Polls, Palestinians and the Path to Peace (short article) [Archive]

andyfox

02-20-2003, 05:10 PM

I don't understand the logic of the article. The first poll Pipes cites, taken in 2002 when relations between Israel and the Palestinians were not exactly at a high point, says that the Palestinians are split roughly 50/50 on whether they want a state in the West Bank and Gaza or in all of historic Palestine. From this, he concludes that Palestinian rejectionism flourishes. One might just as logically conclude that since roughly 50% of the American elctorate voted against George Bush, American rejectionism of the proposed Rupublican administation, our current government, flourished in 2000.

Then, he cites two other polls, one showing that only about one in five in Israel believe that the Palestinians have accepted Israel's existence, and the other showing that only about one in five in the U.S. believe that the Palestinian Authority wants only a small state alongside Israel.

But if the Palestinians themselves are split 50/50, how can he say that Israelis and Americans demonstrate in these polls that they view the situation "realistically?" Only those who didn't answer or said they didn't know would have a chance to be correct, since the actual answer is that half of Palestinians want one thing and half want another. To conclude that "the Palestinians" want either would therefore be wrong.

Also, since the third poll Pipes cites refers to what Americans believe about the Palestinian Authority, it cannot be a realistic assessment of the feelings of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza.

And what is Pipes' solution for the problem? Well, what Israel does is irrelevant to the conflict. So, by Pipes' logic, we shouldn't worry about what Israel does. We should stop pressuring them to make concessions. Israel should move its capital to Jerusalem. This will certainly calm things down and lead to peace.

What is the vital point you see Pipes making that should not be ignored? I'd rather see everything Pipes say ignored.

IrishHand

02-20-2003, 05:16 PM

Thank God I hit refresh before I went to post - I was about to write pretty well the exact same things. That article is about as persuasive as the Enquirer.

B-Man

02-20-2003, 05:35 PM

Andy,

Even though there may be logical leaps and stretched timeframes in the column, it does raise a valid point. There are a large faction of Palestinians that do not want peace, they instead want to destroy Israel and take over the entire region for themselves. According to the poll last spring, 51% insist on a state in all of "historic Palestine," whatever that means. Considering all the fighting that has gone on since then, I doubt the percentage is any lower now. How can any reasonable person expect Israel to make sacrifices for its own security when it suffers from constant attacks, and a majority of the Palestinian population wants to destroy Israel? That would be suicide.

Do you think the U.S. would be making concessions to Mexico if the Mexicans were firing rockets over the border and sending suicide bombers into our markets, discos, etc.? We would do to Mexico what we did to Afghanistan (and what we are going to do to Iraq).

The root of the problem is that the Palestinians (as well as other Arabs) teach their children to hate Israel and hate Jews. If they taught their children to hope for peace with Israel, instead of its destruction, then the situation would probably not be as bleak. To hope for a state in all of "historic Palestine" is not just unrealistic, it is absurd. Israel is not going anywhere. Unfotunately, a majority of Palestinians fail to grap that.

I don't know how to solve the problem. Frankly, I am not sure it can be solved during this generation, there may be too much mistrust on both sides. But I do know that Israel has every right to defend itself from terrorism, and every right to take preventative measures against terrorism. The right to self defense is a basic right.

andyfox

02-20-2003, 07:47 PM

No doubt a portion of the Palestinian population wants no Israel. No doubt a portion of the Israeli population wants no Palestinians. Both sides need to make sacrifices for their well-being and security precisely because of these facts.

If we were at war with Mexico for 55 years, yes, I would be calling on our government, and that of Mexico, to negotiate, to sacrifice 100% of what was wanted to try to make a better life for both peoples. What other solution suggests itself. 55 more years of war?

I agree with you that hatred is at the root of the problem. I believe this is not a one-sided issue. I have seen first-hand how the Israelis treat and think about the Palestinians, and it is not a pretty sight. I also agree with you that I can see no end in the foreseeable future, not with the likes of Arafat and Sharon running the show.

However, one can hope. I have recently read a book called Oasis of Dreams, about a village called Neve Shalom/Wahat Al-Salam ("Oasis of Peace"), a Jewish-Arab village where people live and teach peace and equality. To quote from the book:

"The 'School for Peace' conflict resolution program is geared toward bringing Jewish and Palestinian adolescents from all over Israel and the West Bank together for workshops conducted by well-trained facilitators in the village; it has been operating since 1979. The underlying message of the elementary school and the 'School for Peace' workshops is the overriding importance of maintaining personal, social, and national identity for both Jews and Arabs within an egalitarian perspective. . . By 2000, more than 20,000 Palestinian and Jewish adolescents have had the opportunity to attend the 'School for Peace' workshops.

. . .if peace can happen in this village, there is the possibility it can happen in other areas of Israel. . ."

[I hope John Feeney reads this.]

MMMMMM

02-20-2003, 07:48 PM

To address your first point:

There is a world of difference between Americans' preferences between political parties, and Palestinians' acceptance or non-acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Whether Americans choose Democrat or Republican leaders, the country will go on and things will continue more or less as before. In the case of Palestinians' choosing between co-existence with Israel or insisting on the elimination of Israel, the end results will be dramatically different for all concerned. And it only takes a significant fraction of people--considerably less than 50%-who are committed to non-acceptance to ensure that peace remains impossible. So the percentage of Palestinians who believe in the necessity of the elimination of Israel is very significant at over 50%, in terms of its effect on the chances for peace--it literally makes it impossible. The half that is opposed to peace can always nix it through violence--again, it's not at all akin to Americans choosing between Prsidential candidates. In this sense the "nays" have far more power in this matter.

I'm not sure that all of Pipes' conclusions flow from the statistics he presented, but with the exception of one vital point, I don't think they are the gist of the article anyway. That one vital point is that in order for there to be peace, the Palestinians have to give up on the impossible dream of eliminating Israel by force and establishing a greater Palestine in its place. According to the poll, they haven't--or at least enough Palestinians haven't to ensure that peace remains impossible.

What Israel ought to do is another matter and a complex one, but I think Pipes hit it on the head as far as identifying one of the critical prerequisites for peace: Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to exist. Without this, how can there ever be peace?

andyfox

02-20-2003, 10:56 PM

"in order for there to be peace, the Palestinians have to give up on the impossible dream of eliminating Israel by force and establishing a greater Palestine in its place"

The Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel's right to exist. It now needs leadership courageous enough to act accordingly. Israel also needs leadership courageous enough to renounce the dream of a greater Israel (the "historic" Eretz Yisrael), and leadership courageous enough to act accordingly.

