Again and again, your editorials replay the same theme — Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is the core reason for the long-standing conflict, “the primary incitement to violence among Palestinians,” and only a return to the 1967 borders will achieve peace. In your four op-ed pieces, just one sentence suggests an alternative scenario and course of action to alleviate the conflict – a quote by Colin Powell which states that “The Palestinian leadership must end violence, stop incitement and prepare their people for the hard compromises ahead.”
In your Washington Post op-ed last September, “The Choice for Israelis,” you close with the provocative challenge “Do we want permanent peace with all our neighbors, or do we want to retain our settlements in the occupied territories of the Palestinians…” You claim that “No matter what the Palestinian leaders may choose…,” the choice to end the impasse is Israel’s alone.
Do you really believe that? You can’t think of anything the Palestinians could do to ease the conflict? Do you doubt that Israel would jump at the chance for “permanent peace with all our neighbors” if such an offer were accompanied by concrete gestures?
Advertisement
If the core issue is occupation of the territories, then why the massacre of unarmed Jews by local Arabs in the 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s, well before Israel’s occupation, or even statehood? Why the 1964 PLO charter calling for the destruction of the state of Israel three years prior to the capture of the West Bank and Gaza? Why did Arafat walk away from sweeping land concessions and imminent Palestinian statehood during the 2000 Camp David accords? And why did a poll late last year by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion reveal that six of ten Palestinians believe Hamas and Islamic Jihad should continue violence against Israel even if it were to abandon all of the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem?
In reality, Israel could offer every inch of land that pundits like you insist stand in the way of peace, and it wouldn’t make one iota of difference. Israel could concede Tel Aviv and Haifa as well, and it still wouldn’t matter. While you obsess over resolution 242, the real issue is swept aside.
Yitzhak Rabin said it best. When the Oslo process first began, he insisted that any exchange of territory for intangible promises of peace include a provision calling for Palestinian leaders to cease from engaging in “hostile propaganda” against Jews and Israel. Toning down the rhetoric of hate was a necessary prelude to resolving all other issues. Unfortunately, his core request has never been seriously addressed.
The Middle East is a neighborhood where conspiracy theories abound, and everything from 9/11, to the train bombings in Spain, to even the Al Qaeda organization itself have been attributed to “Zionist plots.” It’s a region where a Syrian high school text describes Zionism as the “new Nazism,” where a high placed Iranian official rails that “Israel’s existence is diametrically opposed to Iran’s national interests,” where a Saudi language text states “The Jews are wickedness in its very essence,” and where the outgoing Malaysian Prime Minister receives a standing ovation from nearly 60 Arab leaders for his diatribe against the influence of world Jewry. Clearly, the climate for peace does not exist.
Nor is the situation much better between Egypt and Israel, despite your op-ed boast that the peace treaty brokered by you, “not a word of which has since been violated,” has been a success.
