What
is it about the Palestinian issue that induces the total eclipse of
common sense in otherwise ostensibly intelligent people?
A [Palestinian] state is liable to be an arrowhead
directed at the very heart of Israel with all the force of the Arab world
behind it.... this is the terrible danger involved in the establishment of a
third independent sovereign state between us and the Jordan River – Amnon Rubinstein, former Meretz MK and education minister, Haaretz,
1976
What is it about the Palestinian issue that induces the
total eclipse of common sense in otherwise ostensibly intelligent people? How
long can two-staters cling to disastrously failed concepts? How long can they
obdurately adhere to patently unfeasible policy proposals? How long can they
continue to mouth meaningless mantras that fly in the face of painfully evident
facts? How long can they go on resolutely ignoring reality – no matter how
ruinous the consequences?
How long can they maintain the mendacious masquerade that
their futile pursuit of fatal fantasy somehow validates their absurd claim to
the moral and intellectual high ground?
How long will it take until intellectual integrity
asserts itself and compels them to admit error?
These irksome questions keep pushing themselves into my
mind whenever I encounter an new declaration of support for the two-state
notion by people of the stature of Alan Dershowitz.
Oxymorons and non sequiturs
As I have stated before in prefacing previous critiques
of his positions, I feel a certain discomfort in engaging in public dispute
with such a staunch supporter of Israel as Dershowitz. But his good intentions
are no guarantee of the quality – or the consequences – of his political
prescriptions, and given his significant public influence and considerable
media access, his well-meaning but ill-advised proposals cannot go
unchallenged.
This is particularly true of his recent offering in The
Wall Street Journal, “A Settlement Freeze Can Advance Israeli-Palestinian
Peace.” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/a-settlement-freeze-can-a_b_1651502.html). The piece, reposted in several high profile sites on the Web, was a
masterpiece of logical inconsistency, with its oxymorons surpassed only by its
non sequiturs.
Excessively harsh criticism? Consider this.
Dershowitz correctly observes: “Israel accepted a
10-month freeze in 2009, but the Palestinian Authority didn’t come to the
bargaining table until weeks before the freeze expired. Its negotiators
demanded that the freeze be extended indefinitely. When Israel refused, they
walked away from the table.”
He then cautions that if the government imposed a similar
freeze now: “There is every reason to believe that... they would continue such
game-playing especially in light of current efforts by the Palestinian
Authority and Hamas to form their own unity government, which would likely
include elements opposed to any negotiation with the Jewish state.”
But what conclusion does Dershowitz draw from his
recognition of proven bad faith in the past, and of probable increased
rejectionism in the future? Rather than following the logic that his own
analysis seems to dictate, i.e. either that negotiations are futile, or that
more generous offers be made, he advocates neither.
Instead, he makes the astounding suggestion that the
Palestinians be coaxed back to the negotiating table by offering them... less
than what they have already rejected. Go figure.
Bold or bonkers
According to Dershowitz, given the giant-sized ruling
coalition in Israel, “the time is ripe for that government to make a bold peace
offer to the Palestinian Authority” – as if in the past the size of the
coalition has prevented Israel from making wildly irresponsible concessionary
proposals to the Palestinians, all of which were resoundingly rejected.
The problem with making “bold peace offers” is not that
they endanger the ruling coalition, but that they have proved totally
unproductive – indeed counter-productive – resulting in nothing but Palestinian
demands for yet further concessions.
At some stage, repeating increasingly risky offers ceases
to be “bold” and become just “bonkers.” As I pointed out in last week’s column,
apart from the unrequited unilateral 10-month freeze on construction in the
“settlements,” Israel has, among other things:
• Withdrawn from major populations centers in Judea and
Samaria;
• Unilaterally evacuated the Gaza Strip, erasing every
vestige of Jewish presence;
• Unearthed its dead from graveyards;
• Demolished settlements in northern Samaria; and
• Allowed armed militias to deploy adjacent to its
capital, within mortar range of its parliament.
The Palestinians have responded with vitriolic
Judeophobic incitement and vicious Judeocidal terror, even from within –
especially from within – areas transferred to their control. (Imagine the storm
of international outrage that would erupt if the mainstream Israeli media dared
to depict the Palestinians as the mainstream Palestinian media depicts the
Israelis. Ah! The soft racism of low expectations.)
Misguided moral equivalence
Yet none of this seems to have any perceptible impact on
Dershwitz’s perceptions of political realities.
Despite the accumulation of unequivocal evidence, he
still appears loath to recognize the recurring bad faith on the part of the
Palestinians and to acknowledge the continual and concrete good faith shown by
Israel.
In a breathtaking display of misplaced moral equivalence,
he has the temerity to suggest that his proposal will not only provide “a good
test of the bona fides of the Palestinian side [but].. would also test the bona
fides of the Israeli government.”
This is a stunning assertion for someone purportedly
familiar with the twists and turns of the “peace process.”
For – as we shall soon see – Israel has made the
Palestinians offers more farreaching than Dershowitz’s proposal, which were all
rejected.
So not only should this be completely adequate to
determine unequivocally the respective bona fides (or lack thereof) of the two
sides, but it is entirely unclear why his proposal should have any chance of
acceptance by the Palestinians – or how it could contribute to any further
clarification of the two sides’ bone fides.
Puzzling proposal
But I digress. Getting back to the substance of
Dershowitz’s proposal: As I mentioned earlier, he not only concedes that the
Palestinians spurned the construction freeze, but that they are likely to do so
again.
