Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Palestinian State Would Mean Israel’s Destruction
The completion of the marathon series of elections in Israel could determine the nation’s existence. If Netanyahu loses, Benny Gantz as prime minister will likely return Israel to the Leftist positions. Although Gantz has been characterized as a moderate, he may be offering those positions for public consumption. The fact is, Gantz is an unknown politically, and Israel needs a leader who will take clear and firm positions.
A number of issues have shifted in the Middle East that suggest Israel is not criticized as severely as it has been in the past. That shift begins with Arab countries that have discovered they have much to gain militarily and commercially with Israel. This change doesn’t mean that these countries will embrace Israel; in fact, many of the exchanges between the two countries are only first steps, and those countries could always sever their connections. But at this time, Sudan, Saudi Arabi, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Morocco, and Bahrain have all showed an interest in changing their relationships with the Israelis, agreeing to a “normalization of relations.” Behind those decisions, for example, are the purchase of spy equipment by the Saudis, discreet meetings with a Minister of UAE; cooperation between Israel and Egypt to provide security in and out of the Gaza strip; a security buffer between Israel and Jordan, as well as Israel supplying Jordan with water.
All is not rosy, however, internationally. The United Nations continues to try to cripple Israel. Most recently they created a boycott list against Israel of over 100 companies, which is clearly political and meant to be punitive:
As several major democracies wrote the UN, the world body has no legal mandate to tell companies where they should or should not operate. Moreover, if this were really about human rights, then the key factor would be a consideration of whether Palestinian human rights are actually violated, yet that’s ignored.
Sadly, this is one more example of the Palestinian hijacking of UN bodies to promote a one-sided political agenda that fosters conflict instead of advancing peace.
High Commissioner Bachelet, who should be standing up for the UN Charter principles of universality and equality, has now allowed her office to become a tool for the discriminatory anti-Israel BDS movement, which singles out the Jewish state for boycott, divestment and sanctions. With the blacklist, the UN has now become Ground Zero for global BDS.
So Israel is making progress in building alliances with its Mideast partners, and nothing has changed, nor will change, at the United Nations in terms of singling out Israel.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians, as usual, are refusing to partner with anyone, particularly Israel, in bringing peace to the region. Here is a short list of some of their self-destructive actions that would likely make peace impossible, in the short- and long-term:
- Mahmoud Abbas, supposedly elected democratically, has been the totalitarian ruler of the Palestinians since 2005, with no publicized plans to step down. There is no tracking of the millions of dollars given to the Palestinians, and every reason to believe that Abbas, just as Arafat did, is pocketing much of the money and paying his cronies.
- Neither Hamas nor the Palestinians have ever changed their missions to destroy Israel. There is no reason to think that if they had their own state, they would withdraw this commitment.
- Hamas continues to shoot rockets into Israel, and attacks have even increased.
- Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, instead of seeing the Trump Peace Plan as a place to begin a peace negotiation, rejected it outright.
- Perhaps a most insidious prediction for the future: textbooks for Palestinian children continue to demonize Jews and deny the legitimacy of a Jewish state. Depicting Jews as animals and justifying violence and martyrdom are included in the curriculum.
Essentially, the Palestinians want all the land and all their demands met. They have shown themselves incapable of self-governance, eschewing violence, or living peacefully.
At this writing, it appears that Bibi Netanyahu will be re-elected (although he still needs to form a coalition), and he has restated his promise to annex the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.
The Israelis appear to be less concerned about international criticism regarding their decisions, since much of the world is irrational and directs its venom only at Israel and not the Palestinians. The Israelis are dealing with an irresponsible and uncompromising partner in the Palestinians. The Palestinians expect Israel to continue to give up all their land and their future, while the Palestinians offer nothing.
It’s time for Israel to claim and govern what is their due.
Published in Foreign Policy
Starting with the Temple Mount.
It would be fascinating to learn if someone has a master plan to simply take back what has always belonged to Israel. Judea and Samaria are certainly key. I’m not sure the Temple Mount wouldn’t cause more controversy and violence than they want to tackle, @rushbabe49.
It baffles me how leftist positions remain so strong in Israel.
