Diehl-ing from the bottom of the deck

In the Deal on the Table Jackson Diehl makes the tired argument

Between the end of the last serious Israeli-Palestinian talks, in January 2001, and their resumption this month, more than 4,000 Palestinians and Israelis have been killed in the conflict. Yet as soon as the talks began again, negotiators on both sides found themselves making pretty much the same demands and hinting at the same concessions that they did when President Bill Clinton tried to broker a deal. The second Palestinian intifada, which began seven years ago this fall, represented Yasser Arafat’s way of avoiding the surrender of a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel. But in private meetings with Israelis and Americans, Abbas now acknowledges — as he has before — that there will be no such return. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who took office in early 2001, made a series of bold moves — from invading the West Bank and destroying Arafat’s Palestinian Authority to unilaterally evacuating the Gaza Strip — aimed at redrawing the territorial map that Israeli negotiators had agreed to. But his successor, Ehud Olmert, has already suggested that Israel is ready, once again, to give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and accept a border close to that of 1967.

This is typical Thomas Friedman. Everyone “knows” what a deal must include and it’s only political weakness keeps a deal from being concluded. The people who have died over the past seven years have died because of a failure of political will.

However as Evelyn Gordon illustrates, the Palestinian side hasn’t accepted the basic premise that Israel has a right to exist.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert voiced one such delusion at an October 7 cabinet meeting: “For the first time, there is a Palestinian leadership … that recognizes that Israel is a Jewish state.”Were that true, it would indeed constitute a breakthrough. Unfortunately, neither Mahmoud Abbas nor Salam Fayad has ever recognized any such thing. Neither has ever uttered the words “Jewish state;” neither has ever abandoned the “right of return,” which would eliminate the Jewish state demographically by flooding it with 4.4 million Palestinian refugees and their descendants; neither has ever acknowledged the Jews’ historical link with this land, which is a vital component of Jewish statehood.

Indeed, Abbas has consistently opposed these ideas. After George Bush called Israel a “Jewish state” at the 2003 Aqaba summit, for instance, senior aides to Abbas were furious, declaring that such a definition was unacceptable and that Bush had “ambushed” the then prime minister. Abbas never dissociated himself from these statements.

The problem with Diehl (and Friedman) is that they assume that the only thing between the current situation and peace is the ceding of land and the release of terrorists. What they miss is that Palestnian nationalism has not changed in its basic premise. It’s not about creating a new state, but about denying an existing one.

When Arafat agreed to the declaration of principles in 1993 he supposed forswore violence as a means of achieving his national aspirations. But he never did. When Diehl writes ” The second Palestinian intifada, which began seven years ago this fall, represented Yasser Arafat‘s way of avoiding the surrender of a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel.” he ignores that Arafat started the “intifada” because he knew it would cost nothing to return to violence as he had done whenever it suited him during the previous 7 years.

And while  it might be that Abbas occasionally talks about giving up the “right of return” in private, it’s clear that he does not believe that and won’t say it publicly. It’s not a matter of political weakness (alone) it’s a matter of a deeply held belief. To believe otherwise is to delude oneself.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.