By Barry Rubin
So
much has the debate been shifted “that what thirty years ago was a
common-sense given is now considered a landmark breakthrough.” Victor
Davis Hanson
You
see, here’s what you have to do. You’ve got to take the most basic
logical statements—the ones absolutely necessary to understand
reality—and rule them out of bounds. For example, there’s nothing wrong
with the economy. To say so is, well, racist. And there’s nothing wrong
with a government policy that refuses to control the country’s borders.
To say so is, well, racist. In fact, you can’t criticize this U.S.
government at all because to do so is, well, racist.
And
you can’t point out that America’s problem in the Middle East is not
due to an obscure video on You-Tube but to a massive revolutionary
Islamist movement determined to destroy American influence in the
region, take over every country there, smash the Christians, subordinate
the women, impose a dictatorship, and commit genocide against Israel.
Yep, you got it! Racist again!
This
brings us to the latest attack on presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
It is impossible to understand the Arab-Israel, Israel-Palestinian
conflict or Israel’s situation without comprehending that the
Palestinian leadership doesn’t want real peace and a real two state
solution ending the conflict. If things were different, they could have
had a Palestinian state in 1948 or on numerous occasions thereafter,
notably including at the Camp David meeting and with President Bill
Clinton’s proposal (based on an Israeli proposal) in 2000.
So
Romney stated this basic, easily provable and highly demonstrable
truth, without which the whole issue makes no sense whatsoever. Woe unto
him, as he is portrayed as being ignorant, bigoted, and troublesome for
stating the basic pro-Israel position that most Democratic politicians
accepted a few years ago. It was precisely what Clinton learned when
Yasir Arafat turned down his very serious offer in 2000.
The
whole attack on Romney is rather humorous since the left-wing magazine
that had a series of “revelations” about a speech he made during his
trip to Israel—“revelations” I’d all heard a week ago—is quoting things
that make perfect sense.
Romney said that one of the two ways he considered looking at the issue—a major qualification—is:
“That
the Palestinians have no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and
that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish.”
He
then continued doing the most basic, responsible thing a statesman can
do. Romney posited that a Palestinian state existed and then discussed
how this might create terrible security dangers for Israel, including
direct attack and the opening of Palestine’s territory to radical
regimes’ armies. For the mean time, the only choice might be the status
quo.
This
is the kind of thing Israeli analysts, and many Americans, have been
saying for decades and detailing. It is the basis framework of how any
country must plan its survival, strategy, and national security.
What
makes this even more ludicrous is that it is not so far from Obama’s
own statements, though of course he did not say such things in so many
years. The president admitted that he tried very hard to make progress
and failed; noted that peacemaking was hard; grudgingly hinted that it
wasn’t all Israel’s fault; and in practice put the issue on the back
burner.
That
behavior represents the conclusion that the Palestinian Authority (PA)
is not ready to make peace. It seems quite reasonable to posit that
Obama has reached the same conclusion as the one Romney articulated.
To
begin with, remember there are two Palestinian leaderships today. Hamas
is openly against peace, though a surprising number of people seem to
forget that periodically. The PA is genuinely relatively more moderate—a
factor that has some benefits--and certainly far more subtle. But on
this issue the bottom line is precisely the same.
Why
doesn’t the PA want a real, lasting peace? For a lot of reasons. Much,
not all but probably 90 percent, of the leadership still believes that
they should and will take power in all of the land from the Jordan River
to the Mediterranean. Even though they know Israel is not likely to go
away easily or even at all, they hope that something will turn up. At
any rate, as Palestinian leaders have often said, it is better not to
make any concessions and to leave the issue open for possible total
victory to the next generation.
Beyond
that, they know that their colleagues and even rivals will use any sign
of compromise—the kind of behavior needed to end the conflict in a
treaty—as evidence of treason. Their career will be finished and their
life might be in danger. Sure, PA “president” Mahmoud Abbas might tell a
small meeting of Jews that Israel is here to say but when it leaks into
the press and provokes great anger among the other leaders, he
passionately denies it. He certainly isn’t going to embody it in a
document that would be simultaneously peace treaty and his own death
warrant.
Third,
the Palestinian leaders know that they have inflamed their people for
decades, spoken endlessly of the evil perfidy of the Jews and the
inevitability of total victory. Palestinian public opinion won’t sustain
real compromise and the acceptance of Israel as a neighbor. The PA’s
own television, radio, newspapers, leaders’ speeches, schools, and
mosque sermons by its appointed prayer leaders repeat the hardline every
day, indeed every hour.
I
have written hundreds of pages of books and articles on the details of
this issue. Space is insufficient here, but please consider this one
example. Barack Obama took office in January 2009 as the most
pro-Palestinian president in U.S. history. He offered to give the
Palestinians the most and Israel the least. It was a dream situation if
the PA and Palestinians wanted to make peace on the best possible terms.
Yet
what happened? The PA leadership shafted Obama. When Abbas arrived in
Washington for their first meeting he made clear in a Washington Post
interview that he had no intention of negotiating and reaching a deal.
When Obama announced in late 2010 that he was about to launch intensive
negotiations at Camp David, Abbas refused the invitation. And when Obama
pressed Israel into an unprecedented nine-month-long construction
freeze on the West Bank, the PA refused to talk at all only just before
the expiration of that period, and then only to demand an extension.
So,
of course, Romney was correct in what he said. Indeed, he was merely
stating the obvious. In the current upside-down era, telling the truth
is heresy, or at least there are powerful establishment figures who try
to make it seem so.
What’s
most important here, though, is not just this specific statement or
this particular issue but a basic principle absolutely vital to the
survival of the United States: If we are barred from recognizing the
nature of our problems we will surely find no solutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment