The Irrelevancy of the Peace Process

An excerpt from Amnon Lord's contribtuion to BitterLemons:-

...If you travel to the depths of the West Bank, around Nablus or Ariel, you'll observe a routine of civilian and economic life moving along busy roads. From Hizmeh checkpoint all the way to the heartland of the Palestinian villages surrounding Nablus, you can hardly notice an Israeli soldier. Only in Tapuach junction are there a few border guards. By my estimate, at least two-thirds of the traffic volume is Palestinian.

You could define this as a semi-transparent occupation. The friction is concentrated in a few sour spots or at a couple of terminals. But otherwise, both sides seem to make the best of co-existence inside a strange bubble that hovers in the midst of regional turmoil and international economic distress where stability and growth are a rarity.

There is a feeling in Israel that the peace process has never been as irrelevant as it is now. And strangely, there is a near consensus in Israel about this perception. Only the experts might remark that, while nobody expects a peace settlement as a result of possible contacts between the two parties, negotiations themselves are necessary in order to create a favorable atmosphere in the region surrounding Israel and the Palestinian territories--in Jordan, for example...

Read it all.


(k/t= EveH)
^

It's Not The Process of Peace, Tom

In response to Tom Friedman's Reality Check piece (of), a letter writer writes:

Thomas L. Friedman has put into words what I have long felt. I am 58 years old, and for most of my adult life I have been hopefully following the Middle East peace process, from the Oslo accords to the Camp David negotiations to the road map, ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

Well, your problem is that you should following the terror process, the denial of Jewish nationalism process, the refusal to make peace process that all factor into whther Israel can make peace and why it has been forced to make claims for its security.

The next letter writer gets it well:

Thomas L. Friedman asserts that Israelis “don’t get it.” As an American and an Israeli, let me assure Mr. Friedman that Israelis do get it. Sadly, we get it all too well.

For more than 43 years, every offer, every compromise has been met with a resounding “no” by the Palestinians. Had Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, accepted the offer made by Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, this discussion would not be necessary.

Had Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, accepted the offer of Ehud Barak, the Israeli leader, at Camp David, this discussion would not be necessary.

See, Tom, if you don't hate Israel, if you aren't a Jew who feels too uncomfortable, you can get it.

And as for uncomfortable Jews, here's Ori Nir, Spokesman, Americans for Peace Now:-

The remedy for the parties’ intransigence is not walking away from the peace process, as Mr. Friedman suggests, but the opposite: aggressive treatment in the form of American muscle.

Under real American pressure, Israeli and Palestinian leaders will have little choice but to cooperate with an initiative that serves America’s regional and global policies.

Isn't that just like a pacifist group to urge aggressive pressure?

Only Jews could do that to other Jews.


^

It Won't Happen

Here is the statement by Secretary Clinton on Developments in the Middle East made on February 11, 2010 after she spoke with Quartet Representative Tony Blair and she notes that comprehensive peace in the Middle East, including a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires an approach that is three-fold:

(1) to help build the economy and capacity to govern of a Palestinian state; (2) to renew political negotiations to enable the earliest possible establishment of that state; and (3) to achieve these in a manner that ensures the security of Israel and of the Palestinians.

and to achieve that the efforts of the international community must be mobilized to:

(1) to build support for the institutional capacity and governance of a future Palestinian State, including on the rule of law; (2) to improve freedom of movement and access for Palestinians; (3) to encourage further private sector investment; and (4) to bring change in the living conditions of the people in Gaza.

That won't happen.

Not because Israel doesn't want it.

Nor because the USA, UK, EU, et al., don't want it.

Or even that the Pals. themselves don't want it.

It just can't happen because Israel's negotiating "partners" can't make it happen even if they wanted the process to go that way. Not internally, from their own conception of themselves as a supposed nationality grouping as well as the rivalries going on since the 19th century nor externally, due to Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Syria and other interference which the Mufti brought down of their heads 70 years ago in outreaching to destroy Zionism.

Oh well.



P.S. Did you notice in point #3 of the first part that now the Pals. require, on equal footing with Israel, a degree of security? That in the past that used to be freedom from "harassment"?

Weather? That Won't Work Either; Neither Will Felafel

From the satiric Onion:

Middle East Small Talks To Focus On Getting Israel, Palestine To Discuss Weather

According to State Department officials, the violently clashing peoples of Israel and Palestine have agreed to resume small talks this week in an effort to move toward eventually having a discussion about the weather. "Our goal is to achieve a preliminary open dialogue about the weather that will be mutually beneficial for all involved," said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton...At press time, officials were trying to find the easiest way for representatives from Israel and Palestine to bump into each other at the grocery store

Grocery store?

Try hummus stand. But not a felafel stand.

