by Jonathan Rosenblum
I never thought that I would long for the days when talk of preserving the "peace process" was all the rage. Though the "peace process" was always a good deal more about process — negotiations, signed agreements, more negotiations — at least the name implied that peace was the ultimate desideratum. Today, the creation of a Palestinian state has become the be-all-and-end-all of
But a Palestinian state is not the ultimate goal nor should it be. At best, in a world far different than that in which we happen to live, it would be a means to
The exclusive emphasis on the "the two-state solution" is misbegotten for many reasons. The most basic is that there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Palestinians want a state, unlike the Jews in 1948, who were prepared to accept anything, no matter how truncated, in order to have a state. Robert B. Kaplan, who makes clear that he has little sympathy for the current Israeli government, nevertheless writes in the April 21 Atlantic that there is no evidence that the Palestinians really want a state. They have far more power without a state, for without a state, they can lob missiles at
The behavior of Arafat at
The focus on what
The focus on Israel's acceptance of the "two-state solution" further takes the spotlight off of what the Palestinians have never done — to wit move one iota from any of their traditional positions since the handshake on the White House lawn. In recent weeks, leading Fatah (yes, Fatah not Hamas) figures have reiterated that Fatah never has and never will recognize
By placing the onus on
The message the Palestinians are hearing is: Just sit tight and we [the Americans] will get you your state, without you doing anything. The obsession with
And when Obama praises the Saudi plan as a brave initiative, with which he may have a few cavils, he not only raises panic in
Remember that this generous plan is being propounded by the Saudis, whose representatives refuse to so much as exchange hellos with any Israeli and heatedly deny any suggestion that they might have done so. Doesn't that level of hatred for Jews and Israel sort of make the focus on how forthcoming Prime Minister Netanyahu is or isn't seem a bit ridiculous?
Everything coming out of
The American linkage of action against
Moreover, why should such progress be a condition of action vis-a-vis
No decent lawyer would allow a client to sign an agreement, no matter how attractive, without a due diligence as to both the reliability of the other party and its capability of performing according to the terms of the contract. Yet President Obama (Harvard Law) and Secretary of State Clinton (Yale Law) are pushing Israel towards an agreement where the unreliability of the other side is well-established by virtue of two decades of broken promises about ending incitement and stopping terror and its ability to perform is beyond doubtful, given the likelihood of a Hamas takeover of the West Bank as soon as Israel withdraws. Hopefully
Jonathan Rosenblum is founder of Jewish Media Resources and a widely-read columnist for the Jerusalem Post's domestic and international editions and for the Hebrew daily Maariv.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.