Hamas presents a Middle Eastern lesson for naïve dreamers

...Last week, an Israeli daily held a strange type of "peace conference" with itself. Isn't it ironic that during that "peace conference" missiles were fired at central Israel and Tel Aviv? Yes, no one in the State of Israel is immune anymore, but the peace conferences, the hotels, the refreshments and the great amount of funds from Europe continue as if nothing has happened.

Guy Bechor..
Israel Opinion/Ynet..
19 July '14..

Once upon a time there was an ancient folktale, straight from Europe's black forests, named "The Two-State Fairytale" (its full name, "For Two States," is no longer mentioned), but last week this fairytale breathed its last under a barrage of missiles, stones and the conquests of the new Islamic caliphate.

The fairytale is interrupted by missiles. When the majority of Israel is being targeted by missiles fired by a terror organization which took over a territory, how can anyone consider giving the Palestinians more independent land? Isn't it clear that no matter who rules this land, the terror will start launching missiles from there on Israel's cities, and this time from the center of the Land of Israel?

The IDF's presence is the only thing preventing this threat today, and we have already seen Ben-Gurion Airport threatened with Hamas missiles from Gaza, so imagine missiles being launched from just several kilometers away.

The fairytale that dividing the territory will lead to peace is being proved as extremely dangerous. It will only lead to war and further misery for all sides. Hamas has taught the naïve dreamers a Middle Eastern lesson.

The fairytale is also interrupted by stones. Finance Minister Yair Lapid keeps talking about "a peaceful divorce" from the Palestinians, "them and us" and "disengagement." But last week it turned out that there is a problem with some of Israel's Arabs too, not just with the Palestinians.

So should we divorce Israel's Arabs as well? Should we disengage from northern Israel, according to this perception? Of course not, and that's why this is an unfeasible folktale. Even if we do disengage, there will be those who will say that the little we have left is a bi-national state. Some of Israel's Arabs have also taught the naïve dreamers a Middle Eastern lesson.

The fairytale is also interrupted by the Arab Spring, which is manifested both in Judea and Samaria and in Gaza. In Judea and Samaria we saw this month how Mahmoud Abbas can't even control his own territory, surrounded by organizations which are hostile towards him and towards Israel.

In Gaza it's exactly the same situation: The political Hamas is challenged by the military Hamas, which is challenged by the Islamic Jihad, the Resistance Committees, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front – all of which are challenged by ISIS and the growing Salafis. Even they are incapable of making any decision, certainly not accepting agreements with their bitter enemy Israel.

Each of them is firing rockets at Israel and engaging in a debate with the other organizations, at the expense of Israel's citizens. The Arab chaos teaches the naïve dreamers a Middle Eastern lesson.

There is another road to peace

...Peace does not only come from diplomacy or agreements. More often, historically, lasting peace comes about because one side defeats the other. Chamberlain and Stalin signed ‘peace’ agreements with Hitler, but peace did not arrive until Russian tanks entered Berlin. And who is preventing Israel from defeating its enemies conclusively? Who is propping them up and giving them hope that they will win in the end?

Fresnozionism.org..
31 October '13..

Last week I spoke to a woman, a senior citizen who reads a column that I write in the local Jewish Federation newsletter. “I enjoy your articles,” she said, “but what I want to know is this: after all these years, when will Israel ever get peace?”

“When we get different Arabs,” I answered.

Of course what I meant was that we cannot reach an agreement with those whose deepest desire is that we be gone from the Middle East, who do not recognize the legitimacy of any Jewish sovereignty regardless of borders, and who encourage murder and venerate murderers in all of their institutions.

This becomes evident in negotiations in which the PLO refuses to recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, insists upon a ‘right of return’ for the descendants of 1948 refugees, and refuses to consider Israel’s most basic security needs — all the while continuing to glorify murderers and incite young people to become terrorists, even suicide terrorists.

Someday there might be a new Arab leadership, I suggested, that is more interested in economic development than revenge, and then there might be a possibility of peace.

So this morning I was telling “Robman,” who often comments on this blog, about the conversation. And he made an interesting point: there are other ways to get to peace than to make a deal with the Arabs.

