If the 'Arab Street' starts to realize the utter irrelevance of Israeli behavior to the horrible conditions under which they live and the horrible ways in which they are treated by their dictators, that is a net positive and a great force for peace.

The article is sheer double-speak, calling for pan-Arabism in terms it feels are more palatable for western consumption:

...dubbed "black Arabism" by those of us who do not want to abandon a yearning for closer integration between societies separated by arguably artificial colonial borders.

Moreover, an article that barefacedly states

...the brutality of Israeli repression of Palestinian dissent...

shows itself to be firmly grounded in a parallel universe.

Israel occuppies Palestine.

It might be illuminating, though, to consider why that still happens to be the case.

How much does the writer's phrase 'Black Arabism' have to do with the skin color of many Egyptian Muslims, e.g. Sadat, and traditional Arab racism?

Barry:

We've all agreed not to look at it because it would tend to justify the Palestinians, just as Americans choose to ignore Indian grievances.

Palestinians?

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that all of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is occupied Palestine; but most Israelis (no, not all) would rather ignore that.

Many of us who made a conscious decision to ignore the above following the "breakthrough" at Oslo have since been brought back to earth. (But not all.)

This does not mean, however, that Israelis have, in general, ceased to lust after peace or any mirage of peace. Many of us are just itching to be fooled again and again for this just cause.

What it does mean, however, is that while Palestinians will continually confirm, in the most impressive language, their commitment to two states (while demanding that Israel withdraw), they will do everything to reassure Israel that Israel's need for security will not be met.

Which will necessitate an imposed solution, which instead of providing closure (the last thing Palestinians want, if by "closure" is meant the continue existence of Israel), will necessarily mean the continuation and exacerbation of violence in the area.

Simply because the imposed soluton will be rejected. Necessarily.

But you are correct in saying that because of the impasse, most of the world justifies the Palestinians.

Which (to belabor the point) makes it necessary to sustain the impasse for as long as possible.

Barry:

Yes, as long as the Israelis are willing to pay the price they can do whatever they want. Can't really complain that Palestinians object though.

Why do I get the feeling we're talking past each other...?

On the other hand, I am becoming more convinced that a "solution," not acceptable to either side, will have to be imposed; nonetheless, this imposed "solution," while it will reduce Israel's already limited strategic depth, will in no way end the violence.

But will only serve to encourage it. Along with the growing assurance that Iran, backed by Russia, is looking into its own, more personal way, to solve the problem at hand.

Barry,

It seems to me that Abbas has two choices. He can have a state or he can continue the 'intifada', he cannot do both. Sharon has treated the situation as a military matter, pulling out of the Gaza, where the settlements were isolated, exposed and stupid.

Now, with Gaza completely Judenrein, it is up to Abbas to run the place. He is going to have to show some results. They need policing, roads, schools, hospitals, everything. And the people are getting impatient. Sure, he has a radical population that want to continue the war. Sure, there are people in the EU and on the extremist wings of American politics who will not be happy until every Jew everywhere is dead. But most people with decision-making capacity and the ability to implement those decisions are not interested in such nonsense. They want to see Abbas produce results and an end to the fighting.

So what is Sharon doing? He is looking at Judea and Samaria and identifying exposed settlements which will be the next target for removal, giving Abbas more of the so-called 'Palestine' to run, while at the same time creating a better defensive perimeter. Anyone who thinks that Israel is returning to what even Abba Eban referred to as 'Auschwitz Borders' is kidding himself. Anyone who thinks that Israel is surrendering the holy places of Judaism in the Old City should seek medical attention.

Frankly, I see Israel effectively imposing a settlement on Abbas. While he foot-drags, dithers and prevaricates, perhaps trying to balance factions of 'Palestinians' off against each other or perhaps trying to jerk the Israeli chain, Sharon is creating 'facts on the ground.' Abbas gets a two-piece state, contiguous by a causeway across the Negev, encompassing all of Gaza, 92+% of territory liberated from Jordan in 1967 a chunk of Jerusalem, irrelevant to Jewish history, and perhaps a slice of Galilee where the population is 100% Muslim Arab.