Pipes' error is to place all of the blame on the Palestinian side. He specifically says that the trouble has nothing to do with what Israel has done. Even a cursory knowledge of the history of Zionism and the state of Israel belies this. Those who likewise believe that the Palestinians are blameless are equally misguided.

Incidentally, I believe, but cannot prove, that the belief among some Palestinians that they can eliminate Israel by force derives from their experience, or rather, the experience of their parents and grandparents, who saw the Zionists defeat the British by force in their (the Palestinians') homeland.

MMMMMM

02-20-2003, 11:29 PM

First of all, just because the Palestinian Authority has claimed to recognize Israel's right to exist doesn't mean it truly does...just as actions speak louder than words. And even if this governing body has done so, it is completely insufficient as long as over half of the Palestinians on the street have not. Also, as we can see, even smaller percentages (such as the militant groups completely dedicated to Israel's overthrow), have it in their power to scuttle any peace proceedings by their actions.

Pipes isn't placing all the blame on the Palestinian side in this article: he isn't even placing blame, as far as I can see. I don't think this article is about blame per se. Pipes is simply saying that if one side rejects the other's right to exist, peace is impossible. I don't think anyone can really disagree with that statement. And as the poll shows, a great many Palestinians do apparently reject Israel's right to exist.

Let's just forget about blame for a moment. Don't you agree that lasting peace is impossible with those who refuse to recognize your right to exist?

I believe most of the greater Arab world doesn't accept Israel's right to exist--while the Palestinian Authority pays lip service to it only.

If Palestinian rejectionism runs so deep, then what Israel does may worsen or better things temporarily--but the conflict will never end. I don't think Pipes is saying that Israel's actions are irrelevant to the current sad state of affairs; rather, he is saying that even if Israel did everything it could to better the Palestinians' position, there would still be conflict--due to so much bedrock rejectionism. If the poll is accurate, then it would seem to me that in this he is right.

andyfox

02-21-2003, 12:53 AM

"First of all, just because the Palestinian Authority has claimed to recognize Israel's right to exist doesn't mean it truly does...just as actions speak louder than words."

I said I felt the Palestinian leadership needs to act on its professed intentions. Israel's leadership does also. Both sides talk peace but their actions belie their words.

"even if this governing body has done so, it is completely insufficient as long as over half of the Palestinians on the street have not."

-Not sure if this is so. Especially in non-democracies, leaders can do what they want. So a Palestinian leadership, recognizing Israel and devoted to resolving the issues and stopping the violence, could go a long way towards doing so in spite of what the "man in the street" thinks. And they could go a long way towards influencing what that man in the street thinks.

"Pipes isn't placing all the blame on the Palestinian side in this article"

-He most definitely is. He says that Israel's action are not responsible for the lack of peace, merely its existence.

"Pipes is simply saying that if one side rejects the other's right to exist, peace is impossible."

-Let's assume that this is what Pipes is indeed saying. You say actions speak louder than words, and I agree. Israel proclaims it wants peace and has always wanted it, yet has denied the Palestinians their basic rights. I say the rejectionists have had their way on both sides, not just the Palestinian side.

"Don't you agree that lasting peace is impossible with those who refuse to recognize your right to exist?"

-Yes.

"Let's just forget about blame for a moment"

-I'd like to forget about it permanently. Pipes does not. There is more than enough to go around for everyone. As I have said before, neither the Jews nor the Palestinians have acted honorably and neither has shown themselves worthy of this land which they both say they regard as holy.

At one time, Egypt was Israel's most implacable foe. Yet two men who one would have thought unlikely leaders to do so got together and created a peace that has lasted between them for a generation. What's needed is statesmanship and courage on both sides. The cause of peace is not furthered by insistence that one side is completely to blame, as Pipes has done in this article, and elsewhere. Listening to Pipes is a recipe for disaster.

Chris Alger

02-21-2003, 07:16 AM

Re-written with the cast changed (and pretending it's 1985), tell me if this makes any sense to you:

"Why are Americans so angry at the Soviet Union? There are two possible reasons.
Political: They accept the existence of a Soviet state but are angry with this or that Soviet policy.
Rejectionist: They abominate the very existence of the Soviet Union and want to destroy it.
Which is correct has many implications. If Americans only want changes in what the Soviet Union is doing (such as placing missiles in Cuba), then it is reasonable to ask the Soviet Union to alter those actions - and the main burden of resolving the conflict falls on the Soviet Union.
But if the Soviet Union's existence remains at issue, then it follows that the conflict will end only when the Americans finally and irrevocably accept the Soviet state. Seen this way, the main burden falls on the Americans.
If it's a routine political dispute, diplomacy and compromise are the way to make progress. But if the Americans reject the Soviet Union's very existence, diplomacy is useless, even counterproductive, and the Soviet Union needs to convince the Americans to give up on their aggressive intentions. More bluntly, the Soviet Union would then need to defeat the Americans."

Notice how Pipes differentiates only between the desire "to destroy" Israel and a "final and irrevocable acceptance" of Israel, with no possibility of any other altenative. Why are Palestinians the only people in the world called upon to accept the preposterous logic of this argument?

You can substitute the "United States" for the Soviet Union and "American Natives" for the Palestinians and the point is perhaps more obvious: peace does not require states and parties to first acknowledge the "final" and "irrevocable" nature of their respective constitutions, or the legitimacy of their respective "existence." To do so would imply the legitimacy of each side's version of events that gave rise to the need for negotiations about peace, which obviously means that no peace could ever be negotiated. Of course Palestinians will never recognize Israel's right to expel hundreds of thousands of them from their homes and seize their property, to terrorize and tyrannize them, while turning those that remain into second class citizens of an alien ethnocracy, not even having the right to own real property. Why should they? At the same time, if the Palestinians agree to compromise and accept a portion of their former homeland as their sovereign territory, and provide meaningful guarantees for the security of Israel inside it's boundries, then why shouldn't Israel agree regardless of what the Palestinians think of the legitimacy of the Jewish state?