There is more to the persistence of Arab terrorism than just hatred and a pathological desire for revenge. There is the belief that if they persist long enough, they will ultimately succeed in getting rid of the ‘Zionist enemy’. To a certain extent, this is part of Islamic ideology — after all, there was a 200-year Crusader kingdom in the Holy Land that was ultimately overcome, something Palestinians talk about a lot.

But that isn’t the only source of encouragement, and the intensity of the struggle is amplified, perhaps even sustained, by the encouragement the Palestinian (and other) Arabs receive daily from the rest of the world, implying that theirs is not a lost cause.

Khaled Abu Toameh - Where Are the Moderate Arabs and Palestinians?

Khaled Abu Toameh..
Gatestone Institute..
04 June '12..

In Israel, there are dozens of organizations and parties that openly advocate peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world. Some even go as far as calling on the Israeli government to comply with 100% of the Palestinians' demands by fully withdrawing to the pre-1967 lines.

Many of these organizations and parties have also been active in launching protests against Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories, especially the construction of the security barrier and new houses in settlements.

Israeli human rights groups and other organizations are usually the first to condemn the Israel Defense Forces or the government when something with the Palestinians goes wrong. Some Israelis have decided to expand their protest by participating in Palestinian street demonstrations against the Israeli Defense Forces in the West Bank or the Police in east Jerusalem.

The Israeli media is also full of articles -- by Jewish writers -- who are extremely critical of the Israeli establishment and who openly back Palestinian demands for statehood and independence. Hence it is no surprise that Palestinian media newspapers devote entire pages to publish translated [pro-Palestinian] articles and news stories that originally appeared in the Israeli media.

IMRA - We did not promise peace

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
06 October '11



“I promise you - my little girl,
That this will be the last war."
The Last War - song performed during the Yom Kippur War – 1973

"We are the children of winter 1973
.....you promised peace"
WINTER OF '73 – song performed first in 1995

They were both lies.

I am from the generation that experienced the nightmare of the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

And while Yehoram Gaon certainly entertained the troops singing “The Last War”, it was not seen at the time as anything more than just a song.

When our children were born I had every expectation that would have to serve in the IDF when they grew up. And they did.

And I have every expectation that the generations that will follow will also serve.

It is catastrophically naive to think otherwise.

Now that’s not to say that our policy makers should not strive to reach agreements and understandings with our neighbors.

Just that we do not live in a “best case scenario world” and the efficacy of these agreements and understandings must be considered without any illusions.

No. We don’t promise our children peace.

But when considered from the perspective of Jewish history, what we offer today is pretty encouraging.

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.
.

Stupid about his daughters, stupid about settlements

Fresnozionism.org
12 September '10

Theodore Bikel, the 86-year old Jewish acting and musical legend, who starred as Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, is quoted in the Forward thus:

Anyone who has strong feelings for Israel like I do, and that believes it is an absolute necessity to strive for peace, understands that the single most obvious obstacle are the settlements. [my emphasis]

The article goes on to explain that this is why Bikel signed a petition urging Israeli artists to not perform in settlements, and then quotes far-left actor Ed Asner,

“I would like to see this kind of courage among American actors,” Asner said in a telephone interview with the Forward. The eight-time Emmy Award winner praised the Israeli actors for “taking a stand on an issue that no one else wants to touch.”

No one else wants to touch it? Give us a break. These ‘courageous’ actors are on the same side as the Israeli academic and media establishment, the European Union, Barack Obama and the entire Arab and Muslim world!

Anyway, I don’t doubt Bikel’s love of Israel or his Zionist credentials, but he’s wrong. Here are five simple reasons why settlements are not “the single most obvious obstacle to peace.” Then I will reveal what it really is (it won’t be a surprise to regular readers).

(Read full post)

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.
.

Do Israelis care about peace?

Fresnozionism.org
07 September '10

As Israelis are about to begin their High Holiday season — one of introspection, resolutions and repentance for religious and secular Jews alike — TIME magazine gives us a cover story entitled “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.”

