Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: impossible peace

Showing posts with label impossible peace. Show all posts

Monday, December 10, 2012

Israel drafts "puppies are cute" UN resolution. Arabs oppose it.

Israel drafted a General Assembly resolution to promote entrepreneurship.

While it did pass overwhelmingly, 129-31, the Arab countries voted as a bloc against it.

Only because it was submitted by Israel.

The reasons the Arabs gave for opposing it were quite funny:

RABEE JAWHARA ( Syria), making a general statement, said Israel was attempting to monopolize the Second Committee’s work by submitting draft resolutions that portrayed it as a peaceful State seeking to work within the United Nations. However, such drafts did not camouflage Israel’s human rights violations and occupation, he stressed, pointing out that, even as it submitted the text, Israel restricted any chance of entrepreneurship in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and the occupied Syrian Golan. It was guilty of several examples of policies that restricted business and economic growth in Palestine and the occupied Syrian Golan, and had continuously failed to comply with United Nations resolutions. He urged Committee members to vote against the draft so as to send a signal that Israeli must end the occupation.

AMER HIAL AL-HAJRI (Oman), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, noted that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had shown that Israel’s occupation continued to undermine the rights of Palestinians, particularly their ability to engage in entrepreneurship. The Arab Group had proposed changes to ensure balance in the text, but had been unable to achieve that, he said. As such, it was obliged to vote against the draft resolution.

MOHAMED KHALIL HUSSEIN (Egypt) also said the text lacked balance, particularly given its focus on national policies for entrepreneurship, and did not take into account the need to create an internationally conducive climate and to establish support in that regard. A multilateral, transparent and open regime was needed, with no barriers in the way of developing countries. Finance, the transfer of technology and capacity-building must also be included, he said.

The draft resolution also failed to take into account the conclusions of the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) report on the condition of the Palestinian people, he continued. It showed that Israel’s occupation and blockade undermined opportunities for marketing and drained natural resources, meaning that the area lacked necessary land for production. That discouraged private investment and increased risks and production costs.

He said his delegation had tried to address the imbalances mentioned by taking part in discussions, but agreement on implementation had proven impossible because developed countries had changed their position at the last minute. The co-sponsors had ignored the UNCTAD reports, but Egypt was unable to ignore them, especially since the draft sought to promote entrepreneurship internationally, he said. As such, Egypt would vote against the draft.

The fact that the Arabs would vote against it was never in doubt. Their only disagreements were what reason to give for the record.

Ron Prosor gave a zinger to those opposed to the resolution:

RON PROSOR ( Israel) said entrepreneurship offered developing communities the best hope for breaking the cycle of poverty. The actions of entrepreneurs had a ripple effect, unlocking minds and inspiring others to pursue their dreams. By adopting the draft resolution, the Committee was sending a clear and simple message that entrepreneurship was a primary pathway to sustainable economic growth.

He went on to say that while he had hoped for consensus, the Arab Group had been committed to voting against it even before negotiations had ended. Recalling that people in the Arab world had risen against their Governments precisely because they wanted better conditions, he said that by failing to respond, Arab Governments had “turned their backs on their own people” and sent a clear message that they cared far more about “petty politics than human prosperity”. Israel’s achievements were the result of close collaboration between business and Government, he said, adding that stability required people’s empowerment.

(While there is no written record of what changes the Arabs wanted to make to the resolution to make it more "balanced," almost certainly they wanted to hijack it and turn it into an resolution bashing Israel.)

(h/t Margie)

The world really needs to understand the Arab mentality

Here is an unremarkable article in Assabeel, a Jordanian newspaper. Well, it is unremarkable for Arab media. Westerners who believe that Arabs think just like them might be a little surprised.

The author, Akram Alsoir, says that when he saw footage of Jews scrambling for shelter from Qassam rockets, he held his head high.

Granted, he says, that Jews are cowards. Not just cowards, but the most cowardly of all cowards. This assumption was proven when he saw the footage of Jews running to avoid being hit by rockets - the Jews aren't so powerful as Arabs thought!

Not only that, but in this author's (and most Arabs') mind, Israel's agreeing to a ceasefire is even more evidence of its cowardly nature. Israel, by agreeing to a truce with Hamas, increased Hamas' prestige to be equivalent to Israel, which is a huge defeat for Israel.

Alsoir wonders - if Hamas could force the cowardly Jews to accept a cease fire (i.e., surrender,) imagine what would happen if all the Arab countries shot rockets at Israel! The detested Jews would surrender even more quickly! Why didn't they join in?

The concept that Israel only wanted the rockets to stop is completely foreign to Arabs. Since they live in an honor/shame society, everything is seen through the lens of honor. To have an opportunity at vanquishing the enemy and to choose a truce instead is not considered praiseworthy - but contemptible, and evidence of cowardice.

It always comes down to the difference between the Arab "honor/shame" culture and the Western "guilt" culture. The consequences of the honor/shame mentality are huge, for example, by treating women and minorities as inferior in order to boost the fragile ego of the Arab male.

Israel's existence is an affront to the Arab honor/shame mentality, because it is a constant reminder of Arab defeat. No amount of compromise will ever change that. Until Jews are reverted to their proper place as second-class dhimmis paying tribute to their Arab masters, the Arab world will not accept Israel.

