THE REAL ROOT CAUSE
The entire biblical Land of Israel, including pre-1967 Israel (i.e., Israel within its 1949 armistice demarcation lines, constituting 17% of Mandatory Palestine) and post-1967 Israel (i.e., Judea, Samaria, the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and Gaza, constituting 5% of Mandatory Palestine; and the Golan Heights, constituting 1% of Mandatory Palestine), aggregately constituting 23% of Mandatory Palestine, belongs exclusively to the Jewish people, despite the fact that Arabs -- rather than Jews -- presently constitute the overwhelming majority of the population in the post-1967 areas of biblical Israel (except for the eastern portion of Jerusalem where Arabs form only a slight majority and the Golan Heights where Jews form a slight majority). However, for purposes of this essay only, I have taken the liberty of ahistorically (1) positing the existence of a "Palestinian" people ethnically distinct from the masses of Arabs clans ranging through 21 Arab countries from Mauritania in the East to Oman in the West, and (2) treating these post-1967 areas of biblical Israel (sans the Golan Heights) as the World views them, namely, as "Occupied Territories" which belong to the “Palestinian” people.
The Arab nations and numerous philo-Arab pundits routinely assert that the present Arab war of terror against Israel and the Jewish people results from Israel's military occupation, since the 1967 Six Day War, of these "Palestinian" lands. The "Occupation" is, accordingly, ubiquitously proclaimed to be the "Root Cause" of the Arab-Jewish conflict -- the alleged reason being that a military occupation always incites the occupied people to perpetrate acts of violent resistance against their occupiers. Yet, if this be true, then why is it that the illegal military occupations, from 1948 to 1967, of these very areas by Jordan (as to Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem) and by Egypt (as to Gaza) did not result in any "Palestinian" uprising against either of these foreign occupiers during those long 19 years? In fact, the Arabs of Judea, Samaria, and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, after having emphatically insisted that they were “southern Syrians” prior to Israel’s 1948 War of Independence, supinely accepted that they were “Jordanians” from 1948 to 1967, only to assert their identity as “Palestinians” after Israel’s capture of these territories in the Six Day War.
Furthermore, in light of the fact that the Palestine Liberation Organization was created in 1964 -- a full three years before Israel acquired the "Occupied Territories" from Jordan and Egypt -- it is more than obvious that this entity’s raison d'être was never the liberation of these not-as-yet-acquired lands, but rather the "liberation" (i.e., destruction) of Israel within its 1949 armistice demarcation lines.
Moreover, the military campaign, in 1967, by the Arab World to
destroy
And neither can it be credibly asserted that the prior invasion, in 1948, of Israel within the even more restrictive 1947 United Nations partition plan lines by six Arab states -- namely, Lebanon, Syria, Transjordan (precursor to Jordan), Egypt, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, in the process of which two of them, Transjordan and Egypt, conquered and illegally occupied, respectively, the areas of Judea, Samaria and the eastern portion of Jerusalem, and of Gaza -- was caused by Israel's future acquisition, in 1967, of these very same "Occupied Territories".
