Netanyahu and the Palestinian veto

Regarding Israel’s incoming Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, the New York Times observes:

“I think that the Palestinians should understand that they have in our government a partner for peace, for security and for rapid development of the Palestinian economy,” said Mr. Netanyahu.

He added that peace is a ”common and enduring goal for all Israelis and Israeli governments, mine included. This means I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace.”

His remarks were relayed on Israel Radio. It remained unclear what terms Mr. Netanyahu was offering for peace.

Similarly The Washington Post reports:

“I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace,” said Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party.

There was no mention of creating an independent state, a goal that has formed the basis of U.S. and Western-sponsored peace talks. President Obama reaffirmed U.S. support for the idea in comments in Washington on Tuesday, calling progress toward a Palestinian state “critical” to ending an “unsustainable” situation in which Palestinians live under Israeli-imposed restrictions and Israelis worry about their security.

But as Barry Rubin points out, Israel isn’t the main problem here.

Clearly, peace with Hamas is more important for Dahlan than peace with Israel. And make no mistake: these two alternatives are mutually exclusive.

Indeed, Dahlan is ready to do anything to cooperate with Hamas, as long as it accepts the PA and Fatah as leading partner. He explains the PA won’t ask Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Fatah isn’t bound either to any PA recognition of Israel and, “as a resistance organization,” can continue attacking Israel whenever it chooses.

Why, then, has the PA agreed to accept Israel’s existence? Dahlan says: only to get international aid money and support. If this is how Dahlan thinks, his comrades’ views are more extreme. The inescapable implication is that if the PA ever signs a peace treaty with Israel—though don’t hold your breath—and gets a Palestinian state whose capital is east Jerusalem this would not block Fatah or Hamas from continuing armed struggle.

This attitude fits perfectly with the fact that even today the PA does nothing to prepare its people for peace and compromise. The claim that a Palestinian state should and will some day encompass all of Israel is maintained by schools, sermons, leaders, and media. It is contained, too, in the demand for a “right of return”—flooding Israel with several million Palestinians—as more important than getting a state where refugees can be resettled in a country of their own.

No wonder every poll shows overwhelming Palestinian support for armed attacks on Israeli civilians and little backing for a compromise peace that would end the conflict forever.

Of course the Palestinians embrace the peace process. For them it’s meant the receiving of plenty of foreign aid, the acquistion of territory and absolutely no responsibility for creating a civil society.

From 1996 to 1999, when Netanyahu was first prime minister he signed the Hebron Accords and withdrew Israeli troops from most of that city. If anyone is aware of any reciprocal action that Arafat took during that time that increased the chance of coexistence, I’d be interested in hearing it. Even now, ten years later, the myth that Netanyahu was the main obstacle to peace persists.

It makes no difference that Netanyahu’s successor, Ehud Barak went all out to make peace, only to be rebuffed at Camp David and finally faced the Arafat organized “Aqsa intifada” starting in late 2000. It makes no difference that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 led to the strengthening of Hamas and the deteriorating security situation for Israel’s southern residents. What we have seen over the past ten years is that no matter how committed an Israeli government or an American government is towards making peace in the Middle East, the Palestinian veto remains the main stumbling block to peace.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.