The notion that there can be a
viable negotiation process that will result in peace with "two states
side-by-side" persists whatever the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
And so, no matter how weary we become of the delusion, we must
continue to track efforts to make it happen, and combat it as effectively as
possible.
As I wrote yesterday, Sec. of
State Kerry is due here tomorrow. And so there is a flurry of activity --
or, more accurately, perhaps, a deluge of words espousing one position or
another -- in anticipation of his arrival.
What we have most notably are the
words of Minister of Finance Yair Lapid (head of Yesh Atid), who gave an
interview to the NYTimes, on Monday in which he declared that he would
do everything he can to advance the discourse on peace:
“Israelis want peace and security
and Palestinians want peace and justice – these are two very different things,
and this is the real gap we have to close."
Let's pause here, to consider this
statement. The Palestinian Arabs do NOT want peace and
justice. They want the destruction of Israel. The failure
to grapple with this reality is at the heart of the position of those who
continue to push for negotiations.
As to "justice": A very basic
misconception -- which has been fueled by PLO lies -- is that the Palestinian
Arabs are entitled to the land beyond the '67 line, and that "justice" requires
our giving it to them. They have no moral or legal or historical basis for
this claim. The land is Jewish -- as history and legal documentation make
clear.
See here for more: http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/336554365346/
~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, when it comes to
"justice," the question I would like to pose to "two-state" advocates is why
they imagine the Palestinian Arabs deserve a state within any
parameters. There are probably thousands of ethnic groups -- groups with
legitimate historical reality and distinct cultural traits -- who are
without their own state. And yet the world does not clamor to give them
sovereignty over the land on which they live.
What have the Palestinian Arabs
done, even, remotely, to merit that sovereignty? What would a "Palestinian
state" contribute in a positive way to the family of nations? What have
the Palestinian Arabs done to develop a positive, constructive civil society
that would form the basis of that state? Their failure in this regard is
all the more striking because they have received so much international support
and such huge international funding.
~~~~~~~~~~
At any rate...
Lapid is far too left for my
taste. At a Yesh Atid faction meeting, he declared, "Whoever thinks we can
have peace without a two-state solution is mistaken." In fashioning the
negotiations as some sort of moral imperative -- “even if it’s controversial
here, and even if it is hard to trust the Palestinians.” -- I believe he is
the one who is badly and dangerously mistaken.
But to certain other members of
his party, and to Tzipi Livni, he is not left enough. For he came out in the
interview for an undivided Jerusalem:
"We didn't come here for
nothing...Jerusalem is not a place; Jerusalem is an idea...Jerusalem is the
capital of Israel."
What is more, he opposes changes
in "settlement" policy and supports their natural expansion.
~~~~~~~~~~
But let me not inadvertently lend
the impression that the government is solidly for that "two-state
solution." There are many within the coalition who are opposed to the
formation of a Palestinian state. This is certainly true of Habayit
Hayehudi, headed by Naftali Bennett, and including members such as Uri
Ariel and Urit Struck. Just yesterday, Struck, pictured
below, declared, "Two states for two nations is not the
official government position. It's not in the coalition
guidelines..." (Emphasis added)
Credit:
JPost
It is also so within Likud --
Tzipi Hotovely, Danny Danon, Ze'ev Elkin (who is now a deputy foreign minister),
Ofir Akunis (who advanced legislation requiring a referendum for a deal), Gideon
Sa'ar, Miri Regev, Yariv Levin, and others oppose that state.
And within Yisrael Beitenu -- Uzi
Landau, Yair Shamir (son of former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir),
etc.
Avidgor Lieberman, head of Yisrael
Beitenu and currently chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee, once supported the "two-state" concept. But he said at a
committee meeting yesterday that Abbas has lost his legitimacy, and that it is
impossible to solve the conflict now -- it can only be managed.
