By Kenneth Eliasberg at American Thinker.
Arab/Israeli “peace talks” have been going on for the better part of a century without even a hint of serious progress. And the reason is quite simple — the Arabs don’t want peace with Israel; they don’t want Israel, and they will come up with any excuse for frustrating the possibility, let alone the prospect, of a peaceful resolution.
At the outset, it might be helpful to focus in on our terms. When we speak of Arabs, we are usually focused on “Palestinians” (although the entire Arab world seems to be united behind the concept of driving Israel out of the Middle East; their larger goal — which some of them have openly admitted — is the extermination of Jewry in general, i.e. to complete the job undertaken by Hitler, with whom they were joined at the hip during WWII).
Also, it is important to note (and emphasize) that there has never been a Palestinian “nation” — only a land area designated as Palestine at the close of WWI with the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, under whose rule that area had been presided over. Prior to the war ending, the entire Middle East was divided up among the victors, and new countries were created, e.g. Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Among the territories assigned to the British was the land area designated as the Palestinian “mandate.” Most of this mass was originally to go to the Jews, in accordance with the Balfour Declaration, but the British revised this determination and assigned most of the mandated territory to a new country to be called Transjordan (subsequently just called Jordan). The balance of the mandated territory was awarded to the Jews and Arabs residing in the remaining portion of the mandated area. Since the land area was designated as the Palestinian Mandate, the Arabs in residence understandably designated themselves as “Palestinians.” By this line of reasoning, it would be equally, if not more, appropriate for resident Jews to call themselves “Palestinians”; after all, they have been there for millennia. But it cannot be too strongly emphasized that there has never been a Palestinian “nation,” just a bunch of Arabs residing in that part of the Levant that fell under the Mandate; as noted, Jews have been in the area for centuries.
Nonetheless, on any number of occasions subsequent to the creation of the Mandate, the Jews and Arabs were given the opportunity to peacefully resolve their territorial disagreements by accepting the terms laid down by the conquering nations. The Jews accepted every one of those offers — even though they were being seriously shortchanged and awarded a land area that was considerably smaller than that originally promised and barely defensible at that. The Arabs never accepted any arrangement offered them in this manner. For example, in one of the more recent “peace” gestures, in 1990, Ehud Barak, then Israel’s prime minister, offered Arafat 95% of what he was demanding, including a significant piece of Jerusalem (Israel’s would be capital), plus some compensating territory for the remaining 5%. What did he get? Arafat’s flat rejection (to the consternation of Bill Clinton, who had arranged, and, I’m sure, orchestrated the meeting), followed by the second intifada and the slaughter of Jews. Barak’s successor, Ehud Olmert, offered Arafat even more and was met with the same degree of rejection.
Now, in fairness to the Palestinians, if either Arafat or Abbas had agreed to peace, and, in doing so, acknowledged Israel’s status as a State, he would probably have been assassinated. Recall how Anwar Sadat was treated after he signed a peace treaty with Israel on behalf of Egypt. Also, a peace treaty with Israel might limit the kleptocracy opportunities that Arafat and Abbas have availed themselves of over the years while covering their corruption tracks with their terrorist endeavors.
Also, it is important to note that the Jews were being offered this land by virtue of their righteous historical claim to it; Jews have been in this area for thousands of years (long before there ever was an Islam). To emphasize once again, that there has never been a Palestinian nation in residence in this area, and, as a consequence, the current “Palestinians” have no historical support for the claim to the land, and absolutely no legal claim to it. This point is well documented by David Meir-Levi titled History Upside Down — The Roots of Palestinian Fascism and the Myth of Israeli Aggression.
The current alleged stumbling block to “peace” is the Jewish settlements in the West Bank – which comprise less than 2% of the West Bank’s land mass (more than 40% of which is unpopulated). The Arabs insist on a Jew-free territory! Isn’t this ethnic cleansing? Over 1,500,000 Arabs (Muslims) are “settled” in Israel — as citizens — where they enjoy the highest standard living of Muslims residing in any other country (with the possible exception of America). The Arabs have run almost 1,000,000 Jews out of Arab countries where the Jews resided for hundreds of years, and they are now turning their attention to that other group of “infidels,” Christians – whom they are slaughtering with impunity.
The bottom line? There will never be peace between the Arabs and Israel. Why not? Because, as noted, the Arabs don’t want peace with Israel; they don’t want Israel, and will look for any excuse to avoid any kind of peace agreement. As Netanyahu once observed regarding the prospects for peace in the area: “If the Arabs put down their weapons today there would be no more violence; if the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel.” Or, as Golda Meir before him observed: “Peace will come when Arabs will love their children more than they hate us”.
Unfortunately, the Palestinians illegitimate arguments for their so-called oppression by a colonial power is resonating with the very real anti-Semitism that is abroad (particularly in Europe, but gaining a great deal of ground in America — particularly in our universities).
So what are we to do? Exactly what Caroline Glick urges us to do in her exceptionally well written book, The Israeli Solution – A One-State Plan for Peace in The Middle East. Glick makes a very persuasive case for placing the West Bank (i.e. Judea and Samaria) under the jurisdiction of Israel. In doing so, she demolishes John Kerry’s argument that Israel can be either a Jewish State or be democratic; it cannot be both, says Kerry, and Glick demonstrates that he is wrong. (Has Kerry ever been right about anything significant?) So, don’t look for peace to break out any time soon between Israel and its neighbors.
More from American Thinker click HERE.
