Maof

 The end never justifies the means.  However, without clearly defined ends, no one ever succeeds in attaining the results they want.   This can be seen in the fruitless efforts of many worthy people, government officials and private activists, as well as prestigious international organizations and states, who have tried to bring about peace in the Middle East.  Is this perhaps because the word “peace” is too general, without concrete parameters?
 The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has been going on for more than a half century.  The casualties on the two sides already outnumber the casualties of many major wars.  This alone justifies our calling the conflict “the fifty year war.”  And if the attempts at peacekeeping remain as futile as they have been to date (and some related doings have been actually harmful, including Kissinger’s 1973 diplomatic maneuvering, the UN resolution equating Zionism and racism, and the award of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize to Yasir Arafat), then it is possible that our descendants will call this conflict “the hundred year war.”
 A completely paradoxical situation has been created.  The two adversaries have been engaged in a fifty year war.  But one side is required to assume the burden of supporting its enemy.  But this isn’t possible in wartime, and even in peacetime, it isn’t customary for neighbors.  One can’t find a single example of such altruism in history.  The infrastructure of the autonomous Palestinian territory is undeveloped, and almost all ablebodied Palestinians find jobs in Israel.  Electric energy and water are supplied by Israel, which is also responsible for healthcare, ecology, preservation of cultural monuments, and education. And this despite the fact that for three generations Palestinians have been taught that “the only good Jew is a dead Jew.”
The total amount of the financial infusions received by the Palestinians could long ago have provided a decent, or even a high standard of living.  Instead, the money was used to line the pockets of the Palestinian Authority’s leaders, to import contraband weapons, and to arm almost the entire male population, including adolescent - and even younger - boys.  What are the aspirations of Israel and the Palesinians, real and proclaimed?  Israel is certainly striving to exist in secure borders and to safeguard the lives of its citizens.  The Palestinians want to create an independent state and one most suppose, even though it is nowhere said explicitly, that  they want sufficent territory in order to create secure borders and an independent economy.
Put aside all the habitual arguments - is there a Palestinian nation? do the Palestinians still want to push Israel into the sea? who is responsible for the intifada, with its suicide bombers and Israel’s punitive retaliations?  If you begin with a clean slate, then you have to agree that the aspirations of Israel and the Palestinians outlined in the previous paragraph are just.  They should become the goal of the peace process.  Neither the punishment of Israel (whether or not it is justified), nor the anti-semitic bacchanalia in Europe, nor the Saudi Arabian peace plan advance the process.  Fifty years of gruesome terror and bloodshed show that we need to find another path to peace.
The task of the peacemakers should be, first of all, working out the concrete conditions for peace, and not endless meetings under their aegis of the enemy leaders, no matter whether they shake hands or not.  For Israel, this must certainly mean the inclusion of the Golan heights and all of Jerusalem within its borders and elimination of all Palestinian enclaves.  This is the only way to insure its security.  For the Palestinians, this means the elimination of all Israeli enclaves in return for making minor adjustments in their border with Israel, which can be offset by their brother Arab states transferring to them a portion of their extensive, sparsely settled lands.  Enclaves cannot be secure or economically independent regardless of the financial assistance they may receive.
These conditions will require a significant transfer of populations.  Financing it is a task for the international community, i.e. the United Nations - possibly by a special assessment of its members - and international financial organizations, but the principal cost should be borne by the developed countries.  They should also be responsible to secure the agreement of the Arab bloc to transfer a minor amount of land to the Palestinians, and the one thing that can facilitate this is the freeing of the developed countries from their reliance on Arab oil.  It’s necessary for them to quickly carry out a realistic program for energy independence.  Until they accomplish this, they will always behave like drug addicts, acting in ways that are dangerous for themselves and for the rest of the world.
In order to resolve this extraordinarily complex web of problems a new approach is needed, possibly the only one able to bring this lengthy tragedy of two peoples to a close.  A special international Commission should be formed.  It should be composed of professionals - military, economic, legal, environmental, demographic, and so forth - who are capable of working out reasonable solutions for a wide range of problems.  They should not be appointed by states or international organizations.  Each of the parties to the conflict should pick members of the Commission from among the citizens of other countries whom they wish to represent their interests, and during the selection process, each of the parties should have the right to blackball any of the other party’s candidates.
In some fashon, the deliberations of the Commission chosen by two adversarial parties may resemble a jury trial.  However, its task is not to accuse anyone, but rather one group of experts should defend the interests of the Palestinians and the other group the interests of Israel.  The goal of the Commission would be to minimize the points of conflict between the two parties and make possible the accomplishment of a lasting peace based on the provisos outlined above: for Israel, secure borders with its citizens’ lives safe from external threats, and for the Palestinians, an independent state, also with secure borders and the opportunity to develop a viable economy.
I realize that the program I have outlined above appears unrealistic today, especially my ideas about the need for altruism and about the transfer of land and people.  But I can’t escape the feeling that with time, the most categorical skeptics will reach the conclusion that peace in this tragic part of the world can be attained only on this basis.  And I haven’t lost hope that their voices will be heard by government decisionmakers and that they will suggest to the leaders of Israel and the Palestinian Authority the creation of a Commission in which both sides can have confidence because of the way its members have been picked.
Even some of the people who think that creation of such a Commission is a good idea, may question whether this is an appropriate moment for such an initiative since an unprecedented wave of terrorism and Israel’s response have created a situation that makes the search for new approaches to peacemaking senseless.  But we never know when and in what circumstances a fresh idea may prove fruitful.  Or, to quote the words of a nineteenth century Russian poet, “We cannot foresee how our words may echo.”
 
  Russian versia