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

[MMMMMM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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

[MMMMMM]

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.