This
article was published on PJMedia.
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 media “revelations” about Romney's
statements--"revelations” all of which I'd heard a week ago and seen a month ago
in the media—now repeated in a Boca Raton, Florida, fund-raiser 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 basic 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 has not said 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.
-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center
by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button:
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For
GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St.,
11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.
Please be subscriber 30,020 (among about 47,000 total readers
). Put
email address in upper right-hand box:
http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
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, but 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 until 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.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research
in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of
International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His
book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University
Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab
Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published
at PJMedia.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.