SHUK DIPLOMACY (With four rules)

Len Estrin

Walk into the Arab market, or shuk, in Jerusalem, Haifa or even Cairo, and an earnest merchant will no doubt offer you a great price on a variety of wares. If you walk away, the merchant likely will follow you down the alley, dropping the price with every step you take. The reason: The item isn't valuable to you. And if it isn't valuable to you, it has little useful value to the seller.

What has that got to do with peace the Middle East

Everything!

The reason is that Western Diplomacy is based on shared values such as compromise for a mutually acceptable goal. Shuk Diplomacy is based on one thing survival, which means victory over a threat, whether that threat is real or perceived.

Think about it. As anyone who has ever studied or visited the region knows, much of the Middle East is an arid region that can barely support life. (In fact, the Negev desert made up 65 percent of the State of Israel in 1948.) Survival in a desert land requires its own set of rules; and these rules define Arab behavior, not political, social, religious, or military theory. What's more, these rules are not truly understood by western society, including a westernized Israel. But these rules are important for Israel’s safety, and nothing, not even releasing over a hundred Arab criminals, can change that fact. Here are several of these examples.

Rule No. 1: "If it is valuable to you, it is valuable to me. If it is not valuable to you, it is not valuable to me."

Look at history in the region. Israel had no value to the Arab people until the Jews claimed it. There was never any attempt to establish a state by the indigenous Arab population. The closest thing occurred in 1921, when the British created "Transjordan" and gave it to the Hashemite Arab King Abdullah.

Interestingly, Jordan ruled more than 80 percent of the land originally set aside for the Jews under the Palestinian Mandate. Yet that did not satisfy the Arab population of the region. As soon as the State of Israel was born, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia declared war with the avowed intent of capturing the 10 percent of the land left to the Jews. After all, if it was valuable to the Jews, it had just as much value to the Arabs.

Similarly, Yasser Arafat was offered a Palestinian state, with territory in more than 97 percent of the West Bank. Yet once Ehud Barak declared his willingness to give up this territory, he, in essence, implied that it was no longer valuable. As a result, it no longer had value for Arafat. Instead, he focused on the remaining 3 percent and the deal fell through.

We see the same thing occurring again and again. Logically, one would have expected the Arabs to rejoice when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. Yet the Arab reaction was (to say the least) negative; and for the same reason. Once it has lost its value to Israel, it has lost its value to the Arabs who are no longer are interested in Gaza as "homeland." They want Israel.

Rule No. 2: "Values are a means to an end, and not an end to themselves."

In the west, there is a moral obligation to honor one's commitments based on Judeo-Christian values. Yet these values have no place in a hostile environment such as a desert. Instead, one must do whatever it takes to survive. Concepts such as honor and honesty take on an entirely different character. They are the temporary means to achieving a desired end. As such, their meaning and usage can change to fit the situation.

For example, Joseph's Tomb is located in the heart of the ancient town of Shechem, also known as Nablus. As long as Israel was in undisputed control, the Arab population was silent. In 2000, the site became the subject of a dispute between the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government, and a new claim was launched. The Arabs said the site was really the burial place of a Muslim holy man, Sheik Yousef, and not Jacob's son. In a moment of generosity, Nablus Mayor Ghassan Shakaa stated, ""If it's Sheik Yousef, we will turn it into a Muslim shrine. If it's the Prophet Joseph, who we also believe in, then we have to talk about how we can resolve this, how we can organize visits by Jews under Palestinian control."

Soon he had a chance to make good on his words. In October 2000, a military battle ensued and the Israeli Army withdrew from the site rather than risk offending the Arabs of Shechem. The Arabs controlled the tomb, yet instead of organizing visits under Palestinian control, crazed mobs tore the building apart as police from the PA stood by. What happened to the mayor's commitment

Like the persona of Sheik Yousef, it was only required for the moment; and once it passed, so did the intent of Mayor Shakaa's words.

Rule No. 3: "History is subjective, not objective."

