TNR BLOGS

July 24, 2008 | 10:41 PM
July 24, 2008 | 8:12 PM
July 24, 2008 | 7:07 PM

July 24, 2008 | 6:37 PM
July 24, 2008 | 4:58 PM
July 24, 2008 | 2:31 PM

July 23, 2008 | 7:28 PM
July 23, 2008 | 7:06 PM
July 23, 2008 | 3:04 PM

July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM
June 19, 2008 | 2:54 PM

July 23, 2008 | 1:31 PM
July 23, 2008 | 11:49 AM
July 22, 2008 | 8:06 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.01.2008
What Egyptian Liberals Have to Offer

How many times have I heard this refrain?  "This president is the best friend Israel has ever had."  Hundreds of times.  About Ronald Reagan.  And about Bill Clinton.  And now about George Bush.  And, I suppose, it is true in a certain abstract sense about each of them.  They probably also understood that the prime impediment to a peace between the Israelis and those who now call themselves Palestinians (this nomenclature is relatively new to the Arabs of Palestine) is fanatic resistance to the non-negotiable reality of a Jewish state in the Holy Land. 

But negotiations are not conducted over people's sentiments.  They are about maps and functions and other tangible aspects of the relationship between neighboring societies.  So, as with his two aforementioned predecessors, Bush has expended energy and time over the details of an arrangement.  First with the "road map" and now with whatever momentum seeped out of Annapolis.  History repeats itself.  America is the only country with the power to induce Israel to make perilous concessions and, therefore, it is the only country whose government Arabs -- both in Palestine and in the surrounding countries -- are motivated to influence.  If you don't think the U.S. is still the pivot of international relations, look again.

Yet there are some realities that neither the American president nor the best laid plans of other mice and men can influence or affect.  You can force this bloc of settlements (and almost of them) to close down and draw the border here rather than there and even color code Jerusalem to allow the Arabs to control the Temple Mount (which would be a terrible affront to Jewish history that the Muslims want especially to affront) and to hand sovereignty over Palestinian neighborhoods in the city to the Palestinians and contrive some cynical and unprecedented formula for allowing some "refugees" (they are almost all dead actually) to "return" and creating a fund for compensation of zillions of dollars (to which Israel should not contribute because it has absorbed since 1948 a larger number of true Jewish refugees from the Islamic world) and do much more...and yet none of this and not even all of this would end the jihad against Zion.

Near the end of their terms in office Ronald Reagan went down this road and Bill Clinton went down this road, too, and now George Bush is going down this road, as well.  It is not out of malice towards Israel or even strategic callousness about its existential survival needs.  Some of their eagerness might actually be an expression of their concern for and solidarity with Israel. 

Yet no one will promise -- let alone assure -- that when (and if) Israel withdraws from 90% or 96% of the West Bank the land it has left will not be turned into platforms from which rockets and missiles are launched against the population centers of the Jewish state...and against strategic positions like Ben Gurion International Airport.  What then will the next American president or the one after counsel the Israelis to give up?

The fact is that the great impediment to peace with Israel is the fanatic obstinacy of the Palestinians.  Does anyone have a strategy for negotiating with that?

Here are texts (courtesy of MEMRI) from two Egyptian texts more or less making the same points.

Posted: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:22 AM with 21 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

mabar2000 said:

Absolutely clear. And not only the "palestinians"but all the arab (and muslim) world. The land for peace idea has already proved not to work. Neither in the north with Lebanon, which soon became a Hezballa stronghold raining missiles over Haifa, nor in the south, in Gaza which became Hamas land and a continuous barrage of Quasams on Sderot. There is no reason why the eastern border would be different except it is much more critical, as all of Israel is at stake.  A secure, defensible eastern border is an absolute necessity for survival.

January 11, 2008 7:02 AM

r-ennis said:

The articles cited are remarkable. Maybe, in a generation or two, opinions like these will hold sway.

January 11, 2008 9:18 AM

jacksondyer said:

"The fact is that the great impediment to peace with Israel is the fanatic obstinacy of the Palestinians.  Does anyone have a strategy for negotiating with that?"