To make it plainer, there is no need for the U.S. to acknowledge North Korea's "right to exist" in order for North Korea to negotiate with the US, just as there was no need for the U.S. to acknowledge the Soviet Union's right to exist to negotiate arms control and other issues of peace and security. Indeed, we can easily negotiate borders and armaments while being on record publicly as hoping that sometime in the distant future the Korea's are united, so that there is no more "North" Korea, or that Russia lets its various republics go and stops being a "Soviet" state. Having reservations about the legitmacy of or even denying the legitimacy of a state does not require perpetual war and genocide, as Pipes implies. (Or whatever it is that he means by "defeat the Palestinians"). This is the reason that a "right to exist" is not a term of art under international law and finds no discussion outside of anti-Arab Zionist propaganda: states don't have a "right to exist," they have a right to national sovereignty, secure borders and peace.

This whole non-issue is also another example of the racist double standard that with infects Israel partisans like Pipes. Although Israel demands that Palestinians unequivocally accept Israel's "right to exist," it refuses to reciprocate, or indeed even fathom the possibility of equal national rights to the land of the former Palestine.

The PLO has since the 1970's and officially in 1988 acknowledged Israel's right to live and remain in peace behind rational, secure borders. Every nation in the Arab League has effectively done the same. Yet Israel has never acknowledged any right of Palestinians to equal sovereignty in any part of the occupied territories or limited it's territorial claims to the occupied territories (Israel being the only state on earth without declared borders, raising the obvious question of the location of this country the Palestinians are supposed to accept). If Israel persists in refusing to recognize any right of Palestinians to a homeland of their own, then why should the Palestinians acknowledge the legitimacy of the state that displaced them from their homeland?

Similarly, Israel contends that the existence of any Palestinians who question Israel's right to exist -- by implication to displace indigenous people and turn them into refugees -- provides an insurmountable obstacle to peace. Yet the Palestinians must accept the existence of an Israeli government that accords them no rights and Israelis in high office that openly regard Palestinians as inferior beings deserving of being driven from their homes and cities to make way for their Jewish betters, a process that is likely to actually start with the commencement of the invasion of Iraq..

The argument reminds me of Colonels Korn and Cathcart in Catch-22, when they tell Yossarian that he can escape the insanity they've helped create for him if he agrees to "like us." In the case of Israel's 56-year-war to displace and subjugate the Palestinians, however, the insanity is real and unending.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 07:48 AM

Let's just say Israel unilaterally ceded all "occupied territories" to the Palestinians and took other steps to show and effect goodwill. Palestinian rejectionists, including some of the worst such as Hamas and their al-Aqsa military brigades, would STILL try to attack and eliminate Israel: that even is their stated goal.

So while the causes of conflict are complex and many, there does appear to be one insurmountable obstacle to peace, as long as Palestinian rejectionism flourishes.

Focussing exclusively on this would be wrong and counterproductive, but ignoring its importance would be a serious error.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 08:01 AM

I don't think your parallel examples are fitting; neither the citizens nor the government of the USA refused to recognize the USSR's right to exist.

The PLO and the PA say one thing, but actions say another--Arafat appears to support terror even while denouncing it. And it should be obvious that the PA can't/won't provide the security guarantees it pledged to Israel.

Most germane to the article is this: The issue of whether Palestinians would be willing to accept a small state living in peace alongside Israel, or whether the the Palestinians would still violently push for the elimination of Israel and return of a Greater Palestine, is a crucial point, and one with massive implications regarding any hopes of lasting peace.

nicky g

02-21-2003, 08:12 AM

While Palestinian popular oponion may or may not hope for the destruction of Israel, ultimately it's irrelevant as that's not going to happen, tehy know it, and they'd have to settle for a state. On the other hand, Sharon and co will never ever give the Palestinians a viable state, the which will mean the violence will never stop. You say that the violence would continue even if they did have a state; you can't know that. The IRA's goal was and is a united Ireland but they declared a ceasefire as soon as genuine talks without conditions were started.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 08:23 AM

OK, I can't know it, but I do know what the stated goals of Hamas et al are. Maybe they know it, since it's essentially what they've said--but you're right, I can't know it.

Have you ever read the Hamas Charter?

nicky g

02-21-2003, 08:30 AM

I don't care to. My point is that whatever a group's stated goals, fair negotations and compromise can often settle a conflict. Whether or not Hamas would agree to it, I don't know; but groups such as hamas rely on popular support, and that suppot would drain away if a fair negotiated solution were implemented.

andyfox

02-21-2003, 12:59 PM

An obstacle, but not an insurmountable obstacle. I'm sure polls taken on the eve of the Camp David accords would not have shown great love between Egyptians and Israelis. Yet peace was achieved. The job of statesmen should be to overcome the rejectionist sentiments on both sides. To say that what Israel does is irrelevant is to relieve one side of any responsibility. It inevitably leads to the conclusions Pipes listed, and those will lead to 55 more years of bloodshed.

Chris Alger

02-21-2003, 01:08 PM

"I don't think your parallel examples are fitting; neither the citizens nor the government of the USA refused to recognize the USSR's right to exist."

Of course they did, or do you believe that President Reagan believed in the rights of "Evil Empires" to exist? Or that the USSR should never have negotiated with Reagan until he renounced that phrase? When Yeltsin was in the process of breaking up the Soviet Union, did anyone in the US say this was regretable for the reason that the USSR's "right to exist" was imperiled? It was pretty much the opposite. Of course, for the reasons I mentioned, the particular issue never arose because it doesn't exist outside the realm of anti-Palestinian propaganda.

"The PLO and the PA say one thing, but actions say another--Arafat appears to support terror even while denouncing it."

No, he supports resistance to an illegal occupation, just as you would do if a foreign country invaded your own, which Israel refuses to distinguish from terrorism inside Israel proper. Arafat has never supported or defended the killing of Israeli civilians for its own sake. (Now watch: someone is going to pull up some Arafat quote about conquoring Israel as proof to the contrary).

"And it should be obvious that the PA can't/won't provide the security guarantees it pledged to Israel."

