With the building freeze over for several weeks, Israelis living in the West Bank have been watching PM Binyamin Netanyahu to see if he will buckle under US pressure and reinstate a building moratorium to try to keep Abbas in his seat at the peace negotiations.
Yesterday I learned that Bibi had offered the Arabs an additional two months of no settlement building in exchange for an official Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Personally, I was thrilled. I know many people who think Bibi is slippery, and as weak as any Israeli PM in the face of American pressure. But for some reason I can’t quite pin down, I believe he’ll do the right thing. He’s cool-headed under pressure. He doesn’t lose sight of Israel’s goals and role in history as the cradle of our nationhood and current homeland for Jews everywhere. He knows his support base and weighs their needs and expectations carefully in making his decisions. Because of this, despite being what many would call “hawkish” (a ridiculous term, since the “dovish” left has never succeeded in making peace either), Bibi enjoys a stable coalition in the government, and a generally satisfied—if slightly leery—base among the electorate.
I was also not surprised at the immediate Arab rejection of Bibi’s offer. Critics of the current negotiations have stated that Arafat painted any successor into a corner by declining the offer of land and limited return of refugees to Israel, and refusing to end the conflict. If Arafat did not accept that offer, the pundits say, Abbas cannot accept anything less. In addition, Abbas has no mandate to lead the Palestinian Arabs, since his term of office expired in February 2009, and he’s remained in office, postponing elections indefinitely, for 20 months. Instead, he repeatedly threatens to resign and dissolve the PA if his every demand is not met by Israel and the Americans. And when he’s not threatening to resign, he’s been shopping around the Arab League for permission to dissolve the talks anyway.
So who is really interested in peace here? Bibi has called his bluff. He agreed to the 10 month building freeze to coax Abbas to talk. Abbas waited until one month before the freeze expired to pull his finger out and get on a plane. Now he’s miffed that the housing freeze isn’t being reinstated just to keep him at the table. And for the first time in a long time, an Israeli prime minister has turned the tables on an Arab leader and made a clear, simple demand: recognize the Jewish state for what it is.
But Abbas can’t turn his back on the great aspiration of the Palestinian cause: to one day rule over all of Israel. Their idea of a one-state solution is one with no overt Jewish symbols, Jewish curriculum, or Jewish law of return. In other words, a state to be ruled by its majority, which in time, they expect, will be Arab. Failing that, their idea of a two-state solution is a Palestinian state alongside an Israel that is democratic but not expressly Jewish, so that the remedy for a Jewish state could eventually come in the same way as for a one-state solution. This is not paranoia; it’s fact, stated very clearly in the PLO charter (which has never been revised or discarded), and the raison d’etre of Hamas.
Those who despise Israel will find a way to blame Bibi for the probably breakdown of these talks. Indeed, he’s already been excoriated (not least by Israel’s leftist press) for the offer, which they see as a “political ploy to sabotage the talks.” (It just goes to show that Israel can expect any demands it brings to the table to be rejected automatically, whereas Palestinian Arab demands are part and parcel of any peace negotiation, and Israeli compliance with them is expected.) But those with eyes to see will witness the fact that Bibi takes peace seriously, and Abbas does not. Bibi is willing to give as well as take. Abbas believes it is Bibi’s job to give, and his to take. Bibi is willing to work to see both nations settled successfully in their own lands. Abbas will only work toward the PLO’s goal of seeing every dunam of this land successfully in the hands of the Arabs. Bibi’s goal is to end the conflict. Abbas refuses to declare an end to the conflict until the Jews have been rendered powerless and are at the mercy of the Arabs. Bibi’s plan will allow Arabs in Israel to remain Israeli citizens. Abbas will not allow a single Jew to reside in a future Palestinian state. I don’t know about you, but if no peace breaks out as a result of these talks, I’ll know whom to blame.
I have blogged previously (here and here) about recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. For further reading on the subject of Israel as a Jewish state, Emmanuel Navon recently wrote a blog post explaining the meaning of “Jewish state.” This post by Lurker on the Muqata blog discusses the new, hotly-contested loyalty oath for new citizens of Israel, including a discussion of the nature of Israel as a Jewish and “democratic” state. Sort of. And while some Arabs may anticipate the opportunity to open new hostilities in a third “intifada,” this Arab writer thinks that’s a bad idea.
