the actual policies of the Israeli government, in deference to a minority of religious lunatics and ideological hardliners, has been to proceed with a settlement policy over the last three decades that has helped inflame the situation, erode trust on the Palestinian side, and make a final settlement much more difficult. There is simply no way to explain any expansion of settlements during the 90s as anything other than harmful to peace
It was certainly harmful to Oslo, though unlike a slew of Palestinian actions, it did not break any Oslo commitments. Both sides assembled bargaining chips. I think I have pointed that out. Whether it was harmful to peace depends on your assessment of whether Oslo would lead to peace, or only ensure another war.
When you say the settlement policy was advanced by a minority of "religious lunatics and ideological hardliners", it sounds like you have missed an essential part of the Labor - Likud debate inside Israel. There certainly are religious ideologues ("This is Jewish land. G-d gave it to us, and we're keeping it."), and hardline practical ideologues ("We cannot afford to give the central highlands of our country into enemy hands. Anyone who believe that a Palestinian state will remain demiliterized is dwelling in Cloud Cuckoo Land.").
But the strongest anti-Oslo argument that I have heard is what I would call the "Arab mentality" argument. It resonates among Sephardic voters (who do have the most experience of Arab mentalities). This argument did not belong to a fringe group but to a solid minority. After this last year, I think it may now be a majority opinion. Its most prominent current spokesmen are Daniel Pipes and Bibi Netanyahu.
This argument relies on the basic proposition that the Arabs have never accepted Israel. It notes that no Arab country gave two straws about Palestinian national aspirations as long as the West Bank and Gaza remained in Arab hands; the support only began after the land had passed into Israeli control and the Arab countries had already refused several Israeli offers of land for peace.
It says that the Arabs believe that all of Israel is Occupied Palestine (easy to believe; just check their maps) and that accepting Israel's existence is contrary to the will of Allah. Once Arab land, always Arab land.
By this reckoning, support for the Palestinian state is designed to chew Israel apart piece by piece. This strategy is described in detail in the PLO's 1974 "Plan of Phases" document, which describes a diplomatic strategy to get any piece of land in Palestine, then use it to stage further attacks.
To those who believe this idea, Arab acceptance of Oslo was a ruse from day one. A corollary of this idea is that the very act of offering a compromise to this mentality was a dreadful blunder; any offer to share the land just proved to the Arabs that the Jews didn't really have any right to it at all. Worse, it encouraged them to think that they could destroy Israel by diplomatic means.
I didn't use to believe this, but what I've read in the last year has changed my mind. Nearly every PLO speech in Arabic lends credence to this theory. Arafat has often likened Oslo to the Treaty of Hubeiya (a temporary truce that the Prophet broke as soon as it was advantageous), Faisal Husseini called Oslo a Trojan Horse. Certainly Arafat has never spoken of the "peace of the brave" or "painful compromises" in Arabic, and the incitement against Israel has been continuous. |