Every single move Israel does that is remotely conciliatory, or peaceful, or that shows any attribute that is not naked macho aggression, is not greeted with praise but with derision.

As a result, every time Israel shows restraint, it feeds Arab hopes that the Jews can be defeated - and it encourages them to continue to provoke the Jews and prove their weakness anew.

The irony, of course, is that if Israel felt weaker, it would react with much less restraint. Israel's willingness to take chances for peace is a direct consequence of its security and strength, not of weakness. If Israel felt it was up against a wall, it would not be negotiating a truce with anyone!

The West insists that Israel must act according to Western standards of morality. But the West must realize that in the Middle East, those actions will not be reciprocated - they will be derided.

While real peace is impossible, the only chance for a long-term detente is by maintaining a posture of strength that the Arabs can understand. Unless Arab culture is changed from top to bottom, Israel will always be caught in the middle between the nebulous consequences of acting like Europe insists or the longer-term benefits of acting like the Arabs would if the positions were reversed.

Why peace is impossible, reason #4821

Al Watan Voice quotes a Sheikh Hussein Qassem, an apparent religious leader among Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon.

He says that the UN vote is a step on the way for Arabs to reclaim the Negev, Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, Nazareth and Safed and all Galilee.

That's not enough of a reason to say that peace is impossible, though.

But Qassem brings up something else that is undoubtedly a widespread belief, one that does make peace literally and totally inconceivable.

The sheikh said:

We in the House of Palestine Scholars stress the legitimate principles for the liberation of all of Palestine from the sea to the river, from north to south, and we will not give up a grain of sand; all Muslims and Arabs will help us and stand by our side through jihad and resistance to liberate our land from the clutches of this usurper entity and this is their duty - because Palestine is not the property of the Palestinians only and not the property of the Arabs, but belongs to the Islamic nation, Allah bequeaths the earth and hence the Arab and Islamic support for our cause all have the power to return it to its owners...

Even if the Palestinian Arabs decided that they are willing to compromise for peace tomorrow, the larger Islamic world will never accept anything less than every inch of Israel that they believe is their God-given right. They would brand the Palestinian Arabs as traitors and start the next stage in their never ending quest to destroy Israel, by every possible means at their disposal - military, demographic, political, lawfare, public relations, using useful Leftist idiots - everything.

Can anyone say, with a straight face, that this wouldn't happen?

(h/t Lachlan)

Islamic Jihad brags that it can veto any peace agreement

Islamic Jihad is now celebrating its 25th anniversary in Gaza, with parades and other public events to publicize its commitment to destroying Israel. The celebrations are done with the full permission of Hamas, which even featured them on its website.

(According to the photo's EXIF information, that last picture may have been taken in 2009, and Islamic Jihad wanted to make the parade look more impressive.)

In an interview with Islamic Jihad media, the leader of the movement, Sheikh Ibrahim al-Najjar, "Abu Hazim," bragged that Islamic Jihad has not budged one iota from its founding principles of destroying Israel and replacing it with an Islamist state.

Najjar said that this year's anniversary festival was a "referendum of resistance," meaning that it is proof that Palestinian Arabs still embrace terror as their means of destroying Israel.

He also bragged:

Praise be to God, the al-Quds Brigades of military force [of Islamic Jihad] is powerful enough to dictate its will to invalidate any agreement that does not do justice to the Palestinians and did not give them them the right to return to their entire land.

People who still cling to the idea of the sacred "peace process" never really discuss Islamic Jihad and how it has effective veto power even in the unlikely event that Palestinian Arab leadership can accept a reasonable compromise with Israel.

In the wisdom of Oslo, it is better to leave all the impossible issues for the end of the "process."

Why peace is impossible, reason #6350

Two articles in the mainstream Arabic press about yesterday's "Nakba Day" prove that as long as Israel exists in any form, Arabs will not accept it. No matter what.

The first comes from the popular pan-Arab Al Quds al Arabi site. The title is all you need to know: "The 64-Year Occupation of Palestine." If the "occupation" is 64 years old, that means that even if Israel accedes to all the current PLO demands, there will still not be peace.

The second comes from Jordan's Addastour site, which is titled "Palestine Nakba is a dagger in the side of the Arab nation." It goes through a ridiculous history lesson (did you know that one reason Arabs fled Palestine is because the Jews stole their water?) but the main point is that Israel is a dagger that must be removed for the Arab people to be healed.

This is a critical point that Westerners cannot quite grasp. The conflict is not solvable. The Arab masses, brought up on generations of hate, are not going to accept Israel peacefully. The best anyone can hope for is a series of tactical truces and long term management of the conflict. And it is Israeli strength, not Israeli concessions, that is a prerequisite to having the Arab nations (including the PLO) grudgingly accept that Israel cannot be defeated and learn to deal with it.

Why peace is impossible, reason #3951 (plus proof ME "experts" are anything but)

Excerpts from The Forward's article about their interview with Hamas' Abu Marzouk:

Any agreement reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will be subject to far-reaching changes if Hamas comes to power in a democratic Palestinian state, a top Hamas leader told the Forward in an exclusive and wide-ranging interview.

