Israel's Intifada Victory

Israel & Palestine Forum

Israel's Intifada Victory

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A29


While no one was looking, something historic happened in the Middle East. The Palestinian intifada is over, and the Palestinians have lost.

For Israel, the victory is bitter. The past four years of terrorism have killed almost 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands of others. But Israel has won strategically. The intent of the intifada was to demoralize Israel, destroy its economy, bring it to its knees, and thus force it to withdraw and surrender to Palestinian demands, just as Israel withdrew in defeat from southern Lebanon in May 2000.

That did not happen. Israel's economy was certainly wounded, but it is growing again. Tourism had dwindled to almost nothing at the height of the intifada, but tourists are returning. And the Israelis were never demoralized. They kept living their lives, the young people in particular returning to cafes and discos and buses just hours after a horrific bombing. Israelis turned out to be a lot tougher and braver than the Palestinians had imagined.

The end of the intifada does not mean the end of terrorism. There was terrorism before the intifada and there will be terrorism to come. What has happened, however, is an end to systematic, regular, debilitating, unstoppable terror -- terror as a reliable weapon. At the height of the intifada, there were nine suicide attacks in Israel killing 85 Israelis in just one month (March 2002). In the past three months there have been none.

The overall level of violence has been reduced by more than 70 percent. How did Israel do it? By ignoring its critics and launching a two-pronged campaign of self-defense.

First, Israel targeted terrorist leaders -- attacks so hypocritically denounced by Westerners who, at the same time, cheer the hunt for, and demand the head of, Osama bin Laden. The top echelon of Hamas and other terrorist groups has been either arrested, killed or driven underground. The others are now so afraid of Israeli precision and intelligence -- the last Hamas operative to be killed by missile was riding a motorcycle -- that they are forced to devote much of their time and energy to self-protection and concealment.

Second, the fence. Only about a quarter of the separation fence has been built, but its effect is unmistakable. The northern part is already complete, and attacks in northern Israel have dwindled to almost nothing.

This success does not just save innocent lives; it changes the strategic equation of the whole conflict.

Yasser Arafat started the intifada in September 2000, just weeks after he had rejected, at Camp David, Israel's offer of withdrawal, settlement evacuation, sharing of Jerusalem and establishment of a Palestinian state. Arafat wanted all that, of course, but without having to make peace and recognize a Jewish state. Hence the terror campaign -- to force Israel to give it all up unilaterally.

Arafat failed, spectacularly. The violence did not bring Israel to its knees. Instead, it created chaos, lawlessness and economic disaster in the Palestinian areas. The Palestinians know the ruin that Arafat has brought, and they are beginning to protest it. He promised them blood and victory; he delivered on the blood.

Even more important, they have lost their place at the table. Israel is now defining a new equilibrium that will reign for years to come -- the separation fence is unilaterally drawing the line that separates Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians were offered the chance to negotiate that frontier at Camp David and chose war instead. Now they are paying the price.

It stands to reason. It is the height of absurdity to launch a terrorist war against Israel, then demand the right to determine the nature and route of the barrier built to prevent that very terrorism.

These new strategic realities are not just creating a new equilibrium, they are creating the first hope for peace since Arafat officially tore up the Oslo accords four years ago. Once Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and has completed the fence, terrorism as a strategic option will be effectively dead. The only way for the Palestinians to achieve statehood and dignity, and to determine the contours of their own state, will be to negotiate a final peace based on genuine coexistence with a Jewish state.

It could be a year, five years or a generation until the Palestinians come to that realization. The pity is that so many, Arab and Israeli, will have had to die before then.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com


© 2004 The Washington Post Company

excuses, excuses, excuses. That's all you got.

Who's the one making all the excuses now??

You haven't countered anything of what I said though. So it's not just a matter of "picking parts."

Really? Then why did you respond? What you did was make excuses AGAIN. The Intifada had nothing to do with a "last straw" unless that last straw was the faliure of the Palestinians to force Israel into accepting 5 million Arabs inside of Israel. In that case I'd agree with you.

I

Intifada over? Could be

But the Palestinians will never stop fighting the oppressors and occupiers.

AZ, you're 100% wrong about the Palestinian motives for starting the Intifada. The Palestinian economy was trending UPWARD in the late 1990's. It went to hell AFTER the Intifada started.

The settlement activities were part of what was negotiated at Camp David and Taba. There wouldn't be any more of them in the territorities designated to the Palestinians, which was, as stated numerous times and backed by credible links, 100% of the Gaza strip, 94% of the West Bank, and Israeli land equal to 3% of the West Bank. If the Palestinians wanted to stop the settlements, they need only have made a peace deal. Instead, they made a strategic decision to start this Intifada. That decision was a violation of the Oslo accords. The Israeli settlements, though wrong-headed and inflammatory, were NOT a violation of those accords. I challenge you to find me the text of those accords that forbids settlements. You won't find it. What you will find, instead, are numerous guarentees from the PA that it will do everything in its power to counter terrorism. Those were the obligations imposed in exchange for the PLO being put in power there. They accepted the power, did nothing to curb the terrorism (and indeed ultimately supported it), and stole a huge amount of foreign aid meant to build infrastructure for the Palestinians to boot.

The occupation wasn't becoming "increasingly" oppressive either. There is zero evidence of that. With the exception of the Baruch Goldstein incident, which was a lone gunmen, Israeli violence toward Palestinians has been concentrated, almost exclusively, during the first and second intifadas, with the majority during the second as the Palestinian violence was worse this time around. So none of these arguments you are making has much support in the historical record.

What does appear to be the case is that the peace negotiations are Camp David and Taba, which occurred in 2000, and the start of the Intifada immediately thereafter were non-coincidental. If you think the two had nothing to do with each other you are way out in left field. The decision was that if Israel did not accede to every single Palestinian demand, then they would violate Oslo and resort to terrorism. That was the PA's decision. As to Hamas - it's own charter states that it violently opposing any peace process. So the two - the peace process and the Intifada - are inextricably linked. I see little credible evidence to the contrary.

- woolfe

Why Oslo Failed

From their respective points of view, each side is right, and holds their views without particular malice toward the other side. Both sides view themselves as "Righteous Victims," a phrase coined by Benny Morris, seeking redress of grievances.

The majority of Palestinians wanted to avenge the "catastrophe" of 1948 by massive return of the refugees of 1948 to Israel proper. An IPCRI poll shows that about 90% of refugees insist on this interpretation of "Right of Return" under UN Resolution 194. At a personal level, this desire may not be vengeful, but simply a desire to return home and to seek restitution.

Professor Sari Nusseibeh, almost the only voice in Palestine who advocates giving up right of return in return for peace, has gotten almost no support in Palestine. He was prevented from speaking by angry students at An-Najjah University.

Commenting on Nusseibeh's views, the head of the PLO Political Department, Farouk Kaddoumi, remarked recently, "Only those who have experienced pain and suffering can have a political sense. I'm personally from Jaffa, and that's why I have a different feeling. Of course I'm still dreaming of Jaffa.... The oranges of Jaffa and their odor are still in my mind."

The practical meaning of return of the refugees, as both Israelis and Palestinians admit, is the end of Israel as a Jewish homeland. The goal of dismantling Israel through armed conflict is explicitly part of the constitution of the Fateh, the chief constituent of the Palestine Authority and of the PLO, and it remains their announced goal. Article 12 of the Fateh Constitution states as a goal of Fateh, "Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence." Moreover, the goals are to be achieved by violence. Article 19 states, " Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated." The constitution remains posted at the Fateh Web site at www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htm.

Thus, while the PLO officials, including Arafat, had committed themselves to nonviolence and coexistence with Israel at Oslo, the Fateh organization that they head remained committed to armed struggle and destruction of Israel. A similar goal is stated in the constitution of the Hamas. There is no major Palestinian group that has formally adopted the goal of coexistence with Israel, despite frequent assertions by PNA officials during the Oslo process that the Palestinians had decided on a real historic compromise.

