By Ted Belman
Last week, I introduced myself, to a distinguished looking gentleman who I had seen many times in my neighborhood. Turns out he was retired Israeli Ambassador, Ilan Baruch. He said he knew my daughter from her service in the Foreign Ministry. We had a short conversation about the peace process and it was immediately apparent that he was a Leftist. He said that Israel must negotiate with the PA as equals. That told me all I needed to know about his position.
The next day I mentioned this encounter to Alan Baker at the JCPA and he told me that Baruch had recently resigned as Ambassador to South Africa. His reason for resigning was that he didn’t agree with Israel’s policies.
I mention all this because today Haaretz published an article under the title Palestinian unity is a chance for Mideast peace between equals. The article is hardly worth reading but the point he makes and presumably the point Baruch was making, was that Israel entered Oslo thinking Arafat is weak so we can have our way with him. Alas we didn’t count on the resistence both politically and militarily (violence and terror) which came our way.
-
“Yet the truth is that the Palestinians are refusing to crawl mainly because by crawling, they achieved nothing: They bought their legitimization, at least among certain segments of Israel, at the price of total surrender and relinquishing nearly everything.
“The rightist lie to the effect that the Palestinians “only take” and “don’t give” is logical according to the school of thought that believes if you repeat a lie enough times, it will eventually come true. Nevertheless, the Palestinians have not received anything. On the contrary: Ever since they began the peace process with Israel, their situation has become much worse – ghettoization, poverty and military oppression without any law restraining their Israeli overlords.
“When our leaders, especially those who advocate surrender as a condition for peace – President Shimon Peres and Defense Minister Ehud Barak – say it is impossible to reach an agreement with Hamas, they are not only being cynical (as though they had reached an agreement with the PA ), they are also using the tattered slogans of the 1980s. Yet the fact remains: One doesn’t make peace either with friends or with slaves. Moreover, the greater the oppression, the more appalling the opponents of that oppression will be, to match the oppression. “
Essentially they are saying Israel can’t reach a deal when she is demanding “surrender”. Only if we don’t demand surrender and respect them as equals can we reach a deal. This would involve sharing Jerusalem and retreat to the greenline. If we are to give up our birthright to say nothing of our legal rights, it is we who are surrendering.
The outcome of negotiations depends on the relative strength of both parties. The stronger party gets the better deal. Why should Israel forego its strength and treat them as equals. They aren’t. What essentially these Leftists are saying is “peace at any price”. “Peace” for them is the highest value. Except that they ignore any evidence that it is not peace that will be acheived but more war.
They are impatient with Israel for holding out for a better deal. What’s the rush? We are the ones entitled to a better deal, not the Arabs. In the absence of a deal, reality is being shaped to our betterment.
That’s the way I like it.
I have another fundamental disagreement. He writes, “The Palestinians have not received anything.” This is a gross lie. Comparing the Palestinian position now with their position before Oslo, it is plain to see how much they have “received”. At what point of time is he making the comparison. Did the Palestinians ever have more rights or diplomatic support or more independence? Whatever they have received, is more than they had a right to expect. What ever misfortunes have come their way is due to their own actions.
To say that Peres and Barak are demanding surrender (by the Palestinians” as a condition for peace, shows just how far left this mentality is. To the contrary, Peres and Barak are demanding that Isael surender as a condition for peace.
What I would find reasonable is irrelevant to the post and the point I was making.
But I will answer it anyway. We should annex everything but area “A”. We should abrogate Oslo and end the PA. I have advocated this in a number of articles. I am not concerned if the UN recognizes the. We should give nothing to prevent it.
Negotiations will achieve nothing . Only action. Build baby build.
“a better deal”
I find it more credible to appear reasonable. Therefore rather than demand Israel from the Mediterranean to the Euphratees, I prefer to simply ask for “a better deal”. You dislike any indication of reasonableness and prefer to show extremism not only as a goal but as a tactic. For me I will except less than everything.
Having said that I don’t like Bibi’s posturing. Time for offense.
Just a few musings.
The criticism of the Left is unreasonable; it is like criticising “liberals”, USA style. I consider myself to be on the left side of politics, but I am labelled as a rightist in Australia because of my strong support for Israel. The issue really is not that of Right and Left, but of right and wrong.
The comment of negotiating between equals caught my eye. Someone pointed out a while ago, that for the Arabs claim they cannot negotiate because they are weak and when they are strong, they state that because they are strong they have no need to negotiate. A few months ago an Iraqi politician was interviewed on TV; he said that in Iraq one breaks the back of an opponent and when he is on the ground, one puts a knife to his throat and says “Now we negotiate”. Indeed that is what Israel should have done with the local Arabs decades ago, the more so when Churchill’s observation of the Arabs is brought to mind: the Arabs are either at your feet or at your throat”.
