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.
Time to Break from the Palestinians and the Peace Process
Did you know that members of Fatah attacked a US delegation from the Jerusalem consulate last week? This is Caroline Glick’s description of the attack:
On Tuesday a delegation of diplomats from the US Consulate in Jerusalem came to Bethlehem to participate in a meeting of the local chamber of commerce. When they arrived in the city, Fatah members attacked them. Their vehicles with diplomatic license plates were pelted with tomatoes and eggs by a mob of protesters calling out anti-American slogans.
After the Americans entered the hall where the meeting was scheduled to take place, some of the rioters barged in. They held placards condemning America and they shouted, “Americans Out!”
The American officials left and the rioters again attacked their vehicles.
Near Bethlehem, a mock “tribunal” was held for Pence and Trump. Found guilty, their effigies were burned.
In other countries, this sort of behavior might be shrugged off. After all, Americans are despised in other countries and demonstrations are made against our country and our officials. But these demonstrations took place in a country ruled by Mahmoud Abbas, the man who has governed for 14 years (instead of the four for which he was elected.) At the very least, police could have been escorting the US diplomatic vehicles, or stationed at the doors of the meeting to protect those attending. No protection was provided.
After the U.S. threatened to withhold funding to the UN, and at Davos Trump threatened to cut off all US aid to the Palestinians, Abbas called for Trump’s “house to be destroyed.” You can be sure that this was an official call against Americans.
In addition, Jason Greenblatt is playing off Trump’s threats (I believe) to cut off funds. As often happens diplomatically with other senior officials, Greenblatt disagrees with Trump’s statement that Trump wouldn’t be overly concerned to see the peace process disappear. In contrast, Greenblatt has said that control of Jerusalem is still up for negotiation and that the US is still committed to the peace process.
Whether this difference in perspectives between Trump and Greenblatt is misdirection or confusing foreign policy, no one has been able to say.
Finally, the Palestinians may experience another blow to their plans for peace:
. . . reports that the administration is considering holding the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA to the same definition of “refugee” as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees means another Palestinian high card is in danger. If Trump carries out his threat, then the only Palestinians who will be eligible for refugee status will be the 20,000 Palestinians who left Israel between 1947 and 1949. In one fell swoop, Trump would wipe out the Palestinian demand to destroy Israel through mass immigration of five million foreign-born Arabs to its territory – in the framework of peace.
My hope is that Donald Trump is seeing the writing on the wall: he knows that pursuing a peace process between the Palestinians and Israel is a waste of our energy; that the Palestinians will not compromise on any important aspect of a peace agreement; that they will never agree to Israel’s right to exist; and they will never be an ally of our country.
It’s time to break off our relationship with the Palestinians.
Published in Foreign Policy
It would be interesting to be in Israel in these times. There are still many people who cling to the idea of peace, to a two-state solution. But both cannot happen if we continue as we have. It will be ugly. People will die. But Israel will survive. The Palestinians can decide whether they want to live there in peace, or leave.
I wondered if someone would point out this is a pretty weak and innocuous demonstration. (I’m not saying that you are necessarily saying that, @tba.) The point is that they could just as easily have run into the meeting room and killed everyone there. And I don’t know if Abbas would have said anything then, either.
Actually I think if we pull out we don’t even need to reference that incident. We can just say it’s time to pull out. Trump is already doing that in so many ways; we all just need to see the final decision.
Edit: I don’t care if anyone takes us seriously or not. I don’t care what anyone in any other country thinks. If they object, they can pound sand for all I care.
Peace process? What the hell “peace process” is that? Is that the one where the Palestinians say that, if the Israelis make unilateral concessions first, then they will come to the “table” and call the Israelis names?
Actually, it all makes sense if you assume that the word “peace” in Arabic translates to “kill all the Jews.” That is the only process in which the Palestinians have any interest.
I respect your opinion a great deal, @littlemy, since you are witnessing life in Israel, firsthand. I do want to emphasize that I didn’t use the term “line in the sand.” For me, the incident was a symbol, a metaphor for the disgust and disregard Fatah has for America, as well as the potential for violence. I’m sure there are Palestinians who would be relieved to live under Israel’s governance (as they already do in some areas), but they can’t admit it; their lives would be in danger. And I think lots of Palestinians would love to live a life that resembles normalcy.