Mousa Abu Marzook, considered Hamas’s second-highest-ranking official, said that his group would view an agreement between Israel and the P.A. — even one ratified by a referendum of all Palestinians — as a hudna, or cease-fire, rather than as a peace treaty. In power, he said, Hamas would feel free to shift away from those provisions of the agreement that define it as a peace treaty and move instead toward a relationship of armed truce.

“We will not recognize Israel as a state,” he said emphatically. “It will be like the relationship between Lebanon and Israel or Syria and Israel.”

He also made clear that such an agreement must include the unqualified right of Palestinians to return to land in what is now Israel.

Abu Marzook was at pains to knock down suggestions in numerous media outlets that Hamas is preparing to abandon armed resistance against Israel in favor of mass popular resistance against Israeli rule.

A February 6 article by Time magazine correspondent Karl Vick about the “mainstreaming” of Hamas was one object of his disdain. In it, Vick played up comments by Meshal, who, at a November reconciliation meeting with Fatah leaders, praised the popular protests of the Arab Spring last year in Egypt and Tunisia as packing “the power of a tsunami.”

“The new government emerging in Cairo may be dominated by Islamists,” Vick wrote hopefully, “but it has pushed both sides to make up and adopt the nonviolent strategy against Israel, complete with negotiations.”

For Abu Marzook, the November meeting in Cairo meant something “completely different.” At the meeting, he said, the groups involved asked, “What kind of [activities] between us we can share together?” And mass civil resistance, it was decided, was one in which all could participate.

“We accept that,” he said. “[It] can now make reconciliation easier.” But giving up both the right and the opportunity to conduct military operations? “It doesn’t mean that,” Abu Marzook stated flatly.

Indeed, a careful look at the original Agence France Presse report from which Vick drew Meshal’s comments reveals some important remarks the Time correspondent left out. “Now we have a common ground that we can work on,” Meshal said then. But he added, “As long as there is an occupation on our land, we have the right to defend our land by all means, including military resistance.”

In a long exchange about terrorism, the Hamas leader resolutely defended his organization’s past acts of violence targeting civilians.

As for the Protocols, “The Zionists wrote it, and they said, ‘No, we didn’t.‘ [It’s] linked to Zionists,” he said.

Informed that the document was, in fact, a forgery, Abu Marzook appeared nonplussed. “Really? This is the first time I know [about this],” he said.

So any peace agreement that Israel might manage to hammer out with the PA would be torn up after any elections that bring Hamas to power - like the last ones. Making any already illusory potential agreement meaningless.

Astonishingly, the Forward takes pains to quote "experts" throughout the article who see these very words by a Hamas leader and try to spin them as if they are peaceful, the exact way that Karl Vick did and Marzouk proved wrong:

Quite apart from the content of Abu Marzook’s remarks, several veteran observers of the hard-line Islamist group viewed the fact that the interview took place as a larger signal of change now roiling the organization.

“I think the mere fact of his speaking to you, independent of what he said, is almost more important than the specifics,” said Shlomi Eldar, who has reported on Hamas from Gaza for Israel TV’s Channel 10 and other media outlets since 1991. “Even granting such an interview is far away from what he thought two or three years ago…. What [Abu Marzook] really wants is for Jewish Americans to convince the Israelis that Hamas is not like an animal.”

Gershon Baskin, an Israeli peace activist who has acted as a liaison between Hamas and senior Israeli government officials, including in the process that finally freed Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, termed the interview an “historic landmark.”

“The amount of time he gave you is amazing,” Baskin said.

Why is this fundamentally different than Hamas writing op-eds for the New York Times, something they have done a number of times? All it means is that they are learning how to spin the media better - and how to spin these "experts"who substitute wishful thinking for actually listening to what is being said, explicitly. The idea that people can find the fact that an interview occurred to be more relevant than the actual words spoken is stunning. And it shows that Hamas' new-found media savviness works to its advantage, because so many will disregard their hardline positions and instead find some fake symbolic peacefulness. Hamas doesn't even have to lie to get Westerners to fall all over themselves to praise the murderous thugs; they just have to act vaguely Western.

One other "expert" is also shown to be clueless about Hamas:

At some points, Abu Marzook seemed to claim that the Hamas leaders who publicly celebrated such killings — who have included Meshal himself — were not speaking for the organization, or that Hamas had not itself directed and planned the actions or, at least, had not planned them as civilian hits.

“There’s no one speaker [within] the resistance,” he said. “Everybody talks about their actions, and you can make what you want of those speakers. They make it as [if this is] the policy of the resistance. And this is not right. Our policy is… against targeting any civilian.”

On those occasions when civilians die in such actions, “there is no planning” for this, he claimed, “because it’s very difficult to make something like this to be perfect…. When you killed his brother or his [fellow Palestinian] civilians, he wants to retaliate. It’s very difficult to say anything bad to him.”

Mouin Rabbani, a Jordan-based Middle East contributing editor to Middle East Report who follows Hamas closely, expressed surprise at such distancing remarks.
“I’m surprised he didn’t repeat their traditional justifications,” he said.

In the past, Rabbani said, Hamas had expressed interest in reaching an understanding with Israel whereby each side would undertake to avoid hitting civilians or civilian infrastructure targets. “In the past, among other arguments, they’ve justified their actions by claiming every Israeli is a soldier. It’s very uncommon for them to basically disavow these actions.”

