Jonathan Feldman

Augustus Wood

Humanities

12 February 2015

 

Rabin’s Resolve    

The pinnacle of the Arab-Israeli conflict seemed to come on September 13, 1993. On a clear Monday morning, the historic signing of the Declaration of Principles was administered on the white house lawn. The momentous move came days after Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat recognized one another through written letters. With new hope given to the conflict plagued by terrorism, hate, and systematic isolation, the bounds of the historic signing never came to fruition. Instead, the aftermath equated to rounds of failed peace talks, a second intifada, sporadic settlements, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and three wars waged between Hamas and Israel. Timing has always been pinned as a scapegoat for the misfortunes of peace. On the same note, was awarding a Nobel Prize to the Israeli and Palestinian counterparts premature? The “land for peace” concept has worked; Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. Like tango, peace requires a partner. Unfortunately, unlike King Hussein of Jordan and Anwar Sadat of Egypt, Rabin did not have a genuine counterpart in Arafat.

With shared pasts, Rabin and Arafat like other iconic revolutionaries such as George Washington and Fidel Castro, ascended to become the leaders of their people. However, both men embellished different tones and views. In 1970, Arafat stated, “Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations.” (History). His words proved to be foreshadowing for the next decades in which he earned the reputation of being a ruthless terrorist under his leadership as the head of the PLO. On the other hand, Rabin assumed a life of war through his ascension in the Israel Defense Forces as a general, military chief of staff, and later, the Defense Minister during much of the 1980s. In a speech delivered to the Israeli Knesset, Prime Minister Rabin proclaimed,

“We are destined to live together, on the same soil in the same land. We say to you today in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough. We have no desire for revenge. We harbor no hatred towards you. We, like you, are people who want to build a home, to plant a tree, to love, live side by side with you in dignity, in empathy, as human beings, as free men. We are today giving peace a chance and again saying to you in a clear voice: Enough.” (NY Times)

This statement sums up much of Rabin’s philosophy towards the conflict. His illustrious twenty-six year military career included being involved in every war since Israel’s inception. Recognizing the need for diplomacy as the only way to come to a true conclusion built on the foundation of peace, Rabin’s transition to Statesmanship supported his views by seeking to pave a new dovish route.

A pair of other Levant leaders have won nobel prizes as well; Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel. Following four wars spanning three decades, the two former adversaries took courageous steps to lament the first normalization of Arab-Jewish ties. The agreement was based on Israeli return of the Sinai Peninsula to the Egyptians following the Yom Kippur War. Begin shares a similar history with Rabin as well, as both were revolutionaries who founded the State and later became Statesman. As James Feron claims, “Menachem Begin was a guerrilla leader turned peacemaker.” (James Feron). Coincidentally, like Rabin, Sadat was slain by his own people for his strides of peace.

The same narrative continues, however with different individuals. Amidst the efforts of Oslo, Israeli officials and King Hussein of Jordan in 1994 enshrined the second peace treaty with the Jewish state. The recurring theme of assassination continues, with King Hussein’s father, King Abdullah. King Abdullah was assassinated in 1949 at the entrance of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem by a Palestinian nationalist for engaging in secret talks with Israel. Years later, King Hussein was successful in brokering peace with Prime Minister Rabin on the basis of defining clear borders, security cooperation and the exchange of water and resources. Thus, lamenting what hopefuls thought his father might of aspired; peace with the Jewish state.

The apex of the optimistic narrative came to a halt when Rabin was assassinated. The Palestinian-Israeli accord was unable to overcome the tragedy of Rabin’s passing. However this was not the last attempt. In the 2000 Camp David Accords, people across the globe believed peace was on the brink. Noted by the Rabbinical President of the Association for Reform Judaism, Rabbi Weiner explained on NPR’s “All Things Considered”, “For most of us Prime Minister Barak's proposals seemed so generous, I can’t understand why Arafat rejected the Palestinian state that was offered to him in the summer of 2000. Given this rejection, and Arafat's subsequent sponsoring of terrorism, I am sadly coming to believe that Yasser Arafat's goal is now and may have always been the destruction of Israel.” (Slate). Following the derailing of Camp David, the entire conflict took a sharp downward spiral. Within weeks of the failure and following Ariel Sharon’s Temple Mount visit, a new Intifada erupted. In an interview with Dubai TV, Suha Arafat, Arafat’s widow, proclaimed,

“Immediately after the failure of the Camp David [negotiations], I met him [Arafat] in Paris upon his return.... Camp David had failed, and he said to me, ‘You should remain in Paris.’ I asked him why, and he said, ‘Because I am going to start an intifada. They want me to betray the Palestinian cause. They want me to give up on our principles, and I will not do so.’” (Jerusalem Post).  

    Through all the offers, reconciliation, and failures, it can be claimed that a pivotal reason for the demise of Palestinian-Israeli peace can be attributed to Yasser Arafat. Though there are numerous undeniable variables that led to the infallible accords, citing the examples of Arab leaders such as Anwar Sadat and King Hussein offer reasonable hope that Jewish-Arab peace is attainable. On the theme of Arafat’s ambiguity, Ben Birnnbaumb of the Washington Times wrote that, “Mr. Clinton has long blamed Mr. Arafat for the failure of final status peace talks in 2000 and early 2001, in which the U.S. and Israel proposed a Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and nearly all of the West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital.” (Washington Times.) President Clinton’s remarks are significant given his facilitative role in both rounds of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks and in brokering the Israel-Jordan peace treaty. Arafat was hosted at the White House over twenty-five times, more than any other international leader. Clinton’s close relationship and years of work with the PLO leader further amplify the weight of his remarks.

A future in which both sides reach a solution is to still be determined, but in order to, Palestinians and Israelis must not mince words, and instead strongly echo the words of Rabin, “I enter negotiations with Chairman Arafat, the leader of the PLO, the representative of the Palestinian people, with the purpose to have coexistence between our two entities, Israel as a Jewish state and Palestinian state, entity, next to us, living in peace.” (King).