Dialogue: Middle East violence outcome of Palestinian stubbornness rather than Israeli provocation

By JOSHUA BOLOT*

Much of the media coverage of recent violence in Israel has pointed to Ariel Sharon's visit to the Muslim holy site of Al-Aqsa as the trigger.

But Middle Eastern affairs are never as simple as they may seem, and emotive coverage seems to have replaced the facts required to understand the events.

It is impossible to comprehend the past three weeks without understanding the context. The riots were not caused by Sharon's visit to Judaism's holiest site, but by the unsuccessful conclusion of the Camp David negotiations in July.

Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, provided countless innovative suggestions on resolving the question of Jerusalem.

As the location of spiritual importance to three major religions, the holy sites of the Old City must remain accessible to those parties.

Before 1967, when the city was under Jordanian control, this was not the case. Under Israeli rule, Jews, Christians and Muslims have not only had access but internal autonomy over their sites.

Under Israeli control, sites have been restored and preserved for eternity, in marked contrast to the desecration and destruction carried out under Jordanian supervision up to 1967.

Despite Barak offering more than any other Jewish leader had dared, the Palestine Liberation Organisation chairman, Yasser Arafat, refused to compromise and settle for anything less than total Palestinian control of all of these sites.

United States President Clinton, amazed at Arafat's unrepentant stubbornness, essentially advised the world of it. The Palestinian negotiating team, it was suggested, should learn how to negotiate.

Parts of the Old City are the holiest sites of the Jewish religion. Worldwide Jewry always focuses its prayers on Jerusalem, just as Muslims turn to Mecca, their holiest of holies.

Sharon's visit was well managed and he was accompanied by Arab Members of the Knesset (Parliament). He spoke openly of the peace process and the hopes for its success. Permission was granted for his visit by the Islamic authorities who have internal control over the Temple Mount. In addition, Israel's Internal Security Minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, had been assured by Muslim authorities that the visit would not cause problems provided he did not enter the mosques.

Sharon did not enter any mosque - on or off the Temple Mount. The visit itself, on September 28, was uneventful and no violence resulted. Only 24 hours later, after their prayers, did Muslim worshippers begin hurling stones at Jews praying below at the Western Wall and preparing for Rosh Hashanah, (the Jewish New Year).

During earlier prayer sessions Arab clerics and political figures incited this violence. It was not spontaneous. The attack before a major Jewish festival bears a striking resemblance to the start of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, except that Egypt and Jordan now have diplomatic relations with Israel and have stood apart from the present unrest.

The subsequent release of Hamas terrorists held in Palestinian jails, the barbaric destruction of Joseph's tomb - an act which, had it been committed by Israeli authorities, would have rightfully met international condemnation - and the lynching of Jewish soldiers by Palestinians and Arabs has received media attention.

But most of the media focus has been on the martyrdom of children thrust into a military conflict by fundamentalist parents and desperate politicians trying to breed generations of hatred. Behind this human shield of youth is an armed Palestinian Security Force of 27,000 which continues to fire its weapons selectively.

This Palestinian "police force" is armed with heavy machine-guns, rocket-launchers and grenades as well as automatic weapons, all banned by the Oslo Accords.

The plane hijacks of the 1970s have been replaced by a new form of terrorism - placing children in the line of fire. No rational person wishes to see the death of children, but the promises of martyrdom which authorities promote has led to the tragic death of many. Arafat is using their lives to try to gain the upper hand at future negotiations.

Attempts at Sharm al-Sheikh to prevent further deaths have not been successful because it is in the interests of the Palestinians to prolong the violence and achieve greater international sympathy.

In no way does Israel benefit from the deaths of civilian Palestinians. But withdrawal from their positions will not guarantee the safety of Israel from continued attack.

This realisation comes from 52 years of experience that any sign of weakness to Arab extremists will backfire.

Within the Middle East, Israel is surrounded by a sea of Arab nations, all of which have tried to destroy it.

Demands by Arab nations for United Nations investigations and international inquiries into Israeli tactics are routine and with the power of oil, the threat of more international terrorism and their voting bloc, it is understandable that the UN has ceased to be an honest broker or a forum for balanced handling of the problem.

In the entire Middle East, Israel is the only democracy. The surrounding Arab countries are in the power of feudal leaders, most of whom are guilty of human rights abuses. The inability of humanitarian agencies to work freely in these countries means these abuses are not recorded.

The fact that Israeli Arab members of the Knesset are the only democratically elected Arabs in the region is an irony that should not be forgotten.

It is the fervent wish of Israelis to see a Sadat emerge among the Palestinians - a person of vision, realism and rationalism who will lead the Palestinians to peace and prosperity. It is only a pity that that person is not Arafat. He was so very close.

* Joshua Bolot, a student at the University of Auckland, is a member of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students.