Tuesday, October 04, 2022
From Ian:
If you want peace, reform the Palestinian Authority
If you want peace, reform the Palestinian Authority
That is why, when Abbas is taken at his word by a senior American diplomat in terms of his commitment to non-violence and a negotiated compromise, serious questions need to be asked. In terms of bloodcurdling rhetoric targeting Israel, Abbas is not the worst Palestinian leader, but his willingness to promote some of the ugliest slanders against the Jewish state compels one to ask just how genuine his support for two states and non-violence actually is.Johnathan Tobin: Americans prefer Arab extremists to Jewish ones in Israeli governments
Like all Palestinian leaders, whether from nationalist or Islamist factions, Abbas was formed politically by the Arab world’s decision, following Israel’s creation in 1948, to live in a permanent state of conflict with the Jewish state as a step towards its eventual elimination. This fact alone marked out the Palestinian cause from other nationalist struggles around the world. In most other post-World War II conflicts—such as in Northern Ireland, where the Irish Republican Army (IRA) waged a bitter struggle for the expulsion of the British Army, but not the dissolution of the United Kingdom itself—the goals of the nationalist parties were limited to ridding their countries of the colonial presence without destroying the colonizing power. By contrast, for the Palestinians, the message was that their liberation would be incomplete as long as Israel remained on the map.
Abbas has never disavowed the notion that Israel is an interloper and a colonizer. In his most recent speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he denounced the Jewish state for its alleged “apartheid” policies. In Germany only last month, he caused a scandal when he stood alongside Chancellor Olaf Scholz and sullenly declared that Israel was guilty of perpetrating “50 holocausts” upon the Palestinians. This was in response to a journalist’s query about whether he would finally apologize to the families of the 11 Israeli athletes murdered in a Palestinian terrorist operation at the Munich Olympics in 1972.
What Thomas-Greenfield’s statement elides is that Abbas is far more wedded to these dubious ideas—the bedrock of the Palestinian eliminationist program—than he is to the diplomatic goals articulated at the Security Council. The rhetoric about two states can only be seen as lip service, unless one is prepared to accept the bizarre contention that having denounced Israel as a racist open-air prison for Palestinians, they would happily live alongside it. The rhetoric about Israel’s lack of legitimacy, however, is firmly in keeping with the Palestinians’ own ideology.
Yet there are many Israelis who, despite having no illusions about Abbas and his cohorts, rue the prospect of indefinitely ruling over three million Palestinians. Under certain circumstances, they might even be relieved to see the creation of a Palestinian state. For that to happen, the international community has to understand that while the emergence of a “strong and legitimate Palestinian Authority” might well be “in the interest of the entire region”—as Thomas-Greenfield put it—as long as Abbas and those like him are running the show, we are fated to remain with the present situation: Eliminationist rhetoric against Israel and attacks on Israeli civilians, widespread corruption within the P.A. and appalling abuse of human rights in P.A.-run prisons and detention centers.
A courageous diplomatic initiative would propose root and branch reform of the PA as the first necessary measure towards securing a permanent peace with Israel. Such reform would then be followed by fresh elections in a voting process that would be monitored by international organizations to ensure fairness and transparency. At the same time, the P.A.’s various departments, and particularly its Education Ministry, would undergo a fundamental reset, so that a lasting peace with Israel is the overarching goal to work towards.
There will be those who say this is all wishful thinking, and perhaps they are right. But the responsibility for testing the theory lies with the U.S. and indeed any state desirous of a final settlement. Because right now, the P.A. is not strong, nor legitimate, nor an entity whose continued existence is in “the interest of the entire region.” Thomas-Greenfield needs to grasp that the address for these vital changes is located in Ramallah, not Jerusalem.
Whether or not that happens, the huffing and puffing about Ben-Gvir’s compromising Israel’s reputation needs to be placed in perspective. The idea of having a party like Ra’am join a government was in some ways a realization of the Zionist dream of the Arab minority making its peace with the reality of a Jewish state and fully participating in its politics, rather than standing to the side and hoping for its destruction.Ukraine Military Chief Urges His Country to Learn From Israel
Yet the agenda of Abbas’s party, which wants a state run according to Muslim religious law, is far more radical than anything Ben-Gvir advocates. If Abbas’s decision to join forces with Lapid and Bennett can be considered as proof that he has transcended his political origins, why can’t Ben-Gvir’s attempts to distance himself from Kahanist ideology be treated in the same manner?
The problem is not just hypocrisy. Articles like the one in Axios that broke the news about the confrontation with Menendez referred to Ben-Gvir as a “Jewish supremacist,” a not-so-subtle way to associate him with violent anti-Semitic, radical right-wingers in the United States.
The stands that are cited by those who think a coalition with him would be illegitimate include his support for construction in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount and the right to live in Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem neighborhoods that Arabs demand be Jew-free. Yet those are entirely legitimate positions that a great many Israelis understandably consider to be very much in the mainstream.
Even if you think, as many understandably do, that the Knesset would be better off without Ben-Gvir in it, Israelis need not atone for the sin of voting for him in the expectation that he will be an uncompromising defender of Jewish rights. The message to American critics of Israel should be clear: If you thought the inclusion in Israel’s governing coalition of an Islamist party that openly advocates for the end of Zionism and the Jewish state in its platform was a good idea, then you have no business lecturing anyone about Ben-Gvir.
The commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces has urged his country to adopt Israel’s strong emphasis on self-defense in the face of the ongoing Russian invasion, arguing that political conditions in the region require Ukraine to be a “military state.”
Following a meeting with Ukrainian Chief Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman to mark the Jewish Rosh Hashanah holiday, Gen. Valerii Zaluzhny stated that “in the conditions of such a neighborhood, Ukraine should become, by analogy with Israel, a military state.”
Zaluzhny took the opportunity to recall the 81st anniversary of the Babyn Yar massacre of Sept.29-30 1941, when more than 33,000 Jews were executed by Nazi officers at a ravine just outside Kyiv.
“On the day of remembrance of the Babyn Yar tragedy, it is painfully difficult to talk about its repetition in Mariupol, Buchi, Irpin, Izyum and other cities,” Zaluzhny said, referring to the Russian onslaught on several major population centers.
“This war showed who is on the side of good and who is the personification of evil. Rebbe Moshe Reuven Azman clearly says that today it is Russia that is a fascist state. And his authoritative opinion carries a lot of weight in the modern world,” Zaluzhny said.
Zaluzhny added that he and Azman discussed the appointment of a Jewish military chaplain to serve Jewish soldiers fighting with Ukrainian forces. He also emphasized that he was “deeply grateful for the treatment of our wounded soldiers in Israel and the humanitarian aid provided.”