I agree.

January 11, 2008 9:49 AM

jacksondyer said:

"Does anyone have a strategy for negotiating with that?"

The real problem though is that those who want to negotiate are not the people who have  the power to stop those who want to destroy you.

Before effective negotiations can take place the PA will have to show that it is really in control and that it can implement an agreeement. This is a prerequisite before a  two State solution can be implement.  The aim isn't just two States, it is two democratic States. This means that the rule of law will be paramount in each State, and that each government will have a monopoly on power.

January 11, 2008 10:12 AM

jacksondyer said:

Where is my other post?

January 11, 2008 10:19 AM

blackton said:

I have to believe this round by Bush is just to try to show the world he is still relevant, that he knows it is just a PR stunt so in the history books it will be written he gave it his best shot for peace but was obstructed by (Israeli, Palestinian, Mongolian (the historians will take their pick, as to me I am going with Arab) obstinancy. What really worries me is if Bush actually believes he can manufacture peace within the next year, delusion of that magnitude is far more worrisome. I pray for cynicism.

January 11, 2008 10:59 AM

lymon1 said:

Brainstorming: what if the peace agreement stated that upon __ border incursions by people or bombs, Israel has a series of escalating reoccupation rights?  

January 11, 2008 1:15 PM

blackton said:

Jack: Before effective negotiations can take place the PA will have to show that it is really in control and that it can implement an agreeement.

I agree, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon. The zeitgeist just is not there. I am not sure when it will ever be.

January 11, 2008 1:20 PM

jacksondyer said:

Blackton, youa re right that it won't happen anytime "soon." However, it may happen. Here are the results of a poll of Palestinians on the issue published on the pro Israeli leftist blog Harry's Place:

January 11, 2008

"Rejectionism Rejected"

hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/.../rejectionism_rejected.php

January 11, 2008 1:31 PM

jacksondyer said:

January 11, 2008 1:41 PM

jacksondyer said:

This thread is as slow as molasses.

I don't know if my previous link worked:

hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/.../mt-comments.cgi

January 11, 2008 1:43 PM

jacksondyer said:

All my links didn't work.

Try this one. Go to harry's place:

hurryupharry.bloghouse.net

and scroll down to "Rejectionism Rejected"

January 11, 2008 1:55 PM

rozenson said:

"Brainstorming: what if the peace agreement stated that upon __ border incursions by people or bombs, Israel has a series of escalating reoccupation rights?"

It's an interesting idea, but one that the Palestinians and Israelis would never agree to. The Palestinians know that they have too many fringe groups who would throw it all out of control on their end. The Israelis wouldn't be willing to risk getting Qassams thrown at Ben Gurion Airport and causing a panic, especially because it would mean they would just be moving back to square one as a result.

January 11, 2008 3:27 PM

teplukhin2you said:

Jack, et al.  - some weekend reading for you on "Zion's Rebel Daughter", Hannah Arendt: www.newleftreview.org

enjoy. have a good wknd,

t

January 11, 2008 3:55 PM

jacksondyer said:

This is ridiculous. I won’t give up till I set up a link!

Blackton, you are right that it won't happen anytime "soon." However, it may happen. Here are the results of a poll of Palestinians on the issue published on the pro Israeli leftist blog hurryupharry.com

<a href=hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/>Rejectionism Rejected</a>

Here are the poll results listed on that blog:

Rejectionism Rejected

"Here's the results of last November's polling amongst Palestinians:

Support or opposition to a peace settlement with Israel

Support 72%

Oppose 25.5%

Support or opposition to the Palestinian participation in the peace conference that will be held at the end of the month.

Support 71%

Oppose 26.5%

Should Hamas maintain its position on the elimination of the state of Israel?

Hamas should maintain its position on Israel 31%

Hamas should change its position regarding Israel 69%

Other interesting results here.

Main issue that makes you feel concerned

The economic hardship 31%

The absence of security 25%

The internal power struggle 29%

The Israeli occupation in general 6%

Family problems 3%

The security situation in the Gaza Strip now is better than before Hamas took over, worse, or it did not change?