As my mother-in-law always says at the conclusion of any political conversation, “Well, we’ll see what happens.”
Shimshonit 
I wanted to share the view from the other side.
Larry: I read Ibish’s post. I don’t think he makes sense at all, and doesn’t grasp the nuances unique to the Pali-Israeli problem. Egypt and Jordan agreed to end the conflict; the Palis have thus far refused to. And by making several attractive offers of a state (which the Palis refused), it would seem to me that Israel DOES recognize some sort of Pali right to statehood. (I don’t happen to think they have a “right” to much of anything given their rap sheet here and in other Arab countries where they’ve been thrown out, but that’s another issue.) The one comforting thought he seems to dwell on here and in his op-ed for the Post is that even if these talks get thrown on the scrap heap, it’s not worth resorting to another intifada.
Regarding Netanyahu’s demand that Abbas recognize Israel as a Jewish state, Ibish writes, “it’s a sign of [Netanyahu’s] frivolousness about negotiations because he is focusing on language that can never be acceptable to Palestinians and bringing the issue forward in a way that is also totally unworkable.” Why? No answer. That’s a problem. He sounds reasonable, but he’s slippery. He skirts WHY Palis can’t compromise on certain issues (such as recognition and “refugees”), and why Israeli demands are unreasonable. He assumes that the reader agrees that there are certain things the Palis can’t do. I don’t assume any such thing; in fact, for me to be convinced that a potential international border 100 meters from my house (which is where the security fence is) is a good idea, I need to know that the Arabs in next-door Wadi Nis are going to respect that border and my right to be where I am, while allowing them to be where they are. To me, the importance of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is fundamental to demonstration of good faith. Otherwise, it’s increasingly obvious to us over here (if not you over there) that what the Palis really want is a state and a half–NOT a solution to the problem that the Jews can live with, and I hope I don’t have to explain why THAT is.
Ibish makes much of the moratorium being a piddly concession. But when Abbas makes it the linchpin to his continued participation in potentially history-making peace talks, HE’s the one making it a major concession. Ibish focuses all his attention on Netanyahu, and refuses to acknowledge what a laughable “peace partner” Abbas is. But I’ve already covered that in my post.
Sorry for being so critical, but I really haven’t read anyone on “the other side” who makes any sense at all to me. Ibish may not read like a Hamas kingpin, but I find his arguments intellectually dishonest.
I thought he made it very clear why the immediate recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is unacceptable to the Palestinians. He thinks doing so immediately undercuts the notion of any Palestinian right of return, and also weakens their negotiating position on Jerusalem. I expect (and so does he, I bet) that any final settlement is going to have to include limiting the Palestinian right of return to essentially nothing but it isn’t something he is prepared to give away for a 2 month moratorium.
Larry: What you say may be true, but from the Israeli perspective, there is absolutely no point in entering into negotiations with the Arabs until we know that the conflict will end. And the best way to ensure that (at least these days) is for Israel to be recognized. It clearly is a step too far for the Palis, but if that’s so then there can be no peace in the foreseeable future. Ibish doesn’t seem to recognize that for Abbas to plan to continue the conflict indefinitely means that HE doesn’t take the peace talks seriously. I think the Arabs will have to do a lot more soul-searching before they’re ready to return to the peace table.
I can’t agree with you. You said bibi “doesn’t lose sight of Israel’s goals and role in history”. Well, I’m not so sure. If israel’s goal is peace and recognition, then i think bibi is not doing well.
How can you say “Bibi’s goal is to end the conflict”? That’s not true. Why doesn’t he stop illegal settlement activity if his goal is to end the conflict? Why is he still blocking Gaza and make palestinian life hard?
If Israel stopped raids on Palestinian territory, abandonned its illegal settlements on Palestinian territory, destroyed the parts of the security fence that are on Palestinian territory… that could be interpreted as a form of weakness, but that would also REDUCE the anger against Israelis, and consequently the terrorists would have much less support from the Palestinians. And this would be a step towards reaching peace, wouldn’t it be?
best regards
beny: You don’t have to agree, but you’d better have something better lined up to argue your point than a bunch of inane platitudes.
