Road map to peace?
Here is the written version of the talk I gave at Beit Emek, my son's shool
in Livermore CA, on erev Shavuot, June 12, 2005.
___________________________
Can the “Road Map” lead to a two-state solution?
The history of the Middle East conflict is littered with many plans that
have been proposed and many buzz words thrown around. We have had
“partition”, “Oslo”, “intifada”, “Geneva”, and now “disengagement”, “road
map” and “two state solution.” Can the current set of plans actually
succeed where many others have failed? Remember that the two-state solution
is an old plan, that has been resurrected by the current Bush
Administration, but indeed for the first time in history all three main
participants in negotiations, Israel the PA and the US have accepted the
formula of “two states living side-by-side in peace” as the desired outcome.
So, in principle the simple answer to the question I posed in this title is,
of course, “yes” the road map could lead to a two state solution. But, I
would submit that the likelihood of this happening is very small. Why?
First, it would require that the elected leader of the Palestinians, Pres.
Abbas, who has declared himself in favor of a peaceful solution to the
conflict, would actually control the PA and have the ability to enforce his
policies. However, this is not the case, the PA is a chaotic mess, with
gangs of gunmen controlling every locality and the power of the central
government being minimal at best. For example, although the ceasefire that
Abbas insisted on with Israel has resulted in a so-called “calming” of the
situation, in between there have been continued attempts at suicide attacks
and numerous rocket attacks on the Gaza settlements and on Sderot in Israel.
This is notwithstanding the fact that Abbas has deployed thousands of his
soldiers throughout the region of Gaza from where the rockets are fired.
It has taken responses and threats from Israel and the US to keep the calm
so far. In fact, Abbas has stated on numerous occasions that he refuses to
use force to enforce his policies because that would cause a “civil war.”
So Abbas is reneging publicly on the first step required of him in the “road
map” namely to destroy the terrorist groups and their infrastructure. On
several occasions gangs of gunmen have rampaged through the streets of
Ramallah and Nablus and shot up and closed down PA offices. So far Abbas
has done nothing to stop this. In fact Abbas has told the terrorist groups
up front that he will not confront them! Therefore they have no qualms
about breaking the “calm” whenever they feel like it, and threatening to
re-initiate attacks on Israel when they decide to do so.
Contrast this with the situation in Israel. PM Sharon decides on his policy
of disengagement from Gaza and northern Samaria. Although maybe a majority
of the Israeli population supports this policy, it is deeply divisive and
unpopular on the right, among the settlers. Yet, the policy is going ahead
with provisions being taken for possible strong opposition to the policy.
In other words, Sharon has let the internal opposition know in no uncertain
terms that he is going ahead with his policy. So here you have the opposite
situation, Sharon will enforce his declared policy and Abbas will not.
The consequences of this are significant. Since Abbas is definitely a
better and more preferable leader to deal with than Arafat, Israel and the
Americans want to keep him in power. The Americans can do this by giving
him money, in fact m$50. But, they can also put pressure on the Israelis to
make concessions to Abbas, to keep him in power and make him popular with
his people. So as usual it comes down to the same thing that we had with
Arafat, Abbas is either unable or unwilling to take any concrete steps to
improve the situation, and the onus is on Israel to take all the confidence
building steps, such as releasing prisoners, changing the route of the
security fence, reducing checkpoints, giving the PA the tax money it owes,
etc., etc.
This was what was always said about Arafat, Israel must make concessions to
empower him. But, under the Oslo accords this led to disaster, because
there was no accountability on the Palestinian side, as confirmed by David
Ross, Pres. Clinton’s point man in the Middle East peace process, who
admitted that Arafat was allowed to get away with lying and cheating all the
time. All that mattered was to get an agreement, and that was impossible,
because Arafat was not prepared to make any agreement, however many
concessions Israel was prepared to make. Is there any difference this time?
This brings me to a comparison of the negotiating styles of the two sides.
On this topic I refer to a recently published book by a Harvard psychologist
Kevin Levin called “The Oslo Syndrome: delusions of a people under siege”,
in which he contrasts the negotiating styles of the two sides. He points
out that the Jews have historically been in a weak negotiating position and
they have always been prepared to compromise. Typically Jews want to arrive
at a solution and avoid conflict. Isn’t that what you would prefer to do?
Thus, succeeding Israeli governments, of the right and left, have made
painful concessions in order to placate the other side. This is certainly
what PM Barak did with Arafat, and this is what PM Sharon is doing with
Abbas in relation to Gaza.
By contrast, the Arab attitude towards negotiating is to demand the maximum
by right. And in doing so it does not matter if the truth is bent or
twisted. For example, for many Arabs and Palestinians the idea of a
two-state solution is acceptable only as a step towards the one-state
solution that they believe is not only justified but also inevitable. “The
Oslo Syndrome” is compared with the “Stockholm Syndrome” in which a victim,
typically a hostage, identifies with his/her abductor. So many Jews, when
placed in this situation of conflict, in order to find a way out,
psychologically identify with the Palestinians. How else to explain the
large minority of Israeli leftists who take the Palestinian side, for
example in demonstrations against the security fence (that they call the
wall) that has reduced terrorism so significantly, and for example Dr. Ilan
Pappe, who having been found guilty of falsifying history (he invented a
massacre of Palestinians in 1948 in Tantura that did not take place) and
while still retaining his tenure at Haifa University, wrote a letter calling
on the British AUT Union to boycott his own university! There is something
pathological there, but it is allowed in a free society.
Given these facts and these tendencies, is it any wonder that the
Palestinians are not readily prepared to compromise and come to an
agreement. They see the tendency of a Jewish democratic state to compromise
and make concessions as evidence of fatal weakness. They regard this as a
malaise that can only provide them with victory if they continue on their
path. Yet, they recently found that terrorism did not work, they killed
1,200 Israeli Jews, and Israel did not fold, not only that it seemed to get
stronger and through the use of targeted attacks and the building of the
security fence, to reduce terrorism by 90% even before Abbas declared the
“calm.” So the Jews are resilient under attack. But, what other cards does
Abbas hold, he sees that Israel is totally dependent on the US. This is not
bad, since the US is the most powerful nation on earth, but it does mean
that support for Israel can be undermined at its one source. So the current
Palestinian policy is to attempt to replace Israel as the Americans favorite
ally in the Middle East. This will be difficult but not impossible, and
there is one word to explain why – Iraq!
There is no doubt that the US is in trouble in Iraq. The steady process
towards democracy in Iraq has hit a brick wall called the “insurgency.” It
was not predicted and it was not considered possible that it would remain so
strong. For how many months or years can the US continue to take high
levels of casualties in Baghdad? In order to placate the Arabs, the Muslims
as well as the Europeans, the US Administration knows that if it can pull
off a peace settlement in the Middle East it has a golden opportunity of
placating the Muslims around the world. But, the key to this is not only
Palestinian commitment to a peaceful solution, but also Israeli concessions
to them.
Now there are certain steps that no Israeli Government is yet prepared to
take, namely the return of all Palestinian refugees, dividing the
sovereignty of Jerusalem, or returning the borders of Israel to those of
June 1967. This latter point would require Israel to give up all of the
West Bank, including many large Israeli settlements, such as Ariel, Kfar
Etzion and Ma’aleh Adumim. For comparison, Gaza has about 8,000 Israeli
residents, but these towns each have between 20-30,000. There is no way
that they can or will be turned over to the PA. Abbas knows this, just as
he knows that insistence of the “right of return”, which is not a right
under international law, can render any agreement impossible. So a return
to negotiations may only be a prelude to another stalemate and/or another
war, with the US bringing pressure once again on Israel to make concessions
that it cannot make.
So that’s why, although the road map is a possible route towards a two-state
solution, I believe that the Arabs are still committed to a one-state
solution, in which Israel ceases to exist. We Israelis will ensure that
that never happens, so to those of you who are psychologically inclined to
want “peace at any price” remember that such a formula is illusory.
Since the above was written the situation has only become worse, with the
suicide bombing in Netanya (5 killed), the continuing rocket attacks on
Israel from Gaza (1 killed) and the clashes in Gaza between Hamas and the PA
security forces, in which Hamas have had the upper hand. In response the IDF
has renewed its targeting of terrorist leaders. In order to deal with this
worsening situation in which the so-called "calm" has been grossly violated,
Secty. of State Rice is preparing to visit the region next week. The
outlook is not promising.
in Livermore CA, on erev Shavuot, June 12, 2005.
___________________________
Can the “Road Map” lead to a two-state solution?
The history of the Middle East conflict is littered with many plans that
have been proposed and many buzz words thrown around. We have had
“partition”, “Oslo”, “intifada”, “Geneva”, and now “disengagement”, “road
map” and “two state solution.” Can the current set of plans actually
succeed where many others have failed? Remember that the two-state solution
is an old plan, that has been resurrected by the current Bush
Administration, but indeed for the first time in history all three main
participants in negotiations, Israel the PA and the US have accepted the
formula of “two states living side-by-side in peace” as the desired outcome.
So, in principle the simple answer to the question I posed in this title is,
of course, “yes” the road map could lead to a two state solution. But, I
would submit that the likelihood of this happening is very small. Why?
First, it would require that the elected leader of the Palestinians, Pres.
Abbas, who has declared himself in favor of a peaceful solution to the
conflict, would actually control the PA and have the ability to enforce his
policies. However, this is not the case, the PA is a chaotic mess, with
gangs of gunmen controlling every locality and the power of the central
government being minimal at best. For example, although the ceasefire that
Abbas insisted on with Israel has resulted in a so-called “calming” of the
situation, in between there have been continued attempts at suicide attacks
and numerous rocket attacks on the Gaza settlements and on Sderot in Israel.
This is notwithstanding the fact that Abbas has deployed thousands of his
soldiers throughout the region of Gaza from where the rockets are fired.
It has taken responses and threats from Israel and the US to keep the calm
so far. In fact, Abbas has stated on numerous occasions that he refuses to
use force to enforce his policies because that would cause a “civil war.”
So Abbas is reneging publicly on the first step required of him in the “road
map” namely to destroy the terrorist groups and their infrastructure. On
several occasions gangs of gunmen have rampaged through the streets of
Ramallah and Nablus and shot up and closed down PA offices. So far Abbas
has done nothing to stop this. In fact Abbas has told the terrorist groups
up front that he will not confront them! Therefore they have no qualms
about breaking the “calm” whenever they feel like it, and threatening to
re-initiate attacks on Israel when they decide to do so.
Contrast this with the situation in Israel. PM Sharon decides on his policy
of disengagement from Gaza and northern Samaria. Although maybe a majority
of the Israeli population supports this policy, it is deeply divisive and
unpopular on the right, among the settlers. Yet, the policy is going ahead
with provisions being taken for possible strong opposition to the policy.
In other words, Sharon has let the internal opposition know in no uncertain
terms that he is going ahead with his policy. So here you have the opposite
situation, Sharon will enforce his declared policy and Abbas will not.
The consequences of this are significant. Since Abbas is definitely a
better and more preferable leader to deal with than Arafat, Israel and the
Americans want to keep him in power. The Americans can do this by giving
him money, in fact m$50. But, they can also put pressure on the Israelis to
make concessions to Abbas, to keep him in power and make him popular with
his people. So as usual it comes down to the same thing that we had with
Arafat, Abbas is either unable or unwilling to take any concrete steps to
improve the situation, and the onus is on Israel to take all the confidence
building steps, such as releasing prisoners, changing the route of the
security fence, reducing checkpoints, giving the PA the tax money it owes,
etc., etc.
This was what was always said about Arafat, Israel must make concessions to
empower him. But, under the Oslo accords this led to disaster, because
there was no accountability on the Palestinian side, as confirmed by David
Ross, Pres. Clinton’s point man in the Middle East peace process, who
admitted that Arafat was allowed to get away with lying and cheating all the
time. All that mattered was to get an agreement, and that was impossible,
because Arafat was not prepared to make any agreement, however many
concessions Israel was prepared to make. Is there any difference this time?
This brings me to a comparison of the negotiating styles of the two sides.
On this topic I refer to a recently published book by a Harvard psychologist
Kevin Levin called “The Oslo Syndrome: delusions of a people under siege”,
in which he contrasts the negotiating styles of the two sides. He points
out that the Jews have historically been in a weak negotiating position and
they have always been prepared to compromise. Typically Jews want to arrive
at a solution and avoid conflict. Isn’t that what you would prefer to do?
