From Israel: Redundant

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
12 May '11

I strive mightily to produce material that won't be redundant, that will cover new ground and provide fresh insights. But, alas, the state of affairs in this world sometimes makes that impossible. So much that passes as "news" has a "been-there, done-that" quality to it. That's because many of those who pass for leaders these days have latched on to certain ideas -- which have become obsessions, and which they will not surrender.

"Peace process." "Two state solution." One would have thought that the current situation had made it crystal clear that aspiring to these things any longer would be the very height of foolishness and that a new approach was required. But it's not the case. We keep hearing about "negotiations" and "peace" as if they were goals that might realistically be achieved with a bit of good will. One would have thought that a "merger" between Fatah and Hamas would have opened eyes. Nahh...

Thus, on occasion, do I still have the inclination -- which I resist! -- to bang my head against the wall. Although you might find me scratching my head in bewilderment from time to time, or yelling to no one in particular, "What the hell is he talking about?!"

Consider:

~~~~~~~~~~

Shimon Peres, holding the office of President of Israel, has a position that is largely ceremonial. But apparently no one has told him this. Or, he just doesn't care.

For Yom Ha'Atzmaut the other day, he gave an interview to the JPost, that featured on the paper's front page, top of the fold. He said, among other things, that PA President Mahmoud Abbas is "absolutely" still a partner for peace, "because he wants to hold negotiations for peace with Israel...He opposes violence and he wants peace."

Heaven help us. Are we talking about the same Abbas? Is it necessary here to describe, once again, various Abbas behaviors and statements that make it obvious that he promotes violence and not peace?

What concerns me is that in certain quarters people think that Peres speaks for the government (and I'm betting he very well knows this).

He does not, most assuredly.




~~~~~~~~~~

But sometimes what Peres says comes closer to the Israeli government position than I would like to imagine. And that's in large part because of the idiocy emanating from various quarters to which members of our government, unfortunately, believe they must respond. Peres, just possibly, believes Abbas wants to negotiate peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu knows better, as does Foreign Minister Lieberman.

Lieberman, for example, said the other day that the alignment of Fatah with Hamas, "tells us more about Fatah than it does about Hamas." He is without illusions in this regard. And yet, in the same statement he felt the need to assert our "peace credentials": "The State of Israel has always said, and I repeat, we are willing to come to the negotiating table immediately to start direct talks with our neighbors (...but will not sacrifice our vital security interests.)."

Netanyahu had, for his part, reflected a similar theme, observing that he didn't understand how the PA could be "for peace with Israel and peace with Hamas, which calls for our destruction." What Netanyahu did was call upon Abbas to reject unity with Hamas, but he did it after Abbas's choice had already been made. Surely he didn't imagine that Abbas was about to reverse himself in response to this call to make a choice. What Netanyahu was broadcasting, it seems to me, is a theoretical willingness to still come to the table if only Fatah would choose Israel.

~~~~~~~~~~

While the government of Israel has been decisive in saying that it will not negotiate with a joint Fatah-Hamas government unless Hamas accepts the Quartet criteria, no one has the courage to state the full, unvarnished truth. To whit:

We have long had reason to believe that Fatah is not really committed to peace. But now Fatah has exposed itself boldly in its readiness to ally with an overt terror organization. The mask is off, and there is no more room for pretense. Even if Fatah did walk away from Hamas now, we would not accept it as a partner for peace. Unless there were genuine reform in several areas, we would not be willing to sit at the table with Fatah. The time for playing games that weaken Israel is past.

The political climate works solidly against such a position.

~~~~~~~~~~

Then we have this, which provides a context:

For Israeli Independence Day, President Obama issued a statement. Better if he had stayed at home, for that statement included this:

"This is a period of profound change in the Middle East and North Africa, as people across the region courageously pursue the path of dignity and self-governance. Just as I know that Israel will always be one of our closest allies, I believe that the region can be more peaceful and prosperous when its people are able to fulfill their legitimate aspirations.