The PA is not responsible for the security of an invading army. No occupied government ever is. But consider the practical alternatives. Many months ago I asked how the PA could possibly improve Israel's performance of curtailing terrorism, given Israel's greater police and military resources and willingness to engage in torture and extrajudicial execution of terror suspects. I also asked how the PA could be expected to do anything that benefits Israel while Israel continues to randomly target its police and their facilities. No one to my knowledge has bothered to address these obvious points. Israel is far more capable of "locking up Hamas" as is Arafat. It refrains from doing so because there are limits to the degree it can escalate the conflict. In the meantime, it recognizes no such limits on the PA, so it is free to issue open-ended demands that Arafat "do more" while Israel does nothing.

"Most germane to the article is this: The issue of whether Palestinians would be willing to accept a small state living in peace alongside Israel, or whether the the Palestinians would still violently push for the elimination of Israel and return of a Greater Palestine, is a crucial point, and one with massive implications regarding any hopes of lasting peace."

No, that is not the issue at all, any more than the issue of whether the Palestinian terrorism should stop depends upon Israel's "irrevocalble and final acceptance" -- to use Pipe's phrase -- of a Palestinian state. When two forces are at war while a diplomatic solution seems possible, it is absurd for one to say: you should think that we favor diplomacy even though we won't consider it until the other side accepts all of our demands and lays down its arms.

The first real issue is whether peace can be obtained through diplomacy. This is only possible when both sides are committed to a serious diplomatic process. Israel has never agreed to engage in any process leading to equal Palestinian sovereignty -- it expressly renounced it through Oslo I and its progeny -- regardless of whether the Palestinians continue fighting for Israel's abolition. Israel has refused to engage in any direct negotiations with the PA for two years, while the PA has (and the rest of the world) have been begging for it. Israel even refuses to consider a ceasefire in exchange for concessions of its own. Sharon's most recent offer was for the Palestinians to terminate all resistance to the occupation for a period of years -- ten years was the figure reported -- after which he would consider a limited form of autonomy. Israel alone remains irrevocably committed to obtaining its political goals through the use of military force. Nothing positive will develop until Israel's position changes, and Israel's position will not change as long as the US supplies the means necessary for Israel's commitment to violence.

The Palestinians want land, Israel purportedly wants peace. Imagine if Israel had an open offer for land but the Palestinian position was that they would not curtail any violent activities until some unspecified period of time until all issues concerning borders, refugees, water rights and so on had been completely resolved. Anyone believing that this position amounted to a committment to a peaceful solution would be guilty of self-delusion, just as those that believe that Israel is committed to peace are deluding themselves now.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 01:11 PM

It's a nice, forward-looking assumption--but perhaps too optimistic an assumption.

If some organized folks told me that no matter what I were to do, they intended to kill me and push me into the sea, and I knew they meant it, I'd be damn sure not to give them any land that could put them closer to their goal. And realistically speaking, the concept of wiping them out as a pre-emptive measure would have to come under serious consideration.

nicky g

02-21-2003, 01:23 PM

You write as if it's theirs to give. It isn't.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 01:24 PM

Now that's what I would call a lot of doublespeak.

The Arabs, the Palestinians have never stopped attacking Israel, really--before the arguably "illegal" occupation or after--Hamas is avowed to push Israel into the sea--the average Palestinian polled would not be willing to accept peaceful coexistence alongside Israel--and you're asking Israel to voluntarily give up some land now. What, pray tell, is the guarantee that if Israel withdraws from the occupied terrirtories, it won't continue to be attacked from a closer vantage point (as before)? And given the prevailing Palestinian sentiment, along with the charter of Hamas and so forth, why on Earth would Israel do this?

The Palestinians/Arabs have never allowed Israel a reasonable period of peace--and there's no reason to think they will now if Israel withdraws.

Until the Palestinians can fetter their mad dogs (or perhaps call on Israel to do it for them if they are truly incapable), and until such time as the average Palestinian would be willing to live peacefully alongside Israel, I can see no prospect for true peace--the only peace that might be possible would be akin to a Berlin-wall type of standoff.

Israel is simply not going to cede territories as long as it knows that so doing will only result in being attacked from a closer vantage point--nor should Israel be expected to do so.

andyfox

02-21-2003, 01:33 PM

I just took a look at the first poll cited by Pipes. It states that "The recent Israeli incursion policy influenced Palestinian public opinion on various levels. The Israeli incursions caused an increase in support for Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Fateh Movement and Hamas Movement, while causing a decrease in support for the Palestinian Authority, security agencies and negotiations."

Note that the poll shows that the recent Israeli incursion is responsible for changes in Palestinian public opinion. So how can Pipes say that what Israel does is irrelevant to the conflict?

Pipes did not mention in his article that the poll also showed that "the majority of the Palestinian people, 57.6 percent, believe the time is ripe for conducting reform within the Palestinian Authority." Pipes' portrait of an unbending, monolithic Palestinian postion, opposed to Israel's existence, is simply wrong. Such a viewpoint leads to consideration of "wiping out" the Palestinians.

It's time to stop spewing hatred, as Pipes does.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 01:50 PM

Here's my understanding of it, nicky:

When Israel gained the upper hand in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by having surrounded the Egyptian 3rd Army and having gained control of the Suez canal, and were poised to take Cairo, the USSR threatened to intervene on behalf of the Arabs. The USA responded by saying that if the USSR intervened then so would the USA. To avoid this dangerous debacle, Kissinger went to Moscow and a deal was brokered to end the Yom Kippur War.

Ther essence of the deal was this: The Israelis agreed to pull back and relinquish the Suez canal and to not take Cairo and to spare the Egyptian 3rd Army, provided Jordan and Egypt gave Israel the right to keep the land they had won in the 1967 war. At this time the land in question was owned only by Egypt, Jordan and Syria so these countries had the legal right to negotiate it away. This was agreed upon and done by both sides.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 02:01 PM

First of all, I wasn't intending to suggest consideration of wiping out Palestinians as a whole--only their most fanatically aggressive and violent organizations such as al-Aqsa.

Pipes apparently didn't go into enough detail on the polls. However, I didn't take his words to mean that the entire Palestinian polulace is monolithically opposed to peace--but enough apparently are to preclude any meaningful and lasting peace. I think this can be seen both from the poll and from the wide Palestinian support for suicide bombings and even teachings in many of their kindergartens and grade schools glorifying martydom.