Credit:
Forward
"There's no magic solution to the
conflict with the Palestinians. Why are foreign ministers always
here? Why are they so obsessed with the Palestinian
issue?" (emphasis added)
Lieberman's questions
are good ones.
~~~~~~~~~~
About the prime minister himself,
I will simply say this now. It is his MO to "play the game," something
I've written about often enough. It is not his style to cross the
Americans confrontationally for the most part. This can be dangerous,
as it leads him down a slippery slope, and he may (inadvertently?) set
precedents that will be regretted later.
And yet, it remains important not
to assume that in playing that game he is necessary stating his true
intentions. I'd be a millionaire many times over if I knew what his true
intentions were. (I was told by one analyst yesterday that probably Netanyahu's
closest advisors don't know his true intentions.) And so I reject rumors that
are afloat -- as they were bound to be -- suggesting that he has caved; while
they might contain some kernel of truth, they are based on no documentation that
I am aware of.
I cringe at some of the things
that he says, I recognize that sometimes he talks tough but doesn't follow
through, and yet, I am mindful, for example, that he came out in support of a
referendum on a "peace deal." At that time it occurred to me that he
might see this as an out: "Gee, I was really for this, but the electorate
is not in favor."
And he is holding out for
parameters for that Palestinian state that he knows full well will never be
accepted on the other side. I do not think he trusts the Palestinian Arabs or
believes they would negotiate in good faith -- and in this respect differs
substantially from Tzipi Livni. (Yes, I fully recognize
that, infuriatingly, he appointed her to head negotiations; but he
also appointed the tough, right wing Elkin as deputy foreign minister -- at a
time when Lieberman is absent and there is no real foreign minister. So,
go figure.)
My last thought here is that he is
under the most incredible pressure right now, with regard to Syria, Russia, Iran
and more. Tough decisions have to be made concerning when to hit
armaments, even armaments from Russia, in Syria and when and if to hit
Iran. I see him doing a very credible job in this respect, at least
to date, and wonder if it's appropriate -- not to turn a blind eye, but --
to cut him a bit of slack with regard to criticizing his policies
on "peace negotiations."
Unless we know all of the
parameters -- and we most certainly do not -- there is no way for us to
know if he is taking a stance supportive of Obama with the understanding or the
hope that there's a quid pro quo in terms of Obama's support for us if we hit
Iran. All speculative, I realize. But not entirely irrelevant. It may
seem to him like a very unwise time to directly confront Obama, and I'm not sure
he'd be wrong.
(Rest assured, if Netanyahu --
please, may he not -- were to take a stance that is outrageous, I'd
be raising my voice, figuratively, his need to make decisions on
Iran not withstanding.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu and Defense Minister
Ya'alon have already decided on one "good will gesture" before Kerry's
arrival: The territorial limit into the Mediterranean for Arab fisherman
from Gaza has been increased to six miles. In March, Ya'alon had cut the
limit back to three miles after 14 rockets had been launched from Gaza.
(The three-mile limit had been imposed after the Cast Lead operation in
2009, was increased as part of the ceasefire following the last operation,
Pillar of Defense, and then was cut back again in March.)
I'm really not fond
of these "gestures," in particular when they involve removing checkpoints
or otherwise loosening security. But our government acts as if
they are expected, and in this instance I'm not aware of risks to
Israel incurred.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are a couple of positions
vis-a-vis the formation of a Palestinian state that require a closer look.
One such position states that even
though Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem are all Jewish -- legally and
historically -- once we document this fact, we ought to show our
willingness to act for peace by surrendering it to the Arabs. Livni says
something like this, and Max Singer, of the Hudson Institute, just wrote a
column on this notion in last week's JPost Magazine.
This very perverse
position makes me want to tear my hair out. Who but Jews would ever
espouse such a stance: Oh, I can prove it's mine, incontrovertibly, but to
keep matters quiet, to be nice, I will give it away. What's ours is
ours. And it ought to be retained by us. Especially as what would be
surrendered would be the very heart of the Jewish heritage. This would
speak to a lack of national pride.
