, happy to clarify:

    While the UN and others may recognize a 'state' (as in, a political/governmental body), in the form of the Palestinian Authority (currently about 16 years overdue for elections, but who's counting?), neither the UN nor anyone else can describe the bounded and demarcated sovereign territory called 'Palestine', for the simple reason that no such bounded sovereign territory exists. Those who favor the creation of a Palestinian nation with its own borders tacitly acknowledge this fact; otherwise they would be lobbying for something that is already there.

    My concern with the otherwise well-written article was with the juxtaposition of three geographical (not political) regions which tourists could visit: Israel, the West Bank, and Palestine. The West Bank is either part of Israel (inside the borders of which it lies) or part of the Palestinian Authority (which has civil but not political jurisdiction over some parts of it), but it is not a third territory. And if the West Bank is not the geographical territory to which the name "Palestine" refers, then where exactly is "Palestine" located? In Gaza? In Trans-Jordan? In Syria? Could you point to it on a map, bearing in mind that you can't point to the West Bank as that has been described by the writer as a separate location?

    The wisdom of recognizing a political state which has no geographical location, of course, I leave for another discussion.

    Collapse
  3. Nick H.

    I love the Dispatch, but I've been a little dissatisfied with its Israel/Palestine coverage in the past. (To be clear, I am dissatisfied with most coverage of Israel/Palestine. My primary complaint is that writers typically fail to take seriously both sides' strongest arguments and claims.) I thought this article was very well done. Thank you.

    I did want to note a couple small things: I think the first word of the third paragraph should be "On" not "One." Also, in the paragraph beginning "On the other side," you mention Jewish flags. It's unclear if that's a reference to an Israeli flag or something else. (I think it's a meaningful distinction, given that about a quarter of Israeli citizens are not Jewish.)

    Collapse
  4. Mathias

    The article states that that PLI course culminates with a trip "to Israel, the West Bank and Palestine". Perhaps this description is taken from the Philos Project itself, but it is in need of fixing nevertheless.

    There is no recognized territory called "Palestine". There are the areas which are under the control of the political/paramilitary body known as the Palestinian Authority, and areas under the control of the political/paramilitary body known as Hamas. The PA controls regions of what is commonly called "the West Bank" – a title which gives the nod to defunct Jordanian claims over the region, but that is by the way. Hamas controls the coastal region of the Gaza Strip. Neither of these territories is called "Palestine" by anyone, even though a large amount of Palestinian Arabs live there. In contrast, the West Bank is territory within the borders of Israel, although its ultimate future status is under dispute.

    It is understandable (and sadly not unheard of) for a writer to slip up and call the West Bank "Palestine", even though it is not and such a declaration pre-judges the result of future negotiations. It would also be understandable (and legally accurate) to call the West Bank "Israel" without clarifying its special status, though no reporter ever seems to make any error in that direction.

    But it makes no sense to speak of three territories: Israel, the West Bank and Palestine. If "Palestine" is not in the West Bank, then where, pray tell, is it? In Jordan? (That would actually have a claim to accuracy, since Jordan was set aside by the British to be the state for the Palestinian Arabs in 1922, and the majority of current Jordanian residents are in fact Palestinian Arabs who are treated as second-class citizens.)

    I don't mean to be harsh, and I appreciate the work done on the article, but this and similar friendly criticism is intended to build up and not to tear down. Obviously, if you have been to Israel, you probably know the political situation well enough, so it was likely a simple case of misspeaking. But I would like to know what the PLI tour actually encompasses. If they are the ones drawing a distinction between "Israel, the West Bank and Palestine", that says a lot about their preferred narrative for the future of the region and less about the actual places that participants will visit.

    Collapse
    1. Nick H.

      Could you clarify what you meant by "There is no recognized territory called 'Palestine'"? The UN and at least 138* countries recognize a state of Palestine, so I'm curious what your standard is.

      * Number is from Wikipedia, so subject to confirmation.

      Collapse
      1. Mathias

        Sure, happy to clarify:

        While the UN and others may recognize a 'state' (as in, a political/governmental body), in the form of the Palestinian Authority (currently about 16 years overdue for elections, but who's counting?), neither the UN nor anyone else can describe the bounded and demarcated sovereign territory called 'Palestine', for the simple reason that no such bounded sovereign territory exists. Those who favor the creation of a Palestinian nation with its own borders tacitly acknowledge this fact; otherwise they would be lobbying for something that is already there.