Israelis are sick to death of the conflict with the Arabs. We have lived with it for 62 years, but contrary to Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #35, war is NOT good for business, or for your health. We’re sick of spending what we spend on defense. We’re sick of sending our children out to die, in war or in training exercises and accidents.
After years of hearing people bleat about how the settlements are “illegal,” no one has been able to quote me the law they’re supposedly breaking.
How does doing something perceived by Arabs as “weakness” diminish their anger and hatred toward us? Arabs despise weaklings. I somehow doubt they’ll make an exception for the “interloping Zionist colonizers.” Targeted attacks, if you look at them in context, are in response to attacks from Gaza. Until there are successful peace negotiations that determine borders, there is no such thing as “Palestinian territory.” (Read UN Security Council Resolution 242.)
The security fence is where it is to protect Israelis from terror attacks; when those (and their attempted execution) stop, the fence will come down. The Arabs cannot be bought off with goodwill gestures–they’ve been given control over the Temple Mount, significant parts of the West Bank, all of Gaza. Where’s the goodwill on their side? They’re still shooting Jews on the roads, launching missiles and rockets into Israel, and talking about destroying us, all the while whining that we don’t give them enough aid and business opportunities. The truth is, they want it all–East Jerusalem, West Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the whole enchilada. THAT’s why Abbas is doing his double-talking, and why the peace talks are going nowhere. He won’t compromise, and without compromise, he’ll get bupkes.
This is getting interesting. Let me respond. Point by point.
1.) “war is NOT good for business, or for your health”.
I know this was meant as a joke, but… ask Israeli & american army lobbies about that and you’ll see they’re doing just fine. They need conflicts to sell war weapons. I call it side benefit of the “war on terror”. Maybe people like you really are “sick of spending what we spend on defense”, but those lobbies aren’t. BTW, I think something similar is happening in Arab world as well. Let’s not fool ourselves… Arab world could do much more to help Palestinians. But so could Israel. So the question is: who really wants peace there? Politicians and army leaders obviously not.
Looking at the history, the security threat to Israel has actually resulted in HIGHER levels of foreign transfers. Not to mention the U.S. MILITARY AID that Israel has received annually since the early 1970s and which provides Israel with the most advanced weaponry necessary to maintaining its qualitative edge in the region.
2.) “After years of hearing people bleat about how the settlements are “illegal,” no one has been able to quote me the law they’re supposedly breaking.”
Ever heard of International Law? Seriously, some of the settlements seem to be illegal even under Israeli law!
What about the rest of the world? President Obama, Biden and Clinton have been uncharacteristically frank about how illegal Israeli settlements obstruct prospects for Middle East peace. EU and Arab world see settlements as illegal as well. Even your friendly states are telling Israel to stop illegal settlement activity. What else do you need?
“Each party has obligations . . . those obligations include stopping settlements,” Obama said on one occasion.
There is a joint consensus of Israelis and Palestinians that it is in their common interest to end the conflict with two states for the two peoples. Now, if the Obama administration makes the Israeli leadership understand that this is for Israel’s sake that will be great. If not, it will be against us Palestinians for the time being but against Israel in the long run. Don’t you think so?
3.) When I said it could be interpreted as a form of weakness, I actually meant it for Israeli side; for its radical politicians. They’d probably see those actions as a form of weakness. But I think it’d be worth try.
4.) “Targeted attacks, if you look at them in context, are in response to attacks from Gaza”
Sure, but one can always say those attacks from Gaza were just a response to, say, Israeli bombing of some Gaza tunnels or to killing of some Hamas member. It’s a circle of violence, really.
5.) “The security fence is where it is to protect Israelis from terror attacks…”
I’m afraid this is only one side of the truth. With the illegal wall/fence, Israel also stole some land. There are several reports about that issue.