In fact, although United Nations General Assembly Resolution no. 181, issued
November 29, 1947, commonly known as the "Palestine Partition Plan"
-- which called for the termination of the Mandate for Palestine and, inter
alia, for the creation in its place of an independent "Palestinian"
Jewish state (comprised of 3 small barely-adjoined cantons, constituting almost
11% of Mandatory Palestine) and an independent "Palestinian" Arab
state (comprised mostly of the "Occupied Territories" of 1967,
constituting almost 11% of Mandatory Palestine) -- would have carved out from
Mandatory Palestine a second "Palestinian" Arab state (after
Transjordan, constituting 77% of Mandatory Palestine, which was created in 1922
from virtually all of Mandatory Palestine situated east of the Jordan River),
and although the Jewish leadership of Mandatory Palestine accepted the
Resolution, the Arab leadership of Mandatory Palestine (as well as all
of the Arab and Muslim countries which were then members of the U.N., namely,
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey
and Yemen) rejected the Resolution -- by both declaration and conduct. The
violent response of the "Palestinian" Arabs and the surrounding Arab
countries to the passage of the Resolution, which culminated in their 1948
invasion of
Obviously, the real and only Root Cause of the conflict was,
is, and always will be the unified Arab rejection of the existence of a Jewish
nation-state in any portion of the biblical
However, notwithstanding the foregoing Truth, Israel initiated the 1993 Oslo Accords based upon its pollyannish assumption that, by unilaterally transferring portions of the "Occupied Territories" (namely, the 8 main Arab-populated cities of Judea and Samaria -- Jericho, Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Kalkilya, Tulkarm, Bethlehem and 80% of Hebron -- together with hundreds of their satellite villages plus virtually all of the Arab-populated areas of Gaza) to the "Palestinian" Arabs pending the negotiation of an end-of-the-conflict peace treaty, the Jewish State would be able to prove to the Arab world that -- even in the absence of having yet concluded with the "Palestinian" Arabs a final peace treaty -- it nonetheless actually intended to end the "Occupation" and would, thereby, be able to dissolve any further "justification" for the continuing Arab war of annihilation against it. Pursuant to the Olso Accords, by the end of 1995, Israel had withdrawn itself, in phases, from 42% of Judea and Samaria and 80% of Gaza with the result that 98% of the Arab population of the former and virtually 100% of the Arab population of the latter were then being governed, not by Israel, but rather by the Palestinian Authority headed by Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat. Yet, despite -- or, more accurately, due to -- Israel's substantial withdrawals from the "Occupied Territories", by the latter part of 2001 substantially more Israelis had been murdered and maimed by Arab terrorists in the 8 years subsequent to the advent of the Oslo Accords than in the four decades prior thereto. This happened only because -- with an autonomous territorial base on pre-1967 Israel's doorstep with which to indoctrinate a generation of Arab youth in the religious and irredentist justifications for the murder of Jews, and with which to build the mortar, rocket and suicide-belt factories necessary for the implementation thereof -- the "Palestinian" Arabs were able, not only to continue, but to exponentially increase the lethality of their pre-Oslo Accords war of attrition (commenced in 1987 and denominated by the international media as the “First Intifada”) against the Jewish State, the intensity of which spiked in September 2000 (denominated by the international media as the “Second Intifada” or the “Aksa Intifada”), and has continued unabated, at that level, until this very Day.
In this context, it is noteworthy that the post-Oslo Accords portion of this
war of attrition was waged against
September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of
Mr. Prime Minister,
The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks
a new era in the history of the
The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.
The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.
The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.
The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.
In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
Sincerely,
Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The
In July 2000,
Finally, in March 2002, in response to the almost daily assaults on Israel's
civilian population perpetrated by "Palestinian" Arab terror groups,
operating from the autonomous "Occupied Territories" governed
by (and benefiting from the financial, logistical, diplomatic, and moral
support of) the Palestinian Authority, via armed incursions, car-bombs,
roadside ambushes, and suicide bombers -- culminating in the horrific suicide
bombing of a Passover seder attended mostly by elderly Jews -- the Israeli army
temporarily reoccupied most of the autonomous "
Below is a Fox News Channel interview with former
Dennis Ross on Fox News Sunday
Sunday, April 21, 2002
Following is a transcripted excerpt from Fox News Sunday, April 21, 2002.
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS: Former Middle East envoy
Dennis Ross has worked to achieve
Dennis Ross joins us now with more details on all that, and Fred Barnes joins the questioning.
So, Dennis, talk to us a little bit, if you can -- I might note that we're proud to able to say that you're a Fox News contributing analyst.
DENNIS ROSS: Thank you.
HUME: Talk to us about the sequence of events. The Camp David talks, there was an offer. That was rejected. Talks continued. You come now to December, and the president has a new set of ideas. What unfolded?
ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective.
Number one, at
Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact,
during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His
negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised
at Camp David was that the
HUME: This is the
ROSS: This is the core of the Jewish faith.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: So he was denying the core of the Jewish faith there.
After the summit, he immediately came back to us and he said, "We need to have another summit," to which we said, "We just shot our wad. We got a 'no' from you. You're prepared actually do a deal before we go back to something like that?"
