Where “liquidate” means “living side by side peacefully”

Back on August 30, 1993 Clyde Haberman of the New York Times reported the significant change that the PLO was going to undergo:

Another important step is that the P.L.O. is to renounce terrorism, according to some officials. But they add that the P.L.O., now outlawed in Israel, is ready to go further, by formally recognizing Israel’s right to exist and revoking sections of its 1964 convenant that call
for Israel’s destruction.

When that happens — and one official said it could be a matter of only a few weeks — Israel and the P.L.O. would recognize each other. The Palestinian group’s leadership would then be allowed to move into Gaza and Jericho, several officials said.

“It would no longer be the same P.L.O.,” one official argued. “It would become in effect a political body and not a terrorist organization.”

And indeed, if it truly had renounced terror and its intent to destroy Israel, the PLO would have been a new organization. Supporting this step we had the late Chaim Herzog.

We also are seeing an exercise in leadership that has followed a completely unconventional route, attended by great dangers; seemingly it is irreconcilable with the approach universally accepted by most Israelis, who put the P.L.O. beyond the pale. What the leadership now maintains is that by the P.L.O. declaring its abandonment of the weapon of terror and its covenant calling for Israel’s destruction, it becomes a political movement with which one can negotiate and argue.

This is a unconventional approach, based on a long-range vision, But then that is what leadership is all about.

Then opposition leader Netanyahu wrote (rather prophetically):

The Rabin Government is now betting the security of Israel on Yasir Arafat’s promises. But his promises are worthless. He has violated every political commitment he has ever made. Since his “breakthrough” promise in 1988 to stop P.L.O. terror, his own Fatah faction has launched more terrorist attacks against Israel than any other Palestinian group. Similarly, he repeatedly “recognizes” Israel for some political gain — only to take it back later.

An armed P.L.O. state looming over Israel’s cities and overflowing with returning “refugees” (a million to start with, says the P.L.O.) is a far cry from a responsible compromise that would give Israel security and Arabs autonomy. Instead of giving peace a chance, it is a guarantee of increased tension, future terrorism and, ultimately, war.

(It is a strange exercise reading these articles. Netanyahu – who was correct – was, and still is often, considered a “right wing demagogue,” whereas those who supported the Oslo accords were considered the voices of reason.)

isabel Kershner reports on the most recent Fatah convention in Bethlehem.

“It speaks about a peaceful solution,” said Sarhan Salaymeh, the mayor of the West Bank town of Al-Ram, who spent 13 years in an Israeli prison. “It is the time for nation building, not fighting,” he said. “The rifle has its own time.”

Yet Fatah, still defining itself as a national liberation movement, is reluctant to fully abandon the gun. In a statement outlining the principles of its new political charter, the party reaffirmed its commitment to achieve a just peace, but said it believed the Palestinians, as a people under occupation, retain the legitimate right of resistance “in all its forms.”

Elder of Ziyon notes that Fatah’s old terminology persists. And Fatah has elected a convicted murderer to its central committee.

Yasser Arafat and Fatah made a down payment on legitimacy by supposedly renouncing terror in 1993. Now 16 years later Arafat’s successor still refuse to eschew terror and yet their international legitimacy persists.

Apparently those who consider “two states for two peoples living side by side peacefully” believe that the formulation is the equivalent of “liquidate the Zionist entity.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.