This is my response to a New York Times Op Ed May 17,2011 by Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas
I've heard it said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.
In his Op Ed piece,the supposed moderate president of the PLA gave a recitation of the facts of the creation of Israel and the Palestinian states that bears little resemblance to the facts as I, and most objective historians, know them.
In recounting the history of the UN's creation of an Israeli state and a Palestinian state, he never mentioned that Israel accepted that proposal. He failed to mention that the Palestinians rejected the UN proposal to create a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. He left out the fact that the Palestinians along with 5 other Arab countries, who had professional armies, declared war on Israel and attacked the nascent Jewish state. Their goal was to wipe Israel out.
They lost. Many Palestinians fled, and I won't even get into the debate as to why. Suffice it to say hundred of thousands Arabs did not flee and were not harmed in any way. Today they constitute a group of 1.3 million Israeli citizens. The fact that so many others fled was their decision.
From 1948 until 1967, the land which the Palestinians now want as the Palestinian state (and are going to the UN to have such a state so declared) was completely in Arab hands. A Palestinian state could have been declared by Jordan and Egypt and, among other things, no one would have had to live in refugee camps.
Why didn't they create the Palestinian state during that period? Whenever I have asked that very question over the years, I only get blank stares and comments about moving on. I believe it is a valid question and it's answer lies at the heart of the real problem. To give the Palestinians a state on anything less than all of the land which includes the state of Israel is an anathema to the Arabs.
Today there is talk of a two state solution. Everyone agrees, but not really.
Israel, ironically, would be doing what the Palestinian's brother Arabs didn't do, create a Palestinian state. This Palestinian state would be on land, the same in total area, and roughly the same geographically, as the pre-1967 borders.
There would be one Jewish state , Israel; and one Muslim state, Palestine. Of course, Jews and Muslims could live in either state. Much like the many Islamic and Christian states around the world.
President Abbas, and most of the Palestinians, view the two state solution much differently. One state , Palestine, would be overwhelmingly Muslim and Arab, and the other state , Israel would not be a Jewish state and in fact would be majority Muslim Arab, after the return of the Palestinians who ancestors left. His refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state says it all. It's not the same as recognizing Israel as a state, as he does.
I don't believe that the President Abbas's solution is what the rest of the world thought a two state solution would be. Of course Hamas won't even go that far.
Why hasn't this been made clear to us in the West?
History is being re-written as evidenced by President Abbas' NYT's Op Ed piece, and given the world's antipathy towards Israel, few seem to care.
Here are my thoughts:
ReplyDelete>>>
>>> We have our historical narrative and the Palestinians have theirs, and
>>> they will never agree, no matter what the objective historians (is there
>>> such a person?) say. A hundred years from now (I hope) Israel will
>>> still be celebrating its creation and the Palestinians will still be
>>> calling the same event a catastrophe. So history is just one more thing
>>> to argue about. What is important is that on May 15, 2111, the Israelis
>>> are celebrating and the Palestinians are reflecting each in their own
>>> democratic state, at peace with each other and cooperating, as they have
>>> for the last 99 years, to improve their economies and solve their mutual
>>> problems of the day. Arguing endlessly about the past with no hope of
>>> reaching agreement about who did what to whom will not get them there;
>>> it will only delay the important discussion about the future.
>>>
>>> I do a lot of mediations, and every one starts the same way: each party
>>> tells the other how strong its position is and how ridiculous the other
>>> guy's is. My job, in addition to keeping them from deciding during this
>>> phase that the whole thing is waste of time and walking out, is to let
>>> them know that I respect both their positions, no matter how much I may
>>> disagree with them. I don't have to be on their side, but I do have to
>>> recognize the legitimacy of both their arguments and their interests,
>>> even as I try to get them to see their interests differently. The
>>> turning point is when they get tired of proclaiming about the principle
>>> of the thing and start dealing with the practical issues they face,
>>> whether those be litigation risks and costs, business risks, or
>>> whatever. As soon as they get there, they at least acknowledge that the
>>> other side has legitimate interests and become partners in a common
>>> effort to get out of the mess they are in together because they realize
>>> that they can only get out of that mess together. Obama understands all
>>> this perfectly. Every word of his two speeches was designed to push the
>>> two parties past the phase of yelling at each other and on to the phase
>>> of finding a common solution to a common problem.
Ron
Early this morning I heard a replay of Netanyahu's speech to Congress. The
ReplyDelete>>> words were to the point and largely true.
>>>
>>> I have been and continue to be an unconditional supporter of the Irishman
>>> O'Bama. I trust him, his intellect, pragmatism, and good intentions. I
>>> understand both of your briefs. There is more common ground between you than
>>> maybe you would acknowledge.
>>>
>>> I am afraid that the time is not yet ripe for a resolution. Give it another
>>> 10 or 20 years. I am impressed by Netanyahu's statement that the Arabs in
>>> Israel are the only ones in the Middle East who are citizens of a free
>>> democratic country. The recent apparent reconciliation of Hamas and the
>>> Palestinian Authority is another setback. Hamas still calls for the
>>> destruction of Israel. Ron's arbitrations don't succeed when one party is
>>> committed to the death of the other.
>>>
>>> Add to the mix the uncertain direction of the new realities in Egypt,
>>> Tunisia, Syria, etc. and it's hard to see how Israel makes promises it can
>>> keep. And yet I feel guilty and sorry for the Palestinians.
>>>
>>>
I didn't want to lengthen my over-long message by talking about Hamas, but certainly there could never be a deal with them. It's too soon to tell what the strange new relationship between Hamas and Abbas will mean but it is certainly troublesome. Eric and I agree about what we want for Israel, just not on how Israel can achieve it. I would also worry about waiting another 10-20 years. Do we have that long, especially if Israel continues to expand settlements? The tide continues to be in the wrong direction. Today the world is rejoicing that people can freely cross the Gaza/Egyptian border. Will the world wait a decade or two before deciding something must be done to "liberate" the people in Palestine?
ReplyDelete>>
>> >
>> Ron
I want thank you guys for the terrific dialog on this subject.
ReplyDeleteHowever,I need to clarify my position. Maybe you missed it, but I said I agreed with Obama's speech. I have long been critical of Netanyahu's positions and tactics and feel he is isolating Israel and letting the Palestinian "off the hook" by not allowing the world to see how unreasonable their position really is. I believe I said Netanyahu should call the Palestinians bluff and see who really wants peace.
That being said, my sole reason for writing my blog post was to not let history be re-written and the facts forgotten. While there may be conflicting narratives about what happened in 1948 ( I don't think so), there is no such reconstruction of the fact that when two Arab country's controlled what now is to be the Palestinian state, they didn't create such a state. I'm still looking for a response to that question.
Israel needs a new government who can offer the kind of deal that those in the West who support the Palestinian cause want and if the Palestinians (as opposed to their Western supporters) reject that, for what would be the third or fourth time, then maybe the world will see the sad truth-- that the Arabs only would not be against an Israel, if it wasn't a Jewish state. If I'm wrong I'll be very happy.