Thus, succeeding Israeli governments, of the right and left, have made
painful concessions in order to placate the other side. This is certainly
what PM Barak did with Arafat, and this is what PM Sharon is doing with
Abbas in relation to Gaza.
By contrast, the Arab attitude towards negotiating is to demand the maximum
by right. And in doing so it does not matter if the truth is bent or
twisted. For example, for many Arabs and Palestinians the idea of a
two-state solution is acceptable only as a step towards the one-state
solution that they believe is not only justified but also inevitable. “The
Oslo Syndrome” is compared with the “Stockholm Syndrome” in which a victim,
typically a hostage, identifies with his/her abductor. So many Jews, when
placed in this situation of conflict, in order to find a way out,
psychologically identify with the Palestinians. How else to explain the
large minority of Israeli leftists who take the Palestinian side, for
example in demonstrations against the security fence (that they call the
wall) that has reduced terrorism so significantly, and for example Dr. Ilan
Pappe, who having been found guilty of falsifying history (he invented a
massacre of Palestinians in 1948 in Tantura that did not take place) and
while still retaining his tenure at Haifa University, wrote a letter calling
on the British AUT Union to boycott his own university! There is something
pathological there, but it is allowed in a free society.
Given these facts and these tendencies, is it any wonder that the
Palestinians are not readily prepared to compromise and come to an
agreement. They see the tendency of a Jewish democratic state to compromise
and make concessions as evidence of fatal weakness. They regard this as a
malaise that can only provide them with victory if they continue on their
path. Yet, they recently found that terrorism did not work, they killed
1,200 Israeli Jews, and Israel did not fold, not only that it seemed to get
stronger and through the use of targeted attacks and the building of the
security fence, to reduce terrorism by 90% even before Abbas declared the
“calm.” So the Jews are resilient under attack. But, what other cards does
Abbas hold, he sees that Israel is totally dependent on the US. This is not
bad, since the US is the most powerful nation on earth, but it does mean
that support for Israel can be undermined at its one source. So the current
Palestinian policy is to attempt to replace Israel as the Americans favorite
ally in the Middle East. This will be difficult but not impossible, and
there is one word to explain why – Iraq!
There is no doubt that the US is in trouble in Iraq. The steady process
towards democracy in Iraq has hit a brick wall called the “insurgency.” It
was not predicted and it was not considered possible that it would remain so
strong. For how many months or years can the US continue to take high
levels of casualties in Baghdad? In order to placate the Arabs, the Muslims
as well as the Europeans, the US Administration knows that if it can pull
off a peace settlement in the Middle East it has a golden opportunity of
placating the Muslims around the world. But, the key to this is not only
Palestinian commitment to a peaceful solution, but also Israeli concessions
to them.
Now there are certain steps that no Israeli Government is yet prepared to
take, namely the return of all Palestinian refugees, dividing the
sovereignty of Jerusalem, or returning the borders of Israel to those of
June 1967. This latter point would require Israel to give up all of the
West Bank, including many large Israeli settlements, such as Ariel, Kfar
Etzion and Ma’aleh Adumim. For comparison, Gaza has about 8,000 Israeli
residents, but these towns each have between 20-30,000. There is no way
that they can or will be turned over to the PA. Abbas knows this, just as
he knows that insistence of the “right of return”, which is not a right
under international law, can render any agreement impossible. So a return
to negotiations may only be a prelude to another stalemate and/or another
war, with the US bringing pressure once again on Israel to make concessions
that it cannot make.
So that’s why, although the road map is a possible route towards a two-state
solution, I believe that the Arabs are still committed to a one-state
solution, in which Israel ceases to exist. We Israelis will ensure that
that never happens, so to those of you who are psychologically inclined to
want “peace at any price” remember that such a formula is illusory.
Since the above was written the situation has only become worse, with the
suicide bombing in Netanya (5 killed), the continuing rocket attacks on
Israel from Gaza (1 killed) and the clashes in Gaza between Hamas and the PA
security forces, in which Hamas have had the upper hand. In response the IDF
has renewed its targeting of terrorist leaders. In order to deal with this
worsening situation in which the so-called "calm" has been grossly violated,
Secty. of State Rice is preparing to visit the region next week. The
outlook is not promising.
posted by Jack Cohen at 7:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home