I'm not spewing hatred. I happen to think this is a very important point.

nicky g

02-21-2003, 02:25 PM

Given theUnited States', the UN's, and most of the world's commitment to theself-determination of peoples, on paper at least, I don't see that those countries had the right to simply cede those territories to Israel. Futhermore, Israel doesn't even want them with the populations that are currently in them. And several UN resolutions demand that Israel withdraw. So I don't see that they are the rightful controllers of that land. Plus, anything that Henry Kissinger is involved in is bound to be a recipe for disaster.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 02:32 PM

Egypt, Jordan and Syria owned the lands in question at the time.

andyfox

02-21-2003, 02:41 PM

Pipes is spewing hatred. His one-sided view of the conflict leads to his conclusions that diplomacy is useless and counterproductive and that Israel should "defeat" the Palestinians. His solution is a war of annihilation. It may indeed be a very important point, but it's an ugly one.

Anyway, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion now and leave it for others to elaborate. I'm glad your back posting.

It's time for this madness to stop.

IrishHand

02-21-2003, 02:55 PM

The position you described there is exactly why both sides are equally guilty in that particular dispute.

Chris Alger

02-21-2003, 03:07 PM

"What, pray tell, is the guarantee that if Israel withdraws from the occupied terrirtories, it won't continue to be attacked from a closer vantage point (as before)?"

This is an example of the racist double standard I keep referring to. The problem is Israel attacking the occupied territories and the Palestinians attacking Israel. The only issue you see, however, is Israel's right to security, which you apparently believe takes precendence over the Palestinian right to security. I could argue that Israel is less secure as a result of the occupation, but I'm not going to accept your premise that the rights of one side of the dispute are the fundmantal issue, although this is the ubiquitous way of addressing it in the U.S.

Furthermore, if the only real issue is Israel's unlimited right to "security," then we have decided by the very terms of the debate that it cannot be resolved except on whatever terms Israel wants. It makes no difference what the Palestinians do or say, as long as they exist anywhere Israel will be able to justify anything it does in the name of self-defense. For example, let's say the Israelis transfer the Palestinians to Jordan. It could then claim the right to occupy Jordan if the Palestinians resist and attack Israel in the West Bank. And so on across the fertile crescent. If most Palestinians refrain from terror, it makes no difference because not all of them do. If all Palestinians refrain form terror, it makes no difference because, as Pipes contends, at least some of them will deny Isreal's right to do what it has done to them, thus denying Israel's "legitimacy," and being a threat for that reason. And on ad on, without end.

I think what's driving your bias is the assumption that Israel is the victim of Palestinian aggression. Let's recap some basic facts. Zionism amounted to the foreign conquest and expropriation of most of the Palestinian homeland. The Palestinians understandably rejected this, and took up arms to prevent it. When they lost -- in 1947 and prior to the 1948 creation of Israel and invasion by other Arab states -- Israel refused to entertain peace terms but continued with a policy of grabbing land from the area designated as "Palestine" and colluded with King Abdullah of Jordan to prevent a Palestinian state from coming into existence. The result was the forced creation of 700,000 - 800,000 Palestinian refugees and their loss of livelihoods and property in what is now Israel. Afterward, in the 1950's, Israel embarked on a campaign of terror (duly labeled as such by the U.S. and other countries) to keep the refugees from returning to claim their land, their houses, their crops. The Palestinians also engaged in piecemeal terror, but with less loss of lives and property as the destruction inflicted by Israel (some 500 Israeli civilians were killed by terror raids from 1949 through 1956. Israel killed some 2,700 -- 5,000 Palestinians during the same period, according to Israeli historian Benny Morris, based on a detailed examination of the archival data). Since then, Israel has refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of any Palestinian right to sovereignty in their former homeland, has created yet more refugees and acquired more Palestinian territory, over which it exerts more and more control every day. Israel is therefore in no position to claim that Palestinian attacks on Israel are unprovoked to the point where Israel's "security" warrants exclusive or even primary consideration.

Of course, if we accept the racist premise that Israel has a superior claim to the former Palestine because of the religous, national or cultural superiority of Israelis, as the Hamas counterparts in Israel and the U.S. believe, then your position makes perfect sense.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 04:06 PM

Look, either you accept Israel's right to exist--in which case you would favor, I expect, two nations living side by side in peace--or you don't.

From the tone of your posts, my impression is that you side with Hamas and favor the elimination of Israel over the idea of two separate nations in peace. Please correct me if I'm mistaken in this impression of your views.

Chris Alger

02-21-2003, 05:40 PM

This is not a "key question" at all. As I've patiently explained, Israels "right to exist" as a precondition to diplomacy or to the exclusion of comparable rights of Palestinians is racist, internally contradictory[1] and not relevant to any process leading to peace or justice. It is a propaganda tactic and nothing more.

As for the purported "tone" of my posts, why don't you focus instead on their substance?

In fact, I agree that two states are the best solution that is politically feasible. A better solution would have been a bi-national state instead of "Jewish" state, so that one country could serve as homeland to both Jews and Palestinians with neither being second class citizens in a country unfairly dominated by the other. OTOH, given the much better treatment of second-class citizen Arabs within Israel compared to 10th-class Arabs in Gaza and the West Bank, and given the trend in recent years to treat them a bit better in Israel, to court them politically and so forth, many Palestinians wouldn't mind having the territories annexed as part of Israel. If the parties would agree to this under reasonable terms I'd be for that too. It's doubtful that Israel would ever consider this, however, because it could lead to the loss of the ethnic supremacy of Jews in Israel. (This is usually phrased about Israel's concern about losing it's democratic character, often without any remark about why Israelis should prefer ethnic supremacy over democracy).

[1] Another way of phrasing the "right to exist" demand is this: if the Palestinians acknowledge that Israel's deprivation of their homeland was right, then Israel will consider providing redress for whatever it did that was wrong. Whatever that could be.

brad

02-21-2003, 07:46 PM

youre the one who said israel may have to do ethnic cleansing (view espoused by many, btw)

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 08:35 PM

WTF are you talking about? I never said that.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 10:34 PM

M: "I don't think your parallel examples are fitting; neither the citizens nor the government of the USA refused to recognize the USSR's right to exist."

Chris Alger: "Of course they did, or do you believe that President Reagan believed in the rights of "Evil Empires" to exist? Or that the USSR should never have negotiated with Reagan until he renounced that phrase?"

Hamas refuses to accept the right of Israel the nation to exist. While Reagan and US citizens may (or may not) have considered the government of the USSR to have no moral right to exist, neither Reagan nor the citizens of the USA ever questioned the right of the country of the USSR itself, or old Russia, to exist.