The new Israeli borders will be firm, solid, internationally recognized, and difficult to circumvent. There will continue to be terror attacks, but if Israel ceases hiring 'Palestinian' guest workers, opting for Thais or Bulgarians or Romanians, or more better getting the G-damn yeshiva buchers out of the seminaries and making them work for a living for a change, those attacks will be rare.

Yes, that would appear to make sense, according to the assumptions made.

But that's precisely the problem. We are assuming that Abbas's goal is a Palestinian state (alongside Israel). Similarly, we assumed that Arafat's goal was a Palestinian state (alongside Israel).

And we have had good reason to assume that this is the case. After all, it makes sense to those of us who believe that Israel has a right to exist, who believe in the possibility of win-win situations, who believe that Palestinians have suffered and have certain rights. In addition, this is what both men have said. And besides, why go through the whole rigamarole of prolonged and extensive negotiations if that is not the goal?

Except that it's not the case, I don't believe. That is, there is no intention on the part of Abbas to accept a state side by side with Israel. Abbas cannot, ideologically or politically, accept such a state. More specifically, he will continue to insist upon his fervent desire---and the dire need---for such a state even though there is no way he will be able to accept one with mutually agreed upon finalized borders, final status of Jerusalem, final status of Palestinian refugees, and non-belligerent status with regard to Israel.

And all these issues will be assiduously used as the excuse to avoid agreeing to a state.

He will continue to insist that Israel is not releasing enough prisoners, is not returning enough West Bank areas to PA jurisdiction, is not reimbursing the PA sufficiently, is not allowing enough Palestinians to work within Israel, is using too belligerent language, is not serious enough, is not fulfilling promises, is not doing things fast enough, is not....[fill in the blank].

At the same time, he will insist that he will not disarm Hamas or the Al Aksa (now Arafat) Martyrs, or Islamic Jihad---but will instead try to persuade them to adhere to adopt a non-belligerent position vis a vis Israel. And they will be happy to oblige as long as they can continue their arms buildup during the Hudna (and reinforce and lengthen their smuggling tunnels), and perhaps take the opportunity to launch an attack now and then in repsonse to whatever provocation they choose to claim.

Once again: the goal is to prolong the conflict without committing to a state, this because the ultimate goal is to eliminate Israel. And they believe time is on their side, and they are happy to bide their time.

Which is why I've concluded that a state will have to be imposed; but that even the imposition of a state will be rejected. Adamantly.

In 1937, the Palestinian leadership at the time unequivocally rejected partition of Palestinian. In 1947, the Palestinian leadership at the time, together with the Arab League and the surrounding Arab states did the same. In 1967, they were certain that they could eradicate the state of Israel and they continued their rejection even after being soundly defeated. One could argue that they had every right to do so. One could argue that they still have every right to reject Israel. (Though it seems to me that those who make this argument also reject Israel's right to defend herself from attack; but this might be my own mistaken impression.)

It is true that since then, both Egypt and Jordan signed treaties---whatever one thinks of the subsequent nature of these treaties---accepting the existence of Israel.

I think the question that should be asked at this stage---right now---is: why can't the Palestinian leadership come out and say that they are prepared to accept Israel, to accept a state alongside Israel, to accept a final agreement regarding Jerusalem, admit that the return of the Palestinian refugees to pre-1967 borders is no longer an issue, and agree that their state will not threaten the existence of Israel in the future?

Now, one can say that Abbas can't do this; that it would weaken his position; that it would be political suicide; that it would be giving too much too soon.

But I don't buy it. You either accept Israel---and you say so---or you don't. The obvious answer, for me, is that they don't do---they can't do so---because this is not their intention; that it was never their intention.