The same sort of duality, expressed in other ways, exists on the Israeli side. The Israelis want to maximize Israeli territory, and have always viewed the possibility of a Palestinian state with somewhat justifiable distrust. The Israeli goal has always been acceptance of Israel as an independent state by the Arab world, on Israeli terms. For many Israelis, that means accepting permanent displacement of the Palestinians. For the majority of Israeli Jews, it means Israeli sovereignty over a united Jerusalem. Neither side is willing to admit any culpability in conflict. Each side sees themselves as the wronged party.

The result was that both sides viewed the agreements as a framework defining new rules for the continuation of the conflict, rather than a means of terminating the conflict. The goal of the Israelis was to maximize settlements in the West Bank and Gaza and thereby to maximize the area that would be retained by Israel. Accordingly, the settler population of the West Bank and Gaza rose from about 115,000 when the agreements were signed, to approximately 210,000 by the 2002. These figures do not include the Jerusalem area, where there was also extensive building. Israeli strategy in the West Bank and Gaza was the same as Zionist strategy during the British mandate era - to obtain a Jewish majority in as many areas as possible, with a view to backing the claim to the land as part of Israel, to create "facts on the ground." This is seen in an evaluation written during the Nethanyahu era by Haim Gwirtzman of Bar Ilan University:

"Demographic data on the Israeli and Palestinian populations shows that there are two districts (the Jordan Valley and Judean Desert, and the southern Judean Mountains) in which there is already a Jewish majority today. There are three additional districts (Greater Jerusalem, West Samaria, West Benjamin) in which there no Jewish majority as yet, but in which the current settlement growth rate will allow the creation of a Jewish majority within a few years."

Gwirtzman also saw the aquifers of the West Bank of Israel as vital to Israeli national interests, at least during an interim period. The goal was to maintain the interim period for as long as possible or perhaps indefinitely, in which time it would be possible to achieve the Jewish majority referred to above. The fact that dates and deadlines were not honored is not surprising therefore. Nor is it surprising that Israel was always vague about which parts of the West Bank and Gaza it might retain, and even Ehud Barak went about promising settlers, "We will remain in Ofra and Beit El forever."

This program did not escape the notice of the Palestinians. Hasan Khadir, a Palestinian author familiar with Israel, claims that to Palestinians it seemed that Israel was using the Oslo process not in pursuit of a “two-state” solution to the conflict, but as a means of getting rid of densely-populated Palestinian areas while maintaining “an improved occupation.”

Among those Palestinians who had agreed to participate in the peace process, the avowed goal of many was, it seems, to obtain an agreement that would be a springboard for the destruction of Israel. In the 1960s, Fatah evolved a plan for a "Secular Democratic State" which would allow Jews who had arrived in Israel prior to 1917 to live alongside Palestinians. This plan was a respectable way of presenting the goal of destroying Israel. Apparently, it has not been abandoned. The current stance of the Fateh is that they are honestly negotiating for a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but that that state is a springboard for the secular democratic state:

"To us, the refugees issue is the winning card which means the end of the Israeli state....

...The transitory solution of the refugees issue in the future is through confederation with Jordan. I visualize the future in establishing a democratic state by peaceful means. This will come true when the Zionist illusion comes to an end, the thing that has begun to occur in the Labor Party and Merits."

These views were consonant with those of Yasser Arafat, who stated on May 10, 1994 in Johannesburg:

"This agreement [Oslo], I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember that the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it a despicable truce...But the same way Muhammad had accepted it, we are now accepting this peace effort."

The treaty of Hudaybiah with the Quraish was subsequently nullified when, according to the Qur'an, the Quraish violated the treaty, and Muhammad felt justified in attacking and destroying them.

More alarmingly, on January 30 1996, Yasser Arafat told a gathering of Arab diplomats in Stockholm:

"We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps," Arafat reportedly declared. "Within five years, we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem. All Palestinian Arabs will be welcomed by us. If the Jews can import all kinds of Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbeks and Ukrainians as Jews, we can import all kinds of Arabs to us."

