Jonathan S. Tobin: Mahmoud Abbas’s time-machine politics dooms peace (again)
Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas' latest speech revealed that the new starting point for the Palestinian quest for "justice" is sometime in the 13th century BCE. That's when the tribes of Israel began the conquest of the land of Canaan they had been promised when they left Egypt a generation beforehand.Only an Israeli Victory Can Bring Peace. America Can Help by Telling the Truth
Abbas declared that the Jewish interlopers in the country would eventually be expelled. "They will be in the dustbins of history, and they will remember that this land is for its people, its residents and the Canaanites who were here 5,000 years ago. We are the Canaanites."
The notion that the current population that calls itself Palestinian can link themselves to the vanished Canaanites is pure fiction. Some Arabs arrived in the early 20th century from surrounding Arab lands as the country began to experience rapid economic development as a result of the return of the Jews and Zionist settlement.
It really doesn't matter when Palestinian Arabs arrived. What matters is that their leader is still doubling down on an effort to deny history and the right of the Jews to a Jewish state, no matter where its borders might be drawn. In his conversations this week with a delegation of visiting Democratic members of Congress, Abbas wasn't willing to say he recognized Israel or to admit that the Jews were also entitled to a state.
Israelis and Palestinians don't live in a theoretical world in which dividing adjacent land into states coexisting peacefully is the obvious answer to their problems. They live in the real world, where the only Palestinian leaders are the Islamists of Hamas, who still seek the death of Jews, and the "moderates" of Fatah led by Abbas, who is selling his people a fairy tale about Canaanites who will somehow use a historical time machine to expel the descendants of Joshua.
The Israel-Palestinian conflict, writes Max Singer, cannot be resolved through compromise, but only through a decisive victory by one side or the other. But Singer does not envision the Jewish state winning on the battlefield of war; rather, the necessary triumph must be moral and psychological:
Israel’s essential goal is to continue to exist in its homeland, and the Palestinians’ essential goal is the elimination of Israel. Thus, if one side wins, the other side loses. There is no way Israel can continue in peace and at the same time be eliminated. The two essential goals clash, making compromise impossible. “Victory” is not a matter of declarations and celebrations. It means achieving your essential goal. Nor is “defeat” groveling and humiliation: it is giving up your central goal because you realize it cannot be achieved.
The Palestinians will have been defeated when they become convinced that Israel cannot ever be destroyed. That defeat would be tantamount to an Israeli victory, and it is required for peace to be possible. [Currently], a Palestinian who wants to argue for the advantages of peace can’t get anywhere so long as his audience believes that continued Palestinian resistance just might eventually defeat Israel.
To help bring about such a change in mindset, the U.S. can do much without expending blood or treasure:
A key component of U.S. strategy . . . should be a campaign of assertive truth-telling. . . . A major part of Israel’s problem is that most of the diplomatic world accepts key falsehoods about Israel and its conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab world. [For instance], there has never been any “Palestinian territory” anywhere. That being the case, there cannot now be “occupied Palestinian territory.” [Moreover], the Palestinian belief that the Jewish people are European colonialists invading the area with no historical claim or right is entirely false. . .
Amb. Alan Baker: A Ha’aretz Columnist Mangles History, Facts, and International Law
On August 9, 2019, the Ha’aretz newspaper featured an op-ed article entitled “The Ignorance of Trump Envoy Greenblatt Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg.”1
The author of the article, Shaul Arieli, described by Ha’aretz as a colonel in the IDF reserves, harshly criticized and attacked President Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, Jason Greenblatt, who, in a speech to the UN Security Council on July 23, 2019, had expressed the Administration’s view on to how to achieve an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Greenblatt asserted in his speech that the accepted bases of the world order – international consensus, international law, and UN Security Council resolutions – have been proven to be unsuccessful in seeking an end to the conflict.
In his article, Arieli presents this U.S. Administration viewpoint as a “threat to the post World War II international order” by dictating “an order based on force rather than decisions by the international community.”
He compared this viewpoint to a “giant iceberg threatening an ice-age on the existing international order” but ultimately melting away, leaving “international order to the forces of aggression.”
Arieli’s anxiety and fears for the integrity and future of the old international order would appear to be misplaced. Not being an international lawyer, he seems to be unaware of some basic principles underlying the very international order that he seeks to safeguard.




