"We will continue our efforts with Israel and others in the region to achieve a comprehensive peace, including a two-state solution..."

"Legitimate aspirations." "Comprehensive peace." "Two state solution."

Sigh...

~~~~~~~~~~

The rationale commonly provided for this position is that there must be a push towards negotiations if that threatened Palestinian Arab move to establish a state via the UN in September is to be countered. We'll come back to this in another posting shortly.

~~~~~~~~~~

Last Sunday, Abbas said he would postpone going to the UN if he saw diplomatic progress with Israel was being made. He made this statement in the presence of media, in response to a question put to him by a member of a J Street entourage that had gone into Ramallah for meetings with the PA president.

This, of course, is designed to put pressure on Israel to be "forthcoming" enough to allow Abbas to return to the table.

~~~~~~~~~~

What concerns me at the moment -- and I've alluded to this before, probably several times -- is the level of pretense that will now transpire with regard to that unity government, which is scheduled to be put in place in a matter of days. It's dangerous game playing, with the likelihood that benign technocrats will front for terrorists.

Yesterday, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar, who serves as foreign minister in Gaza, declared that Hamas would find it impossible to recognize Israel, but would accept a Palestinian state along the '67 lines temporarily. Temporarily. His position is that he would be content to accept a Palestinian state "on any part of Palestine," as long as the ultimate goal would be a state of "Palestine in its entirety."

Formal recognition of Israel would "cancel the right of the next generation to liberate the lands."

~~~~~~~~~~

The day before, Hamas politburo chief Khaled Masha'al had said that Israel would have one year to recognize a Palestinian state established within lands outside the '67 lines.

Sounds like a threat if I ever heard one, but Masha'al says that this would not necessarily mean armed conflict, rather, "[Hamas] would add new cards to the resistance." According to the PA news agency Ma'an, Hamas and Fatah have discussed at length the appropriate manner for conducting resistance against Israel, including armed conflict.

~~~~~~~~~~

It should come as no surprise that Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League and a candidate for the Egyptian presidency, told the Washington Post in an interview just two days ago that:

"The view that Hamas is a terrorist organization is a view that pertains to a minority of countries, not a majority. Being a terrorist is not a stigma forever."

Terrorism in the eye of the beholder, and all that.

~~~~~~~~~~

Prime Minister Netanyahu is due to go to the States in a matter of days. He will be meeting with President Obama next Friday, May 20th; will address AIPAC on the 23rd; and then address a joint session of Congress on the 24th.

There continues to be concern inside of Israel that Netanyahu will set policy at that address to Congress, without having sufficiently cleared it with government and Knesset leaders here. He has been called upon to establish principles in concert with our own decision-makers first, before making a presentation to Congress.

The world will be listening when he speaks on the 24th. It is time for our head of state to say, quite simply, look, look what compromises we've made, look what good will we've expressed, in return for what? For a continual embrace of terrorism.

The fear is that his message will be that. no, Israel cannot negotiate with a terrorist Hamas, but the world should know how eager we remain to achieve peace. Then to demonstrate the sincerity of that desire for peace, he might offer certain concessions to be fulfilled under the right conditions. He might even advance some vision of peace for the future, lest anyone (horrors!) might think Israel is not working constantly for peace. (It should be noted that Foreign Minister Barak has just advanced a "peace plan" that closely resembles what he advanced in 2000, when he was prime minister.)

~~~~~~~~~~

This is, I must note, just a fear. There is no concrete evidence that this is the direction in which Netanyahu is headed. He is, as I understand it, actually still in process of formulating that speech. And so far he has projected a good modicum of strength.

Had Fatah not joined with Hamas, that speech offering potential concessions for peace is likely what we would have heard. But the dynamic has shifted, and there has been some necessary stiffening of the premier's spine in response to the new situation.

How much stiffening, remains to be seen.

~~~~~~~~~~

It was being said, prior to the unity announcement, that President Obama would be advancing his own vision of a peace plan soon. But with the shifting situation, there was considerable opinion that this would not happen.