6.) “Where’s the goodwill on their side? They’re still shooting Jews on the roads, launching missiles and rockets into Israel…”
There we should ask ourselves why are they doing it? Surely not out of pure boredom, right? I’ll give you some key words (as a hint): collective punishments, war crimes, bad economy, blockade, suffering etc.
Sorry if my reply is a bit long. :-)
best regards
beny
beny: You still haven’t quoted me the exact statute that is being violated by settlements. “International law” doesn’t cut it, and neither does Obama’s repeatedly expressed disapproval of it. (Obama’s opinions do not constitute international law.) To believe that America knows better what is in Israel’s interest than Israel’s own democratically elected leadership is risible; America is protecting and advocating for its own interests. I will refer you to my previous post on the San Remo Conference for a review of the legal status of the West Bank. I’ve also addressed the other issues you’ve raised in previous posts.
One thing I would add is that you advocate “two states for the two peoples”. This is something Netanyahu has expressed a desire to see as a result of peace negotiations, but Abbas refuses to recognize any state of the Jews; he wants to see two states for one people—the Arabs. This is what is holding up the peace process at the moment, and what this post was about. I’m glad to see that at least we agree on something.
Not sure if we really agree there. So you really think Abbas is the (only) one who’s holding up the peace process? That’s interesting. I don’t think he’s a radical; most of the arab world even see him as too weak and too shy leader. Moreover, I think the (illegal) settlements are far more important issue and the real reason why did the process stop.
I agree, America is protecting and advocating for its own interests. But talking about the peace process, let’s put it that way: may those settlements be illegal or not, Obama (and the rest of the world except israel) has demanded a freeze because he understands that there can be NO meaningful negotiations, while one side continues to strengthen its hold on the VERY LAND IN CONTENTION. I thought it’s clear enough to anyone! As you well know, Israel has never defined its border. Settlements, (illegal) wall and outposts are means to solidify expansion. You may not agree with me, but that’s how I see it.
Beny: Put it this way: the settlements may not be popular (I don’t think we’re going to agree about their legality), but they provide jobs for Arabs in the short term, and were not an impediment to giving land to the Arabs in Gaza, were they? If turned over as part of a peace agreement, they’ll either be bulldozed or turned over to the Arabs intact. Either way, I don’t see that settlements get in the way of progress toward peace. If the Jews in some or all of the settlements have to be moved, it’s their problem, not the Arabs’. And if the peace process falls apart (and yes, I think the PA’s unwillingness to end the conflict is THE stumbling block here) and the land doesn’t get turned over at all right now, the settlements will not be to blame.
I would like to say one thing about our dialogue. I get a lot of comments from people on this blog who disagree with me. Most of them repeat conventional wisdom and empty slogans. Some call me a racist, a bigoted Zionist, and other things too crude to mention. You’ve not yet been able to convince me that settlements are illegal, but on the other hand, you’ve been civil, thoughtful, and respectful. I appreciate that. You are welcome on the Shimshonit blog.
Thank you, Shimsonit. I’m enjoying our dialogue too. I’m glad to see that – although we disagree on many things – we have maintained this mutual respect for each other and our positions. We can agree to disagree (without calling names or insulting each other) and I’m always ready to listen other people’s opinions (which was one of the reasons for visiting your blog).
Back to those israeli settlements, let me just tell you why I think those settlements are illegal. First of all, I heard UN Secretary General (Ban Ki-moon) saying that Israeli settlement building anywhere in occupied territory is illegal. I have no reason not to believe him. The position of the EU is very clear too: settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace. Even Obama agrees there. Maybe all that is not enough to convince you, but it’s enough for me. Then there is another problem. About a year ago Haaretz published the data that indicated that even with respect to settlements authorized by the Israeli government and supposedly in compliance with Israeli law, there were systematic violations of the law that had gone uncorrected over the years. Again, I’m talking about Israeli law here.
Next, you said: “If turned over as part of a peace agreement, they’ll either be bulldozed or turned over to the Arabs intact. Either way, I don’t see that settlements get in the way of progress toward peace.”
OK, I see your point, but do you think it is “fair play” for any side to continue strengthening its hold on the very land they’re negotiating for? Do you think such actions are step towards peace with palestinians?
No, I don’t like this kind of logic and I’ll tell you why. I hope we all agree that (as a part of peace agreement) Palestinians must halt the incitement of anti-Israeli sentiments and abandon violence, right? Now, by your logic, we could say that Hamas and other radical groups can continue firing rockets and kidnapping israeli soldiers and Palestinian schools can continue teaching young palestinian kids to hate Israel… until there’s no peace agreement. After reaching the peace agreement (and probably two-state solution), they’ll may have to stop those actions, but not until then. Do you like this kind of logic?
Back to Abbas, I don’t think he is doing all he could do to reach the agreement. But he’s not a radical. I think he is able to recognize Israel as a Jewish state one day. If he’s not gonna allow a single Jew to reside in a future Palestinian state, that might sound a bit harsh and Israel may not like it, but let’s face it: Israel is the occupying force and is not very popular among Palestinians. Can you imagine yourself (and your family) living in Palestinian state after all those years of violence?
Beny: Okay, first the settlements (and then I think we’d better put this one to bed). Yes, everyone says they are against international law. Saying it doesn’t make it true. Laws are written down and can be referred to directly; otherwise, they’re not laws. Laws are not public opinion, or Ban Ki Moon’s opinion, or Obama’s, or anyone else’s. And since you don’t know where to look for this law, I will tell you that other people I’ve debated this issue with have referred to the Geneva Conventions which, according to my reading, have been misapplied to Israel’s situation. Land conquered in an aggressive war is not supposed to be settled; that is not the case with Israel’s territories acquired in 1967. And it’s why the claims that these are “Palestinian lands” are also baseless. No one complained when Jordan, Syria and Egypt conquered these lands and took them over. The complaints only started when the Jews were in possession. And since the Jews tried immediately to return them to Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, and were refused, I don’t see them as belonging to those countries anymore.
Now the question of whom they do belong to remains. Legally, the last international agreement signed about whom these lands belong to was the San Remo Convention in 1920. That said that all land west of the Jordan River is to go to the Jews for a homeland. Jordan (then known as Transjordan) was to be a state for the Arabs, and no Jewish settlement was permitted there. Since then, wars and other events have taken place every few years, but nothing legal has superseded San Remo.
This is not to say that after all the wars and terror, we don’t find ourselves in a different situation now than we were then. Jordan and other Arab nations have refused to absorb the Palestinian Arab population. It is slimy of them to do so (Israel certainly found the means to absorb Jews persecuted and expelled from Arab countries in the 1940s and 1950s without help or complaint), but there it is. I am willing to accept that these Arabs need a place to live, and that if they are willing to be good neighbors, to establish friendly, cooperative relations with Israel, and to join the family of nations in a responsible, dignified manner, it would be worthwhile for Israel to give up some of the territory acquired in 1967 to create a Palestinian Arab state.
But here is the rub. Israel sees very little sign of willingness on the part of Arabs to create such a state. On one border we have Hamas, an Iran-financed terrorist state still focused on destroying Israel, and unabashed about being so. On the other, we have Abbas and Fayyad who, while they are certainly “moderate” compared to Hamas, still refuse to take the first steps toward establishing a friendly state on Israel’s border. Abbas’s doctoral dissertation was a study in Holocaust denial; he was Arafat’s #2 in the terror war that raged across Israel in the earlier part of this decade; and while Fayyad seems to have the economic and social interests of the Arabs he leads at heart, he is no more willing to accept the plan of two states for two peoples than Abbas.
No one in Israel has been able to take peace negotiations seriously for a long time. They seem to be a figment of the Americans’ imagination these days, and as such, we have little faith in them. Yes, some of the settlements are illegal according to Israeli law, but most are not. And putting building on hold is a temporary stopgap to–what? Not peace negotiations, which Arab society seems unready for. I don’t like seeing Arab society become further radicalized or moving closer toward a Gaza-like state, but then again, they keep refusing reasonable offers from Israel (like the one Barak made in 2000) which could have given them almost all the land they wanted, free of settlements and Jews, and they turned it down. Why? Because Arafat wasn’t finished fighting. He would rather fight than lead. Well, now he’s gone, and Abbas doesn’t seem interested in fighting, except to hold onto his office. That in itself is a problem.
In the end, Beny, I don’t have the answers. I know how many settlers think. Some say all of this land should belong to Israel, it should be annexed, and the Arabs should go live somewhere else. That’s a few; definitely not a majority. Others say that if Arabs want a piece of the pie, we have to be certain that it will really lead to peace, and not just a launching pad (which is what the withdrawal from Gaza turned into). There is no real evidence of that, since Abbas’s hold on the West Bank is tenuous, Jew-hatred is still taught in schools (despite the aid money that comes to the PA that could be spent on new textbooks), Hamas shows signs of gaining traction there, and even if the West Bank leadership has been labeled non-radical, we’re not sure what the people there think. Many say that Israel is really the threat to peace here, but that shows little understanding of things from the Israeli side. We’ve been burned and bled every time we’ve given something up to try to make peace. We can’t keep doing this.
And yet I agree that this situation is not sustainable indefinitely. The PA talks of leaving the peace table and asking the UN for a unilateral creation of a state. I’m not sure what that would look like on the ground, or how that would resolve borders or security for anyone. It sounds like a recipe for mayhem. But with the world rehabilitating Hamas these days, anything could happen, and not all of it good. I would like to see peace negotiations be successful, but I’m not really certain what Abbas is willing to give up; he’s vowed he won’t budge on anything, which is called “making demands,” not “negotiating.” And since it’s Abbas who is showing a strong unwillingness to back down (Israel DID freeze settlement building for 10 months, and it took Abbas 9 to show up to the table), I have no other option but to hold him responsible for this round’s breakdown.
You’ve perfectly described those problems from Israel’s point of view. Let me now tell you how I see those things.
Just one more point about the settlements (and then I agree we better “close” this topic). I understand what do you want to tell me, but the problem is that than I hear such arguments only from Israeli government, pro-israeli lawyers and a few of pro-israeli bloggers. Frankly, Israel seems to be alone in its interpretation of the law. On the other side we have whole Arab world, respectable institutions (full of lawyers I’m sure) such as the EU and the UN and countries like Russia and the U.S.. I agree, laws are not public opinion, or Ban Ki Moon’s opinion, but at the same time I don’t believe that experienced politicians like UN Secretary General, Sarkozy or Obama don’t know what are they talking about.
And finally, there’s wikipedia. We can read: /quote/ “On September 16, 1967 Meron wrote a top secret memo to Mr. Adi Yafeh, Political Secretary of the Prime Minister regarding “Settlement in the Administered Territories” which said “My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the Administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” Moshe Dayan authored a secret memo in 1968 proposing massive settlement in the territories which said “Settling Israelis in administered territory, as is known, CONTRAVENES international conventions, but there is nothing essentially new about that.” /end of quote/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories)
You mentioned Hamas and described it as “an Iran-financed terrorist state still focused on destroying Israel”. I believe that how majority of israelis see it. But I’d like to add something myself. I have an impression that Israel is happy to continue the occupation of “Palestinian land” and the suppression of the Palestinian people regardless if this brutal suppression leads to more violent Palestinian resistance and the deaths of further Israelis. (There I’m sure you’re gonna stop me and say that Gaza is not under occupation anymore. True, but at the same time you must admit that Israel still controls some of Gaza’s borders, their waters and airspace. And its economy. Not to mention all those collective punishments. This “launching pad” as you called it has its own reason behind it.) Anyway, since Palestinians have no real army or police, most of them follow Hamas because they defend the people and fight for the return of their lands. I do not know how many people follow them because of their extremist beliefs.
I agree that a radical movement as Hamas is not the best partner to negotiate with, but Hamas leaders (like the leaders of Fatah) have actually said many times that they’re willing to talk to Israel, they’re willing to recognize Israel… They just don’t want to do that in advance (remember Oslo Accords), but rather on the basis of reciprocity. My opinion is that any serios peace talks must include Hamas, because it’s simply too strong player to be ignored.
Just to make it clear, I don’t think it’s only Israel to be blamed for current situation. Israel has said it many times that it has “no partner” to negotiate peace. This might be partly true, although I don’t believe Bibi is the best partner Palestinian side could wish to negotiate with either. The big problem is also that Palestinian side is not united, there’s this Hamas-Fatah rivality.
As for Abbas, I wouldn’t blame him too much (although I wouldn’t praise him either). Most importantly, I wouldn’t hold him responsible for this round’s breakdown. Try to understand him. He’s under a big pressure from the Arab world, the U.S. and even within the PA! What’s more, Hamas is pointing at him, saying he’s too weak and too soft to lead the Palestinians. So he must show from time to time that he’s strong enough to “make demands”. Unfortunately for him, Israel began to build (illegal or not) settlements on the land it shouldn’t. You must admit this action has put Abbas in a difficult position. His response was that he won’t “budge on anything”, as you described it. But what would you do in his place?
Beny: I think one of the things our conversation reveals is a difference in point of view. This comes, I believe, from very different narratives of Jews and Arabs. The Jewish narrative is that of coming home, of returning to a place where we once flourished and where we as a nation and a religion were born. In our narrative (which is supported by archeology as well as history and the Bible), this land (or whatever part of it is negotiated into a Jewish state) is ours.
Our narrative conflicts sharply with the Arab narrative and is vehemently rejected by it, which you haven’t really addressed except through references to “Palestinian land.” I’m no Arabist, but putting the pieces together, it appears that there is not much hope of a Jewish state in this part of the world enjoying normalized relations with its Arab neighbors. To call this “Palestinian land” (and not to differentiate between Ramallah and Tel Aviv when doing so, as many Arabs don’t) is to reject any claim of Jewish roots here. As part of this, I believe most Palestinians see Jews (whom some will refer to only as “Zionists” and “colonizers”) as Europeans, as having no history here, and as violating Palestinian rights and a sense of this region as being rightfully all-Arab simply by being here. (You don’t even have to leave America to hear that; just listen to Helen Thomas.) I’m not saying that there are not Arabs who feel differently. There are several outspoken Arabs who support the Jewish narrative. (They can’t live here of course; they’re in the US and Europe, mostly.) Most Israeli Arabs polled say they are happier here than they would be anywhere else. And some Palestinians (including a handful of journalists) will acknowledge that life in the West Bank and Gaza is not nearly as bleak and oppressive as the media makes it out to be, and that they are infinitely better off than their fellow “refugees” and Arabs in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and most of the rest of the Arab world.
As for Hamas, I agree that they cannot be ignored when discussing a Palestinian state. I think it’s actually the US and much of the rest of the world that seems to ignore that there is no single voice for Palestinian Arabs right now. Everyone seems to want to focus on Abbas whom they see as moderate, but that overlooks the fact that Hamas rules over a large part of the Arab population in Gaza. What to do about them? I wish I could find a way to rehabilitate Hamas the way much of the rest of the world is, but they are terrorists, and the only talk I’ve heard from their camp with Israel is about releasing thousands of Hamas security prisoners for a possibility of releasing Gilad Shalit (whose abduction and incarceration was the grossest of international law violations). That doesn’t mean peace and it doesn’t mean recognition.
I don’t think we’re going to solve this here and now, but I appreciate having had the conversation with you.
@Shimshonit: I agree, our conversation does reveal a difference in point of view. I’m no Arabist either, in fact I’m not involved in Israeli-Palestinian conflict in any way at all. I’m just trying to understand this conflict. So I’m more than happy to continue our conversation.
First of all, I don’t like people considering themselves “Chosen People”. No hard feelings, but I think it’s a bit “racist attitude”. Simply put: no self-centered claims of a ‘god-given birthright’, no claims of a ‘special connection’ to the land have any merit in this modern world. That’s my opinion.
And basically, what happened in 1947 and 1948 was that the Israeli army went from door to door and evacuated families from Palestinian houses. You may said that there were never any “Palestinians” or “Palestinian land” in the history of the Middle East. But you can’t deny that they’d lived there for maybe three generations when they were forced to leave, can you? You can tell that those people living there didn’t care about Israeli “chosen land” myths. Israel also wiped many Arab villages and towns, and built on these ruins (new Jewish only) settlements and cities. I think many Arabs will never forget that.
