By Jeff Jacoby, The Boston Globe
“WHAT HAPPENED,” asks Michael Oren, “to Israel’s reputation?” (Jacoby has the answer. I have always promoted the notion that so long as we wear the mantle of occupiers, we will never win the PR battles.)
[..]
The real answer is that Israel’s global standing has been debased not despite the “peace process,” but because of it.
For 19 years Israel has clung to a policy of appeasement that has made it seem weak and irresolute — a policy that successive Israeli governments have justified by denigrating Jewish rights to the land, while playing up the Palestinian narrative. Ehud Barak infamously said in 1998 that if he had been a Palestinian, he might have joined a terrorist group, and that “there is legitimacy for a Palestinian to fight.” Were an American presidential hopeful to suggest that under other circumstances he could see himself becoming an al-Qaeda terrorist, his White House ambitions would instantly implode. But Barak’s remarks didn’t prevent him from becoming prime minister.
With its embrace of the peace process, “Israel stopped defending its own claim to the West Bank and Gaza and instead increasingly endorsed the Palestinian claim,” Israeli journalist Evelyn Gordon has written. “And with no competing narrative to challenge it any longer, the view of Israel as a thief, with all its attendant consequences, has gained unprecedented traction.”
Britain’s Neville Chamberlain abandoned his appeasement strategy once it became clear that Adolf Hitler had no intention of making peace. But Israel has gone on making concession after concession to those who seek its destruction, clinging against all logic to the fantasy of a “two-state solution.” Once, it was agreed by Israeli governments left and right that a Palestinian state would be intolerable; that there could be no negotiating with the PLO; that diluting Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem would be unthinkable.
Yet in its desperate quest for peace, Israel backed away from each of those red lines. With each retreat, it lost respect. And all the while it reinforced a false and terrible message: Peace would be possible if only Israel were willing to give up more. The absence of peace, therefore, must be Israel’s fault.
The 19-year disaster of the peace process — that is what happened to Israel’s reputation. How can the Jewish state get its good name back? Step 1 is to jettison the policy that has caused it such harm.
@ L. Mansfield: You and your interlocutor left out the badges, or special clothing required by Muslims to be worn by the Jews. See Bostom, The Legacy of Islamic Anti-semitism.
The peace process, according to the reports of Major General Ion Pacepa, claimed to be based on his personal knowledge, is a charade. According to Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, Breznev told Arafat to PRETEND to renounce violence, and to PRETEND to seek peace. He told Pacepa that Jimmy Carter could be fooled. He was right. Rabin too. Ceaucescu, who was Pacepa’s direct boss, warned Arafat that he would have to pretend over and over again. When Arafat appeared to reject Breznev’s advice, Breznev persuaded him by telling him that if he did so, the West would shower him with gold and glory. It did. Six billion in his Swiss accounts, and the Nobel Peace Prize.
@ yamit82:
MEMORIES ARE MADE OF THIS?
The main question begging to be asked– Will the economy careen southward like Yamit headed for a sailor’s open fly.
Ayn Reagan- February 10, 2009
@ L. Mansfield:
You just gave yourself away, idiot.
@ rongrand:
Before you get too smart, know your place on this site—–
@ rongrand:
ayn reagan says:
January 14, 2010 at 4:10 am
ayn reagan says:
January 14, 2010 at 4:30 am
Hymie = Sybil?
@ L. Mansfield:
Take a hike mansfield, we got your number. Your a flake and a phony. Same flake with a different handle.
Now I asked you to kindly abstain from playing the blame game and you come up with,do I sense “hymie”? Is that some sort of antisemitic epithet, a la Jesse Jackson?.
Be careful!!!
@ L. Mansfield:
Okay (do I sense hymie here?)let’s begin with Israel continuing to build communities throughout the Holy Land reclaiming their land. Do you think world opinion will stop them? World opinion has yet to come to the aid of Israel for any matter.
I don’t know of any nation who would engage Israel to prevent this.
Now for the “Forget G-d” you can, your choice, He did give us a free will to choose.
Uncle Nahum, do I sense hymie?
@ rongrand:
Rongrand: This is a conflict between 2 opposing camps. Instead of useless finger pointing and playing the blame game, please come up with some constructive ideas to overcome this impasse. Forget G-d , and biblical mumbo jumbo, that only complicates matters and gets us NOWHERE.
@ L. Mansfield:
For all sense and purpose the two state solution is meaningless.
First of all the Pals don’t want a state, is so they in essence would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish State and live peacefully with it’s neighbor, that in itself is not an objective. They want to destroy the Jews and take over Israel (that ain’t happening you can thank G-d for that).
