Recently, Prof. Shlomo Avineiri wrote about the failure of the Palestinians to accept the right of Israel to exist. “Shamir” in this case, is Prof. Shimon Shamir, who argued that Palestinian acceptance of Israel’s right to exist is irrelevant.
Benjamin Netanyahu is not the first to broach the idea. It remains uncertain whether he acted wisely in the manner he gave the issue such prominence, but what shocked many Israelis – not just Likud members – was the blunt and vulgar response given by official Palestinian spokespeople.
In their ferociously negative response, Shamir claims that the Palestinians “fell into the trap that those who demanded recognition of a Jewish state had set for them.” Yet apparently there was no fall into any rhetorical trap. Rather, this was an expression of a deep, internal ideological truth that to this day refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. Because as far as the Palestinians are concerned, the Jews are not a nation, but rather a religious-ethnic group.
Barry Rubin sharpens the point:
Note by the way something extremely important: To accept the existence of a Palestinian Arab state, Israel or Zionist ideology does not have to make any change whatsoever in its world view. It is not exclusionary. Palestinian nationalism is. For it to accept the existence of Israel–in real terms or even by signing a final peace treaty–requires a political and intellectual revolution.
And one of the ways you know peace is not near is that this revolution has barely begun. Examine Palestinian media, education, the statements (in Arabic) of leaders, mosque sermons, and so on, and you find few hints that there is acceptance of Israel’s long-term, much less permanent, existence. Of course, Hamas makes little secret of its view on the subject.
Fatah’s view is more complex. In private, some of its leaders know they cannot defeat Israel but won’t say so publicly and hope that a long-term battle of attrition will do what force of arms cannot.
I think it’s important to note that Professor Robert O. Freedman of Baltimore Hebrew University has also recently written:
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, it is necessary for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state to replace the image of the Jew as dhimmi, or second class citizen, with the image of the Jew as a member of a national group exercising legitimate national rights, just as the Palestinians themselves do. Once this is done, the chances for a long-lasting peace between Israel and a Palestinian state will be greatly enhanced.
Freedman, is also an active member of Americans for Peace Now. During Prime MInister Netanyahu’s first term in office Freedman often portrayed Netanyahu as a right wing extremist. Yet, at that time, one of Netanyahu’s demands was that the Palestinian Authority abrogate the parts of its charter that denied Israel’s right to exist. It wasn’t just a demand but also a recognition that the failure of the Palestinians to do so was a sign that they rejected the premises of a peace treaty. Yet the common approach at the time was to dismiss the language of the Palestinian National Covenant as obsolete. This is what Serge Schmemann of the New York Times commented the first time that the Palestinian supposedly dropped the language denying Israel’s right to exist, in 1996:
Though time and the Israeli-Palestinian agreements had rendered the charter largely obsolete, the formal revocation of the hostile clauses carried a great symbolic importance for Israelis. It was so important that Mr. Peres agreed to let some of the most notorious terrorists return to Palestinian lands to make it possible for Mr. Arafat to convene the entire Palestine National Council.
In an interview with Arutz-7 Prof. Yehoshua Porath found no evidence that the PLO had indeed ended its calls for the destruction of the Jewish States (to use the headline from the Schmemann article.).
Q. Shalom Professor Porat. Yasser Arafat sent a letter today to Prime Minister Peres announcing the changes in the Palestinian covenant. Does this letter convince you that the covenant has been changed?
A. No, he has only repeated the decision of the PNC. They have not defined which clauses will be changed, but have only made a general statement that they will change clauses which contradict the recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
Q. Isn’t this only a matter of semantics? For he is explicitly stating that he will make the changes.
A. When he makes the changes, we will see. We will see what replaces the present clauses. Why are we in such a hurry to give him credit?
Q. We should give him credit because it is said that until now, Arafat has not made such a statement.
A. In an exchange of letters [with Yitzhak Rabin], Arafat said that he will change the covenant. Today he said that anything that contradicts the mutual recognition expressed in that exchange of letters, is now null and void. What has he changed? Does anyone know what clauses are changed? There is nothing new in this development. Clause 19, which says explicitly that the establishment of the State of Israel is null and void, I’m sure they will change first. But what about the clause which denies any connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel? What about the many clauses pertaining to the armed struggle? What about the clause that the Palestinians are the only rightful owners of the land? What about the clause in which the PLO claims the right to represent the Arab citizens of Israel? Do we agree with this? Does this constitute a “contradiction”? Does anyone know? No. The questions remain open, yet they have received credit [for the changes] enabling the continuation of the negotiations.
