Hi zonder,
Well the Israeli/Pal situation has been argued over endlessly, so probably neither of us has the energy to make his/her points in full. But briefly:
Guys like Henry Siegman, like Jimmy Carter, will always be on hand to explain that their diplomatic triumphs fell apart because the democratic side did not give enough concessions to the dictatorship side; had they only given more concessions, everything would have been ok. In this article Siegman even dares to say that the Palestinians are being offered "nothing". Israeli withdrawal is nothing, autonomy is nothing, a state is nothing, because the Palestinians "deserve" it -- no matter what they do.
Well. Let us take a little look back at the last two years and more. There were talks, right? Who said no and started a terrorist war? Arafat, right? Even a few diplomats not particularly well inclined to Israel might concede that it would be problematic to reward a campaign of suicide bombers with even more concessions, more even than were offered at Taba, presumably. It might give some encouragement to the Chechens and Al Qaeda, yes? Also, as a pragmatic note, such an offer requires some minimum of trust between the two side, trust that has been shattered by the war, which is why the Mitchell and Tenet plans call for a cease-fire, and a cooling off period.
Let's say Palestinians stop all resistance. Israel gets what it wants. Now what's in this for the Palestinians? Where is the timetable, the steps, etc for them to get what they want?
If the Palestinians stop, they will get an Israeli withdrawal, and they could always threaten to start up again. The Israeli withdrawal is less easy to reverse than the Palestinian cease-fire. As for what the Palestinians get down the road, President Bush has openly backed a Palestinian state by the end of three years. However, this time he demanded something from the Palestinians up front -- political reform. Bush, like the Israelis was rather tired of the old formula: the Israelis do something tangible, while the Palestinians promise good behavior, and break the promise instantly.
Arafat, as usual, is defiantly refusing to comply. How many times do you suppose that an American envoy has gone over there and said something along the lines of "look we will help you get a state but you must show some cooperation, make a cease-fire that holds, stop these deals with Hizbullah? we won't back you if you keep spitting in our eye" and Arafat has always replied with some lip service against terrorism, but kept the terrorism* and the side deals with Iran and Iraq right up. Arafat's policy is "I have the sympathy and money of the whole Arab world, and I'm going to make you back me even though I keep sticking my thumb in your eye."
The important point is to look not at what Arafat says (the whole world knows he's a consumate liar), but what he has done. Looking at the choices that Arafat has actually made, it's not hard to come to the conclusion that a Palestinian state is not much of an inducement to him, however much certain Western diplomats might think so. Arafat could have walked out of Taba with a Palestinian state. But clearly the price was too high -- Arafat would have had to make concessions regarding the right of return and the end of the conflict that he was unwilling to make, that he openly told Clinton would be his death warrant to make. So that leads to the conclusion that a Palestinian state is ok only if it's the result of a truce in the war, it cannot be the result of a settlement, because a settlement would have to acknowledge the permanent status of Israel. Think about it - how is this attitude different from the other radical Arab states? they too are in a state of truce, the eventual aim of wiping out Israel has been set aside but not abandoned.
___________________________
* Please, no protests that Arafat condemns the terrorism. For the last two years, Arafat's own organizations, such as Fatah (his original organization), the Tanzim, and Al Aqsa, have been competing with Hamas and PIJ in terrorism.
The competition produced a comedic note the other day. After a suicide bomber killed three Israelis at Ariel, Fatah proudly announced that their guy, Mohammed Shakir, had been the proud martyr. But they spoke too soon. The "martyrdom operation" (to use Al Jazeera's term) had been carried out by Hamas. Armed with the name of the would-be bomber, the IDF arrested Mohammed Shakir -- and thanked Fatah for the tip. |