Hamas and the Muslim world would not allow the Palestinians to accept statehood, it’s not in their best interest.
Remember the Palestinians are no more than an anti-Semite tool used against the Jews.
Think about it, G-d led His people back to the Holy Land, G-d was with them in the various battles defending the Holy Land, their land and if your a betting person should the Islam world would attempt to engage with Israel, bet on the side of G-d.
L. Mansfield, there is no feasible alternative to the unfeasible 2 state soltuion.
Implicit in my point is that by pushing an alternate unfeasible solution that gave primacy to Israel’s rights, needs, wants and best interests, could shift mainstream Jewish organization and Western thinking towards supporting and accepting such change, even to a lesser extent. With that it offers a chance that does not now exist, to effect change in realpolitik thinking and enable an unfeasible alternate peace solution to have a chance of becoming feasible.
@ Bill Narvey:
You might suggest that a two state solution is dead in the water-and you might repeat it again and again and again- HOWEVER- without a feasible alternative, the 2 state sol is very much alive.
No amount of anti-2 state solution talk has a chance of making a difference to the thinking of realpolitik, unless and until Israel herself joins that talk, is steadfast in declaring the 2 state solution dead and unequivocally asserts her rights in that regard.
@ Wallace Brand:
I agree a majority of Americans are grateful to have Israel on our side.
Unfortunately at times our administration whomever don’t always reflect the will and opinions of the majority of Americans. Election is the time to clean house.
First of all Israel is our only true friend and trusted ally in the ME.
The US has to start treating Israel as a partner and not as a step child.
We need not be in competition but rather team players, that’s what friends are for.
As my friend Yamit says, the leadership needs mending.
First and foremost they need to avoid progressive secularism and continue to take control of all of the Holy Land and not worry about world opinion. Notice how world opinion comes to their aid when Hamas is sending rockets into Israel. The silence is deafening.
@ terence:There are many in America who are grateful to have Israel on its side. A majority of Americans favor Israelis over the Arabs and almost all the Federal Legislators except Ron Paul, James Moran, and formerly Dennis Kucinich — possibly a few others..
@ Linda Rivera: I totally agree with your last statement.
Netanyahu in turn is not different than Sharon or Barak. He was with Sharon and is with Barak. His main carriers are Weinstein, Meridor, Peres and youn’ Begin. All the later cloned if not part of the Oslo gangs. The only and very slight difference from them, is that Netanyahu is a trained speechster and stage trained operator.
Unless if we as a people march in mass and sever the tape worm out, THEY will destroy, “disengage” if you wish, from Y & S exactly if not more more violently as they did from Gush Katif, Amona, etc.
terence Said:
…and you must be the resident clown, i presume?…
Israel keeps to Oslo because of the Oslo Syndrome as described by Dr Kenneth Levin in his book “The Oslo Syndrome – Delusions of a People Under Siege” to which the oligarchic Israeli Intellectual Elites – the “German Jewish Intellectuals” are enthralled as further described by Yoram Hazoni in his book “The Struggle for Israel’s Soul”. Read both books to understand the pernicious effects of the so-called Post-Zionist movement.
@ Linda Rivera:
Israel is so grateful that America is on Israel’s side, it would do anything to suck up to the almighty master.
For the people who believe in creationism, the Palestinian people is a creation of the UN out of nothing. It is a potpourri of Arabs (mainly Muslims) in transition from place to another place caught at the wrong place at the wrong time. When they realized that the Jews will develop the country they saw an opportunity to graft themselves to the Jews.
Barak is an EVIL man. He is a TRAITOR not just to Jews, but to every non-Muslim on earth.
Netanyahu is a gifted and eloquent speaker. He could tell the TRUTH that all of Israel – Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Jerusalem belongs to Jews and present the facts to back that up! But he REFUSES to do so. How extremely wicked.
NOT ONE INCH OF LAND TO THE ENEMY!
The UN General Assembly has recognized the inalienable rights of the “Palestinians” to the West Bank. See: UNGA Resolution 3236. “United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236, adopted by the 29th Session of the General Assembly on November 22, 1974 recognizes the Palestinian people’s right to self determination, officializes United Nations contact with the Palestine Liberation Organization and added the “Question of Palestine” to the U.N. Agenda.”
That resolution raised several questions. 1. Is there a real “Palestinian People” or are they “invented’? 2. Even if there were a real Palestinian People, when did they acquire their passion for self determination.? 3. Even if both of those can be answered in the affirmative, where did they get their “inalienable rights to self government?