No, it's not. During Cast Lead they claimed that they were not targeting civilians with their rockets, and their response to the Goldstone Report said the same. I have traced the first time Hamas made the claim that they don't target children back to 2008 and I explain exactly what prompted them to make that claim.

Besides proving that peace is impossible, this Forward article also proves that many so-called experts on the Middle East are clueless about basic facts.

Why peace is impossible, reason #9243 (updated)

Ma'an reports:

Organizations supporting Palestinian refugees in Lebanon are calling on the Arab League to include refugee rights in the agenda of Thursday's Arab League summit.

The petition to Secretary-General of the Arab League Nabil al-Arabi and other heads of state warns "the area will not have peace and quiet unless the Palestinian refugees’ right of return is implemented."

It is signed by 111 non governmental organizations supporting Palestinians in Lebanon.

"This issue threatens seven million Palestinian refugees and their right to go back to their homes from which they were uprooted forcefully in 1948," says a copy of the communique seen by Ma'an.

"It also has risks for Arab countries hosting Palestinian refugee populations due to immigration and residency issues," it continues.

The communication stresses that no Arab or Palestinian negotiator has the right to negotiate away refugees’ right of return.

These NGOs, many of which are probably no more than a post office box but some of whom probably include organizations like Norwegian People's Aid and Badil, are telling the world that there will be no peace without "return". They know that "return" means no more Israel, so they are really saying there will be no peace as long as Israel continues to exist.

To underscore the point that these NGOs are more interested in destroying Israel than in helping Palestinian Arabs, they explicitly say that they are against naturalization of Palestinian Arabs in their host countries. Anyone who cares about Palestinian Arabs would hold the opposite position and would do everything they could to ensure that Palestinians who desire to become citizens have that right. Their refusal to do so reveals their ugly goal.

Beyond that, they say that even if the issue is solved in peace negotiations between Israel and her Arab neighbors, they will never accept anything less than the total destruction of Israel.

So as J-Street issues speech after speech in Washington today about how much they want peace, perhaps they should tackle the issue of how peace is possible with people who say as explicitly as they can that there will never be peace while a Jewish state exists in the Middle East.

UPDATE: Commenter L. King adds:

Every often I like to see how a story would be reported if it spun like the media spins stories on Israel:

LEBANESE NGOS VOTE TO EXPEL PALESTINIAN REFUGEES

Proving that Lebanon is a racist apartheid state, representatives of over 100 NGO groups agreed that Palestinians were unfit to live anywhere in their country. Taking issue with the possibility of even residency in Lebanon, let alone immigration, spokemen noted that ethnic Palestinians posed "risks for Arab countries" and should they remain no peace would be possible.

The only possibility for hope would be if the model of a democratic and free Israel were followed, noting that Israel was a pluralistic society that had integrated a diverse population, including Jews and Arabs.

"No Palestinian or Arab has the right to negotiate" indicating the rigidly enforced group think of the Ummah, where individual rights and freedoms are regularly curtailed.

Why peace is impossible, reason #7934

From a new Palestine Center of Public Opinion poll via IMRA (not yet on their website):

In regard to the question: “Do you think that Palestinians – in exchange for having their own independent state and concluding a peace deal with Israel – should give up their insistence about the Right of Return, which Israel will never accept, or not ?”, the striking majority of (89.8%) answered:”No, they shouldn’t do that even if no peace deal would be concluded”, whilst only (6.8%) said “Yes, Palestinians should do that”, and (3.4%) said “ I don’t know”.

And responding to the question: “In case the Palestinian leadership would waive the Right of Return and accept in exchange for that the monetary compensation, would you accept that too, or refuse it ?”, (89.5%) said “I would refuse that”, whilst only (7.3%) said “I would accept that” and (3.2%) said “I don’t know”.

There you have it. Even if Israel would give up every square centimeter gained in 1967, the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs - brainwashed by years of propaganda that told them that they, uniquely in history, have the "right" to "return" to land that their ancestors fled - would not accept peace.

So no matter what Israel does, it will never be enough. Never.

Why peace is impossible, reason #2671

A most interesting piece in Dissent magazine by Michael Walzer:

In a “solidarity” march for an independent Palestinian state earlier in July, roughly 90 percent of the marchers were Israeli Jews, but all the flags were Palestinian. Israeli flags were banned at the insistence of the Palestinians, who said that they wouldn’t join the march unless their flags were the only ones carried. In the event, not many of them joined anyway. The Israelis agreed to the ban (though many of my friends were unhappy about it), arguing that their flag had become the symbol of occupation and oppression. But that was only true because the settlers and their far-right supporters always march with the flag, while the Left has given it up. And that may help explain why leftist demonstrations and marches are so small these days.

There are many reasons, of course, for the current weakness of the Left. But its militants might begin to overcome their weakness if they were seen by their fellow citizens to be insisting, with a strong (rather than a bleeding) heart, that solidarity has to be a two-way street. They should say to the Palestinians: we will march with your flag only if you march with ours. And they should say to all Israel: our program, two states for two peoples, offers the best hope of securing the national sovereignty that this flag, which we carry proudly, is supposed to represent.

This is a picture-perfect example of hope running roughshod over reality.

Let's say you are walking down a city street and see someone wearing this pin:

What are the chances that he or she is Palestinian Arab?

