In Bernard Lewis’s “On the Jewish Question,” the scholar gives a brief history of the Palestinian Israeli conflict in order to illustrate the fundamental problem with negotiations.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that’s not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.
So when Steven Lee Myers of the NYT writes in “Seeking a Mideast Path, Bush Offers a Nudge“:
A recurring criticism of Mr. Bush is that he has so clearly tilted American policy toward Israel that the United States is no longer seen as an honest broker, emphasizing Israel’s security over Palestinian grievances.That was the case in 2004, when he publicly expressed support for some of the nonnegotiable positions of the former Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, including Mr. Sharon’s objections to what Palestinians regard as the all-important right of return for Palestinians uprooted by the conflict. Mr. Bush’s assurances to Israel remain on the table.
he is confirming that the goal of the Palestinians is not peace with Israel, but the destruction of Israel. This equates supporting Israel’s right to exist with being “tilted” towards Israel.
The all-important “right of return for Palestinians” is code for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. With Palestinian leaders, even now, saying that the status of Israel as a Jewish state is a bargaining chip or a fiction, they are saying that they deny Israel’s right to exist because they are denying the historical link between Jews and Israel.
Others comment on the Lewis article. (via memeorandum)
Israel Matzav notes sardonically
Unfortunately, he [Lewish s.d] never figured on the suicidal Olmert-Barak-Livni government, which is apparently willing to negotiate whether or not the State of Israel should exist. Some day, that will make an interesting historical study.
The Spine uses Lewis as a way of refuting Roger Cohen’s NY Times op-ed. The Spine, Martin Peretz, refutes Cohen nicely too:
What does Fayyad want? Cohen endorses his interlocutor’s formula: “Fayyad is right. A return to the 1967 lines, plus or minus agreed swaps, is the only basis for a two-state accord.” “Convince Israel that its long-tern security lies in compromise.” “Bush must tell Israel it’s strong enough to bet on Fayyad’s vision of co-existence.” This last line is the most preposterous in the entire article. Israel must bet on Fayyad’s vision of co-existence? And what if that bet turns out bad? Doesn’t Israel’s prior dealings with the Palestinians indicate that this bet might actually be folly? Bet? Is Cohen nuts? Does he really want Israel to give up the West Bank on the wager that rockets will not be aimed at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv as they are — daily — from Gaza onto Sderot?
Real Clear Politics adopts the view that Annapolis isn’t about Israel and Palestine but about containing Iran. He cites Lewis to show that even if containing Iran is the goal,
But this can’t be done, presumably, without some kind of “peace” between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Does anyone seriously believe that can happen in Annapolis?
And it can’t be done. As long as the issue isn’t Israel’s border but its existence. Israel’s size does not matter.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