He agreed to set up a private channel between his
people and the Israelis, which I joined at the end of August. And there were
serious discussions that went on, and we were poised to present our ideas the
end of September, which is when the intifada erupted. He knew we were poised to
present the ideas. His own people were telling him they looked good. And we
asked him to intervene to ensure there wouldn't be violence after the
Now, eventually we were able to get back to a point where private channels between the two sides led each of them to again ask us to present the ideas. This was in early December. We brought the negotiators here.
HUME: Now, this was a request to the
ROSS: Yes.
HUME: ... to formulate a plan. Both sides wanted this?
ROSS: Absolutely.
HUME: All right.
ROSS: Both sides asked us to present these ideas.
HUME: All right. And they were?
ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by
the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would
be about a 5 percent annexation in the
On
On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of
return for the refugees to their own state -- not to
And when it came to security, there would be a
international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the
These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.
FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said: "yes".
ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.
HUME: What was he supposed to give?
ROSS: He supposed to give, on
HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?
ROSS: He rejected that.
He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.
He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.
You know when you fly into
So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.
HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that
the territory, at least, is contiguous. What about
ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out
of
ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not
what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would
take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the
So that map there that you see, which shows a very
narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the
Palestinians would have in the
HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...
ROSS: Right.
HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.
ROSS: Completely untrue.
And to connect
BARNES: I have two other questions. One, the Palestinians point out that this was never put on paper, this offer. Why not?
ROSS: We presented this to them so that they could record it. When the President presented it, he went over it at dictation speed. He then left the cabinet room. I stayed behind. I sat with them to be sure, and checked to be sure that every single word.
The reason we did it this way was to be sure they had it and they could record it. But we told the Palestinians and Israelis, if you cannot accept these ideas, this is the culmination of the effort, we withdraw them. We did not want to formalize it. We wanted them to understand we meant what we said. You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it.
So that's why they have it themselves recorded. And to this day, the Palestinians have not presented to their own people what was available.
BARNES: In other words, Arafat might use it as a basis for further negotiations so he'd get more?
ROSS: Well, exactly.
HUME: Which is what, in fact, he tried to do, according to your account.
ROSS: We treated it as not only a culmination. We wanted to be sure it couldn't be a floor for negotiations.
HUME: Right.
ROSS: It couldn't be a ceiling. It was the roof.
HUME: This was a final offer?
ROSS: Exactly. Exactly right.
HUME: This was the solution.
BARNES: Was Arafat alone in rejecting it? I mean, what about his negotiators?
ROSS: It's very clear to me that his negotiators understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted him to accept it. He was not prepared to accept it.
HUME: Now, it is often said that this whole sequence of talks here sort of fell apart or ended or broke down or whatever because of the intervention of the Israeli elections. What about that?
ROSS: The real issue you have to understand was not
the Israeli elections. It was the end of the
They asked us to present the ideas, both sides. We
were governed by the fact that the
HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said: "no"?
ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was: "This is the end of the conflict".
Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here: "You've got to close the door". For him to end the conflict is to end himself.
HUME: Might it not also have been true, though, Dennis, that, because the intifada had already begun -- so you had the Camp David offer rejected, the violence begins anew, a new offer from the Clinton administration comes along, the Israelis agree to it, Barak agrees to it...
ROSS: Yes.
HUME: ... might he not have concluded that the violence was working?
ROSS: It is possible he concluded that. It is possible he thought he could do and get more with the violence. There's no doubt in my mind that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.
And I think there's one other factor. You have to
understand that Barak was able to reposition
Arafat needed to re-establish the Palestinians as a victim, and unfortunately they are a victim, and we see it now in a terrible way.
HUME: Dennis Ross, thank you so much.