Why not? I guess some moonbeams would call it 'gastronomic colonialism". Why not. Here, read:

...the falafel became synonymous with the Israeli figure. It is a quick, messy, spicy, no-frills street food, which packs plenty of nutrition and value into a small portion. Adopting it as a national food matched an ideology that attempted to negate the Diaspora in favor of a new and vital Jewish existence in Israel. The fact is that this low prestige street food is in step with the ambivalent attitude toward the local Arab population: treating it as a role model on the one hand, but also as a primitive society in need of modernization and acculturation on the other...[a] belief shows the paternalistic attitude of the Jewish settlers toward the local population, projecting them as primitive and in need of modernization. The adoption of certain practices from the Palestinian population is done not only without acknowledging their source, but is actually implemented through an erasure of these sources. Because of the ambivalent attitude toward the products of the Arab population and culture, these products must be divorced from their Palestinian heritage if they are to play an important role in Jewish-Israeli culture.
Since falafel became such an emblem of Israeli cuisine the tendency to erase its Arab ancestry grew. A recent Israeli government publication, a booklet of recipes distributed in the United States by the Israeli Embassy, described the falafel as a dish that became popular in Israel...

Let's be blunt:

Lebanon: Israel stole our falafel

Country's Industrialists Association says Jewish state trying to claim ownership of traditional Lebanese delicacies like tabouleh and hummus, plans international food-related suit

As if Jews in Arab countries hadn't been eating felafel for centuries.

Wait, are French Fries French?

Turki Tries Tripping Us Up

Prince Turki al-Faisal, chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies and former ambassador to the United States, has an op-ed in...the NYTimes (but you knew that).And it's full of lies, misrepresentations and downright malfesance. It's called: "Land First, Then Peace"

a) since Israel did not have "land first" before June 5, 1967 but rather Arab terror (fedayeen 1949-1956; Fatah 1964 -), why should land be first and not cessation of violence, followed by a significant period of peace. And then maybe land will be discussed? Besides, if the basis for peace is the (false) assumption of 'land for territories' which is 'territorial compromise', on what territory are the Arabs compromising?

Now, let's pick just a few elements of the article itself:

b) "For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality."

Oh, well. The Arabs reject something intangible and fleeting - relations - for something tangible and permanent - land. So why should Israel?

c) "Shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, during which Israel occupied those territories".

Just like that there was a war. A bit of historical rewrite is always a good confidence-building measure - not really but my tongue is stuck in my cheek.

d) "Today, supporters of Israel cite the outdated 1988 Hamas charter...".

No, not at all outdated. And besides, the PLO charter is still quite valied.

e) "A first step should be the immediate removal of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Only this would show the world that Israel is serious about peace and not just stalling as it adds more illegal settlers to those already occupying Palestinian land".

Since this was done in 2005, with quite disastrous results - the Gaza Disengagement - why do it again?

f) "There have been increasing well-intentioned calls for Saudi Arabia to “do a Sadat”: King Abdullah travels to Israel and the Israelis reciprocate by making peace with Saudi Arabia. However, those urging such a move must remember that President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt went to Israel in 1977 to meet with Prime Minister Menachem Begin only after Sadat’s envoy, Hassan el-Tohamy, Sadat’s envoy, was assured by the Israeli foreign minister, Moshe Dayan, that Israel would withdraw from every last inch of Egyptian territory in return for peace. Absent a similar offer today from Israel to the leaders of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, there is no reason to look at 1977 as a model".

Thank God. Netanyahu's Bar Ilan speech, which was a lead-in for this very "do a Sadat". seems to have been a failure. Bibi, you listening here?

g) "while Israel’s neighbors want peace, they cannot be expected to tolerate what amounts to theft, and certainly should not be pressured into rewarding Israel for the return of land that does not belong to it...".

Hey, no foreign land did we take. It was promised to the Jewish people because it belonged to the Jewish people and Jewish people lived throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza up until the outbreak of the 1947-49 war forced upon Israel by an aggression of Arab states seeking to dash the UN compromise of partition.

Seems peacemaking is hopeless with the Arabs.

Obama's Bright Idea

...Rather than build confidence in the region Obama has spread anxiety and emboldened Israel’s foes to do what they have perfected over 60 years — just wait it out, foment the grievances of the Palestinian people and console themselves that furnished basements in Jerusalem are the moral equivalent of exploding buses.

Obama is all about honesty, he says. Well, he either honestly believes his distorted retelling of history or he’s doing this because he’s out of options. An honest explanation would have been that he hasn’t a clue how to stop the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons and he can’t begin to solve the Hamas-Fatah problem — so beat up on Israel. And when that doesn’t work (because the notion of stopping natural growth of neighborhoods in a democratic society is hooey) at least he can argue it was through no fault of his that we don’t have peace in our time.

Source: Jennifer Rubin

Oh My Gosh

The new government of Israel is seeking to reorient the country’s foreign policy, arguing that to rely purely on the formulas of trading land for peace and promising a Palestinian state fails to grasp what it views as the deeper issues: Muslim rejection of a Jewish state and the rising hegemonic appetite of Iran.