PLO plans, according to Arafat, were to "to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion; Jews won't want to live among us Arabs."

He told the diplomats, "I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews! We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Muslim domination."

The meeting, described by the settlers pirate radio station, Arutz-7, was later denied by Arafat, but was confirmed by the Norwegian newspaper Dagen, which published new details regarding Arafat's speech under the front-page headline, 'Arafat Gave Speech about Israel's Destruction.'

PA Minister Abdul Aziz Shaheen stated, "The Oslo accord was a preface for the Palestinian Authority, and the Palestinian Authority will be a preface for the Palestinian state, which in turn will be a preface for the liberation of the entire Palestinian land."

Both sides also assumed that the other side would not keep agreements and could not be trusted. The attitude of the Israelis was summarized by former PM Ehud Barak after the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations. If Arafat had no use for Jews, then certainly Barak had not much use for Palestinians either:

"They are products of a culture in which to tell a lie...creates no dissonance. They don't suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judeo-Christian culture. Truth is seen as an irrelevant category. There is only that which serves your purpose and that which doesn't. They see themselves as emissaries of a national movement for whom everything is permissible. There is no such thing as "the truth."

There is no evidence that any real trust or "chemistry" developed. There was never any real process of dialogue it seems, only a meeting of adversaries on the battlefield. The negotiations were a way of waging war by other means. While participants talked about "win-win" strategy, they in fact based their strategies on quite the opposite concept.

To many Palestinians, the Oslo agreements were supposed to be the path to destruction of Israel. To the Americans, and to many supporters of the peace process, the agreements were supposed to lead to a cessation of terror, and to Israeli withdrawal and establishment of a Palestinian state. However, this may not have been the expectation of the Israeli government when the agreements were framed, and it is not the way the agreements were explained to the people. In discussing the Oslo Declaration of Principles in the Knesset in October 25, 1995, Israeli FM Shimon Peres, soon to be Prime Minister, explained that no settlements need be evacuated, and that the final settlement would not necessarily lead to a Palestinian state. Replying to a question about whether or not there would be a Palestinian state, Peres said:

"Not necessarily. For example, it can also be a blueprint for a Benelux arrangement, a framework including demilitarized zones, even an arrangement for areas without sovereignty."

Replying to a question about settlers evacuating their homes, Peres said,

"The explicit answer is that nobody has been asked to give up his home. Contrary to Camp David, we conducted negotiations that do not require the evacuation of even one settlement.

The edifice we are building is based on a change in relations, not necessarily a change in locations..."

The people had definite expectations of the behavior of the opposite partners. The Israelis expected to live in peace with the Palestinians, given that they had renounced violence. The Palestinians expected a state and evacuation of the settlements. At the same time, the leaderships of both sides were telling their own peoples quite the opposite. Glorious phrases about dignity and peace of the brave in English, were accompanied by declarations such as those of Peres and Arafat in Hebrew and Arabic. Both sides were aware of the discrepancy, Yet neither the Palestinian nor the Israeli leaderships protested to the other side or took the matter up with the US. Both had resolved on an adversarial model rather than dialogue and cooperation.

Given conflicting statements, we can only judge intentions by actions. In trying to decide whether the English declarations of peace or the other declarations made in the local Semitic languages represented the real intent of the protagonists, we must look at what actually happened. The 100,000 settlers added and the tens of thousands of housing units built in the Oslo years by Israel are effective and mute testimony that Peres was telling the truth in the Knesset. The government carried out a policy precisely in keeping with the spirit of his remarks - no settlers would be evacuated, no Palestinian state could be created. At the same time, the Israel government was almost completely insensitive to provocative acts by settlers that were bound to inflame Palestinian public opinion. Following the massacre perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein on innocent victims in Purim of 1994 in Hebron, the government imposed a curfew on Palestinians rather than Israelis. In several cases, authorities looked the other way when violence, including murder, was directed at Palestinians. Goldstein's massacre, in turn, was supposedly a reaction to a series of roadside ambushes and terror acts perpetrated against settlers by Fatah, even though the PLO had supposedly renounced terror upon signing of the Oslo accords. Neither side wanted peace as it might conceivably be understood by the other side, and neither side worked to make their people ready for peace.

http://www.mideastweb.org/oslofailed.htm

Oslo brought hope to the Palestinians. The the mass mobilizations, the daily commercial strikes, the tax resistance, the stone-throwing children that characterized the first intifada came to a halt.