Moreover, he cautions that the future Palestinian
government may well include elements opposed to any negotiations. Yet despite
all this, he suggests that negotiations be commenced with an Israeli offer of a
“conditional freeze,” to commence “as soon as the Palestinian Authority sits
down at the bargaining table, and... continue as long as the talks continue in
good faith.”
This, of course, leaves us to puzzle over two things:
(a) If the implementation of the previous unconditional
freeze did not induce the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table, why on
earth should the mere promise of a conditional one do so?
(b) Even assuming that it did, given the past acrimony,
reproach and disagreement between the sides, what would be the criteria for
determining – and who would be the arbiter to determine – whether the talks
were in fact “continuing in good faith”? Obama? The State Department? The EU?
Egypt? The Arab League?
I am sure that, on reflection, Dershowitz might admit
that this could be a touch problematic, with Israel risking being locked into a
perpetual construction freeze by a biased adjudicator of Palestinian “good
faith.”
Or would Israel be able to decide this unilaterally and
revoke the freeze at will whenever disagreement arose? If so, why would the
Palestinians agree to an arrangement which give Israel the power to judge their
good faith?
Curiouser and curiouser
But things get even more perplexing.
Dershowitz asserts: “The first issue on the table should
be the rough borders of a Palestinian state.” Oh really! What a good idea! So
the good professor blithely suggests that we kick off with a perfunctory
agreement over a “trifling” matter that in effect has been a principal –
arguably the principal – bone of contention for at least a quarter of a
century.
But fear not. The redoubtable Dershowitz has a formula
for success where others have failed. Presumably with a straight face, he
prescribes: “Setting those [rough borders] would require recognizing that the
West Bank can be realistically divided into three effective areas: Those that
are relatively certain to remain part of Israel, such as Ma’aleh Adumim, Gilo
and other areas close to the center of Jerusalem [presumably Gush Etzion with a
population of about 70,000 Israelis – M.S.].
“Those that are relatively certain to become part of a
Palestinian state, such as the vast majority of the heavily populated Arab
areas of the West Bank beyond Israel’s security barrier.
“Those reasonably in dispute, including some of the large
settlement blocs several miles from Jerusalem such as Ariel (which may well
remain part of Israel, but subject to negotiated land swaps).”
On seeing such proposals, one can only wonder whether
Dershowitz reads newspapers or follows the news. Does he seriously imagine that
there is any relevant Palestinian negotiating partner who would agree – a
priori – that the areas he designates as “relatively certain to remain part of
Israel” are indeed relatively certain to remain part of Israel? Does he know of
any Palestinian who would agree that the areas that include “the large
settlement blocs such as Ariel” are “reasonably in dispute”?
Although Dershowitz continues that “this rough division
is based on prior negotiations and positions already articulated by each side,”
it is not at all clear to what – or to whom – he is referring, certainly not
with regard to the Palestinians.
For to launch Dershowitz’s initiative, some
mealy-mouthed, ambiguous – and deniable – inference, surreptitiously whispered
in some covert meeting in some discrete location, scrupulously shielded from
the public eye – and hence totally devoid of any binding political commitment –
will not suffice.
What is needed is for it to be declared, overtly and
officially, as the Palestinians’ publicly proclaimed position for the
commencement of negotiations. Good luck with that.
Can any Palestinian afford to be seen to be less
Palestinian than Barack Obama, who stipulated the pre-1967 lines as the
starting point for delineating the “rough borders of the Palestinian state,”
especially, as we have seen, Dershowitz himself notes the PA is striving to set
up a unity government with Hamas, which opposes any negotiations with Israel.
Durability and discrimination
Given the winds blowing throughout the Arab world, the
durability and credibility of Palestinian “good faith” becomes crucial, not
only because of the grave consequences of territorial concessions for Israel’s
security. It is equally crucial for the application of the core element of Dershowitz’s
proposal – “conditional freeze” of settlement construction – which if anything
is even more problematic than his geographical division of the “West Bank.”
For he is completely mistaken when he claims: “If there
can be agreement concerning this preliminary division – even tentative or
conditional – then the settlement-building dispute would quickly disappear.”
Nothing could be further from the truth, or more
conducive to potential friction – especially the part about the agreement being
“tentative or conditioned.”
He stipulates that “there would be no Israeli building in
those areas likely to become part of a Palestinian state” but refrains from
precluding Palestinian building “within areas likely to remain part of Israel”
– which fair and balanced impartiality would seem to call for. Wouldn’t it?
Prejudicial predilections?
His attitude to the “disputed areas” is even more
discriminatory.
He states: “The conditional freeze would continue in
disputed areas until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and which
will become part of the new Palestinian state.... An absolute building freeze
would be... a painful but necessary compromise.”
But would the Palestinians be prevented from building in
these disputed areas “until it was decided which will remain part of Israel and
which will become part of the new Palestinian state”? You know, so as not to
prejudge the outcome? And if not, why not?
Significantly, he adds: “It might also encourage
residents of settlements to move to areas that will remain part of Israel,
especially if accompanied by financial inducements to relocate.” Really!
Financial inducements for relocation of Jews in “disputed areas”– but not for
Arabs?
These are weighty issues and deserve careful
consideration and detailed discussion.
However, to avert the wrath of my very patient editor, I
will have to have to defer further analysis to next week, when I will continue
the critique of Dershowitz’s proposal, and, I hope, take up related issues.
Until then...
No comments:
Post a Comment