Playing for Time

Every New York school child learns the story of Peter Minuit and the handful of Dutch settlers who, it’s said, purchased the island of Manhattan from the Indians for $24 worth of beads and trinkets.

The original record of the transaction, dated 5th November 1626, says that they “purchased the Island Manhattes from the Indians for the value of 60 guilders,” which, as Russell Shorto explains in his wonderful history of Manhattan, The Island at the Centre of the World, amounted to the going rate for real estate in the New World at that time. The settlers didn’t pay cash, which, as Shorto notes, “the Indians would have found useless.” Instead, they gave the natives goods worth 60 guilders. The actual merchandise isn’t specified, but in a similar deal for Staten Island, Peter Minuit gave the Tappans tribe “Duffels, Kittles, Axes, Hoes, Wampum, Drilling Awls, Jews Harps and diverse other small wares.” This merchandise sounds more useful than beads and trinkets, but however you calculate it, there can be no doubt that in 1626, New York real estate was a steal.

And, in fact, the idea of theft has become a common theme in discussing the European colonization of the New World. I think most Americans now accept the notion that the natives who originally inhabited North and South America were either cheated out of, or forcibly driven from their lands by the Europeans who arrived on their shores. But though most of us would probably acknowledge this – perhaps with a touch of politically correct regret – few of us, Native Americans excepted, would even consider the idea that the descendants of the original European settlers should ever give the land back to its original inhabitants.

Why?

Because too much time has passed, too much history has unfolded and too much change has taken place. However morally just the claims of the original Manhattan Indians, it’s been too long and there’s simply no rolling back the clock.

Now contrast the European colonization of the Americas with the colonization of Africa. Many of the same players were involved (the English, the Dutch, the French and, to a lesser extent, the Germans, the Portuguese and the Italians), but the results, historically speaking, were completely different. In Africa, the European colonists first took control of the continent, as they had the Americas, and then, beginning in the early 1960s, gave it back.

A lot of factors contributed to Europe’s decolonization of Africa in the second half of the 20th Century, but I’d venture to guess that the biggest factor was demography. There were just too many Africans and never enough Europeans to make European domination stick.

South Africa was one of the last redoubts of European colonial rule, and I distinctly remember a conversation I had with an Afrikaner at a dinner party shortly after I’d moved there in 1988. As I recall, I was full of righteous (and justifiable) indignation about the plight of the Africans who were suffering under the yoke of apartheid, and it was clear that my dinner companion, a descendent of the Dutch settlers who had colonized the country, had heard it all before. I remember that he listened patiently to my rant and then said, “Yes, I’m sure you’re right. I guess we should have just killed them all, like you did in America.”

But, of course, the Europeans didn’t “kill them all” (though, in fact, they killed many). Instead the European “masters” used the Africans for cheap labor, to work the fields and the mines. From the European point of view, this proved to be a short-term success but a long-term failure as, in country after country, it became impossible for a tiny minority to dominate and suppress the overwhelming majority. Demography, it turned out, was destiny. The Africans had the numbers and the Europeans were shown the door.

Which brings us to the Middle East.

I’ve often wondered why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been so resistant to a peaceful resolution, and I’ve decided that the problem is that both sides believe time is on their side.

The Israelis have adopted the Dutch-in-Manhattan mindset. They know that between half a million and a million Palestinians were displaced when Israel was created in 1948, but rather than argue the morality of their national existence, they’ve decided to play for time. At some point in the future they figure that 1948 will become like 1626, and Israel’s right to exist will no longer be challenged. So I think that the Israelis figure that any comprehensive peace agreement with the Palestinians now would only work to their long-term disadvantage. In their view, the more history they can put between 1948 and an eventual settlement with the Palestinians, the better.

The Palestinians, too, think time is on their side. And their logic, as you might expect, follows the African model. Yasser Arafat once famously said that the “womb of the Palestinian woman” was the best weapon of the Palestinian people. In his view, it was inevitable that the Israeli position in Palestine would become untenable as the number of Palestinians rose relative to the number of Jews. For Arafat, demography was destiny, and the longer a peace agreement with Israel could be delayed, the better terms the Palestinians might expect.

Most of the political conversations about Middle East peace revolve around endless arguments about who’s right and who’s wrong, who built the first temple and who fired the first shot. Dialogue like that supports the delay-and-get-a-better-deal strategies of politicians on both sides, but in the end I think it's immoral to pretend to talk about peace when innocent Israelis and Palestinians are being killed. It was probably right to create a homeland for the Jews, and it was probably wrong to displace the Palestinians. But a comprehensive peace agreement that accommodates that messy reality will be hard to achieve. What's needed, of course, is a serious plan for peace. But that seems unlikely when both sides are playing for time.