The answer - as everyone knows, even Mr. Walzer - is zero. The market for these pins ends at the Green Line.

Let's pretend that the Left actually insists that Palestinian Arabs march with the Israeli flag, that if they really want co-existence they must show it in a tangible way. How would the other side react?

They would flat-out refuse. They would insist that the Israeli flag represents apartheid, and genocide, and ethnic cleansing. Their faces would blanch at the thought of it. They would tell the leftists - sorry, but even if it means we lose your support, we will never hold an Israeli flag unless it is to burn it.

As has been pointed out before, there is no equivalent to the Israeli and Western leftist/peace movement among Palestinian Arabs. There is no voice - at least none that can be seen in the Arabic media - demanding that Mahmoud Abbas make "painful compromises" for peace, no peace rallies, no op-eds demanding a resumption of negotiations. Is there a single Palestinian Arab dissident, willing to go to prison, for demanding Abbas give up anything for peace?

This article inadvertently proves that real peace is impossible. And pretending that it will happen if Israel does X, Y and Z is pure wishful thinking.

(Other posts on why peace is impossible: Here, here, here, here..)

(h/t Zach N)

Why peace is, literally, impossible. (NewsRealBlog)

My latest piece on NewsRealBlog:

The events of “Naqba Day” are just one, very small proof that real peace is impossible.

Not “difficult.” Not “painful.” Truly, 100% impossible.

What were the thousands of protesters from Syria, Lebanon and Gaza demanding? Their demands are simple: the “right to return.” They want Israel to allow millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent to flood the country and turn it into another Arab state.

This demand has been absolute and unyielding for 63 years. Never has any Arab leader publicly renounced this demand. Never have the Palestinian Arabs accepted any compromise on the matter. Today, right now, the PLO demands this so-called” right” in unambiguous terms.

There is no need here to mention that there is no such right enshrined in international law, or how easy it is to prove that Arab leaders have used this “demand” as a smokescreen to their real desire to destroy Israel, or the hypocrisy of Palestinian Arab leaders, today, who do not want even those who used to live on land they now control to “return.” All those points are true and can be proven at another time.

The point here is that this demand is completely at odds with Israel’s continued existence. One cannot have it both ways: either the Arabs come and destroy Israel, or Israel is allowed to exist and they never "return." There is no possible compromise.

If Israel would allow, say, 200,000 Arabs to immigrate to the country, it would not pacify the rest of them, and the demand in the rest of the Arab world would not subside. On the contrary, it would intensify.

For 63 years, the Arab world has held its Palestinian brethren hostage to the idea that they would one day “return.” It has been their ace in the hole–they have purposefully kept millions of people in stateless misery just to score political pressure against Israel. Even with Hamas controlling Gaza, not a finger has been lifted to dismantle the “refugee” camps there. The entire “refugee” issue is kept alive artificially by a combination of Arab scheming, UN condonation and Western fear to tell the truth to the millions of people who are being treated cruelly by those who pretend to champion their cause.

In the framework of Arab-Israeli peace, there is no solution to the problem.

The West has assumed for decades that the solution will ultimately take the form of partial Israeli acquiescence, monetary compensation, and Arab nations stepping up to naturalize most of their Palestinian Arab prisoners. The only problem is that there has been zero indication that any of that would be accepted by the Arab world. On the contrary: when speaking amongst themselves, the issue is framed as something that can never be compromised on.

Even today, the Lebanese political party that is most admired in the West for its part in the Cedar Revolution has reiterated that it will never accept naturalization for the Arabs of Palestinian descent who have lived in Lebanon for generations. If there is anything that unites the Arab world, and which would cause a firestorm of hate if it was challenged by the West, it is the so-called “right of return.” The Arab League “peace plan” that some hopeful Westerners interpreted as being flexible on the topic was not flexible at all, as it invoked UNGA resolution 194 as the basis for solving the problem–and the Arab world has been unanimous in how it interprets that resolution.

The mythical “return” is not compatible with Israel existing as anything other than another Arab-majority state.

Which means that one side wants Israel to be destroyed demographically, as a demand, as long as Palestinian Arabs continue to demand that they “return.” The fake keys you see waved at demonstrations show how generations of brainwashing has made turned that demand non-negotiable.

The West fervently believes that a compromise is not only possible, but necessary–and that it must be imposed if the parties cannot agree. But a unilateral solution is no solution at all, and it would not pacify those that demand return as long as it is not 100%. Which means that a unilateral peace is not peace.

The West also believes that the Arab world acts in a Western way; that if an impartial arbitrator decides on a compromise then both parties would accept it and move on. This is also a dangerous myth–one side will not stop until they win and the other side loses, completely.

There is no solution. The conflict will go on for generations, as long as Israel continues to exist. Compromise on Israel’s part does not strengthen her political posture for more than a few years, but the Arab side is in this game for centuries, if needed. If the West is really, truly committed to the idea that Israel is a just cause and deserves to exist in peace and security, it must realize that this peace will not come about by forcing Israel to do things that will never pacify her enemies.

Right now, Israel exists in relative peace and security. This is because Israel has not been fooled into accepting a comprehensive solution that it knows does not exist. Instead of solving the conflict, Israel is managing the conflict. This has been not only successful for Israel but also for the Arab groups that have cooperated–willingly or not.