Most cultures have a sense of history based on tradition and artifacts. To the Arab culture what happened is of little importance; what they think happened is what counts. Here is an example. To most Arabs (and many infidels), the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are seen as the third holiest site in Islam. Yet the fact is that Koran never mentions Al-Haram Ash-Shareef (the Noble Sanctuary), Jerusalem or anything of the sort. Furthermore, Mohammed lived around 700 CE and never physically set foot in the land of Israel. The Jews certainly did, however. In fact, the Jews have lived in Israel for more than 3,000 years, over two millennia before both Mohammed and Islam! Jerusalem, by comparison, is mentioned more than 700 times in the Bible; the same Bible that the Arabs use to trace their lineage back to Abraham! Furthermore, the location of the Holy Temples has been documented by Scripture and verified by archeologists. For  example, in June 2004 archeologist Eli Shukrun discovered the Second Temple-era Pool of Siloam. This particular pool is mentioned twice in the Bible, (Nehemia 3:15 and Isaiah 8:6). It is also mentioned in the New Testament, in John 9:7 ("Pool of Siloam").Yet a statement by the Higher Islamic Authority of Palestine Al-Quds (PA) in 2001 read, "The claims being made by the rulers of Israel and its rabbis about the alleged Temple are pure fabrications without any base or foundation." Obviously, any Jewish proof flies in the face of the Arabs' subjective view of history and therefore, must be wrong.

Rule No. 4: "Might determines right."

1993 marked the beginning of the Oslo Peace Process. For the next six years, representatives of Israel, the United States and the Arab nations tried to hammer out an agreement among all the parties. During the same time, Arab attackers murdered more than 1,000 Jews. More Jewish men, women and children were killed during those six years than in the previous 25 together. In essence, the process of peace directly caused acts of war!

Once again, a cultural analysis can shed light on this tragic trend. As mentioned above, diplomacy requires compromise, in which both parties lose something for the greater gain. In a desert land, compromise is a sign of weakness and weakness is the first step to defeat. Therefore, any attempt at negotiation or conciliation is sign that the opponent has no hope, desire or ability to achieve or maintain victory. On the other hand, strength is something that is clearly understood, because strength threatens survival, so a strong adversary is best avoided. The bottom line: If you fight and win, it's yours. If you lose, it's ours. If you act like the loser, then you really didn't win. And compromise, no matter how sincere, is the act of the weak and the sign of a loser.

Several years ago, a friend heard a conversation between Arab co-workers. I don’t understand the Israelis. They claim Hebron is theirs. If it is, let them come and take it. If it isn’t, they should leave! His friend agreed. Two people cannot wear one pair of shoes at the same time! It’s impossible

Similarly, two nations cannot govern one country. In the Arab view, the entire region is Arab country. Needless to say, the Jews also have a claim; one that is rooted in the Bible. G-d said that Israel belongs to the Jews and no one can give or take it away.

So the question is, can there ever be peace in the region

Two scenarios can be envisioned. The first is Divine intervention. In 1991, CNN interviewed the Grand Rabbi of Lubavitch, Rabbi M.M. Schneerson, who proclaimed. "The [Jewish] Messiah is ready to come. All that is required is an increase in deeds of goodness and kindness."

Rabbi Schneerson's prediction could be easily dismissed except for thing: his track record. Rabbi Schneerson correctly foretold the demise of Communism and the mass exodus of Russian Jews to Israel. He predicted the end of the Gulf War to the day. He indicated to his followers that the putsch that threatened the Soviet Union in October 1991 would quickly subside. It did. He also indicated that Hurricane Andrew would not directly strike Miami. It did not. For 44 years, Rabbi Schneerson's insight and advice proved accurate in an amazing number of situations and events, large and small. Will he be right again

Only time (and an increase in acts of kindness) will tell.

The second scenario is much less rosy. Like genetic material, the cultural forces that drive Arab behavior are ingrained. Therefore, peace can only be achieved when Israel and America stop expecting the Arabs to play according western rules, and start to play according to theirs.

Leibel Estrin is a student of history and a follower of Rabbi Schneerson.