There is a world of difference between saying that a government has no right to exist (e.g. Saddam's Baath party), and saying that a country (e.g. Iraq) has no right to exist. Likewise, saying that Sharon's government has no right to exist is not the same as saying that the state of Israel itself has no right to exist.

One position is ultimately far less intractable than the other.

Making comparisons that aren't really apropos is asy to do in these complex disacussions, yet I feel it is one of the main reasons that Chomsky, and many other liberals, tend to derive bad conclusions. As I've said before, false equivalences really can be a problem when it comes to any type of reasoning--even moral reasoning.

IrishHand

02-21-2003, 11:22 PM

Just a guess, but I'd say he's referring to your above quote:

If some organized folks told me that no matter what I were to do, they intended to kill me and push me into the sea, and I knew they meant it, I'd be damn sure not to give them any land that could put them closer to their goal. And realistically speaking, the concept of wiping them out as a pre-emptive measure would have to come under serious consideration.

Sounds an awful lot like genocide to me, especially since you've consistently argued that most Palestinians object to Israel's existence.

MMMMMM

02-21-2003, 11:55 PM

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to groups like al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, not to ordinary Palestinians, when I wrote: "organized folk...(which) intended to kill me and push me into the sea no matter what I did."

In my very next posting in the thread, just to be sure that nobody misunderstood my meaning, I wrote:

"First of all, I wasn't intending to suggest consideration of wiping out Palestinians as a whole--only their most fanatically aggressive and violent organizations such as al-Aqsa."

So either you can't understand what you read or you don't hesitate to post derogatory crap without reading the rest of the related posts.

If you think I'm suggesting genocide after reading this, then God help your reading comprehension skills.

Chris Alger

02-22-2003, 12:07 AM

"Hamas refuses to accept the right of Israel the nation to exist."

There is no "nation" of Israel; Israel is a state. There is a nation of Jews. Hamas purports to be able to live in peaceful coexistence with Jews. It is opposed to a Jewish state. Although Hama supporters themselves might sometimes fail to make these distinctions (its manifesto speaks alternatively of fighting "the conquerors" and "the Jews"), Pipes makes it clearly. He is referring to Palestinian acceptance of an ideologically Jewish state in the former Palestine, not Palestinian acceptance or tolerance of Jews in Palestine or elsewhere.

"While Reagan and US citizens may (or may not) have considered the government of the USSR to have no moral right to exist, neither Reagan nor the citizens of the USA ever questioned the right of the country of the USSR itself, or old Russia, to exist."

Hamas does not want to take the physical country now called Israel and turn it into a lake, nor to exterminate all of its inhabitants in the event the Jewish state is overthrown. Reagan opposed not merely to the current regime in Russia. In fact, Soviet leadership changed hands several times during his administration with no discernable change in Reagan's stance. Reagan was opposed to the ideology of the communist state and would have been opposed to any communist state in Russia just like he (and prior U.S. governments and millions of Americans) denied the legitimacy of every communist state everywhere. Likewise, Hamas is opposed to any Jewish state in the former Palestine. It is a question of opposing a state devoted to a particular ideology as opposed to the people living in it or the particular rulers of the day. By the same token, Bush is obviously opposed to any Baathist state in Iraq, regardless of whether it's headed by Saddam, his sons or their collegues.

Another example is the Pakistan-India conflict. Pakistan is an avowedly Islamic state. Many Indians obviously disagree with that concept. However, you would never hear Pakistan claim that it cannot negotiate peace or borders with India until all Indians accept the legitimacy of an Islamic state of Pakistan.

You still haven't explained why you insist that Israel should not compromise its territorial claims as long as any Palestinians deny Israel's legitimacy, while insisting that the Palestinians compromise their territorials claims even though Israel and many Israelis remain implacably opposed to the establishment of any Palestinian state. Nor have you explained why you believe that Israel's security concerns trump those of the Palestinians.

Chris Alger

02-22-2003, 01:01 AM

"And it only takes a significant fraction of people--considerably less than 50%-who are committed to non-acceptance to ensure that peace remains impossible."

Israeli polls consistently indidcate that from 1/3 to 40% of the Israeli public opposes the creation of any Palestinian state. Moreover, the term "Palestinian state" as used in Israel typically assumes a demilitarized and only semiautonomous state whose policies are subject to Israeli veto, not full sovereignty as Israel enjoys.

Does it not follow from your statement above that Israeli rejectionism also makes peace impossible? How could one interpret your placement of exclusive blame on Palestinian attitudes as anyting but unfair bias against Palestinians?

OTOH, if minority opinion can always limit a government's ability to compromise, why can't a minority limit a government's ability to refuse compromise? In other words, what makes you think that minority rejectionism will always be more powerful than minority willingness to compromise, or is this phenomenon unique to Palestinians?

"So the percentage of Palestinians who believe in the necessity of the elimination of Israel is very significant at over 50%...."

Actually Pipes probably had to dig for last Spring's poll to get his 51% number. A more recent poll (December 2002, likely available to Pipes when he wrote his February 2003 article) from the same source show that 46% of Palestinians want a 242-style state (occupied territories), 47% want liberation of all of historic Palestine, and 4% would be satisfied with improving the Palestinian negotiating position. (Error rate of 3%, 95% confidence). http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2002/no47.htm

Moreover, if Pipes is truly concerned about rejectionism his prescrption is backwards. Based on the polls, the PA is more willing than its constituents to compromise territorial claims. The government of Israel is way behind most Israelis on the same issue and currently opposes a Palestinian state in the occupied territories or even withdrawal and removal of settlements from them, a precondition to any viable Palestinian state. (Sharon's own party is on record as opposing any Palestinian state and Sharon's notion of a Palestinian state, if any, remains unspecified, but he's not willing to negotiate one in any case). Despite these facts, Pipes concludes that it is Palestinian rejectionism that "flourishes" and that the U.S. therefore should support Israel.

It is clear from his article that Pipes is a rejectionist himself, understands that most people abhor this attitude, and is therfore using old statistics and logical sleight of hand to shift blame away from those responsible for the current impasse.

brad

02-22-2003, 02:10 AM

yep. but more importantly there are many others in positions of power who argue that the entire population of non jews be 'relocated' 'by any means'.

so even if M's position isnt identical with the extremists, still it fits in with their worldview, it seems to me anyway.

adios

02-22-2003, 02:22 AM

Somehow I would guess that you would find a way to hold the USA responsible for all of the above.