A prescient lesson may also be taken from the aftermath of
Consequently, it should be crystal clear that the real and only Root
Cause of the conflict -- namely, the continued existence of the Jewish
nation-state of
© Mark Rosenblit
[Note: In August 2005,
[Note: On March 12, 2006, Lebanese
President Emile Lahoud, in an interview with Lebanon’s Al-Balad newspaper,
declared that Lebanon had extant territorial claims (in addition to that for
Har Dov on the Golan Heights) for portions of northern Israel in the vicinities
of Metulla and Misgav Am, within Israel’s 1949 armistice demarcation lines
(i.e., pre-1967 Israel). And, in
December 2006, leading members of Egypt’s parliament and media began publicly
calling for the “return” to Egypt of Umm Rashrash (known to Israelis as their
southern city of Eilat), also within Israel’s 1949 armistice demarcation
lines (i.e., pre-1967
[Note: The below articles also discuss the Real Root Cause of the Arab-Jewish conflict. Read on!]
Civil Fights: The face of delusion
By Evelyn Gordon
(Jerusalem Post, October 19, 2007)
Yet current Israeli-Palestinian talks are also being built on delusions. And
the results are liable to be equally devastating.
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
Were that true, it would indeed constitute a breakthrough. Unfortunately,
neither [Palestinian Authority “President”] Mahmoud Abbas nor [Palestinian
Authority “Finance Chairman”] 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 [United States
President] 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 [Palestinian Authority] prime minister. Abbas never dissociated himself
from these statements.
SIMILARLY, Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was
Nor has Abbas budged from this position since. In November 2004, while
campaigning for the PA chairmanship, he declared: "We will not rest until
our people's right to return is granted." In a speech this January, he
again declared the right of return "nonnegotiable" and rejected
"any attempt to resettle the refugees in other countries."
On the
Indeed, this is one of the issues over which negotiations collapsed in 2000.
According to Ben-Ami, he eventually proposed ceding sovereignty over the mount
in exchange for Palestinian recognition that "the site is [also] sacred to
the Jews." But the Palestinians refused to sign any such statement.
There is no evidence that Abbas's "real" positions differ from his
public statements. Yet even if they do, this is meaningless as long as he refuses
to say so publicly -- because without a concerted effort to alter Palestinian
views, public opposition would preclude any concessions on these issues. One
recent poll, for instance, found that 94 percent of Palestinians opposed any
Israeli authority whatsoever over the
ONE MIGHT argue that if so, Olmert's delusion does not matter: He and Abbas
will simply fail to reach an agreement. Yet in fact, it has several negative
consequences.
First, by declaring that Abbas and Fayad have recognized
Second, having created this bind, Olmert is under pressure to make sweeping
concessions even with no quid pro quo. Indeed, he hinted as much at the October
7 cabinet meeting: "We will make decisions that aren't easy, including
some we had thought we wouldn't need to make."
Given how much previous governments have already conceded (most of the
territories, the Temple Mount, much of east Jerusalem), the only concessions
that could be described as ones "we had thought we wouldn't need to
make" are ones unacceptable to most Israelis: the refugees, the settlement
blocs, Jewish areas of east Jerusalem.
Third, anything
FINALLY, there is the second half of Olmert's delusion: His declaration, at
that same cabinet meeting, that it was "clear to all" that
recognizing
In fact,
This international attitude has long been a key impediment to an
Israeli-Palestinian agreement, because it nourishes the Palestinians' belief
that they can make a deal without recognizing
Without Palestinian willingness to recognize
And unless the world makes this clear to the Palestinians, no such willingness
is likely to emerge. But instead of confronting these problems, Olmert has
opted to pretend they do not exist. And that is a recipe for an Oslo-style
disaster.
(©) The
Civil Fights: The Palestinians don't want a state
By Evelyn Gordon
(Jerusalem Post, October 26, 2007) In last week's column, I discussed one
delusion behind the current "peace process": Ehud Olmert's assertion
that Palestinian leaders have accepted
Granted, polls have repeatedly shown a majority for this proposition. The
majority may be razor-thin (the Jerusalem Media and
Yet those who seize on this as proof of Palestinians' desire for peace have
neglected to ask one crucial question: When Palestinians say they favor a
two-state solution, what kind of two-state solution are they envisioning? And
the answer, as both these same polls and past Palestinian behavior make clear,
is not a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one -- the only solution that
The JMCC poll, for instance, found that 69 percent of Palestinians want all 4.4
million refugees and their descendants relocated to
Like others before it, this poll also found that 94 percent of Palestinians
oppose any Israeli authority over the
SUCH POLLS are not merely theoretical: Israeli-Palestinian talks collapsed over
precisely these issues in 2000-2001. And Palestinians wholeheartedly supported
this outcome: A July 2000 poll found that 83 percent approved Yasser Arafat's
rejection of
And that is the principal reason for doubting that Palestinians' true goal is
statehood: People who actually want a state do not keep saying "no"
when one is offered.