        My concern with the otherwise well-written article was with the juxtaposition of three geographical (not political) regions which tourists could visit: Israel, the West Bank, and Palestine. The West Bank is either part of Israel (inside the borders of which it lies) or part of the Palestinian Authority (which has civil but not political jurisdiction over some parts of it), but it is not a third territory. And if the West Bank is not the geographical territory to which the name "Palestine" refers, then where exactly is "Palestine" located? In Gaza? In Trans-Jordan? In Syria? Could you point to it on a map, bearing in mind that you can't point to the West Bank as that has been described by the writer as a separate location?

        The wisdom of recognizing a political state which has no geographical location, of course, I leave for another discussion.

        Collapse
        1. Nick H.

          I can agree that listing Israel, the West Bank, and Palestine is confusing. To me, that's like saying "Virginia, North Carolina, and the Carolinas." Would you have accepted "Israel and Palestine" or "Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza"? If so, I think we agree.

          As best I can tell, Palestine was historically used to describe a geographic region, and in that sense, it's inherently vague (just as people quibble about which countries are included in the term "Middle East"). For example, UNGA Resolution 181 (1947) described the entire region as "Palestine," including the area encompassed by Israel today (Israel was not yet a state). I think people use it nowadays in several different senses. My instinct is that people mostly use it to mean the geographic area encompassed by the West Bank and Gaza. They don't generally mean just the area under PA jurisdiction, since that would exclude Gaza. But when it's used in diplomatic relations, I suppose it refers to the PA and/or area under the PA's jurisdiction. It's a geographic, political, and governmental word, and it has different meanings in different contexts (much like the "America" or "Israel"). But if you are saying that the different meanings mean there is no Palestine, then I would disagree with that. Let me know if I've interpreted your views correctly.

          Collapse
          1. Mathias

            Yes, I was mainly concerned with the redundancy or inapplicability of the three terms in conjunction with each other. I wouldn't have said anything if it had been "Israel, the West Bank and Gaza". Your analogy of Virginia, North Carolina and the Carolinas is spot on.

            So if you are satisfied, you can stop here. If you don't mind more contention over nomenclature and the UN's recognition of a state called "Palestine", go ahead and read on.

            Okay, since you asked: I do dislike the use of the term "Palestine" as designating a political entity, since there are not one but two opposing political entities claiming to represent the Palestinian peoples, one of them being illegitimate due to having long outstayed their electoral term (the PA, aka Fatah), and the other having been legitimately elected but also a recognized terrorist organization (Hamas).

            As for whether the name of 'Palestinian' can really pertain to the peoples in question, historically they were composed in large part of a mix of ethnic Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians who migrated into the region in the early 1900s. Those 'Palestinian Arabs' refused to even call themselves 'Palestinians' in the 1940s, but insisted that they were Jordanians, Syrians, etc., and as late as 1948, 'Palestinian' was a title only appearing on Jewish passports. But as a matter of convenience, I do not strongly object to the use of the term 'Palestinian' for these Arab peoples. I only express concern about their right to claim citizenship in a nation called "Palestine".

            If a group of people has little to no common ancestry or genetic heritage (being ethnic Syrians, Egyptians and Jordanians etc.), no clearly defined borders and no legitimate political representation, I find it difficult to see why they should be considered a sovereign polity and dignified with the title of a nation, particularly as many of them live and work inside of areas outside of the Palestinian-controlled regions of the West Bank and Gaza. What (genetically, historically or culturally) distinguishes a Palestinian from an Israeli Arab, aside from the fact that one has citizenship in Israel and the other does not? But I am aware that not everyone sees eye to eye with me on this point, and I try to pick my battles, so I would not have brought this up but for the fact that you seemed interested.

            If we are speaking merely geographically, of course, it is obvious that Gaza and the West Bank are not contiguous, so referring to them as a singular region called "Palestine" would be impossible, unless one was willing to cut Israel in two and make it non-contiguous in order to join the two territories. Or else erase Israel altogether, "from the river to the sea", as the Hamas charter puts it.

            So if "Palestine" cannot refer to a country (a politically united area of land with boundaries), and it does not really apply to a people who are so disorganized and of varying backgrounds and allegiances and objectives, then the only thing left to which "Palestine" can refer is the general non-political region known as "Syria Palestinaea" which existed in the Middle East from 136 CE, after Rome erased the name of Judah from its maps. (As I am sure you are aware, Palestine was the name chosen to hearken back to the ancient Philistines, enemies of the Kingdom of Israel and thus a fitting insult to the rebellious Jews of Roman times. The modern Palestinians, of course, bear no relation to the Philistines.) The Ottomans called the whole province Suriya, but Europeans as heirs to the Roman Empire continued to use the Empire's terminology whenever they referred to the region.

