by Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 309, October 7, 2015EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The false Palestinian narrative of one-sided victimhood is a major hindrance to all efforts in the direction of Israeli-Palestinian peace. Global actors need to help the Palestinians move beyond wallowing in self-pity and rituals of bashing Israel, and towards difficult compromises with Israel.
The
speech delivered by Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas at the
UN General Assembly last week was proof, once again, that the
Palestinian “narrative” of victimhood has become a threat to any
practical prospect for peace. Palestinian leaders consistently advance
an interpretation of history which is at odds not only with the facts
but also with their people’s best interests.
At
the core of Abbas’ plaintive narration is the notion of the
Palestinians as innocent victims, whose right to statehood and
independence has been taken away and brutally ignored for much too long.
In this telling of history, the Palestinians deserve to be backed by
coercive intervention, as soon as possible, so as to impose on Israel a
solution which would implement their “”rights.”
This
would include implementation of “all relevant UN resolutions” – meaning
UN General Assembly resolution 194 (the so-called “right of return”) as
well as the Arab (mis)interpretation of resolution 242 as demanding
withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 lines.
Moreover, this is translated into the demand, explicitly made by Abbas, for “international protection” (Himayah Duwwaliyyah);
a term of uncertain practical import, yet indicative of the Palestinian
reluctance to settle down to the hard work of striking a workable
compromise with Israel.
There
is no room, therein, for the long litany of Palestinian past mistakes
and misjudgments. These are deftly expunged from the record. No mention
can be made of the recent rise in Palestinian terror activities; no
mention of the Palestinian decision to walk away from the framework
advanced by US Secretary of State John Kerry; no word on Hamas’ habitual
shelling of Israeli civilian targets.
There
is also no mention of the collapse of all past peace efforts; of the
fact that only in 1988 did PLO (putatively) recognize Israel’s right to
exist. No reference is made to the long years of terror, including the
brazen attack on the Olympic Games in 1972; no hint of their rejection
of partition in 1947; no mention of Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s relationship
with Hitler and Himmler; no mention of the massacres of Jews in Hebron
in 1929 and Jaffa in 1921.
In
other words, all that the Palestinians have ever suffered – and their
suffering was real enough, even if it pales in comparison with what has
befallen the Syrian people and others in the region in recent times – is
someone else’s fault. It is Israel’s fault, above all, and the world’s.
Over
the years, this narrative of victimhood has become so entrenched as to
be an integral part of Palestinian identity. Yasser Arafat even had a
way of insinuating that Jesus of Nazareth must have been a Palestinian,
given his suffering. Acknowledgement of the tragic aspects of
Palestinian history, including the “Nakba” (catastrophe) which befell
them in 1948, has become commonplace in Israel and elsewhere.
However,
references to the Palestinians’ own role in the chain of events which
led to their defeats remain quite rare – even more so at higher
political echelons. This, in turn, feeds not only the sense of grievance
and the ensuing justifications for violence. It is an active barrier to
any practical compromise, and to reconciliation and peace.
Every
once in a while, some attempts – few and far between – have been made
to wean the Palestinian leadership and people off these habits of
thought. Former US Middle East peace coordinator Dennis Ross recalls
(in his 2004 book The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace)
how President Bill Clinton unexpectedly wove this theme into his
comments before the Palestinian National Council in Gaza in December
1998, “acting as much as a preacher and teacher as world leader.”
He
did so by invoking a speech made by the first Governor of Arkansas
after the US Civil War, obviously a theme of great emotional import for a
President who had served in the same position many years later, and was
painfully familiar with the tragic history of the South. The words he
quoted were pithy and direct: “We have all done wrong.”
This
may indeed have been, as Dennis Ross felt, “the best speech ever given
on peace.” But he is wrong to assert that “the Palestinians in the hall
were visibly moved” – at least not by the Arkansas story. Those of us
who watched that speech live noted the departure from the prepared text –
and felt that it actually fell on deaf ears. Its meaning did not seem
to register with the Palestinian audience.
To speak of peace had become acceptable, but to cross the threshold into acceptance of mutual
victimhood – and mutual moral responsibility – was beyond the
Palestinian abilities, then as now. Still, the effort should have been
persistently pursued. It was not.
This
is not to say that Israel needs to endorse a strategy of
counter-accusation, stressing Jewish victimhood. Despite all that has
transpired since 2000 (or Oslo, or Madrid) the point is not that what
was committed by the other side entitles us to dismiss the prospect of a
negotiated agreement. Abbas seemed to take up this line of
argumentation in his recent UN speech. But this is not Israel’s best
choice. Indeed, in his UN speech Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to
emphasize that Israel’s hand remains extended for peace, and that a
breakthrough is still possible.
What
needs to be done, however, particularly in disputation or in dialogue
with those who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause (whether it be
the BDS crowd or more even-handed interlocutors) is to make the point,
again and again that endorsement of the Palestinian narrative harms the
Palestinians’ own future.
By
tagging the Zionist project as “colonialist” in nature (i.e., transient
and perishable), those who do so help consign the Palestinian people,
whom they purport to help, to an ideological, political and diplomatic
cul-de-sac.
More
than two years have passed since Kerry used a straightforward formula
for success, as he tried to usher in, in July 2013, a new phase of
negotiations. Kerry spoke of “reasonable compromises on tough,
complicated, emotional and symbolic issues.”
Indeed,
any sober assessment of what it would take to strike an
Israeli-Palestinian deal inevitably leads to the clear understanding
that painful but practical political compromises are required from both
sides. Alas, this concept seems alien to many in the region,
particularly to Palestinians; and the international community is not
doing its part to help the Palestinians mature towards this realization.
The
false Palestinian narrative of one-sided victimhood is a major
hindrance to all efforts in the direction of peace. Global actors that
want to help achieve peace need to assist the Palestinians in moving
beyond wallowing in self-pity and rituals of bashing Israel.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family
Col. (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman has joined the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies as a senior research associate. For the past six years, he served as deputy for foreign policy and international affairs at the National Security Council in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. For 20 years prior to that, he held senior posts in IDF Military Intelligence, and also was Israel director of the American Jewish Committee.
Source: http://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/the-palestinian-victimhood-narrative-as-an-obstacle-to-peace/
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment