Ted Belman
I attended an all day conference in Tel Aviv today entitled The Arab Peace Initiative (API) – Current Status
backed by the S Daniel Abraham Center for Strategic Studies and
highlighting the Israel Peace Initiative (IPI). As you can imagine
there were a lot of lefties there.
The IPI supports “the establishment of a Palestinian state on the
West Bank and Gazaon the basis of the ’67 lines and territorial swaps
on a 1:1 basis in limited scope.” The state will be “demilitarized with
strict security measures on its borders.” And of course, Jerusalem to
be divided and refugees to return only to Palestinian state with
symbolic and agreed exceptions”
There is little difference between their plan and that of the API.
The predominant message at the conference was that the API is a great
opportunity for Israel and shouldn’t be missed. Most speakers lamented
the fact that it has been ignored by the Israeli government. They were
despondent that their views were out in, guess what, left field.
They waxed eloquently on the benefits to be derived from accepting it
and having normal business and diplomatic ties with all the Arab
countries. No one worried that experience teaches us that we can’t trust
Arab promises and commitments set out in any peace agreement. No one
mentioned how the Arabs are dedicated to destroying Israel and Islam
prohibits the establishment of a non Islamic state in Islamic lands.
Some of the memorable quotes, “Israel must accept either occupation
or peace”, “Israel is endangered morally but not militarily or
existentially”, |”peace will reduce cost of security”, “if we do
nothing, then we will become an apartheid state”, the “desire for
political gains prevents acceptance of API”, “the right is delusional
because they are ignoring Israel’s ongoing delegitimation”, “we don’t
want to become a bi-national state”, etc.
As for the Arabs, they accuse Israel of not wanting peace and not
being a partner for peace. Gee that’s what we say about the Mahmud
Abbas. As for the Arab Spring, one speaker thought it was good for
achieving regional peace. Poor Abu Massen was pessimistic and so was one
of the speakers who was the PA Min of Prisoner’s Affairs. “Arabs want
peace, Israelis don’t”, Israel’s leaders are intransigent”
Everyone in the US and the EU fell in love with Fayyadism. He
espoused building the economy and institutions first. But that was a
dismal failure he said.
One professor talked about teaching his students the intricacies of
the Khartoum Conference Resolution supporting the three “no’s”. He
complained that they weren’t the slightest bit interested. To them it
was irrelevant. Smart students.
But it must be said that the one thing notable about the API was that
it offered recognition whereas this was rejected at Khartoum. That’s
progress I guess.
“Arab human nature has begun to change”, “Arabs are no longer afraid to speak out”. “This will serve Israel well”.
Rabin once said “security is more important than peace”. One speaker
then asked “what can be more important than ending the conflict”.
Col Adv Giad Sher, Co-Chairman of Blue White Future thought Israel
should draw a map and should agree that what is agreed should be
implemented rather than the old formula “nothing is agreed until
everything is agreed”. Then he said that if we can’t reach agreement we
should unilaterally separate. You will recall that Martin Sherman
devastated this idea in The coming canard: ‘Constructive unilateralism’
I posed a “question”. The problem with the API is that it aims to
replace UNSC Res 242 which is legally binding (which the API is not) and
the basis of a negotiated peace. The API demands that 100 % of the
territories be returned whereas Res 242 allows Israel the right to
retain some of the land and to have defensible borders. I pointed out
that Israel has already returned 90% of the territories and should be
entitled to keep at least 10% of the remaining 10% which is only 1% of
the original territories. I said if the API would be satisfied with 90%
of what’s left then they would get the attention of the Israel
government.
Dani Dayan was in the last panel and he let them have it. We have
been worshipping at the alter of the two-state solution for 20 years and
gotten nowhere. Another 20 years won’t change that. This solution is
like a mirage, It looks good in the distance but disappears when you
approach it. And pursuing this solution religiously prevents us from
pursuing other solutions. Many in the audience were very vocal in their
rejection of what he was saying and wouldn’t let him speak. Dayan said,
“I am willing to leave the podium if you like.” That shut them up.
Dayan who quit his Yesha post to come out in support of Bibi in the
last election said he honestly doesn’t know if Bibi is sincere in
accepting the two state solution and he thinks about it a lot. He
stressed that “the settlements have created an irreversible reality”.
Not a message the left wants to hear.
The IPI announced the results of a new poll.
- 36% of Hebrew speaking Israelis not familiar with the API
- 56% of those who were accept it.
- If Bibi recommends the deal deal along the lines of the API,69% would support it.
- Who do you prefer lead negotiations for a deal
Bibi 28%
Peres 24%
Livni 10%
Lapid 6%
Therefore, it is safe to conclude that the public want to end the
conflict even on the terms of the API especially if Bibi recommends it. I
don’t believe this for a minute. Many polls say otherwise.
The conference organizers said that rather than attack Bibi we should encourage him to make a deal.
No comments:
Post a Comment