Now there has been a report, coming from inside the US administration, that the president is likely to give a "major address on the Middle East," before his departure to Europe on May 22 -- indeed, very possibly in the coming week. It would look at the Middle East more broadly; there is no clarity at this point regarding how specifically he would address the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict or whether he would have a new proposal (if such a thing even exists).

~~~~~~~~~~

According to a Wall Street Journal article, Obama is interested in courting the Muslim world in the wake of the assassination of bin Laden. This focus might be the thrust of his anticipated address. The article says Obama has not decided whether to attempt an aggressive new push to re-start peace talks.

The question Obama is said to be pondering is whether such a push could be productive. Is he kidding? He failed last time and the situation is much more problematic now.

Allow me to reiterate: many of those who pass for leaders these days have latched on to certain ideas --which have become obsessions and which they will not surrender. Obama seems the exemplar of this mindset.

~~~~~~~~~~

On this same subject, you might like to see an article by Lee Smith in Tablet (all emphasis added):

"I think it [the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation] is the only way to expose the hypocrisy and moral rot that has been at the core of Western thinking about the Arab-Israeli conflict for more than 30 years...

"The Hamas-Fatah unity government does not lay bare the Palestinians’ hatred of Israel, which has been obvious for decades to anyone who reads the statements of Palestinian leaders or the textbooks they distribute to their children. It says nothing about the Palestinians themselves, for the Palestinians—moderates and radicals alike—have never been opaque about their goals. The debate between Palestinian moderates and radicals is a debate over the means, and the timetable, for reaching a common goal. They’ve been encouraged by Western mendacity for decades, and they’ve played a weak hand well.
"Rather, Palestinian unification reveals the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American and other Western policymakers who have been peddling a fantasy of Palestinian moderation and peaceful coexistence for more than 30 years. It is time for us to realize that the suggestion that fine words about peace will discourage people from shooting at each other is not clever or hopeful or even naïve: It is actively immoral. The Palestinians aren’t the liars; we are."

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/67078/pact-or-fiction/

~~~~~~~~~~

If Obama does deliver this address, he would be preempting Netanyahu's talk to Congress.

~~~~~~~~~~

Sunday, May 15, is "Nakba Day," the day on which Arabs commemorate the "catastrophe" of the founding of Israel.

According to YNet, Fatah and Hamas have set up a joint committee to manage events for the day in Gaza, and Judea and Samaria. The JPost says Fatah's "revolutionary council" has urged escalation of "popular resistance," especially in neighborhoods of Jerusalem such as Silwan, Issawiya, Sheikh Jarrah and the Old City. Local Arab committees are said to be urging people to surge forward, in confrontations at roadblocks and Jewish communities. Abbas Zaki, a senior member of the Fatah Central Committee predicts that the PA will not be able to contain street demonstrations. There is even talk about this escalating into a third intifada (read, war).

But it is difficult to make an accurate prediction of what sort of violence will really ensue; the talk may be highly inflated. There is one school of thought that anticipates that the PA will do its best to keep things quiet so as to look responsible, while saving the big push for September.

At any rate, the IDF is currently preparing for all eventualities -- with troop reinforcements and deployment in potential trouble spots to serve as a deterrent. One of the goals of the army, in quelling unrest if and as it occurs, is to avoid casualties -- as this would generate considerably more violence. Thus, in certain settings soldiers will be utilizing crowd control equipment rather than lethal weapons. (But if there are gunmen in the midst of a crowd, they will be dealt with swiftly.)

~~~~~~~~~~

Two days after Yom Ha'Atzmaut, let me share here a video that was released for the holiday, but which is worth seeing, and sharing, any time of year.

It includes historical footage, starting with Ben Gurion's declaration of the State, and takes us forward on a journey, through Jewish sacrifice and Jewish building, to stunning successes in the present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raQq5TNEvvQ

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.



If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.