The article itself is so stupid as to be not worth refuting. Those Jews, it points out, haven’t changed much since the Middle Ages:

In the week that three Presidents, a King and their own Prime Minister gather at the White House to begin a fresh round of talks on peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the truth is, Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter. They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money…

They make their case by quoting a couple of Israeli political analysts — no, actually, they are real estate salespeople — who say with authority,

“The people,” Heli says, “don’t believe.” Eli searches for a word. “People in Israel are indifferent,” he decides. “They don’t care if there’s going to be war. They don’t care if there’s going to be peace. They don’t care. They live in the day.”

So much for TIME.

(Read full post)

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.
.

The Zionist League for Preemptive Self-Defense

Fresnozionism.org
23 July '10

Recently, a fellow mentioned that he was putting together a new pro-Israel organization and that he was trying to decide what to name it.

He was considering something like “Peace and Justice for the Middle East.”

My first thought was that this sounds like an anti-Israel group. All he would need to add would be something about human rights and it would be perfect. Of course this is because the people who want to see an end to the Jewish state have co-opted the language of peace, justice and human rights. They own it now, despite the fact that this entails an Orwellian reversal of meaning.

For example, let’s take a local organization, Peace Fresno. They support the ‘right of return’ for Palestinian Arab ‘refugees’. Now I know a number of their members and they say they are against all war. I would like to ask them how the influx of several million violently hostile Arabs into tiny Israel would affect matters of war and peace. Would it make things more peaceful? We know that it would be the beginning of a bloody civil war, 1948 all over again except with ten times the number of combatants. We know this because the Palestinians themselves tell us.

But they would say that the Palestinian refugees deserve justice. Really? Is it just that the Palestinian Arabs, who started the 1948 war under the leadership of the Nazi Mufti al-Husseini and lost it, should have the result of that war reversed after 62 years? Is it just that other refugees, like the 800,000 Jewish ones who fled Arab countries between 1948 and the 1960’s were absorbed by Israel and other countries, but the Arab nations refuse to absorb even one Palestinian?

(Read full post)

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.
.

Build Now! The Antidote to Appease AKA Peace sic Now

Batya Medad
Shiloh Musings
04 April '10

Things have always been a bit "cockeyed" here in the Holy Land. The "Laws of Nature" and Mathematics, conventional logic don't always work.

According to conventional logic, the Jewish People should be a postscript in history, but we're not. We're still around, as feisty and unpredictable as ever. That's why we celebrate our על הניסים Al HaNissim, Because of the Miracles... holidays, Chanukah and Purim.

In the Twentieth Century, Hitler's Nazi Germany was sure that it could destroy the Jewish People. Remember that the world didn't care. Not a single nation did anything to oppose the Final Solution. The fight against the Nazis was for the other nations, not to protect Jews. The world really didn't care if every Jew was wiped out, off the face of the earth.

After World War II, the Zionists in the Promised Land AKA Palestine had to fight the British who wouldn't end the Mandate and give us independence. We succeeded and promptly defeated the Arabs who attacked the nascent Jewish State. Though the State of Israel was "approved" by the infant United Nations, we had no real support. I have no doubt that most countries only voted in favor because they were certain that we'd be defeated.

(Read full post)
.

Negotiations (1973)

Today's Golden Oldie is a Dry Bones cartoon done in 1973.
I thought I'd post a really old "Golden Oldie" today, so I checked to see what was happening in the very first December in which I was doing Dry Bones cartoons, 36 years ago ...and discovered that nothing much seems to have changed!
.

A Bill Clinton Promise (1999)

Today's Golden Oldie is a Dry Bones cartoon from December 1999. Ten years ago next month.

I've posted this Golden Oldie because the ex-President is here in Israel to share his "wisdom" with us. According to the Associated Press (as quoted by Haaretz)

Bill Clinton in Israel: There would be peace if Rabin were still alive
"Former U.S. President Bill Clinton said on Saturday that if former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin were still alive, a peace accord would have been reached between Israel and all of its neighbors." -more

The impeached President, who broke his promise to free Pollard ten years ago, is now telling us that the ongoing, continuous, and relentless genocidal quest to destroy the Jewish State is because of Israel's political leadership!!?!