Actually, @joelb, I’m trying to think of any western nation that doesn’t have at least an active, if not a dominating Leftist movement. I know the parties can shift all over the globe, but the Leftists often dominate, and then the Right is left (no pun intended!) to pick up the pieces. Also, in Israel, the Left sees itself as the party of peace; one could say that they have had a lifetime of being persecuted, attacked in pogroms, and eliminated. Unfortunately, the Left in Israel doesn’t want to acknowledge that sometimes we have to fight for peace. We learned that in this country a couple of times. . .
Susan, you may be right that a Palestinian state would be fatal to Israel.
I’m inclined to favor the creation of a Palestinian state, but I don’t think that you’ll object once you understand my position. I think that such a Palestinian state would attack Israel. As a nation-state, it would be subject to reprisal and destruction. So — let the Palestinians have a state, see if they attack Israel, and if they do, make no complaints if the Israelis completely wipe them out.
It’s not a pleasant prospect, but if one side wants war, perhaps they should get what they want. I do not believe that Israel wants war, but I do believe that Israel would win.
I’m not sure what you mean by “their due.” I suspect we’re generally in agreement.
In my view, Israel is entitled to reasonable and defensible borders. It is entitled to keep land that it has conquered, particularly as its conquests were generally either defensive wars or legitimate preemption of imminent attack.
The most viable long-term solution is resettlement of the Muslim Arabs who call themselves Palestinians in other Muslim Arab countries. You know, the way that the UN handles all other refugee problems — by finding a new home for the refugees. I’ve heard that there are two refugee agencies at the UN — one that handles all other refugee problems in a (somewhat) reasonable manner; and one that handles the Palestinian refugees by keeping them in perpetual, multi-generational misery in order to have a club against Israel.
Susan, you know that I’m often skeptical of claims of anti-Semitism (including today, in response to Bethany’s post). I think that special and unrealistic treatment of Palestinian refugees, and the criticism of Israel’s legitimate conquests, is generally anti-Semitic.
I hope that Netanyahu has a solid electoral victory. It appears that we’re still awaiting final results.
I’m a pretty big fan of Netanyahu. He’s a mensch, I think, if I understand the meaning properly (something of a cross between what we would call, in Arizona, a good guy and a tough hombre).
The fully leftist position has all but collapsed in Israel. The Labor, etc. party coalition appears to be finishing with 7 seats–out of 120–and are only that high because they formed a coalition of three parties, the head of one being touted as a likely jumper to help Netanayahu form the next government (so, liberal, but not at all a lefty). Blue and White, the “center left” group is squishy liberal and itself another coalition. Their only real ideology is anti-Netanyahu. They’re led by a general who doesn’t want to fight and a has-been TV announcer. It’s been thought that their success in the first and second elections came down strictly to “Bibi-fatigue.” Many people expected this election to be a repeat of the last two, but it seems that someone(s) (turn-out was higher than usual) decided that they’ve had it pretty good under Netanyahu for a good many years, both in economic and security terms, even if they’re not entirely happy with everything he’s done.
Of course academia and the media remain the hold-out hard lefties. Go figure.
That joke of a UN boycott list is being used as a shopping and stock-buying list by most of the people I know.
My favorite part of this whole thing is that Avigdor Lieberman, the man who brought down the government a year ago by breaking the coalition and who refuses to make one if religious parties are included–leading to two more elections–is not needed to form a government and will likely be left out in the cold. Yay. Both religious parties scored more seats each than did his party.
Jerry, What you suggest hasn’t worked at all well with Gaza. In fact, yours was my position on the Gaza withdrawal. I figured it a good demonstration project to the rest of the world of Israel’s good intentions and willingness to sacrifice for peace. I thought the bad faith of the Arabs would be there for the world to see and that Israel would be justified in bombing it to glass if what we all feared would happen came to pass. Well it did, and every small effort of Israel’s to root out the terrorists has been met with resistance and accusations of war crimes, etc. from the supposedly civilized world. It’s bad enough having that mess along the Mediterranean coast, regularly lobbing missiles into the surrounding civilian Israeli neighborhoods, having another and larger in the heartland of the country…no, absolutely not.
@caryn, thanks for your elaboration on the results of the election, especially clarifying the Leftist/Liberal difference. Your assessment of the Gaza results is spot on. I refer Jerry to your comments. And I would also add for Jerry that nothing will give Israel the right to destroy the Palestinian population in a new state. They will be vilified if they take that step, and they know it.