That in fact---and I'm repeating myself here---the Palestinians have been demanding that Israel agree to dismantle herself on the one hand, and if she refuses to do so, they threaten to dismantle her by force of arms (together with diplomacy), on the other.

That they were convinced that not only would Oslo generate a lot of pressure on Israel---the occupier---to come to terms, but that they would always have a reason to continue the conflict, and demand---and exact---further concessions.

Ad infinitum. Until the goal was achieved.

Nothing that has happened since September 2000---or more recently, since Arafat's death---can convince me otherwise.

I would, though, lest I have given the wrong impression, very much like to be convinced.

But as I said, I don't think they can do it. It's a matter of principle.

No one sensible ever thought Arafat's goal was two states.

Barry,

An interesting and thoughtful response. Thanx!

1. OJ is correct that only the mind-numbingly stupid, like Yossi Beilin, believed that Arafat was interested in a two-state solution. There was of course no shortage of international pond scum who behaved otherwise.

2. Maybe it's just 8 years of listening to Bill Clinton but deeds are far more important to me than rhetoric. Abbas has arrested terrorists and the JPost isn't questioning his bona fides in any serious way yet.

3. Where is the support for terror going to come from now? Saddam is gone. Egypt and Jordan have signed treaties with Israel. The Israelis have diplomatic negotiations ongoing with Morocco, Tunisia, and the Gulf States. Even the Libyans are, if not on board, not engaged in opposition. Iran has its own problems and the Saudis need American help to deal with Al-Qaeda and their own increasingly restive population. If you pass around the burnoose at a typical mosque, all you get back is an empty burnoose.

4. The Europeans cannot really impede what Israel wants to do even if they wanted to. A two-state solution will satisfy all but the most extreme Jew-haters in their polities. Israel has far more to offer the Euros than oranges, as anyone who trades on the NASDAQ knows. The Euros want access to Israeli high-tech and bio-tech, areas where they are woefully behind the US, Japan and the PRC.

5. The so-called 'Palestinians' tire of the fight too. How many generations have to suffer so that they can get an additional sliver of land? They've lived elsewhere, they know how their leadership has used their struggle to fill their own pockets at their expense. Even after they get their new state as described in my earlier post, there will be some irredentism on their side, but most 'Palestinians' and virtually the rest of the world will tell them to get a life. Is anyone seriously demanding that Britain evacuate the 6 counties of Ulster it still holds?

Yes, but aren't those essentially the very same arguments that were made in 1993?

So how much ought one insist that from September 2000, the Palestinians---in their actions, in their words, in their broadcasts, in their print media, in their inculcation of their youth---have revealed their hand (actually since the Durban conference several months earlier---actually, even before that, if one had been paying attention to Arafat's patient explications of the Oslo strategy)?

To the point where many around this world understand, and condone, and support, them and the reasons why they have O so reluctantly have had to embark on their terror war against Israel?

Will the Palestinians now be able to say, "No that was a mistake. We didn't mean it. We are terribly sorry. We apologize for our murderousness and our stupidity. We genuinely want to turn the page. We extend our remorseful hand in peace."

And Is that truly reasonable to expect?

And if so, will they be believed? Ought one to believe them? (And what might it take to convert the skeptic.)

Or will they say, "No that was a mistake. It didn't get us what we wanted. Let's try some different tactics. And maybe in time, at a more auspicious moment, we can resume the terror."?

Now Abbas's statement can be interpreted both ways, can't it. For those more inclined to give the Palestinians the benefit of the doubt (i.e., most of the world), he's turning over a new leaf. For those who don't, the ambiguity is no ambiguity at all.

On the other hand, nothing ventured nothing gained, as they say....

But it looks like the already gore-soaked ground is being prepared, with honeyed words (together with fearful intensity) for more blood, sweat and tears.

The arguments may be similar but the facts are different. First of all, the main enabler of terror against Israelis, Saddam Hussein, is gone and Iraq is on the sidelines. The big question in Iraqi-Israeli relations is when the pipeline from Kirkuk to Haifa gets opened.

