If the World Really Wanted Peace in the Middle East…

Ted Belman reposted this article from Saul Singer from 2007. Imnsho it’s right on. Readers who bristle at these suggestions should ask themselves why they bristle, and what assumptions underly their reaction about who should make concessions. And finally, whether their acceptance of assumptions that the Israelis should be making the concessions stems from serious independent thought, or an unexamined acceptance of a Palestinian victim narrative that imposes itself not by empiric accuracy but… what?

Saul Singer advises How to pressure for peace.

I go further and suggest that the peace process has it bass-ackwards.

Rather than arm and train the terrorists (Fatah) it should force their disarmament.

Rather than finance them to the tune of $7.4 billion thereby enabling them to continue the “resistance”, they should be left to fend for themselves.

Rather than force Israel to freeze settlement activity thereby removing time as an issue it should allow Israel to build to its heart’s content thereby forcing the Palestinians to compromise quickly rather than to allow an erosion of their position in a final settlement.

Rather than force Israel to make goodwill gestures which merely encourages intransigence, it should force the Palestinians to make goodwill gestures. Whatever resistance Israelis have to the “peace process”, it will be reduced with such real gestures.

This is so obvious that one must conclude that the peace process is designed to continue the conflict rather than end it.

I should point out that no one is demanding peace at the end of the process. You will recall that one of the things Arafat balked at at Camp David, was signing an “end of conflict agreement”. Today no one is even mentioning such a thing and the Arab League is only offering “normalization” whatever that means..

Israel knows this. That is why it is demanding, so far, recognition as a Jewish state. If there was going to be a real peace agreement and a real peace, there would be no need to demand this recognition. Israel, as a sovereign state, could be what it wanted to be. Unfortunately, such recognition if it is given, will be a poor substitute for real peace.

The Arabs are refusing such recognition because their ultimate goal is to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. This they cannot accept. They also would not accept Israel with a Jewish majority even if it were a state like any other. They want Palestine to include Israel and the Jews there to become dhimmis. The peace process is just one step along the way.

The peace process, from Israel’s point of view, is simply a negotiated withdrawal from the Westbank as opposed to the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

Here’s a good place to meditate if your reaction is “Exactly! And so it should be.”

To my mind, whether Israel just withdraws or negotiates terms of withdrawal or signs a peace agreement, as with Egypt, it makes little difference as the Arabs don’t and won’t abide by the agreements.

6 Responses to If the World Really Wanted Peace in the Middle East…

  1. Walter Sobchak says:

    If we really wanted peace we would cut off funding to the PA. At this point we (the taxpayers of the US and the EU) are paying the Palestinians to maintain their state of belligerence. If there were no money in it, they would be forced to sue for peace.

    • Cynic says:

      Peace could have been achieved way back in 1949/50 had the World and UN wanted it,
      instead of creating UNWRA and perpetuating the conflict in which the Arab states have used the “Palestinians” as canon fodder.
      Of course to address history is to make uncomfortable charges about the European’s the British especially, and the American State Department’s foreign policy which that rag-tag Israeli army of “refusniks to die ” turned upside down.

    • mika. says:

      Israel provides these Jihadistanis with weapons, money transfers, transport infrastructure, a market to trade, oil, gas, water, electricity, medical care, propaganda justifying Jihadistani presence in Israel, so what does that say about the Israeli government?

  2. Ray in Seattle says:

    The question of Israel’s recognition by the Pals as a Jewish state keeps coming up. Why so? Would Pal leaders then say to their people, “You can’t attack Israel or its Jews now because we have officially recognized Israel as a Jewish state? The very idea is laughable.

    If Hamas or others did attack Israel after such a recognition – would the Pal government arrest and imprison them because that government did recognize Israel as a Jewish state”? Or, would the UN or some other international body condemn the Pals because they attacked Israel “after they had officially recognized Israel as a Jewish state”? Que some guffaws here.

    It seems to me the only value of such a recognition would be to prove that the Pals are liars – and also to drive home the reality that the world wouldn’t give a rats ass then any more than it does now when Arabs attack Israel.

    The greatest value may be that the world can see that the Pals are refusing to provide such recognition, as they always have. Some may wonder why. But most don’t seem to notice. Even if they did offer that recognition no-one really expects the Pals to change their behavior after such a declaration in any case.

    And that must lead to the conclusion that people who act in this way certainly don’t deserve their own government. They deserve to live under the occupation of the state best equipped to keep them in check and forcefully prevent their worst excesses.

    Pretending that signing any self-binding agreement with such people will improve things -rather than make them worse – is an international version of believing in the tooth fairy. A deadly pretense.

    • zee says:

      I think the insistance on recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is to preempt claims of the mythological “Right of Return”

  3. Rich Rostrom says:

    People really do want peace in the Middle East. It’s just that there is a profound cognitive dissonance between reality and beliefs which they are wedded. What Prof Landes calls “Liberal Cognitve Egocentrism”.

    If people recognized “the facts on the ground”, they might consider the measures that would actually result in peace. But that would accepting as real facts they have been conditioned to deny.

    The “easiest” way to pacify the Middle East (or at least the Levant) would be an exchange of populations.

    Move all the Moslem Arabs out of Gaza, Sinai, and the west bank of the Suez Canal to the rest of Egypt. Move all the Coptic Christians from Egypt there.

    That gives the Copts a safe place to live. The displaced Arabs get all the Copt homes and land in Egypt; there are twice as many Copts as Arabs, so the Arabs should do fine. The Copts get the oil and gas of the Sinai, and the Suez Canal, so they should do all right. With Coptland as a buffer state, there will be no war possible between Egypt and Israel, and the Copts won’t shoot at Israel.

    Move all the Shi’a Moslems from Lebanon to Syria. Move all the Christians and Druze from Syria to Lebanon. Lebanon with a Christian majority can make peace with Israel. Syria is no threat to Israel as long as Israel holds the Golan.

    Israel then annexes the West Bank, thus ending complaints about “Apartheid”, and giving Israel full jurisdiction over the Arabs. Any Arabs that can’t stand it can emigrate. The rest have to live under not just Israeli occupation but Israeli law. That means no more grafting by the PA, no more death-cult propaganda in the schools and media. And abolition of the refugee camps.

    Peace, it’s wonderful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>