In The Palestinian Authority Struggles to Sabotage Any Chance for Peace, Barry Rubin observes:
And here, too, is the PA openly thwarting President Barack Obama, who publicly bristles at the tiniest Israeli disagreement, yet seems to accept this disrespect without demur.
And it’s not just President Obama.
No American definition of what such trust-undermining acts might be was offered, which is why Erekat pressed Mitchell in their meeting last Friday on what would constitute “provocative actions†by Israel.
But it seems clear that any reprise of the Ramat Shlomo debacle, which infuriated Obama, would meet American criteria. The bottom line to Israel is: Hold the building, hold the tenders and hold any other provocations while Mitchell shuttles.
President Obama was 100 percent right to call out Israel on its settlement expansion, which undermines the opportunities inherent in this moment.
Both, of course, have been silent about Mahmoud Abbas’s continuting passive aggressive approach to negotiations. Jackson Diehl, to his credit, noticed back in March that what Israel does or doesn’t do; it’s Abbas who refuses to negotiate:
That’s when Rice learned another lesson the new administration seems not to have picked up: This Palestinian leadership has trouble saying “yes.” Confronted with a draft deal that would have been cheered by most of the world, Abbas balked. He refused to sign on; he refused to present a counteroffer. Rice and Bush implored him to join Olmert at the White House for a summit. Olmert would present his plan to Bush, and Abbas would say only that he found it worth discussing. The Palestinian president refused.
This isn’t something new.
The question is when will the Israel bashers start to acknowledge that it isn’t Israel that’s obstructing peace but their second favorite “moderate” Palestinian leader?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
This claim that Palestinians have trouble saying “yes” is akin to Abba Eban’s oft-quoted line that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an oppoertunity. Both are clever, pithy, and wrong.
They beg the question of what the Palestinians actually want. The assumption is that they do want some sort of peace but because of stubborness, lack of foresight, or whatever when they’re presented a chance for it they blow it. I don’t think there’s much evidence to show this.
I assume most people reading this weblog are well aware of the gap between what the Palestinians say into the willing ears of western diplomats and pundits, but as far as i know every public opinion poll of the Palestinians in both Judea and Samaria and Gaza (I realize in an authoritarian situation such polls must be taken with a grain of salt) indicate by substantial majorities Palestinians do not favor a two-state solution and have no qualms about terrorism. The idea that the Palestinian leadership, even if it genuinely wanted a peace Israel could accept, would be able to defuse such strong and deep feeling is a pleasant fantasy.
The Palestinians haven’t missed an opportunity for anything they truly want.
What Alex Bensky has written is right on the mark.
The simple fact is that the Palestinians want all the land, and will never settle for less.
They will settle for less when they have been hurt badly enough to want the pain to go away. So far they have never been hurt that badly. Look at the situation in Gaza. Supposedly the Arbs there are suffering horribly from the cruel deeds of the nefarious Israelis. In fact the place is one of the most prosperous among the Arab countries. This prosperity is due, of course, to welfare doles from the UN, the USA, the Euros, and even Israel (Israel suppolies water and electricity the Palestinian Arab deadbeats won’t pay for).
The Palis will have to get the sort of treatment the Allies handed out to Nazi Germany before they will be willing to make peace. The sooner that happens, the sooner there will be peace with the Palis.
You have made a very good point, Michael. When you read about how regimes like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan became consensual societies, what is often missed is that they were able to do so because they had been utterly defeated and the former government thoroughly discredited.
This isn’t going to happen to the Palestinians because the rest of the world won’t allow it. Look at the outrage over Cast Lead, a fairly limited operation carried out (despite what the media purvey) with a great deal of effort to minimize collateral deaths and damage. Do you think that the sort of effective operation necessary to bring the Palestinians around can ever be carried out?
It might have happened earlier except that the rest of the world continually insulates the Palestinians and the Arabs generally from the consequences of their actions, especially war. Anyone else in the world, it would be assumed that if you start a war and lose you have to pay the consequences. Not the Palestinians.
When I read about the 1967 borders considered the basic limits of a two-state solution for Israel I recall that from the armistice in 1949 the Arabs said, openly, on paper and by word of mouth, that they considered the armistice demarcation nothing but cease-fire lines behind which they had agreed to stop fighting for the moment. But they were always careful to add that the lines would be crossed as soon as the Zionist entity could be wiped out.
Suddenly they become holy borders. As soon as the Russians start considering returning the parts of Finland they seized in the 1940’s or the chunk of eastern Poland they grabbed after the war, Israel should then start regarding the pre-Six Day War lines as firm.
Palestinians want anarchy because Arabs are about the maintenance of their own power as all tribal cultures are. And anarchy is the second best way to ensure that and the resultant criminal profitability. The first being fascist despotism.
Alex aand Michael, you are 100% accurate! The 2-state Western solution is all an englishspeak charade by the Pals and their Arab allies to weaken Israel piece by piece until they feel strong enough to destroy Israel. Just as mein kamp outlined the nazi plan, so does the Pal and Hamas charter clearly spell that out for those that are not ideologically blinded enough to read it. Also, the little Jordan “king†is secretly hoping that Israel remains strong, because this “king†will only be viable as long as Israel is there to protect him from the Pals. The long term Islamic goal is a caliphate controlled entire Middle East, and then the rest of the world. The elimination of Israel is just a first step in their quest for world domination by submission to Islam, dhimmitude, or, death.
You ask when Israel bashers will acknowledge that the obstacle to peace isn’t Israel. Well, it could happen, but I say “could happen” in the sense that it could happen that one night Lucy Lawless rings my doorbell to ask if she can come in and get out of these wet clothes. In other words, it’s possible but not likely.