These two statements are obfuscations:

"There is no "nation" of Israel; Israel is a state. There is a nation of Jews."

"In fact, Soviet leadership changed hands several times during his administration with no discernable change in Reagan's stance. Reagan was opposed to the ideology of the communist state and would have been opposed to any communist state in Russia just like he (and prior U.S. governments and millions of Americans) denied the legitimacy of every communist state everywhere."

I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion quickly and painlessly. I apologize for taking a shot at what you say and not debating it at length as that may not be quite fair. I'll try and refrain from getting involved in your threads.

Chris Alger

02-22-2003, 03:27 AM

"Somehow I would guess that you would find a way to hold the USA responsible for all of the above."

Nope.

As for obfuscations, let me clarify.

Pipes and M contend that diplomacy with Palestinians is useless as long as many of them seek the destruction of the Jewish state, or the "liberation of historic Palestine." They contend that any agreement will be, at best, pointless because Palestinian opposition to the existence of Israel means that too many of them willl remain committed to using violence and unlawful force, or maybe some other illegitimate means, to wreck Israel.

These two statements, however, don't follow and in fact are grounded in a certain deliberate ambiguity concerning the Israel's "right to exist" and what opposing it actually means. If the phrase has any meaning, it is the right of Israel to exist under its current ideology as a Jewish state, as opposed to a state that makes no distinction regarding the ethnicity of its citizens.

History provides numerous examples of states conducting successful diplomacy while remaining fundamentally antagonistic toward the other party's official ideology or raison d'etre. U.S. diplomacy with the USSR is a striking example of countries that could produce workable agreements even though at least one of them considered the other an "evil empire" and both maintained a constant state of military tension toward each other. Israel's own agreements with Egypt and Jordan are more obvious examples: neither Arab country was called upon to acknowledge the Israel's "right to exist," yet the peace between these countries has endured and the border disputes between them have been largely resolved.

The deliberate exploitation of ambiguity occurs because any opposition to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is commonly interpreted as violent opposition to the right of Jews to a homeland in the former Palestine or violent opposition to Jews generally. Israel's right to exist is used indifferently with the rights of Jews to exist, an unstated assumption that has particular force due to the holocaust.

That's why I distinguished the nation of Jews from the state of Israel. If you need any further examples as to why this distinction matters, consider the positions of many Jews (like Einstein) that opposed the creation of a Jewish state, some of whom lived in the former mandatory Palestine and considered themselves committed Zionists. Tom Segev's One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate is an good source.

MMMMMM

02-22-2003, 08:46 AM

1) you said I suggested that Israel may have to do ethnic cleansing which I most certainly did not. I believe you (and even more so IrishHand) owe me an apology and retraction

2) My position not only isn't identical to that of Jewish extremists, it isn't even close.

MMMMMM

02-22-2003, 09:05 AM

Again you misunderstand/misrepresent what I wrote.

I don't contend that diplomacy with the Palestinians is useless.

What I said was that Pipes made a vital point which should not be ignored. The conclusion he derives from that may be that diplomacy is useless, but that doesn't mean that's my conclusion also--it's not.

May I be allowed to stress the importance of one particular point an author makes without being presumed to agree with all of his conclusions, and without being misunderstood/misquoted?

Regarding the "nation" /"state" differentiation you bring up, you may have a point---but it doesn't invalidate my point, and it does tend to obfuscate the point I was making:

Reagan may well have viewed the governments of certain countries as having no right to exist, but that is far different from viewing those countries themselves as having no right to exist.

Again: saying the Iraqi government has no basis for legitimacy and should be dismantled is far different from saying the state of Iraq itself has no basis for legitimacy and must be dismantled.

Likewise, regarding Israel, I'm sure you can see why one view is at its core ultimately more intractable and extreme, less subject to compromise, than the other view.

IrishHand

02-22-2003, 09:44 AM

Hey - I never said that you were a proponent of genocide. I only directed you to some of your statements which might allow someone to conclude that you were.

MMMMMM

02-22-2003, 10:15 AM

1. I said "organized"--doesn't that modifer preclude the average person on the street in your mind? Just to make sure there was no misunderstanding, in my very next post I specified that I was referring only to groups such as al-Aqsa. Yet well after that post which should have clarified any doubt, you chose to post that it seemed I was advocating genocide, which is both totally false based on my posts and something I would never favor, let alone advocate. Your initial trolling post and subsequent refusal to acknowledge that your post was inappropriate and erroneous in its characterization of my views is malicious IMO

2. You apparently have no problem with misrepresenting for malicious purposes those who happen to disagree with you on other matters

3. You are abusing this forum and the spirit of genuine discussions by your low-down actions

4. Your actions are despicable. I hope we never meet. I believe Jimbo may have gotten it right when he suggested you slither back into your hole.

adios

02-22-2003, 11:37 AM

Just put him on your ignore list.

IrishHand

02-22-2003, 12:41 PM

Someone else suggests you share some extremist Israeli views, you get all indignant and say that's ridiculous, I direct you to a couple of your posts which vaguely support his suggestion, and now I'm Satan incarnate?

I'm thinking you drank too much coffee this morning. At any rate:

(1) I said "organized"--doesn't that modifer preclude the average person on the street in your mind?
Yes, it certainly does in my mind, but that doesn't mean that someone else couldn't package that statement with the "the majority of Palestinians oppose Israel's right to exist" and "there will never be peace while they think this" statments to reach a different conclusion.

(2) This has nothing to do with my positions - you clearly don't read even my short posts before responding to them. I stated that I didn't think you were in favor of genocide - which part of that confused you?

(3) ok - the next time I'll just let the original guy direct you to the posts which generated his suggestion that you were in favor of ethic cleansing. I just thought it was funny that you got all indignant when it was pretty obvious where his claim was coming from.

(4) Well, Jimbo is indeed a genius, so there's no arguing there.

MMMMMM

02-22-2003, 01:24 PM

IrishHand: "Sounds an awful lot like genocide to me, especially since you've consistently argued that most Palestinians object to Israel's existence."

