Let's face it?on college campuses these days, Israel, and those who support it, have a bit of a bad rap. By and large, people talk about a dichotomy: either you are pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli. And, though it hasn't always been this way, right now the Israelis are "winning," and everyone loves the underdog.
Here's the rub, though. Quite simply, pro-Israeli actually means pro-Palestinian as well. Those who support Israel want the same things for the Palestinians that they want for themselves. They want Palestinians to live longer, healthier, happier lives, with better access to education and jobs. They want Palestinians to live free of corruption. And they want Palestinians to have a state?as long as the French have France and the Germans have Germany, the Palestinians should have Palestine.
If "pro-Palestinian" means wanting and working for better lives for Palestinians, then those who are "pro-Israel" are, in fact, more pro-Palestinian than Yasir Arafat.
Quite simply, I want the same things for the Palestinians that they want for themselves. I want Palestinians to live longer, healthier, happier lives. I want them to have better access to education and to live free of corruption. Most importantly, I want desperately for them to have a state?as long as the French have France and the Germans Germany, the Palestinians should have Palestine.
The truth is, Israel has worked for all these things for the people of the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, objective measures show Palestinians are better off now than they were before Israel moved into the territories in 1967.
The life expectancy has gone from 46 in that year to 72 in 2000. The literacy rate has shot up as well. Until the Intafada broke out four years ago, the collective economy of the West Bank and Gaza was growing at the fourth fastest rate in the world.
I mention these things, however, only as a statement of Israel's track record, not to say that everything in the territories is fine and doesn't need to get better. While the Palestinians do have among the best quality of life in the Arab world, theirs is still a state of poverty, and that is not acceptable. The world can and should provide the resources to help.
Aside from these "mere" quality of life issues, there is the pressing issue of Palestinian statehood. Most "pro-Israelis" here in America support it, and they are far from alone - the overwhelming majority of actual Israelis do as well, and, in fact, consistently vote out of office those prime ministers who prove unable to give the Palestinians a state. Ehud Barak found this when he lost the top job after Arafat refused to take his offer of 97% of the West Bank, all of Gaza, and a shared capital of Jerusalem.
The much maligned Ariel Sharon, however, has widespread popular support in Israel because he has hit on a realistic plan to give Palestinians national self-determination: Disengagement. His plan, in essence, is to pull all Israelis out of the Gaza Strip, cede it to the Palestinians free of any concessions, and say, "Now you have the beginnings of a state."
Such a plan does not preclude movement on the West Bank?rather, it allows the Palestinians to set up a functioning government in a state that is completely theirs, and then move on to the issues they would have to deal with in the West Bank.
Disengagement, unfortunately, is more of a step toward Palestinian statehood than anything Arafat has done in decades. Arafat is a man who has twice?once at Camp David and again at Taba?rejected offers that would have guaranteed a Palestinian state by now.
Rather than fostering a sense of Palestinian nationality, one could argue that Arafat's lasting legacy should be the $300 million he stole from his own people?there is a reason Forbes Magazine rated him the sixth richest "leader" in the world?and the rampant cronyism he has allowed to pillage the Palestinian Authority's coffers. Based on his track record, denunciation of Arafat seems almost necessary to his being truly pro-Palestinian.
There will be times Palestinian interests and Israeli interests conflict. Water rights come to mind, as does the exact final border in the West Bank (though that is less of an issue than you might think. David Makovsky, the head of the Washington Institute and the world's foremost expert on West Bank demographics, has found that Israel could appropriate about 12% of the territory and bring over 76% of the settlers into Israel proper.)
These are not issues, however, that are substantially worse than those faced by any two neighbors. Mexico and America still argue about water rights to the Rio Grande. The bottom line is that, on the fundamental issues of the "conflict," namely Palestinian economic wellbeing and an established Palestinian state living peacefully next to Israel, both sides agree.
With Disengagement, Israelis are trying to prove what they have known all along?that they are, of course, pro-Israeli, but they are pro-Palestinian as well.