Just to make it clear, I know historical narrative of Israel and their religion, but I try to understand arabs as well. It’s no secret that Jews had big problems right after the WW2 and I think they deserved their own place to live. However, I don’t like the way Israel was created. I’ll tell you why. In 1947, the UNations General Assembly approved a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. No one should forget that (while Jewish leadership accepted this plan) the representatives of the Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League firmly OPPOSED the UN action and even rejected its authority to involve itself in the entire matter. This is perhaps one of the reasons why there’s not much hope of a Jewish state in this part of the world enjoying normalized relations with its Arab neighbors, as you described it. Another reason is, as you put it, that your (jewish) narrative conflicts with the Arab narrative and is vehemently rejected by it. This is a clash of cultures, religion and generations.
I’m glad we agree about for Hamas (in sense that they cannot be ignored when discussing a Palestinian state). What to do about them? Why not try to talk to them, instead of isolating them? Isolating won’t solve anything. The U.S. have a long history of policy of isolating countries like Cuba, North Korea and Iran. And what was the result? Fidel Castro grew even stronger, North Korea got nukes and Iranians elected even more radical and anti-american president. Israel and americans have been refusing to talk to Hamas and Hezbollah for ages and what was the result there? Hamas won the elections in Gaza and Hezbollah became stronger in Lebanon. I know Hamas is a radical movement, but I heard that Hamas leaders have said many times that they’re willing to talk to Israel. Policy of isolationg obviously doesn’t work. They obviously can’t be destroyed either, as we’ve seen in the past. So why not try something else?
Beny: Strange that you don’t see yourself as involved in the conflict in any way. On October 19, you refer to “us Palestinians.” Sounds involved to me.
You’re the first to mention chosenness in this conversation. I have never brought it up, and it is not a bulwark of my belief in a Jewish claim to this land. I would also add that your interpretation of chosenness is not the Jewish one (it has nothing to do with “race”), and I don’t know of a religion on the planet that doesn’t think it holds the truth, whether they use the word “chosen” or not.
The War of Independence in 1948 was caused by Arabs. Period. Many of the Arabs who fled did so out of fear of the Israelis; others were told to leave by the invading Arab armies with the assurance that they would be able to return in short order, once the Zionists were defeated. It’s important to see the big picture, not just the one that argues your side. Jews, in turn, will never forget how Arabs went from house to house in Hebron in 1929 and raped, beat, and slaughtered the Jews–a lot worse than being told to leave, I think, and it destroyed a community of Jews that had been residents of Hebron uninterrupted for 2500 years (i.e. since long before Arabs ever came to this part of the world).
Hamas won SOME seats in 2006, but not all. Perhaps you’re aware of the bloody coup that took place in 2007 when they murdered the democratically elected Fatah party members in Gaza and replaced them with Hamasniks? If that’s how they treat each other, how do you think they’ll treat their peace partners? No, Beny, they’re not interested in peace. Hamas does not respect democracy, it is in gross violation of international law (and Israel’s trust) by keeping Gilad Shalit, targeting Israeli civilians, and embedding its war machinery in its own civilian population. It’s tempting to think that anything can be solved by just sitting down and talking, but Hamas has shown that it is more interested in fighting than talking. It’s smarter to judge people by what they do, not what they say. And don’t tell me about the cycle of violence; Israel put up with daily mortars and missiles fired into its territory for eight years with almost no response before launching Operation Cast Lead. If Hamas is serious about peace, it needs to take a page out of the IRA’s book and lay down its arms, release Gilad Shalit with no conditions, and apply itself to becoming a normal state instead of the Islamist menace that it is.
There is a new book out by Efraim Karsh called Palestine Betrayed about how the desire to coexist peacefully that was common among Arabs before 1948 was undermined and eroded in the 1920s by their own extremist leadership. Karsh utilizes Arab, Soviet, Israeli and UN documents to support this observation. I think that would make good reading at this point.
I’m going to close this thread now, and thank you for your comments.