I agree, the Arab/Palestinian dehumanization of Israelis and Jews is terrible.
In the meantime while the Arabic world is hating Israel, the Israelis are helping Egypt with secret strikes (secret up until right this moment) against terrorists in the Sinai. In other parts of the Arab world Israel and Saudi Arabia are developing a secret alliance (whoops I let that one out of the bag just now also) to thwart Iran’s influence in a classic case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
The “Palestinians” had better be careful. They will soon wake up to find themselves very much on the outside with nobody much caring. They are reaping what they have sown for so many of their miserable years..
Edited to insert scare quotes.
It’s time to stop using the term “Peace Process” and start calling them “negotiations”.
Peace might be the outcome of the negotiations, but I believe it’s time we stop kidding ourselves. The people who call themselves Palestinians are a murderous thugocracy who are not interested in peace, unless it comes at the price of Israel ceasing to exist. We shouldn’t give them one drop of aid, and refuse to recognize them as a formal body until they drop all calls for Israel’s destruction.
I’d go one further: I’d drop all funding to the UN until it stops all harassment of Israel. Hold a vote to condemn Israel? No US dollars for that year . . .
Great points, @cdor. People forget, too, that the Arab world supported the Palestinians because it allowed them to draw attention to their dilemma (which I believe from the beginning they brought on themselves) and not on the problems in their own countries. Some of those countries still have difficulties. But Saudi Arabia is taking steps to expand its economy, and as you said, Israel is consulting with Arab countries and helping Egypt. The Arabs still have to give lip service to the Palestinians for now, but I think that will change.
Excellent point, @stad. Then again, I don’t know if negotiations should even continue, since there is only bad faith between them. And I think we need to stay out of it, except to voice our support for Israel. It’s time.
My favorite use of this cliche, lol.
Oh my gosh, I didn’t realize how clever I was being–doh! ;-)
No, don’t withdraw. Let it languish. Fine to cut back on funding for UN agencies overbudgeted and hostile to Israel. And redefining “refugee” is sound policy. The peace process is a political football. Keep the ball in the air. Precisely because it has no prospects now or in the foreseeable future. It’s a convenient political fantasy to play on both sides. The diehard Two Staters need the hope, albeit a forelorn one. But they contribute votes and money to politicians. For example, Netanyahu can’t turn his back on Jewish supporters of Israel who believe a peace deal is achievable. So he pretends to be in favor. They all do. In the US, Israel and Palestine. Depending on your political persuasion, you can blame the Israelis for settlements (occupation), or the Arabs for wanting to wipe Israel off the map.
They’ve never done so in the past – what would make them want to now?
Carefully cultivated by the Palestinian leaders themselves – to the utter detriment of their own people.
I have no comment. I just thought this passage so clear and poetic it deserved its own space and focus.
I’m not clear on your meaning, @mikescapes. I’m suggesting we remove ourselves from the process, such as it is. I don’t see any benefit to staying involved, but you can correct me if I’m wrong.
Now this is a point that is worth considering: American Jews. They can put all kinds of pressure on the US govt. and Israel, threatening to withdraw funds that are intended for Israel. They’ve already threatened that if women are not allowed to pray next to men at the Western Wall. So the question for Israel is, how many hoops are they prepared to jump through (or how much blackmail are they willing to bow to) to stay engaged in this farce?
For more non-democratic societies, too often I see leaders acting in their own best interests (to enrich themselves usually) which doesn’t always correlate with what would be in their people’s best interest.
Assassination of leaders willing to consider peace speaks for itself. Those leaders who might consider sitting down to discuss peace in good faith (actions need to match words) often seem to find themselves boxed in by various stakeholders with a particular agenda they think would be adversely affected in some way by real peace.
In the end though, peace lasts when people choose it themselves; want it bad enough to forego non-peaceful behavior. Too often that seems to happen only once they’re so devastated (e.g., in war) they have no choice but peace. Israel’s having to defend against terror tunnels, attacks in public places, etc. makes it clear certain elements prefer war to peace at present, so I’m inclined to think @susanquinn has a point in suggesting it’s time to re-think the “peace process” as we know it.
From my perspective, I wouldn’t give another dime to anyone that pensions/pays people for killing Jews and Americans and I applaud the current US administration’s decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. In fact, I’m for discontinuing aid to anyone who kills Americans, in effigy or otherwise. People are free to demonstrate, and the US is free to direct our international aid funds toward those who really need and genuinely appreciate our help.