At
HAD PALESTINIANS truly desired to "end the occupation" and acquire a
state, they would not have rejected these offers; they would have acted as the
Jews did in 1947, when the UN partition plan offered them a state on a mere 10
percent of the territory promised by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate. The
offer did not even include
The Palestinians, in contrast, rejected a proffered state that fell a mere 3
percent short of their putative demands, just because it (a) involved
acknowledging a Jewish connection to the
In other words, they preferred continued occupation to any deal that accepted a
Jewish state.
One reason for Jewish urgency in 1947 was the refugee problem created by the
Holocaust.
Even on territorial issues, Palestinians' lack of interest in statehood is
glaring. The JMCC poll, for instance, found that 82 percent oppose
Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in any part of this land.
Even worse, it reinforces this unwillingness -- because as long as the world
responds to every impasse not by confronting this problem, but by pressuring
Israel for more concessions, Palestinians will continue to believe that by
standing firm, they can eventually secure a deal that will indeed eradicate the
Jewish state. And if so, why settle for less?
The only way to truly achieve a two-state solution is for
(©) The
[Note: Another "peace conference" has been convened for
November 26, 2007 at
Another Tack: Culture of kvetch
By SARAH HONIG
(Jerusalem Post, November 23, 2007) I don't know how many times I quoted the
definition of lunacy popularly ascribed to Albert Einstein, but it certainly
appeared in more than a few tacks. The characterization of insanity as
"doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results"
came to mind again when I chanced upon a yellowing clipping from Haaretz.
Entitled "The Day The Peace Died" and published on September 14,
2001, it featured a very lengthy interview granted to Ari Shavit by [former
Israeli Prime Minister and current Israeli Defense Minister] Ehud Barak's
ex-foreign minister, ultra-dove Shlomo Ben-Ami. His extensive monologue offered
spellbinding scrutiny of Barak's 2000-2001 near-desperate peace-drive that
began in Stockholm, continued in Camp David [located in Maryland] and expired
ignominiously in Taba [located in Egypt].
What was an intriguing enough read originally, evolved into a spine-chilling forecast six years later, because our latest government is intent on replicating Barak's entire delusional daredevil fiasco. Moreover, [Israeli Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert is about to do so under conditions inestimably worse than when Barak foolhardily performed somersaults on the precipice.
Barak's own egregious territorial generosity undercut all future Israeli
bargaining positions. Subsequently Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement
emboldened terror to the point of installing Hamas hegemony in
Then as now, Palestinians mumbled vague recognition of
IT WAS ALL repetitively coached in precisely the same words during months of
prolonged haggling in 2000. When it was over, Ben-Ami retroactively understood
that
Ben-Ami notes that while Israel kept retreating from one "red line" to another, eventually agreeing to hand over almost anything the Palestinians insisted upon, including much of Jerusalem and its Holiest of Holies, "never at any point did the Palestinians so much as draft any counterproposals." That, Ben-Ami belatedly concluded, "was the crux of the matter. The Israeli side forever finds itself in a dilemma: Either we quit because this bunch is unwilling to suggest anything, or we manage one more concession, one more kvetch [squeeze in Yiddish]. At the end, however, even the most moderate person arrives at a point in which he admits to himself that the other side has no endgame. Kvetch after kvetch but they're never satisfied. It never ends."
With painstaking detail, Ben-Ami lists each and every kvetch, each and every
vital position from which Barak and his team were reluctantly pushed by the
intractable Palestinians. Even while Israeli negotiators sacrificed
When Ben-Ami was willing to make do with a Palestinian "undertaking not to dig on the Mount, because it's holy to Jews, they adamantly refused to agree to any mention of any sanctity anyplace for Jews."