Also, there are probably no legitimate refugees left from the original group after the 1948 war. Now the relatives think they are entitled to land and to a state. The problem with dispersing them to other Arab countries is that they are not wanted. Now if those countries change their minds, there may be potential in your suggestion, except that removing the Palestinians would be extremely difficult. Then again, the people (not the government) might be glad to be out of there.
My main point is that Israel is not just entitled to land they won in the war, but to the historic Land of Israel has always belonged to them. There has never been a Palestinian population–just Arabs living there.
When is the last time a center-left party won the parliament in Israel? Seems like Netanyahu has been the PM for a couple of decades.
He was PM 1996-1999, then 2009-2019. In between he returned to the private sector and later re-joined as Minister of Finance.
It does not matter who wins the Israeli election. There will not be a Palestinian state because of the choices made by Palestinians. That’s been the case for 80+ years and I see nothing to indicate change.
Who is Netanyahu’s successor? Have there been proposals of term limits?
Aren’t UN condemnations evidence of Israel’s regional partners talking out both sides of their mouths? Are Saudi Arabia and Turkey content to do business with Israel while instructing their UN ambassadors to condemn Israel at every opportunity?
I disagree, @gumbymark, for a few reasons. Benny Gantz is a novice at politics, and I suspect the people behind him will “encourage” him to take their direction. The Blue and White Party is called “center Left”; here’s a sample of their platform:
The Blue and White party further stated that it will support the operation of public transportation on Shabbat in secular cities and in places where there will be no harm to the religious and traditional public, subject to the decision of the local authority. The platform also includes a promise to pass the surrogacy law and to include the rights of the LGBT community in this law.
These are big deals in Israel, and are not center Left. For that reason, I think that Gantz will try to move forward with creating two states, doing whatever he must do to pacify the international community, the Left, and the Palestinians. He may not get two states, but I fear that he will further compromise Israel’s resolve to move forward by insisting that it’s time for two states. If he gives up enough, he will weaken the country and the Palestinians will feel empowered. Will that lead to giving the Palestinians their own country? Stranger things have happened.
It is bizarre, isn’t it, @aaronmiller. This duplicity seems to be built into Middle East politics. That’s why I’m glad to see Israel moving forward with its own agenda, building relationships with countries who are cooperative in some ways and condemning in others.
Also, Israeli politics have always been a mess. I listened to a podcast not too long ago about how the system could be changed, but the speaker didn’t see that happening anytime soon.
I think you are confusing positions on social/economic issues with those on security. The comment by @caryn has it right – the Peace Now Left collapsed nearly two decades ago with the failure of Camp David and the launching of the Second Intifada. The remnant of that movement is only a tiny sliver of the electorate though it appears disproportionately large to progressive American Jews or to readers of H’aaretz. At this point the differences between the contending coalitions on security are marginal. Whether there are two states or not has nothing to do with what type of Israeli government is in power.
I understand your points, Mark. Thanks for persisting! I feel much more optimistic about Netanyahu moving ahead with his plans. I’m always glad to switch to an optimistic outlook. Of course, there’s still his legal issues . . .
We are 20 years past Arafat walking away from the deal Bill Clinton specifically got (with James Carville’s help) Ehud Barak elected as PM in order to pass, followed by the Second Intifada. The pool of voters change, and many were either not old enough or not paying close attention when that occurred and fail to learn from history (you’ve seen a version of that phenomenon in NYC, where Bill de Blasio won because enough voters forgot how bad the pre-Giuliani years were).
The new normal in the Middle East appears to be that most of the Arab states have decided, in the wake of Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett’s dealings with Iran, that they no longer can count on bi-partisan U.S. support for containing the Mullah’s nuclear options, which threaten not just Israel but their own futures. So you have those nations now in de facto alliance as a mutual security system. It might be less needed during the Trump administration, but as with everyone else, the Israelis, the Saudis and the other Gulf states don’t know who the president is going to be 10 1/2 months from now.