The man pushes the limits of hutzpah!

* * *Ten years after Clinton's broken promise, Jonathan Pollard remains in Prison ... On November 21, 2009, Jonathan Pollard will enter his 25th year of a life sentence for his activities on behalf of Israel. The median sentence for the offense Pollard committed - one count of passing classified information to an ally - is 2 to 4 years. Pollard received his life sentence without a trial, as a result of a plea bargain which he honored and the U.S. government violated.

Sukkot 2009

I am off on a speaking tour in the States until the end of October. I wrote, drew, and posted a set of cartoons to provide you with a daily chuckle while I'm away.

This is one of those cartoons.

Angels

I've used these two angel characters for years and years. They, like me, have been watching the search for "Peace" for years and years.

This reminds me of the old joke about the drunk who dropped his house keys on his doorstep, but then looked for them under a nearby street light "because there was more light there."

...we're watching yet another President searching for Middle East peace through concessions from the tiny Jewish State (as easy as looking under a street light) instead of where it might actually be found ...by getting the locals to accept the existence of the Jewish State (as difficult as searching in the dark).

the Tricky Part (1999)

Today's Golden Oldie is from September 6, 1999.

A cartoon from ten years ago that is as fresh as the latest pressure on us coming out of the Obama White House.

End the Incitement

14 March 2007

At the time of this writing Israel's lackluster PM and the PA's irrelevant President are trying to prop each other up. The topic they've discussed is supposedly peace. But the only path to peace is through an end to incitement. And that's one item that I'm sure was not on their agenda.

For more info and links, check this previous posting about Incitement and the Peace Process.

(While this Dry Bones is from 2007, none of us should have had any illusions that this is something that would be going away. As can be seen from this PMW posting, both the PA and Hamas have not allowed themselves to be distracted from their normal course of discourse. YH)

Palestinian TV children's quizzes teach that there is no Israel

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
PMW Bulletins
Sept. 2, 2009

Palestinian children are taught through formal and informal education to see a world in which "Palestine" exists and replaces all of Israel. Two children's quizzes broadcast last week on Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority television show how the PA routinely teaches its children to identify all Israeli cities as Palestinian cities.
(Continue)

Clinton's Global Initiative

27 September 2006 (I think it's a family issue)

Al-Jazeerah Reports

"New York, 22 September 2006: The International Crisis Group today launched a new global advocacy initiative designed to generate new political momentum for a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Major funding support for the initiative, to cost around $400,000 in its first year, was announced at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York."

The basic goal of the initiative is to empower the Arab States and a broad alliance of anti-Israeli leaders to campaign internationally to force a "solution" on Israel.
As the official report puts it:

"An international publicity campaign mobilising respected former presidents, prime ministers, foreign and defence ministers, congressional leaders and heads of international organisations around a statement of support for a comprehensive settlement, and a new process to achieve it, involving a possible international conference to kickstart negotiations, and the leadership role of the Quartet (U.S., EU, Russia, UN) being reinforced by greater participation from the Arab League and regional countries."

Read the whole thing here.

Mideast Peace (1991)

Today's Golden Oldie is a Dry Bones cartoon from 1991.

The bizarre delusion that the Middle East would settle down and be peaceful if only the "Palestinian problem" were solved continues to this day.
Yikes!

The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege

Middle East Forum
A briefing by Kenneth Levin
(September 26, 2005)

(While this piece is 4 years it has withstood the test of time and is worth giving a 2nd look.)

Dr. Levin is the author of The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege. He earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania, a B.A./M.A. in English language and literature from Oxford University, an M.D. degree from Penn and a Ph.D. in history from Princeton University. He is a clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and maintains a private practice in psychiatry. Dr. Levin has written extensively on Israel and the Arab-Israeli conflict. His articles have appeared in The New Republic, The Boston Globe, The Washington Times, and The Jerusalem Post.

On the very evening of the handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat on the White House lawn in September of 1993, the latter went on Jordanian television and told his constituency that it should understand the Oslo accord as the first phase in the Phased Plan elaborated by the PLO in 1974, with the ultimate goal being the destruction of Israel. Arafat repeated this assertion at least a dozen times during the first month of Oslo. Why did Israel persist in the Oslo process when following Arafat's arrival in the territories in July of 1994 Israel experienced the worst terror attacks in its history?

The Oslo process was supposed to finally achieve genuine peace between Arabs and Israelis; instead it resulted in the worst terror that Israel has ever experienced. We must ask why this was the case. Why did Israel enter into multiple agreements with Arafat when he was openly stating his goal to be the annihilation of Israel?

According to Ari Shavit, a writer for Ha'aretz, during the Oslo accords enlightened Israelis were affected with a Messianic craze – they believed that the end of the old Middle East, the end of history, the end of wars and the end of conflict was near. They fooled themselves with delusions, bedazzled into committing an act of Messianic drunkenness.

To understand the why of this situation we must look at the psychology of chronically besieged populations. Almost invariably there are parts of the population that accept the indictments of the besiegers in the hope that they can win relief and peace. This is a psychological response to being besieged, and Jews have been besieged for 2000 years. As Max Nordau wrote over a hundred years ago, the greatest success of the anti-Semites was that they had gotten the Jews to see themselves through anti-Semitic eyes. Nordau saw the idea of a Jewish state as a refuge for all Jews, regardless of their politics, language, or nationality.

In the 1920's and 1930's within the Zionist movement the "new Jew" was cast as a secular socialist, without the accoutrements that enraged the wider gentile world. German Jewish intellectuals like Martin Buber cast their disapproval of a Jewish state in moral terms, and argued that Jews had moved beyond the need for a state, but were also concerned that they might lose their newly acquired nationalities if a Jewish state were formed.

From the creation of the Jewish state until 1977, Israel was run by socialist-Zionists. However, things changed in 1977, when for the first time, a non-socialist-Zionist government was elected. Between 1977 and 1992 the Labor constituency began to accept the idea that if Israel retreated to the 1967 lines the Arabs would allow them to peacefully coexist. The New History movement also supported the idea that in order to achieve peace Israel must acknowledge its guilt and accede to a retreat. Moreover, it proffered the notion that Israel bore primary responsibility for the hatred with which it was viewed by its neighbors. The post-Zionist movement argued that Israel was too Jewish and that it must abolish the law of return and change the flag and national anthem as they were unfair to Arabs.

Within a year of the 1992 election the Labor party had accepted some of these ideas. Still, the "peace movement" marched in the street against Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, arguing that he was not making concessions quickly enough. This movement continued to press for more concessions despite Arafat's statements that this was the first phase in the plan to annihilate Israel and despite the terror attacks that were perpetrated against Israel.

The Labor coalition was defeated in 1996, when Benjamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister. During his three years as head of the government Netanyahu's tone was less conciliatory but he continued to conduct a series of negotiations based on the principle of Israeli concessions in exchange for Palestinian assurances.

In 1999 Netanyahu was succeeded by Ehud Barak and a Labor-led coalition. Barak's approach was rhetorically and practically similar to Rabin's, whose successor he seemed. A series of intensive negotiations were undertaken, such as at Sharm el-Sheikh, but with each step terror attacks became more frequent and horrific.

The Barak approach of adding incremental concessions failed badly. In September 2000 when Arafat launched his terror war against Israel an increasing percentage of Israel's population came to the realization that neither retreat nor concessions would afford them the peace they so earnestly desired. The process culminated in the election of Ariel Sharon as Prime Minister in early 2001. The subsequent war of terror convinced many in the Israeli public that concessions had run their course.

Despite almost sixty years of being under siege Israel has created a free, vibrant, and creative society. The question is whether Israel will continue nurturing what it has built as it awaits true change in the Arab world or will Israelis, in their search for a genuine peace, continue to grasp at delusions of peace that will threaten everything they have created.

.