IrishHand

02-22-2003, 02:27 PM

IrishHand: [M's] concept of wiping them out as a pre-emptive measure sounds an awful lot like genocide to me, especially since you've consistently argued that most Palestinians object to Israel's existence.

I am baffled that you can't see how someone reading your arguments, especially in this thread, might conclude that you align with Israeli extremists who think ethnic cleansing might solve some of their problems. Of course, this doesn't make it so, and again, I don't happen to think you believe that - I just understand how another might suggest it (as one did - and not me, despite the hate being directed my way) based on what you've written. I'll break it down again, since the first two times seem to have missed you:

M: The majority of Palestinians are opposed to Israel's existence.
M: There will never be peace while this is so.
M: I would seriously consider killing people who composed an organization which refused to acknowledge the right of my state to exist and was prepared to act in furtherance of their beliefs.

Ultimattely, I think the point that the above poster was trying to make is that many of your positions are in fact consistent with those of anti-Palestinian Israeli extremists. While that might not include the most extreme of their possible arguments, it's certainly something worth considering. I think that Chris in particular has done an excellent job explaining why your anti-Palestinian views are hardly more noble than the corresponding anti-Israeli views held by Palestinian extremists.

Chris Alger

02-22-2003, 03:42 PM

Nothing in Pipe's article suggests that he's drawing the fine distinctions you are. Maybe a better example for you would be Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, claiming it to be the umpteenth province of Iraq. Had it succeeded, it probably would have been absorbed into Iraq and poof! -- no more Kuwait.

I'm not aware of any Palestinian movement to do the same to Israel, and make it, for example, part of Syria. Many Palestinians would like to "liberate" Israel and expunge the Jewish state. That doesn't mean they want to obliterate all traces of the country of Israel or the institutions that comprise that state, and it certainly doesn't imply that they want to expel Jews from Palestine. I think it's pretty obvious what their beef is, regardless of whether we agree with it.

"I'm sure you can see why one view is at its core ultimately more intractable and extreme, less subject to compromise, than the other view."

No, I don't see this at all. Consider the history of the respective positions. The Zionists have moved from acceptance, in principle (probably not in reality), of a fully sovereign Palestinian state toward their present position, which spans the spectrum from no state whatsoever to holing up the Arabs in a series of bantustan-like "cantons" surronded by Israeli settlements and the army to protect them -- and that's the extreme left-wing view of Barak. The Palestinians have moved from nearly unanimous consensus that no Jewish state should exist in Palestine toward the present position of the PLO and PA, which is Isreal remains secure within it's pre-1967 borders with a permanently disarmed Palestine, utterly dependent on Israel's economy, next door. This has been the stalemated position for more than a decade. Further, the Palestinians want to negotiate, and Israel refuses. I don't see how you can suggests that Palestinians are guilty of harboring the more "intractable" view.

MMMMMM

02-23-2003, 07:16 AM

I didn't say that.

Take what I said literally and read nothing into it please--I don't see what should be hard about that. Don't paraphrase me because you get it wrong--significantly wrong--every time. Hint: I didn't say #1 or #2, nor do I agre with #1 and #2 fully--my point is that Pipes' point is important enough that it should not be ignored. ""Should not be ignored" is not identical to "is 100% right."

More importantly, #3: I didn't say "who were (merely) prepared to act in furtherance of their beliefs"--because that could take many forms, some peaceful--I was referring to organized people intent on "killing me..etc." There's a big difference here because of the word "kill": when your enemy is engaged to kill you, it would be prudent of you to consider all possible avenues of self-defense.

MMMMMM

02-23-2003, 07:37 AM

First of all, I don't agree with everything Pipes said but I do think he made an important point.

Second, we have a simple communication problem regarding my use of the phrase "more intractable": I wasn't comparing the Palestinian view to the Israeli and designating one as more intractable than the other. I was trying to say that the view of those Palestinians who would refuse to accept a compromise with Israel which includes two states living side by side in peace--in other words, those Palestinians who would be satisfied with nothing less than the "right of full return"--are holding a view that is ultimately more intractable (and less likely to succeed) than their Palestinian brethren who would be willing to accept a two-state solution.

As for the other points you bring up, it's late and I must sleep. By the way, when I don't answer all of the points you bring up in a post, it's generally because I either don't have time or energy to answer all of them in that post...and you do sometimes list a great many points. Hence the convenience factor comes into play fairly often.

hudini36

02-23-2003, 07:59 AM

Your bias is very evident. Why don't you support the Palestinians attacking and killing Jordanians? They are the ones that occupy "Palestine."

It isn't worth debating with you. If Allah and Yahway exist, suffice it to say that Arafat will burn in hell along side Sharon.

brad

02-23-2003, 10:13 AM

'that Arafat will burn in hell along side Sharon.'

i really doubt anyone would disagree with that!!

nicky g

02-23-2003, 02:01 PM

Countries don't "own" lad. Don't you think the inhabitants of an area have any right to a say in who governs them? If Bush ceded Alaska to Japan would that be ok with you?

MMMMMM

02-23-2003, 04:13 PM

What's moral or ethical isn't always legal, and vice versa.

The point I'm making is that the the "illegal occupation" doesn't appear to be truly illegal--the legal owners of that land signed it over to Israel.

The Palestinians have been cynically used by the neighboring Arab states to further Arab hatred against Israel. Pushed on one side by Israel, the Palestinians also have been screwed by their fellow neighboring Arabs on the other side, and are tragically caught in the middle, a disenfranchised people who receive very little aid from other Arabs except cash payments from Saddam to continue the propagation of the cottage industry of suicide-bombing. One might think that Jordan, which has a predominantly Palestinian population, ought to be more sympathetic towards the Palestinian plight, but instead Jordan actually took land which had been partitioned for the Palestinians. Later Jordan signed away to Israel land the Palestinians were living on. Yet Paletinian outrage is directed entirely against Israel (and the USA to some extent), not against Jordan.

It's a sad scenario all around. The Palestinians ought to have severe grievances against Jordan, but they don't seem to be concerned with this, and choose instead to vent all of their desperate rage on Israel. Their Arab brothers ought to help the Palestinians, but instead they cheer them on in their self-destructive aggression against Israel while doing little or nothing to offer them aid or land. It's a sad, cynical picture all around, and it isn't all Israel's fault or the Palestinians' fault--other Arab states share in the blame too.