As I’ve written before, Article 20 of the Palestinian National Charter – which, as Prof Porath noted, denies the connection between Jews and the land of Israel – is a fundamental tenet of Palestinian nationalism. Even the “moderate” leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas cannot bring himself to acknowledge this. Instead newspapers quote Abbas’s glib response to the issue:
“It is not my job to give a description of the state. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic — it is none of my business,â€
as if to dismiss its significance and instead focus on “settlements” as the major obstacle to peace, not the Palestinian refusal to accept the premise of peace: the acceptance of the Jewish state of Israel. It’s amazing that 16 years after Oslo, this is still not settled.
Crosssposted on Soccer Dad.
Then what’s the alternative? Endless war with Hamas and the other haters? Should Israel obliterate the Palestinians? Are there other options available?
Let us note the tenor of the above comment. The post, which is about the fact that the Arabs have never recognized the Jewish claim to the land of Israel and want to destroy the Jewish state, turns the issue completely around. The commenter ignores the facts presented in the post, and accuses Israel of simply wanting war as an “alternative.” And of course, the accusation that Israel wants to “obliterate the Palestinians” stands as another accusation of genocide. (Which has been confirmed, by the way, as the Worst. Genocide. Ever. since the Palestinian population has exploded since 1967, which is, well, the opposite of genocide. But don’t let facts get in the way of your opinion.)
This is the typical anti-Israel comment that I almost never publish. I thought I’d let it stand as an example of why I don’t bother with the Israel-haters. We shall see if Simone returns, or if this was a drive-by anti-Israel comment.
Meryl –
My goodness. You misunderstood me. Really. I am a Zionist. I was not asking the questions to defame Jews or Israel. I agree with almost everything you posted in your follow-up comment (save for the charge that I am anti-Israel).
I only asked to get your opinion. Israel has made too many concessions already. It is continually under rocket attack and yet still has sent tons upon tons of aid into Gaza. I would like see Israel’s borders and society free from Arab-inflicted violence but hasn’t Israel done enough already to advance peace? If the Arabs won’t play ball, then what?
What do you think Israel should do next? This is what I should have asked at the start. I humbly apologize.
Simone,
I do not think there is much Israel can do by itself to end the attacks on it, short of committing suicide.
What I thought Israel ought to have done in Gaza last year is go in and kill every Hamas member it could catch. Then split the place up into tribal areas each run by Arab tribal sheikhs, chosen according to the customs of the tribes for elevating men to those positions of authority, whatever their customs are. Tell them this: “You are now in charge. Run the place however you want, we don’t care. No attacks on Israel and no terrorist bases in your territory. If there are any attacks on Israel, and be sure we will know where they come from, we’ll come in and kill you, personally. Aside from that you’re the boss here.” Basically these would be like Mob concessions. I think that would be the best chance of stopping the attacks. Note that I am proposing something a lot nastier than the Israelis have ever acted.
On a larger scale I think the civilized world could do something that might, I say might, work. That would be to cut off completely all payments to the Palestinian Arabs, from any source, except for what they can earn thorugh selling their peaceful manufactures or services. The Palis get enormous welfare payments from all over the world, including Israel, the USA, and Europe. Cut them all off. If the Palis have to learn to live by honest labor and not welfare they will not have time to plot terrorism. Let them work or starve. Frankly, I would not care which. After observing their terrorism and refusals to make peace for decades, I am fed up with them.
I doubt either of these will happen. Frankly, I think the war will continue until the Israelis do so much damage to the Palis, kill so many of them, that the Arabs become sick of being killed. Only when the Palis are so fearful of what Israel will do to them if they raise their hand against the Jews, that they do not dare even to speak of attacking them, will Israel have peace. Judging by what it took to put down the Nazis, killing about 10 percent of the Germans, that means killing around 300-400,000 Pali Arab men. I doubt Israel will ever do this, so I doubt that Israel will ever have peace from terrorism.
Depressing? Yeah, but it isn’t Israel that is keeping this war alive. The whole initiative for this war rests with Israel’s enemies. If they stopped trying to destroy Israel and stopped trying to kill the Jews they would have nothing to fear from Israel. Since making peace neither Egypt nor Jordan have had anything to fear from Israel. Other Muslims could have that too, but they don’t want it. Their vanity will not permit it. They have never had to pay any significant price for their evil, genocidal intentions. Not enough of them have yet been killed to discourage the survivors. And that’s the way it is.
Sorry, Simone. I get a lot of commenters who use the same tactics to smear Israel, not honestly ask questions. I leaped to the wrong conclusion.