            So if someone wishes to use the outdated term found in geography textbooks about the Ottoman Empire, I have no quarrel with them. If they try to argue that Roman nomenclature or Ottoman bureaucratic administrative practices ought to be the foundation of modern claims of land rights, I must respectfully decline to buy that particular bridge.

            Why is this important to me? Because I'd like to see the word "Palestine" taken off the table, and then, devoid of its ahistorical baggage, perhaps we can take a fresh look and try to figure out what the Arab tribal populations should make of themselves. (And they must make something of themselves. No one else can make them into something they are unwilling to be.) Certainly, they can do much better than the playacting and bullying that their current thuggish 'leaders' engage in. The Arabs need someone who will actually represent them and look out for their interests, not just line his own pockets and use them as political cannon fodder. There are lots of options for them; the problem is that certain people don't want the problem solved because there's too much money or influence to be made in keeping it alive. And a good many of those people are in the UN.

            Anyway, that's my two cents (which comes out to 25.00 with today's inflation). I hope that you are not offended. I do hope that my comments can encourage you to think outside the box.

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Paul Britton

    An exceptionally informative and well-written piece about a subject that (because it's so hopeless) I would often rather avoid engaging with.

    Nice pictures too, Harvest.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    The History Nerd

    If Trump is Nixon(a comparison I think is more or less apt), the Abraham Accords are his going to China moment. Getting a sizable chunk of the Middle East to recognize Israel and normalize relations was an amazing thing and not something that should be forgotten. It was a major step forward for peace in the tinderbox that is the Middle East and made the world a safer place.

    Collapse
  7. Matt McLaughlin

    A Tom Barrack conviction will blow the Benjamins Accords out of the water. But even so, Trump's petro-dictators insist E Jerusalem is Occupied Palestine. Even William soon to be King of England agrees with Abbas E Jerusalem is Occupied Palestine.

    Collapse
    1. Yisrael Gale

      E. Jerusalem was never, ever controlled by Palestinians. Jews have lived in E Jerusalem for thousands of years, far longer than Muslims have. There were more Jews than Muslims in E Jerusalem under Turkish rule in the late 19th century. It passed to British rule after WW I. The 1947 UN partition plan envisioned it as part of a shared international city. The Jordanians illegally seized it in 1948, ethnically cleansing it of its Jewish population for 19 years, until Israel gained control in a defensive war in 1967. There is no sense in which E. Jerusalem is "occupied Palestine".

      Collapse
      1. Matt McLaughlin

        Yes, it took 1800 years for a Jewish majority in Jerusalem none of which were Zionist settlers. The nonJewish Communities'mentioned in the Balfour Declaration were the majority of Palestine for a thousand years. In Europe 1900ad %90 of the world's Jews were native to Europe. It was 125 years ago this month Herzl was chased by pious Jews from Munich to Basel because his Judanstatt was profane to Judaism.

        Collapse
  8. Yisrael Gale

    Good article, well done, Harvest. One more clarification needed, though. The article mentions President Biden's planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. But Bennett is not the Prime Minister any more, his successor was sworn in last week.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Harvest Prude vertical-nib Author

      I am mortified. Correction made--thank you!

      Collapse
      1. Yisrael Gale

        It was obviously not a mistake, just a hold-over from an earlier draft that was correct at the time it was written. Your article sets an excellent, balanced tone. I really liked it. Great work!

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
          Harvest Prude vertical-nib Author

          This is actually exactly what happened. And thank you!

          Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Spin Owsley

    "For Jews, Christians, and Arabs..."

    I once sat in the living room of a man who was born in Israel, now lives in Amman, and is Palestinian by birth and ethnicity. He explained to me the difference between Arab and Muslim. He was a Christian, his father was Christian, his entire family are Christians. But how can this be? An Arab (Palestinians are ethnically Arab) Christian? He explained the difference between ethnicity and religion, which is of course plainly obvious once you think about it. He also explained how frustrating it is that Americans tend to think that all Arabs are Muslims, and all Muslims are Arabic.

    So I think what you meant to write is "For Jews, Christians, and Muslims..."

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Peter_Shalen

      Thinking that all Muslims are Arabs is a lot more foolish than thinking all Arabs are Muslims. The biggest Muslim-majority countries---Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh---have no Arab population at all. And that's not even counting important non-Arab Muslim countries like Iran and Turkey.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Harvest Prude vertical-nib Author

      Oof good catch, thank you!

      Collapse
  10. Ross Knode

    Excellent read.

    Collapse