When it comes to peace in the Middle East, we’ve tried just about everything and nothing has worked. And if you believe that, there’s a bridge over the River Jordan I want to sell you.
The truth is that one American administration after another has embraced the same false premises and, from that starting point, set into motion a “peace process” that ineluctably fails. Afterwards, they say: “We came so close!” Which is like saying: “The last time I jumped off the roof, I almost flew!”
Start with the assumption that the core issue in the conflict is the Israeli “occupation” of Palestinian territories and that the solution is “land for peace.” In 1967, Israel’s Arab neighbors fought a war to wipe the Jewish state off the map. When they lost, Israel took control of Gaza (which had been Egyptian) and the West Bank (which had been Jordanian). Israelis were willing to relinquish those territories — but they wanted a solid peace treaty in exchange. No Arab leader was willing to pay that price.
Four years ago this month, in exchange for nothing, Israel removed from Gaza every last Israeli — including even those buried in the cemeteries. Palestinian leaders did not say: “Gaza is no longer occupied. If we can next disengage from the Israelis on the West Bank, the conflict is over.” Instead, Hamas was soon launching thousands of missiles from Gaza at cities well inside Israel proper. Of course, Hamas does not pretend to want only Gaza and the West Bank. It candidly acknowledges that it is shooting — literally — for every square inch of the Jewish state.
Move on to a second premise: that the primary goal of Palestinian leaders now is a Palestinian state that would live in peace with Israel as their neighbor. Seven years ago, President George W. Bush became the first American president to officially endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state — so long as it would not become another terrorist-sponsoring state.
Hamas explicitly rejected that. Again, Hamas demands that infidels leave the Middle East or, at the very least, submit to Islamic rule and Sharia law. But isn’t that just where the bargaining would begin? No, that’s the third mistaken premise. For Hamas, Islamic supremacy is not a negotiating position; it’s a religious conviction, and therefore not open to compromise.
As for the more “moderate” Fatah movement, this week it held its Sixth General Assembly in Bethlehem. The path to peace with Israel was not the theme. One prominent Fatah politician, Muhammad Dahlan, recently said: “For the 1,000th time, I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Rather we are asking Hamas not to do so, because Fatah never recognized Israel’s right to exist.”
Schools, mosques, and media in both Gaza and the West Bank continue to instruct Palestinians that their main goal is not the establishment of a Palestinian state but the disestablishment of Israel. Toward that end, Dahlan has recently said, Palestinians retain the “right” to employ terrorism.
Another Fatah official, Hatim Abdul Qader, said his organization needs to forge closer relations with Iran — which also is Hamas’s sponsor and which also is committed to Israel’s destruction, along with, in the long run, “a world without America.”
A new administration ought to think outside the box. If President Obama were looking for new and improved approaches to peace processing, what options might be considered?
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu thinks an “economic peace” could pave the way to a broader settlement. He recalls that the economy of the West Bank was among the fastest growing in the world after 1967 and before 1993 — when Israeli leaders brought Yasser Arafat from exile and installed him as Palestinian strongman under the Oslo Accords. A precipitous economic decline followed, despite — and in some ways because of — huge infusions of aid money filtered through Arafat. Violence increased as well.