I have answered some of these questions. I have found, by a credible witness, Major General Ion Mihai Pacepa, that the first PLO charter was drafted in Moscow when the Soviets were in the business of creating liberation organizations. It was in the preamble to that Charter that we first find a first reference to “The Palestinian Arab People” It is mentioned three times, as if to meet the Humpty Dumpty standard of Alice in Wonderland, “What I tell you three times is true? In the preamble to that Charter also is the first reference to the quest of these people for political self determination. Brand, Soviet Russia, the Creator of the PLO and the Palestinian People, Brand, Was There a Palestinian National Movement at the End of the Ottoman Period? There is no credible corroboration of the facts in the preamble of that charter. It was affirmed only by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council created contemporaneously, each hand picked by the KGB.
So the question arises, where is the source of their political or national rights to selfgovernment? I can’t find any. Prior to the end of the Ottoman Period, they had been ruled by the Ottoman Caliphiate for 400 years, from Constantinople. After World War I. from 1918 to 1948, they were ruled by the British from London who was the Mandatory Power selected by the WWI Allies. From 1948 to 1967 they were ruled by the Jordanians from Amman. From where did these magical inalienable rights come from. From under the shell of a walnut in a shell game? Certainly not from the UN General Assembly’s recommendation for Partitition in 1948. First the UN General Assembly can only recommend. The Partition Plan was a recommendation, not a grant. It was made in the hopes of stopping Arab violence. Article 80 of the PLO Charter had preserved the exclusive political rights granted by the WWI Allies and the League of Nations. If the Jews agreed to the plan, it signified that they were willing to give up some of their grant in exchange for peace. They did agree to the plan but the Arabs did not. Therefore the recommendation remained a recommendation — it did not magically turn into a grant. The UN has no power to grant political rights, and clearly the General Assembly can only make recommendations.
It would be nice if Israel could persuade the UN to revoke its Resolution 3236 just as it revoked the Durban Resolution. But it is not essential as it clearly is ineffective.
If there was no sovereign over the West Bank, then Israel has another source of sovereignty. Historically, when a government asserted its independence in an area that had no sovereign, and held it against the attack by others with its own blood and treasure, it became recognized as a sovereign. That is just exactly what happened in 1948 before the creation of the UN and in 1967 it won sovereignty over the West Bank in a defensive war so as to be in compliance with the UN Charter that prohibits acquisition of territory in an aggressive war. These facts also support Israel’s sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. Finally, Israel’s sovereignty is supported by the Joint Resolution of the US Congress in 1922 approving the Balfour Declaration and the award at San Remo based on it. It is supported by the Anglo-American Convention that was ratified by the US and the UK that makes dignifies it with the status of Treaty Law. And finally, under Canon Law, Israel’s sovereignty over Palestine is recorded in the Old Testament. The Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims all recognize the authority of the Old Testament.
The “rubber bullet” warriors have badly harmed our credibility. Or should I say also the “paint ball” commandos? Or the boulder bombing aircraft pilot?
The doctrine, (conceptziah in the local jargon), molded by the peace peddler industry has made it easy for the enemy to cut us to pieces.
Lets remind ourselves that the same fellowship also imported and armed the enemy and made them their “partners”.
No amount of wordmanship can change that. Correspondingly the answer is a new government system and freely elected representatives.
Israel has tried the ethical path. The other side has no ethics.
If you repeat time after time the same experiment and your experiment fails each time, something is wrong with you.
Israel should stop sticking to the 2 states aberration. It is an attempt by the West and Muslim to submit the Jews to their will.
Enough is enough! Don’t we get IT!
I think Israel has appeared desparate and lacking in values whe they repeatedly say there are no preconditions. We say that Jerusalem is our heart and then offer to divide Jerusalem. Netanyahu needs to say, we will not come back to the table until the PA starts to prepare their population for peace. That means talking about Israel in a positive way,showing the state on maps, and stopping all of the idolization of jihad. Until the PA takes those steps there is nothing to talk about.
One wonders what makes the Government of Israel keep on clinging to the notion of a Two State Solution, and negotiations that lead nowhere, but down the path of failure.
It was hoped that Benzion Netanyahu’s example would shed asome light, and a change of heart on Bibi’s obstinate stand for the fallacy of the 2 State Solution.
One also wonders on what basis is Bibi willing to give away, any part of Judea and Samaria, which rightfully, and legallhy,and historically belongs to the Jewish People?
Is Gaza not enough to set an example of what can be expected by more concessions?
How much clearer can the PA leaders make their goals, which is nothing less, than the destruction of Israel.
Time to wake up! Given the strength of the Coalition, nothing should stand in the way of the present government to act courageously, and assert the Legal Rights to the Land.