Truth, Logic, Rationality and The Israel-Palestinian Conflict:

By Barry Rubin
http://www.gloria-center.org
08 August 09

Since the evaluation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is so often far removed from serious and sober political analysis, one has to resort to philosophical explanations.

To paraphrase Karl Marx: Misunderstanders of the Middle East Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains of logic.

Consider carefully these two chains of logic which simply don’t work and apply them to other Middle East issues.

Chain of Logic 1:

Proposition A: We all want and need peace.

Agreed. Peace is good. Violence is bad. Peace is better than war. It is preferable that everyone get along nicely.

Proposition B: It would be a great thing to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Agreed again.

Proposition C: There can only be a comprehensive and stable peace if it is made by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.

Once more, agreed.

Therefore: (Uh-oh)

Conclusion: Fatah and the PA want peace and are partners in achieving it in the near future.

Wrong! Doesn’t compute. Yes, if Fatah and the PA are ready to make a deal then a deal can be made, but they aren't. To go from Proposition C to the Conclusion requires a leap of wishful thinking, since they aren’t ready to do so. See here and here and here.

In fact, the Fatah Congress unanimously agreed—with no prior investigation and not a shred of evidence—that Israel murdered Yasir Arafat, the former Fatah and PA leader. Such a belief requires blood vengeance in their society. In other words, Israeli political figures must be killed by Fatah to redress this grievance. Does this sound like a moderate and rational group ready to make peace?

It is being reported that the Fatah Congress demanded all of Jerusalem--that is both west Jerusalem, ruled by Israel and its capital since 1948, and east Jerusalem, ruled by Jordan after 1948 until captured by Israel in 1967. Is this a badly worded resolution or deliberate ambiguity? But if true, this would mark a tremendous escalation in Fatah's demands and would definitely rule out any chance for peace.

OK. But assume you are a politician, government official, journalist, academic expert, or just plain interested person who is convinced of what is written above. Do you then announce and set a policy based on the conviction that Israel-Palestinian peace is far off, Fatah’s moderation has a very thin veneer, and Fatah and the PA are not going to make peace with Israel?

Not necessarily.

And this leads us to…

Chain of Logic 2

This is connected not by logic but by wishful thinking

Proposition A: All good people want a just and lasting Israel-Palestinian peace, which must be between the PA-Fatah and Israel.

All right.

Proposition B: To help bring this about is a good thing.

Check so far

Proposition C: Analysis, information, and policies which promote the idea that Fatah-PA don’t want and are unable to bring about a peace agreement are therefore positive. But to provide data to the contrary helps to make peace impossible and strengthens the bad people (i.e., right-wingers) who "don’t want" peace.

This is a profound misunderstanding of how logic, policymaking, and democracy work, indeed of how institutions like universities and media are supposed to function.

It isn’t so hard to understand. There is a two-step process:

Step 1: Try to find out the most accurate possible picture of leaders, groups, world views, and policies using evidence along with the basic rules of rational thought.

Step 2: Draw conclusions from this analysis.

In other words, without fear or favor, figure out what’s going on and say so honestly. You don’t have to “lie for peace”; or tell fibs because you like “doves” and dislike “hawks”; or because you are on the left so you don’t want to give “aid and comfort” to those on the right; or because you really know best for the people involve so you load the dice.

First you figure out what’s happening and THEN you reach a conclusion, rather than the other way around.

This inversion sort of started with Stalinism, when one couldn’t talk about the regime-made famine or repression, for example, because that would help the “reactionaries” who opposed Communism. Many examples have happened since.

So, for those who say Fatah has changed or moderated, how has it changed? What’s the evidence?

Why don’t you tell the truth about the details of corruption which steals Western aid funds, the extremism so visible in Arabic-language speeches, the education of the next generation to seek to wipe out Israel, the appointment of Islamic clerics who preach genocidal anti-Jewish sermons, and so on?

Why do you pretend that Fatah has changed, has moderated, has pushed armed conflict off the real agenda, and so on?

The answer is: you are “lying for peace”; lying because of your ideological preferences; lying because you don’t like Israel or the Israel right (ignoring the fact that people across the political spectrum in Israel knows everything I’ve written here is true); lying to promote your career; and for other reasons.