Better 14%

Worse 79%

The Same 6%

Trust in Abu Mazen versus trust in Ismael Hanieh

Abu Mazen 78%

Ismael Hanieh 22%

Factional trust

Fatah 46%

Hamas 13%

Others 9%

None 32%

(Hamas trust was 41% in January 2006. Fatah v Hamas trust is 46% v 16% in the Gaza strip)

Support or opposition to early PLC elections

Support: 77%

Oppose: 23%

Voting preference if early PLC elections are held next week

Fateh 69%

Hamas 15%

Others 16%

Attitude about the nature of the state, refugees, and Jerusalem

Two states for two people 53%

A one bi-national state in historic Palestine 15%

A Palestinian state on all historic Palestine 32%

Return to their original place of residence 61%

Return back to the new Palestinian state 24%

Compensation 15%

Jerusalem as an international capital 19%

East Jerusalem for Palestine and West for Israel 29%

A unfiied capital for both states 14%

A capital only for Palestine 38%

Well, both sides will need to make realistic compromises..."

Obviously in a society where people with guns organized in gangs rule individual opinion won’t have much of an effect on political outcomes. Still it is interesting to note that after years of Fatah and Hamas propaganda a majority of Palestinian Arabs believe in compromise and a two State solution.

I should also note that in Israel the right wing mounted an anti-Olmert and anti-Bush demonstration. They expected thousands to show up, but less than a thousand did.

January 11, 2008 3:58 PM

jacksondyer said:

teplukhin2you I am very familiar with Arendt's thought.

I read the article and didn't get impression that the author was familiar with Arendt's other books.

January 11, 2008 4:14 PM

blackton said:

thanks Jackson. I hope these polls you mention might mean something, I just despair they won't. Individuals love peace and prosperity, get them riled up into a group though...and boy don´t they love to get riled up in groups. I know, I am cynical today. I sure hope that someday is sooner than i imagine.

January 11, 2008 5:52 PM

jacksondyer said:

"thanks Jackson. I hope these polls you mention might mean something,..."

Yes, I am not sure what they mean since "the people" don't have the power to vote the ruling gangs out of power.

It might help the PA in their negotiations with Israel, though.

Both sides will also have to compromise and give up some important assets. The PA will have to give up the right of return and Israel will have to dismantle most of the settlements on the West Bank. This is just for starters.

Still, the most important issue to my mind is security. Will the PA be strong enough to foil terrorist attacks on Israel?  They may need to call in a third party to guarantee security. Perhaps Jordan, but I am not holding my breath.

January 11, 2008 6:35 PM

lymon1 said:

Roz:  Again, just playing with the thought -- here's what's in it for Israel: they're already getting bombs lobbed into the "48 borders" and those will only increase over time, so maybe they'd take the chance as such a deal would give the Palestinians the incentive to really police their own.  Here's where UN peacekeepers could play a role -- they seemed to have helped in Lebanon.  But the real key for the Israelis is the birght objective line, and with such a line perhaps they can surrender more territory.  

January 12, 2008 8:03 AM

lymon1 said:

Roz:  Again, just playing with the thought -- here's what's in it for Israel: they're already getting bombs lobbed into the "48 borders" and those will only increase over time, so maybe they'd take the chance as such a deal would give the Palestinians the incentive to really police their own.  Here's where UN peacekeepers could play a role -- they seemed to have helped in Lebanon.  But the real key for the Israelis is the birght objective line, and with such a line perhaps they can surrender more territory.  

January 12, 2008 8:04 AM

luispc said:

Thanks for the Arendt link, Tep.

Jackson is spot on when saying that "I read the article and didn't get impression that the author was familiar with Arendt's other books".

Indeed the article uses Arendts positions taken in the fourties as a means to achieve an anti-Israel manifesto.

And those positions should be inserted within context: Arendt's reaction against the national principle as a political foundation. This is Arendt's great contribution to political theory

And anyone honest would question: is contemporary Israel a nation-state in that sense? Because only then could one infer some prophecy from the simplified Arendt the article describes.

January 13, 2008 12:18 PM

Double click this space to insert your ad.