The Israeli Left, the intellectualisers who think that by echoing the slogans of their puppet masters they become members of the elite, are masters at self-delusion. It seems to me that they are so smug and clever that they think that if they kiss the bottoms of the “down-trodden” in the utopia that will follow, they will not only be vindicated but rewarded. They would in fact be treated as dirt, by islamofascists who would regard those fools who identify with “progressives”, the same way as the Gestapo treated their Jewish informers.
In short, I think that Israel needs to tell the Arabs what terms are acceptable to it and each time they refuse, to offer them terms that are worse and implement the terms that were rejected. For example, Israel should offer a border favorable to itself and when it is refused, to occupy the area and offer the Arabs a smaller area for their statelet.
Yamit, I believe you got that right.
Listen folks these Arabs are never going to be happy unless they see the demise and destruction or overtake Israel.
Let us not forget the best defense is a strong offense and Israel must maintain her military superiority in the ME.
Israel must continue to build communities and take what territory belongs to her, the Holy Land.
The only peace the Arab want is a good piece of the Holy Land that doesn’t belong to them.
Negotiating with the PA and Hamas(proxy of Iran)is like negotiating with the devil, their footprints spell it out. Just look at their track record.
Give nothing for if you do give, you will get nothing in return.
Ted, Yamit is 100% right and you don’t seem to have learnd from your disengagement errors. In fact your whole approach – even if it has many good points – is based on wrong axioms. You belong to the material world of the nations, while Israel is above this material world as our whole history proves.
The incident this week of the Imam of Al Aqsa Mosque running outside and yelling revenge against America for killing bin Laden shows plainly the situation Israel is in. The Arab Palestinians cannot guarantee Israel’s safety. To make peace with them is no sign there will be peace. I believe the days of jihad and extremist Muslims fighting for new territory is over, however, because within hours the world will know what’s going on and take steps to stop them. It is the death of jihad. Which doesn’t mean fighting them is over, only that they will never succeed.
The Arab Palestinians are the most pampered “refugees” in history. The amount of money the world has contributed to them is in the billions and the help by the UN is an on going effort for decades now. The Arab Muslims have not known how to plan for their future. It seems that Fayyed is one of the few who have put the aid they’ve received to good use. One can actually see the results.
The SEALS confiscated all the data bin Laden had: computers, discs, tapes, files, everything. It will be interesting to see what they say about Hamas and Hezbollah. I understand many higher ups in Pakistan are scared to death about what may be revealed about them. Good.
This week I have felt a cloud lift from me after the killing of bin Laden. I didn’t know anyone killed in 9-11, so I think the relief will be much greater among those who directly suffered. This is a momentous victory for America. G-d bless the United States and Israel.
As long as Muslims believe that they are superior, equality is IMPOSSIBLE. They have a complex!
Right, the Palestinians had nothing ever. They want everything. On what ground: ????? equality or pseudo superiority!
Thanks to their blissful state of ignorance the Muslim masses are easy to convince.
We trust but only after challenging and verifying. They trust and believe blindly their promised land of the 72 virgins.
an observation on reality appears to be missing throughout this article.
looking back on events since 1922 it is clear that all are piecrust and paper promises .
reality escapes negotiators and they settle for empty rhetoric and vain promises .
the ultimate in no reality was of course oslo where it was clear thta the plo had abrogated the treaty israel did nothing
and has led to the present absurd activities of the arabs called palestinians .
where the fatah embrace hamas as brothers !!
Yam
I never advocate or even seek the perfect( don’t know what it means) But I see no good in what you advocate or are willing to settle for.
Example: What borders would satisfy in your own mind security borders? Explain your reasoning.
I added a few more points to my post this moning. You may want to comment on them.
Yamit. Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
What would you consider a better deal? A deal that would satisfy you?
The mere fact that you are even willing to discuss or consider any accommodation (deal) with the Arabs means the same thing of a whore holding out for a better price. If you are willing to believe through any negotiating a real peace and accommodation can be gotten then you are delusional. If you don’t why even support any so called process?
Intellectual rationalism’s and mental gymnastics will not substitute for the reality of Israel and our immediate neighbors. You do not serve the cause of Israel by entertaining even the possibility of an equitable accommodation with the Arabs.
Israel needs more territory under her sovereignty not less, today more than anytime in the past.
Israeli military doctrine until recently was to fight our wars on the enemies territory. Today our front lines are Haifa Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Beersheba. It’s madness to even consider contracting our borders even more than they are today.
An obvious truism unless you are Israel. In the real world winners win and losers lose. Israel has turned this postulate on it’s head.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but negotiations within the context of Western thought does seek to be based on equal respect for one’s adversary and their interests.
The issue in dispute however, that is put on the table to resolve, in almost all instances is approached with due recognition of the relative strength of the other side and their respective positions.
The weakness of an advocate undermines the strength of their position, just as the strength of an advocate can overcome the weakness of their position.
Negotiations between adversaries, regardless of the fundamental philosophy that perpetuates the illusion of mutual respect between adversaries, thus rarely is actually between equals.