Because Israel has engaged in conflict management rather than conflict resolution, the West Bank Arabs are more prosperous–and have more autonomy–than they have in their history. Even the residents of Gaza reap the benefit of Hamas being forced to limit terror attacks. The Syrian border, up until this week, has been calm, and so has the Lebanese border. Conflict management has created a better peace than anyone can ever hope for with a “comprehensive solution.”

The solution, then, is not a solution in the Western sense of everybody being happy (or equally unhappy) and moving on. The only solution is the perpetual management of the conflict. Sometimes one side will break the unwritten rules and the equilibrium will be knocked out of whack, and sometimes circumstances will change forcing the methods of conflict management to be changed as well. But it is critical for well-meaning Americans and Europeans to understand that, short of one side utterly destroying the other, there will never be a “peace” in the sense that everyone yearns for. In this case, more than ever, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

And pushing a illusory peace will have far worse results than the status quo.

For everyone.

The elephants in the room, 2010 edition

Over the years, I have been publishing ever-expanding lists of the "elephants in the room" that would make it impossible to have a real peace. Here they are, updated with more elephants than ever:

Elephant 1: Hamas controls Gaza

Every peace plan includes Gaza in a Palestinian Arab state, and none of them has any provision on how to handle the fact that Gaza is a terrorist haven, in much worse shape since Israel uprooted the settlements there, controlled by a terrorist group that is consistently and wholeheartedly against Israel's existence. Peace is impossible with this elephant, so it is easier to pretend it isn't there. (See also Elephant 11.)

Elephant 2: Palestinian Arabs elected a terror government

In the only fair, democratic elections in the territories, the Hamas terrorists were chosen by the people. Poll after poll shows that Palestinian Arabs support terror in Israel itself. The elections proved that the conventional wisdom was wrong - and the conventional wisdom proceeded to ignore it.

Elephant 3: The current PA government was not elected

This corollary to Elephant 2 means that the current people negotiating for the Palestinian Arabs do not represent the people. Even if they sound moderate or compromising, they have no mandate. The current PA president is well past his term of office, and the current prime minister was never elected (in fact, he received a tiny percentage of the vote when he did run for election.) Negotiating with the PA is, literally, meaningless.

Similarly, the unelected PLO is the real power behind the PA. The PA officially reports to the PLO, and all negotiations are done by the autocratic, Fatah-dominated PLO, not the PA.
Elephant 4: The current PA government has almost no power - and no respect

Outside of Ramallah, the Fayyad/Abbas government has little popular support and little power. Hamas is a very real threat to the PA in the West Bank and is quietly building its base. The attitudes that forced the PA to abandon Gaza - a lack of passion by people for its positions - could very well play out in the West Bank as well.

Elephant 5: The PA is being kept alive by artificial methods

The PA budget is bloated from "payroll" of non-working workers - but if they would slash the payroll, the people on international welfare would revolt. So the very basis of the organized Palestinian Arab workforce is a fiction being kept barely alive by ever-increasing infusions of cash with no real plan to fix the problem. (The bulk of the PA budget goes to Gaza, and much of that goes to workers being paid not to work.)

Elephant 6: Fatah remains a terrorist group paid by the PA

Despite the recent claims that the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has dismantled, it is a joke meant to appease the wishful-thinkers. There has been no serious move by the PA against terror except for its tit-for-tat arrests of Hamas members in the West Bank, and its moves have been almost wholly cosmetic and aimed for Western consumption rather than real fighting against terror. The Al Aqsa Brigades continues to make statement and claim credit for terror attacks, even in 2010.

Elephant 7: The first - and second - stages of the roadmap were never implemented

The entire point of the road map was to slowly build confidence, starting with the end of terror and incitement on the Palestinian Arab side, afterwards building a "provisional" state and only then going to final-status negotiations. By skipping to Phase III as if the other two phases were already in place, the entire exercise is simply a joke. Incitement remains at full blast and the slight lull in terror is tactical, not a sea-change in Palestinian Arab attitudes.

Even though the US has made statements against Palestinian Arab incitement, it hasn't moved to stop it.

Elephant 8: The PA's goal remains the destruction of Israel

Whether it is by "right of return" or not changing the Fatah charter or by printing map after map showing no Israel, even the most moderate Palestinian leader clings to the idea of destroying Israel, and looks upon a Palestinian Arab state as only one stage in the process. One only needs to look at the maps of "Palestine" in official PA documents and schoolbooks.

Elephant 9: Jerusalem

Most Israelis want a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty. Most Palestinian Arabs refuse to accept anything less than all of Jerusalem as the capital of a Muslim state. The positions are not compatible and a compromise will not reduce the chances for violence - it will increase it.

Elephant 10: What happened to Gaza

Forgetting Hamas for now, the time period between Israel's dismantling settlements in Gaza and the Hamas takeover is instructive as to how Palestinian Arabs take advantage of territory they gain. They didn't build new houses or communities to reduce the "refugee camp" population, no schools or hospitals. They destroyed the greenhouses purchased for them by American Jews; they turned beautiful former settlements into training camps for terror - in other words, Israel's last major concession not only didn't help achieve peace, it ended up encouraging terror. Any claims that something similar wouldn't happen in the West Bank is the triumph of wishful thinking over experience.

Elephant 11: Palestinian Arab "unity"

Related to Elephant #1. No peace plan can work unless Hamas and the PA/Fatah reach some sort of unification agreement. This is not possible in the foreseeable future. Moreover, Hamas is powerful enough that any such agreement must include a hardening of positions that would be completely incompatible with the basic demands for peace - renunciation of terror, recognition of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements.

Elephant 12: The Palestinian Arab "diaspora" and Arab intransigence

Any final peace agreement would mean that Arab countries could no longer justify keeping Palestinian Arabs in "refugee camps" not could they justify their continued refusal to discriminate against Palestinian Arabs from becoming citizens of their countries should they want to stay. The millions of PalArabs in the Middle East becoming citizens would not be accepted by many Arab countries as it would endanger their own tenuous holds on power.

Elephant 13: Economics

Some 16 years after Oslo, the economy in the territories is still close to non-existent and wholly dependent on foreign aid. Not only is there no free market, there is no incentive to build one as the very mentality of Palestinian Arabs and their leaders is one of welfare rather than responsibility. All the plans to create a Palestinian Arab state do not consider Day 2 and how such a state would be able to sustain itself. The expected influx of hundreds of thousands of people from "refugee camps" would make it even worse. It would take at least a generation to turn the poisonous attitude of entitlement around.

Elephant 14: Gaza demographics

Gazans have no room to expand as their numbers continue to grow at among the fastest rates in the world. Theoretically they could move to the West Bank but only a small percentage would. This is another Day 2 powder keg that is being ignored in the interests of a "solution" of a "Palestinian state."

Elephant 15: Palestinian Arab leaders never showed interest in independence

The West assumes that the goal is an independent Palestinian Arab state where Arabs no longer have to live under "occupation." But the actions and words of Palestinian Arab leaders have never borne that goal out; they have not worked towards building the institutions and infrastructure that would be necessary in an independent state. Their insistence on "right of return" and "Jerusalem" as issues that must be resolved before independence betray their thought processes - inconsistent with independence (neither of which require those two issues to be resolved) and consistent with a desire to destroy Israel in stages.

Elephant 16: A unilateral Palestinian Arab state would be militarized

There is no way that a new Palestinian Arab state would remain demilitarized for any length of time. The Palestinian government could invite Syria to position anti-aircraft weapons within its territory; to shoot missiles at El Al planes landing a few miles from the Green Line, or to get a few thousand tanks poised to cut Israel in half.

Iran already effectively controls Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. They would use the nascent state of Palestine to position themselves on the West Bank as well. Just like the PA ran away from Gaza at the first sign of trouble, so would they abandon their state to Iranian proxies and Islamic terrorists.

Their will to defend themselves is not nearly as strong as their will to destroy Israel, a desire that has been inculcated in them for generations. Palestinian Arab nationalism is a fundamentally weak and externally-imposed construct. Iran is poised and anxious to take advantage of the chaos that would follow a unilaterally declared state.

But the West is ready to risk Israel for that elephant as well.

Elephant 17: The so-called "right to return"

The PA is showing no interest in integrating the Palestinian Arabs outside of the territories into their state. On the contrary; the "refugee camps" in PA controlled territory continue to grow, rather than shrink. Clearly, the PA expects the bulk of the "diaspora" to go to Israel, not a Palestinian Arab state, and decades of incitement both within and without the territories have brainwashed generations of Arabs to not accept anything less than a "return" to a land that most of them have never stepped foot in.

Elephant 18: The tension between being pro-West and pro-Arab

The biggest Western success story in the Palestinian Arab territories is the existence of the "Dayton forces" that have been helping crack down on Hamas in the West Bank.

However, most Palestinian Arabs regard those forces as puppets of the West. Not only do Hamas and Islamic Jihad hammer away at this point, but ordinary Palestinian Arabs do as well. The more cooperation between the PA and Israel/US, the more the PA government is delegitimized in the eyes of its people.

Elephant 19: Corruption and human rights abuses are still endemic in the PA

Despite the publicized successes, the PA remains mired in corruption, hardly a model for an independent state. The 2008 Global Integrity Report rated the West Bank as close to the bottom in its corruption ratings. Press freedom remains low; the justice system is improving but hardly competent, and whistle-blowers are forced to go to the Israeli press to expose corruption. The success that the PA has had in weakening Hamas in the West Bank has come at the expense of massive human rights violations, including torture.

Elephant 20: Palestine would be Judenrein

Statements by PA leaders (with the notable exception of Fayyad) make it clear that their state of Palestine would not have any Jewish citizens allowed within. Jews whose ancestors have lived in Judea and Samaria, whether for decades or for millennia, will be legally barred from living in Palestine - an extraordinary display of state anti-semitism that is completely at odds with the Western standards that the nascent state of "Palestine" is attempting to live up to.