This need to please, to make
sacrifices, to step back instead of defending our rights -- this, I firmly
believe, is the legacy of 2,000 years in galut (diaspora). And it's not a
healthy attitude. What is more, in demonstrating such a position we would be
seen as weak by the Arabs and the gesture would not bring peace in any
event.
~~~~~~~~~~
Then there is the even more
horrendous notion just advanced by Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, who proposed
it in a talk on Friday at the Brookings Institution in Washington
DC: first create a Palestinian state, and then make peace. Peace, he
suggested, must be made between two equal states negotiating with each
other.
I would remind him that the whole
purpose of proposing a Palestinian state was to bring peace, within a "land
for peace" concept.
It turned out to be a failed concept. But what he's suggesting here is
having Israel surrender land without securing peace. Even far
leftists here in Israel understand that there would be establishment of a
Palestinian state only with an "end of conflict" agreement.
~~~~~~~~~~
A slightly less horrific version
of what Erdogan has suggested has come from Israeli politicians, including, most
recently, Lapid: That is, create an "interim" Palestinian state with
"temporary borders" until all issues can be resolved. Lapid proposed a
three year time frame for determining permanent borders. The idea is to
give the Palestinian Arabs something, to move past the status quo. But
it's a non-starter.
Suppose all issues cannot be
resolved, in three years or in 10, and we've already given them some sort
of state. If all issues are not resolved, they'll claim the "right" to
"resistance."
The Palestinian Arabs will never
go for this -- out of concern that all they'd ever get in the end would be
those "temporary" borders. Their position is just the reverse. Before
negotiations are even begun, they want Israel to acknowledge the '67 line as the
basis for those negotiations.
Lapid has called upon President
Obama -- whose administration is seeking new approaches -- to endorse this
idea. Lapid, however, also calls for Obama to endorse former president
Bush's position of 2004, recognizing that some settlement blocs would be
retained by Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
I believe I've
mentioned this before, but with Kerry's arrival imminent, I wanted to point out
again that the so-called Arab League Peace Plan has not been modified -- in
spite of wide-spread impressions to the contrary.
A League delegation,
which was in Washington a few weeks ago to negotiate changes in the plan,
said that it might be possible to amend it so that "minor" land
swaps would be instituted. But that suggestion then had to pass muster
with the full League, and it did not.
Arab League head Nabil Elaraby has stated clearly
that there have been no amendments to the 2002 plan.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so, if you read something that suggests that Israel
should be more forthcoming because now the Arabs have "moderated" their plan --
reject it out of hand. For, there has been no modification.
But even if there had been, it would have been such a minor
modification that the entire plan -- which was presented on a "take it or leave
it" basis and included "right of return" -- was still not anything for Israel to
remotely consider.
~~~~~~~~~~
I will mention here that this is not the first time that
the Arabs have lent the impression that they have modified a document, when in
reality they have not. The most notable example: Arafat's widely accepted claim
that he was removing clauses calling for Israel's destruction from the PLO
charter. They're still there.
~~~~~~~~~~
And the latest word from our "peace
partner"? On Monday, PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat, told a UN committee:
"Today in the West
Bank, including East Jerusalem ... I can sum up the situation with one word -
apartheid. Worse than that which existed in South Africa."
(emphasis added)
This is not even a
subtle misrepresentation, it is a bold lie -- and very typical of what we see
from the PLO/PA. Does he really think anyone believes this? In eastern
Jerusalem (there is no "East Jerusalem"), live some 250,000 Arabs. They
have residency cards, are provided who have full rights and can move
about all of the city -- in stores, restaurants, hospitals, etc. -- with no
prohibitions and no danger. Some apartheid.
Replied Israeli
Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor, "The more the Palestinians continue to
fertilize the soil with hatred
toward Israel, the smaller the chances that the seeds of peace in the Middle
East will sprout roots."
~~~~~~~~~~
©
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
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment