Posted by Charles Bybelezer
Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu called Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to extend
well-wishes on the occasion of Id al-Fitr, the Muslim holiday marking
the end of Ramadan.
He did so despite the fact that Abbas continues to shun negotiations
with the Jewish state and again has threatened to pursue a unilateral
declaration of Palestinian statehood at the UN General Assembly in
September.
Netanyahu’s “goodwill gesture” reportedly was followed by similar
phone calls to Abbas by Israeli envoy Yitzhak Molcho and Israeli Defense
Minister Ehud Barak. Molcho also called PA Prime Minister Salaam
Fayyad.
The calls came on the heels of other goodwill gestures made by Israel
over the last few months aimed at coaxing the Palestinians back to the
negotiating table; including, but not limited to:
1. The issuance of thousands of additional Israeli work permits to Palestinian laborers;
2. The advance to the PA on the eve of Ramadan of approximately NIS
200 million in levies collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinians
so that government salaries could be paid;
3. The signing of an economic accord with the PA in order to enhance trade;
4. The signing of a deal to end a hunger strike by Palestinians
jailed in Israel, in which Israel even agreed to allow convicted
terrorists to pursue academic studies;
5. The tabling of an offer, confirmed by PA Minister of Prisoner
Affairs Issa Qaraqe, to release in four stages 125 Palestinian security
prisoners, many of whom were convicted of murdering Israelis (the
proposal was summarily rejected by Abbas, who demanded the prisoners be
released simultaneously);
6. The transfer to the PA of the bodies of approximately 90 deceased
terrorists, whose remains subsequently were glorified en masse in
official ceremonies.
So the question begs: What exactly have these goodwill gestures achieved?
Answer: Last Tuesday, Mahmoud Abbas issued a statement denying the Jewish People’s historical connection to Jerusalem.
On the 43rd anniversary of an attempt by a non-Jewish
Australian—Denis Michael Rohan—to set fire to the al-Aksa mosque, Abbas
wrote: “The fire, set by a criminal under the eyes of the Israeli
occupation authorities, was the first [attack] in a series aiming to
demolish al-Aksa mosque and build thealleged Temple, in order to uproot [Palestinian] citizens, Judaize [the city] and eternalize its occupation.”
He concluded by assuring his target audience that Israel’s actions
“will not undermine the fact that [Jerusalem] will forever be Arabic, Islamic and Christian.”
In response, Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev condemned Abbas’
call for Jerusalem to be “liberated.” He also reaffirmed the
3000-year-old Jewish connection to the city, and stressed that by
ignoring Jerusalem’s Jewish heritage the Palestinian president was
“ignoring reality.”
Regev then conveyed the Israeli government’s “disappointment.”
In retrospect, however, Regev’s characterization of Abbas’ denial of
Jewish history is woefully inaccurate; for Abbas’ revisionism is, in
fact, concerted and purposeful, and therefore constitutes an attempt to alter reality.
To this end, Abbas gave two other major international addresses over
the past year in which he explicitly denied the Jewish connection to
Israel, including Jerusalem.
In February, at the “International Conference for the Defense of
Jerusalem” in Doha, Qatar, Abbas accused Israel of “using the ugliest
and most dangerous means to implement plans to erase and remove the
Arab, Islamic and Christian character” of Jerusalem. He also called on
non-Jews to visit the “occupied” city in order to show that “Jerusalem
is the cause of every Arab, Muslim and Christian.”
The Doha speech was preceded by Abbas’ now-infamous tirade at the UN
General Assembly last September, in which he declared: “I come before
you today from the Holy Land, the land of Palestine, the land of divine
messages, ascension of the Prophet Muhammad…and the birthplace of Jesus
Christ.”
Abbas omitted any mention of Jewish patriarch Abraham, whose presence
in Israel superseded both Jesus’ and that of Muhammad’s descendants,
and whose divine connection, indeed claim to the Holy Land is
indisputable.
Considering the forgoing, how can we explain the Israeli
government’s “disappointment” over an entirely predictable and
consistent pattern of behavior? To expect anything different of Abbas
suggests that it is in fact Israeli officialdom which is “ignoring
reality.”
However, given that Netanyahu has had a front-row seat from which to
witness Abbas’ slights of speech, a more logical conclusion is that his
administration is deliberately ignoring reality. More
specifically, Netanyahu must believe that it serves Israel’s interests
to downplay Abbas’ overt hostility towards the Jewish state in order to
portray him as a “moderate.” This notion is reinforced by Regev’s
description of Abbas’ most recent inversion of history as “the usual
domain of extremist elements,” a category of Middle Eastern
players from which Regev implies the Palestinian leader is excluded. And
if Abbas is not an extremist, then by extension he must be a moderate.
Yet Abbas is no friend to Israel and Netanyahu also knows this; Abbas
is, after all, the man who pronounced that the Palestinians “won’t
agree to recognize something called the Jewish state,” and “will never
allow a single Israeli to live…on Palestinian land.” But “moderate” is a
relative term, and the Israeli government apparently has concluded that
presently Abbas is the best of a bad lot and therefore warrants
support.
On the surface the Netanyahu’s policy—choosing the least of various
evils, so to speak—appears rational. That is, so long as the damage
caused by the lesser evil can be limited and mitigated (if not
controlled).
And herein lies the essential dilemma: The Israeli government’s
assumption is wrong; Abbas’ diplomatic terrorism, in the words of
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, cannot be contained.
Nor will any amount of political maneuvering change this fact. For
entangled in the two-decades-long diplomatic black hole colorfully
referred to as the “peace process,” the Israeli government’s
decision-making strategy—as evidenced by Netanyahu’s ongoing support of
Abbas—has invariably been reduced to choosing between varying degrees of
terror (diplomatic vs. armed). And there simply is no bright future for a country whose options range from bad to worse.
Therefore, the charade has to stop, before the cumulative negative
effect of pursuing for twenty years a destructive policy—making endless
concessions and goodwill gestures in a futile attempt to appease
evil—reaches a critical mass leading to “reactor” meltdown.
Which brings us back to Abbas’ repeated and self-serving denials of Jewish history.
The Jewish People’s millennia-old connection to the Land of Israel is
the foremost justification for the current and ongoing existence of a
Jewish state on that land. If the Jewish People never resided in Israel,
so the logic of its enemies goes, then there is no reason for Jews to
be there today or to remain there tomorrow. Moreover, it is the Jewish
People’s historical connection to its Land which forms the basis of the
20th-century legal validation of the Jewish state.
Remove Abraham from the equation and there is no Balfour Declaration and no British Mandate.
It is this fundamental historical connection that Abbas, along with
his financiers and sympathizers worldwide, is attempting to whitewash,
with the aim of delegitimizing Israel out of existence.
And, alas, it is working.
Consider, as but one of many examples, South Africa’s recent decision
to modify its labeling of products originating from the West Bank so as
to exclude the “Made in Israel” tag.
Then consider that the West Bank is in fact located in a geographic
region historically known as Judea and Samaria, a portion of the Land of
Israel from which the word Jew is derived.
This is what happens when Jewish history is denied and reality is altered.
And, quite frankly, it is hypocritical for the Israeli government to
be up-in-arms over Pretoria’s move. For the Israeli government itself
supports the ongoing governance of the very man spearheading the
campaign of de-legitimization which results in such anti-Israel
episodes. In other words, every time the Israeli government absurdly
portrays Abbas as a “moderate,” it invites anti-Israel forces such as
South Africa to express their hostility. For, if Jerusalem is “occupied
Palestine” as Abbas contends, and Israel is seen supporting Abbas, then
certainly the West Bank is occupied too and South Africa has every
reason to adopt the Palestinian leader’s position by labeling products
accordingly.
This is the twisted logic that makes it reasonable to presume that,
unless Israel begins to prevent Abbas and his minions from actively
waging their war, in the not-too-distant future countries will begin
designating products manufactured in Jerusalem as “Made in Palestine.”
In this respect, it is imperative for Israel to extricate itself from
a process whose strategic paradigm consists of opting for lesser evils,
and whose inevitable outcome is the country’s de-legitimization.
At any rate, peace cannot be forged with the Palestinians so long as
their leadership continues to deny Jewish history; which is, quite
literally, an attempt to erase Israel from the pages of time.
(Charles Bybelezer, formerly a Publications Editor at the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, recently moved to Israel to begin working as a Breaking News Editor at the Jerusalem Post.)
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/charles-bybelezer/israels-futile-%e2%80%98goodwill-gestures%e2%80%99/
No comments:
Post a Comment