Important throwaway lines

In today’s New York Times, Isabel Kershner is keen to emphasize the different emphases of the Israeli and American governments. But one line in her short dispatch, Israel: Netanyahu Demands Recognition of Israel First, tells an untold story.

Palestinian officials have long rejected calls to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Now George Mitchell and his boss, President Obama, may think that putting pressure on Israel will necessarily bring peace and the two state solution in his first term, but they have to remember that it takes two, to make peace. And if one party denies the premise of the other’s existence, peace won’t be viable.

The Washington Post runs an AP article magnifying the differences between the Obama and Netanyahu governments.

Again there’s a throwaway line of some significance here:

Former senator George J. Mitchell emphasized that the U.S. administration is aiming for creation of a Palestinian state. But the Israelis avoided mention of Palestinian statehood, and the new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, said past Israeli concessions had led to violence, not peace.

Yes Lieberman said that. But that seems like a rather non-controversial observation. Terror against Israel after Oslo. Hezbollah was strengthened by Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Hamas has been strengthened by Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. All of these are Israeli actions that should have helped the cause of peace, but had the opposite effect.

In another area the AP is less than honest than (and less honest than Kershner).

Netanyahu also demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, a step they have refused to take, the officials said.

Notice how the Palestinian refusal to accept a Jewish state is qualified as a statement attributed to “officials,” when, as Kershner reported that Palestinian officials have refused to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. And it’s not a problem with just Hamas, but with the purported “moderates” too.

(This is a point made by Martin Peretz, no fan of Lieberman’s in contrast to Saeb Erakat:

Let me recount two historical events, even if I am revealing a secret. On July 23, 200, in his meeting with President Arafat in Camp David, President Clinton said: “You will be the first president of a Palestinian state, within the 1967 borders – give or take, considering the land swap – and East Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state, but we want you, as a religious man, to acknowledge that the Temple of Solomon is located underneath the Haram Al-Sharif.” Yasser Arafat said to Clinton defiantly: “I will not be a traitor. Someone will come to liberate it after 10, 50, or 100 years. Jerusalem will be nothing but the capital of the Palestinian state, and there is nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif except for Allah.” That is why Yasser Arafat was besieged, and that is why he was killed unjustly.

In November 2008… Let me finish… Olmert, who talked today about his proposal to Abu Mazen, offered the 1967 borders, but said: “We will take 6.5% of the West Bank, and give in return 5.8% from the 1948 lands, and the 0.7% will constitute the safe passage, and East Jerusalem will be the capital, but there is a problem with the Haram and with what they called the Holy Basin.” Abu Mazen too answered with defiance, saying: “I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967 borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places. This is why the Palestinian negotiators did not sign…

Just remember, here is a leading Palesitnian “moderate” telling Al-Jazeera, that any compromise over Jerusalem is a non-starter. Not only that, but it shows that denying the historical Jewish ties to Jerusalem, is a basic tenet of Palestinian nationalism. Elder of Ziyon has more on Erakat’s “moderation.”)

According a report in Yedioth Ahronoth (but not available in the same detail in the English), Chief of Staff Rahm Emanual has made it clear that President intends for there to be two states at the end of his first term. Stephen Walt finds this report encouraging. (The closest English article on the topic, appears to be this.)

American pressure on Israel won’t bring peace to the Middle East. It may force Israeli withdrawals or lead to strained relations between Israel and the United States. As long as American involvement in the peace process fails to change the Palestinian perspective, it will fail to bring peace.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.