Here We Go Again

 

Every four years or so the President, whoever he is, makes a well-publicized effort to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute. It usually takes place at the beginning of a presidential election cycle and is designed to show determination to solve a problem with which he has either not dealt since the last election, or failed at solving earlier. It is a political move designed to show his involvement in world affairs and his determination to solve one of the world's most heralded crises, and it is a move intended to garner votes for himself and his party. After the election and the inevitable failure of the effort, it becomes of lesser importance.

That is the background for this past weekend's flurry of activity by President Obamaⁱ and the immediate rejection of his stand by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The demand by the President, one to which Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot accede, is for the establishment of a Palestinian State based on the 1949 truce borders.ⁱⁱ He fears that such borders would be “indefensible.” During the period that preceded the 1967 war there was constant harassment of Israeli farmers from the Golan as well as incitement from elsewhere.

But that was more than four decades ago. Weapons are better now – both military arms and political propaganda – and harassment and incitement have turned to aggression and murder. There is constant rocket attack from Gaza, which Israel gave to the Palestinians in the hope of peace – a hope that was quickly discredited. There is the likelihood that the Palestinians will secure from an ineffectual and fearful UN a declaration of “statehood.” It will be the statehood of a power sworn to destroy another UN member.

And, not surprisingly, there is now a threat from Egypt that its new government will scrap an existing treaty with Israel – a “peace” treaty for which Israel gave up the Sinai and its oil fields. The abrogation of treaties, however, is not new to Islam, dating back to 630 when Muhammad attacked and took Medina in violation of the Treaty of Hudaibiya which he had made with the Quraysh in 628. There is a religious rationalization of this position since it is based on a general Islamic concept of Taqiya, lying to those whom you consider your enemies, and there is also a lesser form, Kitman, in which deception involves telling only part of the truth. Thus Israel is wary since it is, at best, risky to enter into any agreement with those who hold such beliefs, and even more so to do so when your “partners in peace” refuse to recognize you and vow your destruction.

That, however, is what President Obama asks Israel to do.ⁱⁱⁱ He feels that Israel should take some “risks” for peace. Use the old borders for a start and trust the Palestinians to agree to a fair bargain and a mutually acceptable two state solution. The President is intent on showing America's respect for Islam and the Arab countries, even though those nations don't trust the United States and would be happy to see our country's power and culture crushed. The contention is often made that you must negotiate and conclude peace agreements with your enemies, not your friends, but doing so – loving your enemy – is not synonymous with hating and sacrificing your friends.

The world calls for a two state solution in the Middle East, one that would include a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. Indeed, from the perspective of international powers bent on accommodation of the Palestinians, division of Jerusalem – Ir Shalom, the City of Peace – makes sense – at least the public demand for it. I wonder, however, how successful the world's experience has been with divided cities. My recollection of places like Berlin, and of Jerusalem during the time of its division suggests that this is a sure road to failure. And has there ever been a city that was the capital of two different – and warring – nations?^iv If so, how did that work out? We are cautioned to remember history, and not to repeat its mistakes. The Middle East is no place to experiment, especially in the name of cynical politics.

There are those who would eliminate Israel; many who deny the occurrence of the Holocaust; and some who disingenuously deny any relationship between the Jews and Jerusalem (or "Palestine"). There are those who hold the Jews (Israel) responsible for all the problems in the Middle East, or even the world. Some claim anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism. That's true in theory, but most "anti-Zionists" use that label as a justification for anti-Semitism.

The upcoming UN debate over the recognition of Palestinian and the deligitimization of Israel, along with the upcoming Durban clone^v are certain to attract the attention of the media and, through them, the public. As to whether the questions raised are themselves legitimate, there can be much debate. The real issue, however, is why there is so little attention paid to the crimes perpetrated by the various Arab States – to their racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption, and lack of regard for human rights.^vi There is no attention to the issue of whether, for example, Syria should exist. Like Israel it is a creation of an international body, but unlike Israel it has no historical basis. And whether or not there is a historical basis for a particular state, there is at least as much reason to question some of its neighbors as Israel itself. But there is a dearth of critical thinking and discussion by other countries; no criticism of those neighbors as the real causes of unrest in the area. Only the rush to blame it all on Israel.

And that is basis for the current situation. Sadly, rather than take a firm stand based on America's principles, President Obama is using his “bully pulpit” to give the appearance of strength as he demonstrates his weakness. Like so many other nations he is yielding to the demands of the region's tyrannies. Perhaps he views it as being in America's interests. Perhaps he considers it good politics. But, as the saying goes, it's bad policy. It's a sure recipe for the distrust of any nation with which we have a treaty.

Presidential politics can take a terrible toll.

 

i     That and the current turmoil in the Middle East. The turmoil, in many nations, demonstrates that the causative problems have nothing to do with Israel – only to the difficulties in those countries themselves. All of the accusations that Zionism is responsible for all their problems was meant to distract their own citizens from the tyrannies that controlled them and the deplorable conditions which they had to suffer.

ii    They are described as the 1967 borders to make them sound more contemporary and to suggest that the 1967 War is the source of all the current disagreements.

iii    Israel is certain to mistrust the Arab nations and anticipate violation of any agreement with them. But it is sad that she cannot rely on a commitment of the United States. In 2004 President Bush stated that the truce lines now being promoted could not serve as the basis for any peace negotiations. If America renounces her commitment not to use “the armistice lines of 1949” as a basis for such negotiations – a position supported by then Senator Hillary Clinton – how can Israel rely on any other nation to honor any promises to her? After all, if the United States, a “friend,” doesn't have to live up to commitments to Israel, why should anyone else. And, for that matter, why should anyone live up to any commitments to the United States?

iv    A period when the destruction of synagogues may have been important, but none of the Arab powers gave any thought to the city as capital of a Palestinian state. In fact, no interest was even displayed in the establishment of a Palestinian state when the Arabs held large parts of the country, including much of Jerusalem. Only when Israel ruled the area did they discover that there was a Palestinian people and a land they should rule.

v     Scheduled for September 22, 2011 in New York. It's nominally a conference on “racism” but, like the UN in general, it seems to have as its main goal the discrediting of Israel.

vi    These are usually passed off as internal affairs which should be of no concern to “outsiders.” Israel, on the other hand, …