What distressed Ben-Ami most "wasn't just their refusal but how they refused -- with total contempt. They were dismissive and arrogant towards us. I realized... they weren't willing to make even an emotional or symbolic conciliatory gesture. In the deepest sense they were loath to acknowledge that we have any claim here."
When territorial swaps were proposed, "they'd only consider taking possession of Kochav Yair" -- where Barak resided at the time. There were also not-so-veiled threats of violence. Erekat named September 13 [,2000] as a deadline. Two weeks thereafter the intifada raged.
Ben-Ami's unavoidable conclusion was that "more than the Palestinians want their own state they want to condemn ours... they always leave loose ends... to keep viable the option that at some future point someone would pull these ends and unravel the Jewish State."
To be sure, like his fellow leftists, Ben-Ami even then couldn't bring himself to fully renounce his patently untenable ideological creed. But though still professing faith in his smitten idols, he nonetheless cautioned against "ignoring what was revealed to us -- Palestinian and Islamic positions which defy our very right to exist. We mustn't continue the culture of kvetch which might lead us to suicide... We must no longer relinquish Jewish and Israeli patriotism. We must understand that we aren't always guilty. We must learn to say, 'Up to here and no farther.' If the other side aims to destroy even this nucleus, we must steadfastly defend it."
BEN-AMI at least learned something. But Olmert, now out to magnify all of
Barak's errors and then some, evidently paid no heed and absorbed nothing.
Which brings us back to what Einstein called those who obsessively repeat
proven mistakes.
(©) The
Interesting Times: Why
By SAUL SINGER
(Jerusalem Post, November 23, 2007) Why is
The whole recognition conundrum can seem like a terrible joke. The
Palestinians have repeatedly recognized
There is no greater negation of civilization than a suicide bombing, yet we seem to crave acceptance from the world's first society to celebrate such barbarism as the ultimate heroism. Why seek the approval of such a society?
The answer is that the pursuit of recognition has nothing to do with seeking Arab approval. Rather, we are seeking a much more critical goal for peace: Arab defeat and surrender.
We are used to thinking that peace is the ultimate win-win. In many senses it
is. It is the Palestinians, after all, who do not have a state, supposedly want
one, and need to make peace to get it. It is the Arab world whose economic and
political growth has been so stunted by the war against
Yet in the Arab mind, and also in terms of the basic goal the Arab world has
set for itself, peace with
THE GOAL of the century-long Arab struggle has been to prevent
This is seductive logic, with wide resonance in Western governments.
"What is
The difference is that
The Palestinian refusal to acknowledge
* The demand for "return." The Arab claim of the right of Palestinians to move to Israel -- while demanding that Israelis move out of a future Palestinian state -- amounts to a denial of Israeli sovereignty and a refusal to abandon the dream of a "Greater Palestine" in Israel's stead.
* The denial of Jewish history. Yasser Arafat dumbfounded Bill Clinton at
the 2000 Camp David summit when he denied any Jewish connection to the
* The denial of Jewish peoplehood. Similarly, the Arab world rejects the existence of a Jewish people with national rights. Judaism, they claim, is a religion, and religions don't define peoples.
* The denial of the right to non-Muslim sovereignty. While the Islamic
concept of dhimmi -- that non-Muslims can only be accorded the status of
subjects under Muslim sovereignty -- may be mainly identified with groups like
Hamas and al-Qaida, it is also the basis of the "secular" and
"nationalist" denials of
* The portrayal of peace as a Western imperialist plot. Peace is more
regularly depicted in the Arab world as a threat than an opportunity. [Israeli
President] Shimon Peres's dream of a "New Middle East" of open borders
and free trade is seen by Arabs as a nightmare of Israeli economic domination.
Americans and Jews are regularly demonized, leaving the distinct impression
that peace with
* The lack of a peace movement. All of the above are mainstream Arab
positions, with no organized movements or political parties openly representing
opposite positions, even as a minority point of view.
IT IS THIS elaborate ideological apparatus that is the real obstacle to peace.