That situation means the Palestinians will remain starved of cash, where only Iran can be counted on as a supporter, and given their current situation with sanctions and other internal problems, even that could suddenly come in doubt with little warning. The next question after that would be if the current Iranian leadership fell and a less hostile/manipulative one took its place, would the other Arab/Muslim nations maintain their new releations with Israel, or with the fear of a nuclear Iran gone, would we just go back to the pre-Obama status quo without a common enemy to bind them together? I’d hope it would be the former, but I don’t doubt there are some angry dissidents in all those nations even now who’d prefer the latter.
Great questions, @jon1979. I think that if a less radical government ruled in Iran, they might still want to keep their nuclear program. Do we allow that, or do we still insist they get rid of it? A big part of those other Arab countries supporting the Palestinians was because they could focus on the woes of the Palestinian and divert attention from their own countries; it wasn’t compassion for the Palestinians. So it would take a long time for a new regime in Iran to prove itself to the other Arab countries, and those countries have less incentive to support the Palestinians if they are reaping benefits from their relationship with Israel. I guess there are two questions here, and that’s how I see the situation.
You’d think they’d want to keep up a situation that’s mutually beneficial economically, especially at a time where — thanks to fracking — the Saudis and the other Gulf states can no longer weaponize their oil reserves to force the U.S. to appease them (unless you get a truly crazy Democrat in the White House who really does kill off fracking and makes America dependent on foreign oil again).
Their worst nightmare would be a Democrat who doesn’t shut down fracking, but does want to revive the Obama deal with the Mullahs or any Iranian regime that came after them. Maintaining close ties with Israel there would seem to make sense, but logic often gets lost in the Middle East.
A Palestinian state in areas already ceded to PLO/Fatah/Hamas/PA/whatever could be preferable to the gangster-run system in place now. But I don’t know how you create a government with enough competence (and self-interest) to suppress pointless violence and corruption out of the Palestinian status quo but such an arrangement as an immediate neighbor to Israel would be an enormous improvement.
When Yassir Arafat died, the new leadership had to conduct negotiations in Paris with Arafat’s widow because virtually the entire Palestinian treasury was in personal Euopean bank accounts. She got to keep her condo (and lifestyle) in Paris in exchange for releasing most of the treasury. These people are a joke. And they think that a willingness to create chaos and violence is a viable substitute for the adult qualities required to sustain a modern democratic nation.
A Palestinian state run by honest grownups would be wonderful. I just don’t see how it could happen short of an iron-fisted UN occupation in which the rule of law and absence of violence and corruption were infused (imposed) over two generations of training. Even then, maybe not.
There are enough people tied to the UN and elsewhere outside of Iran who see weaponizing the Palestinians against the Israelis not as a bug, but a feature of the current Middle East situation. Unless the people in the West Bank and Gaza collectively decide to stop being used as pawns, they’re going to continue to set themselves up as cannon fodder for non-Palestinians who want to see Israel cease to exist.
There are lots of qualifiers for anything productive to happen. Ultimately, they want to destroy Israel–and I think that’s even at the cost of never having their own state. For those of you who want to explore a one-state solution, read Caroline Glick’s book on the subject. It makes the most sense to me.
The Palestinian Arabs are not going anywhere. So the issue is how best for them to be organized and governed so that they have a vested interest in peace with strong economic ties to Israel. The rest of the Arab world seems increasingly reconciled to Israel’s continued existence, even as an ally against Iran. Israeli hustle and innovation trading with and manufacturing in Arab neighbors would be an enormous boon to everybody. At some point, there has to be a decision to get rid of the martyr cards and bomb vests to build vastly better lives instead. I wonder if, despite appearances, that thought is already percolating among Palestinian Arabs.
It’s hard to know how much of the population actually supports the Palestinian Authority, or even Hamas. But you can’t voice your reservations without serious penalty. The restrictions against the population doing any kind of business, personal or professional, are huge. Unless Palestinians are being treated in Israeli hospitals. Even then, I think the patients are criticized.
Caryn, I think that you’re right as a political matter. I am quite appalled at the moral equivalence drawn by people, mostly on the Left (but not entirely so), between Israel’s legitimate self-defense and Palestinian terrorism.
Many people don’t seem to be willing to allow festering disputes to be settled by military force. I’m not a big fan of this method, but it has the advantage of actually settling the issue, and of allowing retribution to a weak but aggressive party.