For sure, often with the best of intentions, for the good of humanity, out of pity for the Palestinians, but nevertheless you are making a terrible mistake which causes more bloodshed and suffering.

Malley Stumbles Upon the Truth: Peace Isn’t Possible

Jonathan Tobin
Contentions
11 August 09

Former Clinton administration staffer Robert Malley’s chief claim to fame is being the sole non-Palestinian observer of the fateful July 2000 Camp David Summit who did not put the blame for that conclave’s disastrous failure squarely on the shoulders of Yasser Arafat. At Camp David, Arafat turned down an astounding offer for a Palestinian state in nearly all the West Bank, Gaza, and part of Jerusalem that was put forward by then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak with the encouragement of President Clinton. Malley pioneered the practice of dismissing this offer as insignificant and rationalizing Arafat’s refusal to take yes for an answer, as well as his decision to answer that peace deal with a terrorist war of attrition, known as the second intifada.

Malley’s version of the Camp David debacle ran contrary to the facts, but it has gradually gained ground, especially on the Left. By discrediting the Israeli proposal and thereby absolving the Palestinians of blame for Arafat’s unwillingness to make peace, Malley helped set the stage for a decade of anti-Israel vituperation.

Malley, who was listed for a time as an unofficial adviser to the Obama presidential campaign, is at it again today in an op-ed in the New York Times, co-authored with Hussein Agha.

Malley and Agha dispute the idea that a two-state solution to the conflict will solve anything. They start out by drawing a false analogy between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech accepting the concept of a Palestinian state and comments by Hamas terrorist head Khaled Meshal that he might accept a truce that would push the Israelis back to the 1967 borders. Though the Hamas statement was clearly a snare intended only for Western ears (a practice introduced by Arafat), Malley and Agha give President Obama credit for a partial opening to Hamas in his Cairo speech. The two authors also mock Netanyahu’s demands that the peace with a Palestinian state be genuine and include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, a firm commitment to nonviolence, and no “right of return” for the descendants of 1948 refugees.

But they do stumble upon a key truth about the entire peace process—they understand that what the Palestinians want isn’t merely sovereignty in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem. Jews want a Jewish state and are willing to let the Palestinians have their own state too in order to live in peace. The problem is that the core of Palestinian national identity is a desire not for a Palestinian state but for eradicating the Jewish one, which they view as illegitimate no matter where the borders are drawn. Agha and Malley write:

Even fewer Palestinians take issue with the categorical rebuff of [a Jewish state], as the recent Fatah congress in Bethlehem confirmed. In their eyes, to accept Israel as a Jewish state would legitimize the Zionist enterprise that brought about their tragedy. It would render the Palestinian national struggle at best meaningless, at worst criminal.

Yet instead of urging Palestinians to give up goals incompatible with peace, the authors merely say that the next step for peace processors is to go back to 1948 and revisit the issues of that era—i.e., whether there should be a Jewish state at all. While still viewing an Israeli pullback to the 1967 lines as the inescapable starting point of a peace process, their conclusion is that once that milestone is accomplished, the goal of peace would be “how to define the state of Israel.” Thus, in their view, what Israel will be negotiating in the future is not the borders of its state or whether a Palestinian state will have the capability to attack it, but whether or not it will exist at all.

Though many will dismiss this piece as extremist fare, Malley has a history of being the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to anti-Israel polemics. Though the authors couch their article in terms that allow them to pose as peace advocates, what Agha and Malley are attempting to do is legitimize the theme that peace depends on the end of the Jewish state even within the 1949 armistice lines.

While rejecting the authors’ anti-Zionist goal, the so-called peace camp ought to think seriously about what drives the Palestinians’ sense of their own identity. What Malley and Agha have done is illustrate the utter implausibility of any attempt to make peace under the current circumstances. If giving up the destruction of the Jewish state as a goal is not a realistic concession to hope for from the Palestinians, what point is there in pushing Israel to make concessions to them? That is a question that Mr. Malley’s former client, who now sits in the White House, ought to be asking himself.

.