So when
Peace must be built upon mutual recognition, and the only recognition that
means anything is of
saul@jpost.com
(©) The Jerusalem Post
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**Editorial**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Recognition Sham
(Jerusalem Post, November 15, 2007) [Former Palestine Liberation Organization
Chairman] Yasser Arafat recognized
So the Palestinians accept
On Monday, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, "The problem of
the content of the document [setting out joint principles for peacemaking
post-Annapolis] has not been resolved... One of the more pressing problems is
the Zionist regime's insistence on being recognized as a Jewish state.
"We will not agree to recognize
On Tuesday, another prominent Palestinian negotiator, Yasser Abed Rabbo, said,
"It is only a Zionist party that deals with
Yesterday, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad joined in these
statements. And Erekat chimed in again on Al-Arabiya TV: "
All this is mind-boggling from an Israeli perspective. To Jews and Israelis, it
is obvious that if
The Palestinian refusal to accept
Erekat's claim that the "intertwining" of religious and national
identity is unusual, let alone unique, is nonsense. Perhaps he has not heard of
the Islamic Conference, a group of 55 states, or the Church of England. While
Arab states, such as
[Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert stated this week that
If
There is no way for Israelis to understand the refusal to accept Israel as a
Jewish state other than as a rejection of the two-state solution and the
embrace of the "strategy of stages," whereby a Palestinian state is
not an end of claims against Israel, but a down-payment toward Israel's destruction.
As Olmert says, there is no point in entering a "peace process" on
this basis. Every conception of the two-state vision has assumed a foundation
of genuine mutual recognition. The first point of the first phase of the road
map, for example, begins: "Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal
statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security...."
Oslo's Statement of Principles begins, "[Israel and the PLO] agree that it
is time to... recognize their mutual legitimate and political rights...."
The 1947 UN Partition Plan called for dividing Mandatory Palestine "into
Jewish and Arab states."
Without mutual recognition, there is no basis for negotiation. The Palestinians
expect
(©) The
By News Agencies
(Haaretz, December, 19, 2007)
"If there's a state of one religion, other religions are naturally
discriminated against," Latin Patriarch Michel Sabbah told reporters at
the annual press conference he holds in
In his address, which he read in Arabic and English, Sabbah said
"This Land cannot be exclusive for anyone," he said.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel said
"We reject his claim that other religions are not enjoying equal rights
in
With his statements Wednesday, Sabbah, a longtime advocate of the Palestinian cause, waded into a debate that has marred the fledgling peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
He said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had unleashed "forces of
evil" across the Middle East and it was up to
"I hope we are entering into a new phase with
"Until now, there has been no peace, simply because there has been no
willingness [by
Sabbah, who has been the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem since 1987, is the
first Palestinian to hold the post and is frequently critical of
"He also lashed out at
According to the
© Haaretz
[Note: Michel Sabbah is himself a
representative of a state based upon a religion, namely, the
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**Editorial**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sabbah's hypocrisy
(Jerusalem Post, December 23, 2007) "There is discrimination linked to the
nature of the State.
Once again last week, the Jewish people and the world were treated to the
opinion of the Palestinian leadership -- the "moderate" one with
which a peace process is supposedly being conducted -- that the State of Israel
must not be allowed to exist as a Jewish state.
The speaker who delivered the words above last Wednesday in
While Erekat's assertion may be downright laughable -- the Palestinian
Authority's Basic Law dealing with its Legislative Council declares that
"Islam is the official religion in Palestine" -- he was merely
maintaining the tradition of the decrepit Palestinian political class that,
besides spearheading an international campaign to vilify Israel, has achieved
nothing for its people in 15 years of international legitimacy and lavish
funding.
No, the speaker last week was a scholar with a doctorate from the Sorbonne, by
all accounts a compassionate man, and a devoted servant of the pope -- Latin
Patriarch and Catholic Archbishop of Jerusalem Michel Sabbah, since 1987 the
highest Catholic prelate for Israel, Jordan, Cyprus and the West Bank and Gaza.
Besides the deep insult inherent in the patriarch's Christmas message, it is
hypocritical, significant and damning that Sabbah did not apply his universal
principle equally by demanding the de-Islamicization of his native
Indeed, he excoriated only
The first Palestinian to serve as Latin Patriarch, Sabbah was following the
line of the Palestinian elite regarding the innate illegitimacy of Jewish self-determination.