Israel to me is more than a Jewish state: it’s a democracy which allows people from difference races, creeds, nationalities to participate in its culture, to thrive according to their own abilities. That is something I will always support. Always.
I hope Trump will start calling a spade a spade and refuse to use peace process and refuse to fund terrorist organizations — you know, the ones who are up front about their beliefs, like the PA, Hamas and Hezbollah — and to push forward more UN resolutions that match the ones against Israel.
Israel is a proxy for the USA western ideas and technology in the middle east. We need to state this up front and to proceed with clarity that we know who these anti-Israel people are and we will not continue anymore to spout lies about what is going on in the world with regard to Israel. There is no reason for the number of UN resolutions against Israel when we have scum all over the middle east and elsewhere that need to be dealt with.
For simplicity’s sake, if the UN starts with resolutions and sanctions against Castro and Maduro, that might indicate that they can be depended on for us to worry about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Until then we have bigger fish to fry. Stop funding the UN until they do the simple, obvious and moral things that are in their charter to do. We don’t have to care about neo-commies or post-modern commies vetoing things, just the resolution itself would give us reasonable people a reason to want to continue funding the UN.
Can it be considered just not rewarding? Considered in that light, the Trump administration is not punishing nations/states/people for withdrawing funds (as many anti-Trump delight in saying), it is simply not supplementing them for behavior that adversely affects the US (ideals or otherwise). On the soft diplomacy spectrum I think of aid as a reward and something like sanctions as punishment.
The United States is and definitely has been in the past a generous country in many ways. People treat you as you expect to be treated, and when we bestow (and keep bestowing) gifts on those who do not appreciate or use them against us, we are telling the world “Uncle Sam is a doormat, walk all over us as you like.” We are Uncle Sam, not Aunt Patsy. What we give is of value, to be respected.
Yes, I heard about the incident. I agree with your assessment and recommendation, but ultimately I leave it in the Israeli’s hands to decide. Whatever is in their national interest is good for me. Palestinians are not interested in peace. They will never reach a peaceful deal when it involves the Jews. The Jews are anathema in their holy texts. They are commanded to Jihad against them especially.
Especially like this!
Love this, Mim.
Quinn: Now this is a point that is worth considering: American Jews. They can put all kinds of pressure on the US govt. and Israel, threatening to withdraw funds that are intended for Israel. They’ve already threatened that if women are not allowed to pray next to men at the Western Wall. So the question for Israel is, how many hoops are they prepared to jump through (or how much blackmail are they willing to bow to) to stay engaged in this farce?
No, American Jews might withdraw funds should we walk away from the peace process. Women praying at the wall has nothing to do with this issue. I argued that the status quo was the smartest way from a political prospective. Pull out and Trump will be in the cross-hairs of the media and the Democratic party. He’s against a peaceful solution, he can’t lead, he’s anti Muslim. So forth and so on. Trump sold himself as a deal maker. Quit when things get sticky doesn’t sell very well. There is no urgency to call it quits. And there is no danger that some ill advised peace plan will be shoved down the throats of the Israelis. Not under Trump at least.
The threat of dropping out could be effective. It puts the onus on the Palestinians for frustrating the process. That and actions like the Taylor Act, withholding monies from UN agencies is a prudent politics. Taking a powder is fraught with danger.
The above and my earlier comment are not to be construed as an argument that the peace process is viable. It’s not! And those in leadership positions on all sides, in all relevant countries, know it. The need for finality is yours, not the worlds.
Very convincing argument, Mike. I’ve highlighted my favorite part. I’ll need to think over your proposal. I guess like many, I’m tired of living in limbo. Then again, that may just be my problem, not the Israelis’. Thanks.
I haven’t followed her work for some time, but I thought that one of Glick’s complaints is that the Palestinians are seeking a three-state solution. There has already been a two-state solution — the split of Israel and Jordan from the original Palestinian Mandate.
Yes, but no one argued about Jordan’s right to exist or its borders, as far as I know. So it comes down to the two that so many choose to dispute.
“Weighed in the balance, and found wanting.”
This story thrilled me.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/trump-admin-thwarts-irish-effort-boycott-israel-criminalize-trade/