Second, the support for PLO terror from Europe will dissipate. European 'rights activists' have claimed Israel's 'right to exist' for the better part of 60 years now, their rank-and-file and their contributors accept it, and it would be difficult to backslide now. The importance of Israeli technology to the future of the EU will outweigh the need of a few nutcases and panderers to wipe Israel off the map. In America, 99.999% of Americans would support Israel over the PLO terrorists after a state were created for the so-called 'Palestinians.'

Third, Europe's Muslim problem will increase. Pretty much anywhere one goes in France, Belgium, Germany, Holland and Italy today one encounters support for or at least understanding for Israel's problem. Ask a Parisian cop what he thinks about Arabs. These feelings will only get stronger.

Fourth, if anything, Israel's military superiority is increasing rather than decreasing and the decision by Sharon to close exposed settlements and retreat behind a sensible defensive perimeter will reduce the daily cost to Israelis. Simply put, the overwhelming majority of Israelis will be out of harm's way. The fence has certainly reduced the terror. A decision to have a 'cold peace' which is what Abbas at best seems to want, where each nation goes its own way, where if guestworkers are needed they are imported from civilized places like Thailand or Romania, rather than Arafatistan, will reduce the threat even further. A policy of expelling would-be Muslim terrorists from Israel at that point would engender no more anger than a British policy of kicking IRA terrorists into the Free State.

The simple fact is that if Abbas refuses to negotiate but continues to follow a strategy of pettifoggery, he will have a two-state solution imposed on him by Israel, the US and the EU none of which have any interest in the continuance of Arab nonsense for the reasons I've explained.

One final point. The last time a candidate with the weaker pro-Israel record won an American Presidential election was 1976, and that was Jimmy Carter who has less political support in the US today than Gorby has in Russia.

Bart:

That's only retrospective. Reagan and Bush were viewed with suspicion on Israel because evangelicals.

Reagan got 40% of the Jewish vote against Carter, while Anderson got about 15%. Dubya did poorly among Jews in 2000 because of his father, not because of 'evangelicals.' The ADL had given an award to Jerry Falwell in the mid 80s, and AIPAC regularly gives awards to evangelicals. They are often featured speakers in places like the Metro-West Jewish Center, where I met Ralph Reed.

Candidates have to pass a threshhold level of acceptability on Israel to pass muster among Jews. Carter was the last Democratic party nominee to fail to meet that standard. Old Bush was viscerally hated by Jews of all stripes by 1992. Dole had made several weird comments about Israel, showing he was all over the map. Read Richard Ben Cramer's Senator for Sale. Old Bush received about 10% of the Jewish vote, or less than Alf Landon in 1936.

Gore had an excellent record on Israel matters in his Senate career, as did his father. When he ran for President in 1988, he was all but led around on a leash by Ed Koch during the NY primary.

Don't kid yourself, most Jews hate evangelicals.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/1/story_143_1.html

"Hatred" is a strong word.

Some of us---not all---get a bit hot under the collar when there seems a concerted effort, avowedly divinely inspired, to categorize our religion as redundant.

On the other hand, I suppose it's up to us to apologize for totally misunderstanding the message.

Just call us unenlightened.

Barry:

No, it isn't. The Wie's family and friends make no bones about hating George Bush for his religion.

If that's the case, the reason is that Jews have no exposure to evangelicals on a daily basis, other than through the filter of the MSM. They simply don't live in areas with significant Jewish populations and we don't generally live in areas with significant evangelical populations. There are also class and educational differences that further divide.

I have friends and relatives who will profess a fear of 'evangelicals' but then when asked about specific issues will have positions identical with those of the Religious Right.

And of course pretty much every Jew in America grew up with horror stories from grandparents concerning the behavior of Cossacks in Russia and/or Irish Catholics in America.

Bart:

All justifications for the hatred, not arguments against the reality.