According to this logic, the Jews are not a people upon which a state can be
built, but rather -- and despite what they may say about themselves -- merely a
religion. And unlike with Islam, which is present in the formal name of four states
--
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Sabbah was not speaking as a
Catholic, but as a Palestinian, drawing not from the declared position of the
Holy See in
Here, in the commitment of the entirety of the Palestinian leadership to the
view given by Sabbah, lies the Achilles heel of the peace process. For years,
the Palestinian leadership claimed it was ready for peace, but that its people,
radicalized by occupation, were not "ripe" for concessions.
But we are now being shown time and again that it is the Palestinian
leadership, from the Latin patriarch to Mahmoud Abbas himself, and not just the
people, who do not understand the nature of the conflict in which they are
engaged.
Instead of recognizing that the deep tragedy of this conflict derives from the
fact that both sides are legitimately demanding self-determination and
sovereign independence, the Palestinian leadership continues to insist that
there is, and will forever be, no justice to the Jewish demand.
This rejection means that the Palestinian elite is divided between the
"moderates" who want a cease-fire with an evil enemy in order to
rebuild a devastated Palestinian society, and the "extremists" who
follow the logic of the moderates themselves in concluding that such a
compromise amounts to treason, since compromise with evil is itself evil.
There is only one act that can offer presumably well-meaning men such as Sabbah
a way to keep their moderation in the face of alleged evil from becoming
treason, thereby sabotaging any negotiation.
The Palestinian leadership must come to recognize the compelling moral justice
of
Until then, as long as they continue to demand their freedom at the expense of
ours, the Palestinians will continue rushing headlong, both diplomatically and
militarily, into our own natural, vital and correct commitment to
self-preservation.
(©) The
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
**Editorial**
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is it about borders?
(
frontier area separating political divisions.
The Bush administration would like
A 1921 British Mandate map showed Palestine's borders already divided between a
Jewish homeland west of the Jordan (today Israel, the West Bank and Gaza), and
an area to the east closed to Jewish settlement (today Jordan).
The Arab response to that map was: This isn't about borders.
In 1937 the Peel Commission offered another set of borders. Transjordan would,
of course, remain in Arab hands, and virtually all of what was left west of the
A third map, proposed by the UN in 1947 as General Assembly Resolution 181 --
the Partition Plan -- divided Palestine west of the Jordan River (the eastern
bank now being Transjordan): The Jews were to be given an indefensible,
checkerboard territory, the biggest chunk of which consisted of the then arid
Negev.
The Jews took the deal. The Arabs said: It's not about borders.
On May 15, 1948 -- 60 years ago today -- the Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi, Syrian
and Lebanese armies, along with Palestinian irregulars, sought to throttle the
birth of
The Jews said: Now, can we live in peace? The Arabs said: It's not about
borders.
TODAY, 41 years ago, Egyptian troops moved into the Sinai as Gamal Abdel Nasser
declared "total war." The Syrians, for their part, promised
"annihilation." Even King Hussein figured the time was ripe to
strike. But, instead of destroying
Even so, the Jews said: Let's trade land for peace.
In August 1967, Arab leaders assembled in
Ten years later, with the election of Menachem Begin, the courageous Anwar
Sadat came to the Knesset with a message: "We really and truly welcome you
to live among us in peace and security."
The Arabs ostracized
THEN IN 1993, Yitzhak Rabin took an astonishing strategic risk, turning over
parts of the
The sight of green PA license plates became commonplace throughout
At last, the Palestinians had the parameters of a state-in-waiting -- a
political horizon. The parties still had tough issues to tackle, but the
reality on the ground had dramatically improved.
In 2000, Ehud Barak offered at
intifada, an orgy of suicide bombings nationwide and drive-by shootings in the
For Israelis to now take the idea of a "shelf-agreement" about
borders seriously, the Palestinians would have to declare -- once and for all
-- that their dispute with us really is about borders. And that they accept
If they do that, the rest will fall into place.
(©) The