Source

Barry Rubin's Three on Two

Er, that's three points on the two-state solution.

From Barry Rubin's new blog:

...much of the world wants Israel to agree in advance to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) what they think it wants without any concessions or demonstration of serious intent on its part.

The first problem is that the demand is totally one-sided. Does the PA truly accept a two-state solution? That isn't what it tells its own people in officials' speeches, documents of the ruling Fatah group, schools, the sermons of PA-appointed clerics, and the PA-controlled media.

The second problem is that PA compliance with its earlier commitments is pretty miserable, though this is a point that almost always goes unmentioned in Western diplomatic declarations and media...

The third problem is that this leaves no room for asking the question: what does Israel want in exchange for accepting a Palestinian state, leaving West Bank territory, or even agreeing to a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem.

How about recognizing Israel as a Jewish state...How about agreeing-which any nationalist movement should be eager to do-that all Palestinian refugees be resettled in the state of Palestine. How about accepting that a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict? How about stopping daily incitement to kill Israelis and destroy Israel in PA institutions?...

In short, Israel is asked to give without getting in return...

Read it all.

New York Times Editorial Gets Taken to the Wash

Well, as I pointed out, the New York Times' lack of logic was evident to a few other persons who wrote letters-to-the-editor:

To the Editor:

Why spend an entire editorial questioning Benjamin Netanyahu’s commitment to peace when a supposed “peace partner” on the Palestinian side is a terrorist organization with the stated goal of destroying Israel?

The question of how soon Israel’s next prime minister will remove the blockades and roadblocks erected in Gaza to stop the daily barrage of rockets into Israel seems less urgent than the question of when Palestinian leaders will stop calling for the destruction of Israel and end the rocket attacks.

Given Hamas’s stated goals and track record of devastating terrorism, any Israeli commitment to finding a peaceful solution is extraordinary and should be applauded, not critiqued.

A rebuke of Hamas’s unwillingness to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, let alone propose any peaceful resolution to the conflict, seems as much in order.

Jessica Weber
New Haven

•

To the Editor:

You assert criteria by which Benjamin Netanyahu, after becoming the Israeli prime minister, can be defined as being “serious about seeking peace.” Those criteria are the same cant that has been recycled for years and lack any creativity that might break the conflict out of its dead-end cycle.

One could view Mr. Netanyahu’s work to forge a broader coalition containing doves and hawks as the best evidence to date of his commitment to creative and pragmatic approaches to Israel’s challenges, which include seeking peace.

We do not know what Mr. Netanyahu will do and what might succeed. But perhaps at the dawn of a new Israeli government working with a new American administration, we should be open to new thinking about how to attack old problems.

Nathan J. Diament
Dir. of Public Policy, Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations of America
Washington

•

To the Editor:

The essential difference between Israeli leaders is not whether they do or do not want peace, but whether they believe that peace is attainable, that there is a true partner to make peace with.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been in the camp wary of the Palestinians. Recent history has demonstrated that the right wing in Israel has gotten it right.

It is the Palestinians who have not stepped forward as true partners in peace. It is ultimately not within the power of an Israeli leader, whoever he or she may be, to obtain peace until there is a Palestinian leader who has the desire — and the strength — to make peace with Israel.

Tom Rockland
West Hartford, Conn.

Here's what I would have sent:

Your editorial ("Being a Partner for Peace", Mar. 26) casts doubt on the capability of Israel's next Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, being able to act as a partner for peace, intimating that he built a "reputation as a hard-liner with deep misgivings about the very peace process he now claims to be willing to embrace".

Could it be perhaps that the current peace process is not the way to peace and should be un-embraced? Could Netanyahu's point be that the Oslo path is not the exclusive peace path and, to be a partner for peace, one should explore and push alternatives that could work better? Peace is the goal, not the process.

"Partner for Peace" or Partner of the New York Times?

The NYTimes' editorial insinuates he can't be trusted.

Read:

...He said that his government will be a “partner for peace.”

“I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace,” he said.

We would like very much to take Mr. Netanyahu’s words at face value, and it would be a lot easier to do that if he had not worked so assiduously to build his reputation as a hard-liner with deep misgivings about the very peace process he now claims to be willing to embrace...He still cannot bring himself to endorse a two-state solution — which we believe must be part of any serious regional peace effort"

But, wait, is the New York Times missing something?

"We believe". Ah. They believe.

I don't. Neither, it seems, does Bibi.

Could it be, perhaps, that the current peace process is not the way to peace?

Should it be either rejected, modified or alternatives searched for to achieve a better peace than Oslo and the plain Two-State solution? One that doesn't encourage terror, doesn't weaken Israel's long-term security nor undermine its historic and legal national claims?

Could the point Netanyahu is making is that Oslo is not the only path to peace and, for one to be a partner for peace, one should seek something that better works?

If peace is truly the goal and not some unadulterated anti-Israel agenda, well, who cares about the sanctity of a process?