Elephant 21: The Muslim world's antipathy towards Israel

Even if all of the preceding elephants could somehow vanish, the Arab world and the Muslim world remains implacably against the idea of a Jewish state in the midst of supposedly Muslim lands. Iran remains in de facto control of southern Lebanon and Gaza; ordinary Jordanians and Egyptians remain among the worst anti-semites in the Arab world. The best "peace" would be bitter cold; it will not include any real normalization, and the threat from radical Islam remains potent in Arab and Muslim states. Furthermore, any tension between Israel and any of its neighbors - Hezbollah or Hamas or Syria - would result in even the moderate Arab world solidly behind Israel's enemies, no matter what. The best peace plan would result in Israel being exactly where it is today - surrounded by enemies, with less of a land buffer, and Israel relying on US money to prompt Arab neighbors to keep radicals in check.

That is not peace, and that is not security.

Why peace is impossible, reason #73

In 2001, a pair of books were written for the purpose of cross-cultural understanding between Jews and Muslims. One was called "Children of Abraham: an introduction to Judaism for Muslims" by Reuven Firestone and the other one was called "Children of Abraham: an introduction to Islam for Jews" by Khalid Durán.

The latter book was slammed by Muslims and Islamists as being inaccurate, and the author says that he received death threats.

The book for Muslims to learn about Judaism, written by a professor at Hebrew Union College, is now under a different type of attack.

Although both books were written under the auspices of the American Jewish Committee and the Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Institute For International Interreligious Understanding, a new Arabic translation of the book is being decried as a great danger by Israel to the Arab nation, by a columnist in Al Asharq al-Awsat:

Zionism, as a doctrine based on religious myths, is controversial and extremely racist. The international community acknowledged the danger of it and considered it a disease that must be fought against just like Nazism, Apartheid etc. For decades, Israel has been trying (by all means possible) to consolidate the idea that it has a divine right to the land of Palestine, however to no avail. Of course this idea is met with the biggest rejection from the Arab and Islamic World.
Now Israel is taking a new step in this regard, or to be more precise, an unprecedented audacious step (even for Israel!) A book has been published in Israel in Arabic by the Harriet and Robert Heilbrunn Institute for International Interreligious Understanding of the American Jewish Committee entitled: ‘Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Judaism for Muslims,’ by Reuven Firestone. The book opens with the following verse from Surat al Jathiya: “We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book, the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations.”
The book contains numerous historical errors and fallacies. The author chose Quranic verses that praise the Children of Israel to open his book with but the truth is that this praise was not aimed at today’s Jews but the rather the People of Moses within a certain period of history. The People of Moses believed in Almighty God as the One and Only Creator and at the time they formed a unified nation. However, the Jews who came after them broke away from the divine teachings and some of them worshipped the calf and became disbelievers while others killed prophets, went back on their pledges and acted treacherously.
The book’s “dangerous” introduction aims to give an Islamic smokescreen to the Jewish claim to Palestine by misinterpreting certain Quranic verses and presenting an explanation to history that corresponds with the Jewish Zionist vision of the right to the Promised Land (whilst completely ignoring Quranic verses that criticize this). The book bases its argument on a mix of religion, history, politics and law but its points are weak and fragile and can be refuted. However, Israel is randomly sending hundreds of copies to Arab addresses in an attempt to gain new solid ground among Arab masses. It uses Islam as a pathway to achieve its goals and plays on the profound influence of religion on Arabs and Muslims. They are trying to send a malicious message here; that Israel’s existence in Palestine – by virtue of it being a “divine right” – is not only a Jewish belief but also an Islamic one.
However, Islam is very clear on this point. No Mufasirun [interpreters] of the Holy Quran or the Hadith [Prophetic traditions] or the Prophet’s Seerah have ever acknowledged that the land of Palestine was promised to the Jews or anything of the sort. War is an act of deception; Israel is now escalating its psychological war against Arabs and Muslims by presenting them with misleading, ideologized political and religious interpretations to serve its Zionist plots in an attempt to show people that the truth is on its side. Israel claims to be standing on a firm, legitimate foundation as the party that is rightfully entitled to the land of Palestine, not the Arabs.
The lies and myths of Israel are nothing new. The Israelis have made many attempts in the past to pollute our heritage and establish their lies and myths as part of the region’s history in order to base all policies, laws and systems on that distorted foundation. ‘Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Judaism for Muslims’ needs to be read carefully and countered as there is a wide base that is not qualified to interpret the Quran away from its historical context and the events that took place. This new book represents a new chapter of Israeli audacity to be added to Israel’s record of black deeds.

Whew! A book that aims to show the Jewish side of the story (and, from looking at the excerpts on the English version, its point is clearly not to interpret the Quran but to explain things from the Jewish perspective) is considered a huge danger to Arabs by this writer. Not only that, but he feels threatened by any narrative that asserts that Zionism is anything but racist and built on lies.

He must believe that Arabs' knowledge of their own history and the Quran is tenuous indeed to be this upset over a book, so that even the slightest exposure to other viewpoints is a major assault against their very beings.

And, of course, he blames Israel for being behind this immense propaganda campaign, when the entire project was apparently done by well-meaning - and very naive - Jews who are only yearning for peace. Could anyone imagine a Muslim organization being behind a similar initiative?

Once again, the utter Arab inability to look at, or attempt to understand, anything but their own ingrained narrative is an immovable obstacle to any real peace. Long-term understandings and agreements cannot occur without a degree of empathy, and this is an attribute that most Arabs simply do not exhibit. As this story proves, they don't only lack empathy - they actively fight against the possibility of any of them gaining empathy, as if learning another viewpoint is danger to their very sense of identity.