After seven years, and especially after the collapse of the Clinton-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian summit at Camp David in August 2000, Palestinians faced the harsh reality that Oslo had been much more about "process" than about peace. Living conditions had seriously deteriorated throughout the Oslo years. Israel's military occupation had become increasingly harsh-closures preventing Palestinians from entering Israel were expanded to prevent travel within and between the West Bank and Gaza; military checkpoints proliferated throughout the "swiss cheese-style" maze of Israeli and partial Palestinian authority; house demolitions continued; and settlement construction nearly doubled throughout the occupied territories since Oslo.

The second intifada was the response to those lost hopes and deteriorating lives.

As far as the settlements are concerned:

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

First of all, please link or at least attribute your sources:

http://www.endtheoccupation.org/pri...cle.php?&id=191

The statements contained in that article are largely inaccurate. The Palestinian economy was in fact on the upswing, and I have seen no evidence in terms of specifics about repressive measures increasing during the Oslo years. The only thing that comes to mind is Baruch Goldstein, and that was not a policy of the Israeli government and in fact it happened before Oslo was concluded. In any event, the Intifada started 7 years after that.

As to Article 49, that Article applies only to civilian populations being "transferred" or "deported" into an occupied territory. The article does not apply to people who volunteer to settle in an area - it means forceable deportation. Article 49 was passed in response to the Nazi conduct of transferring its own Jewish citizens to places like Poland. It doesn't apply to voluntary settlement acitivity.

As you can see, they're in direct violation of international law.


Sorry, but try again.


Settlements were still being built. Palestinians were getting no closer to a state. The best offer they were given was an unacceptable offer that Arafat rightly rejected. However, it was a start, and I think there should have been more negotiations. I wonder if the Intifida would have happened if Sharon had never gone to the Temple Mount, and if Israel had increased their offer just that extra bit.

Yes, yes, the Palestinians didn't get everything they wanted in that last offer. Are they better off now? The Jews didn't get everything they wanted in 1937 or 1947 either. They had real and significant concerns about the economic viability of any state based upon the borders proposed first by the British and later by the UN. But they took it anyway, because that was the state they were offered. You think there was any chance they would have turn down a state with 3% less territory?

I don't disagree Woolfe. The Intifada was the Palestinian response to their increasing desperation and anger over failed peace proccesses and negotiations. I think the Palestinians should have been offered what they wanted - after all, it was Israel who for so long had their own state and had a thriving country financially supported by America. The Palestinians just wanted a state that they could say was theirs and not feel angry or resentful. If they had accepted Israel's offer, I think many Palestinians would still attack Israel because they would have felt it wasn't enough.

Why should they have given the Palestinians 100% of everything they wanted? Is there something magical about the pre-1967 borders? In theory, could they have been entitled to less OR more than that? Of course. It was a negotiation, and in a negotiation, neither party gets everything they want. And it is the height of absurdity to assume that the Palestinians will get everything they want given the history of WHY these territories were occupied, and their past refusal to accept statehood on much better terms in 1937 and 1948. Some day the Palestinians will understand that fighting against a military power 1000 times as strong as yourself because you want 100% instead of 97% isn't getting you anywhere.

- woolfe

Since you enjoy sharing quotes of US Presidents I thought I'd share these quotes.

John Adams
I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other nation. (Letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson)

John Quincy Adams
[I believe in the] rebuilding of Judea as an independent nation. (Letter to Major Mordecai Manuel Noah)

Abraham Lincoln
Not long after the Emancipation Proclamation, President Abraham Lincoln met a Canadian Christian Zionist, Henry Wentworth Monk, who expressed hope that Jews who were suffering oppression in Russia and Turkey be emancipated “by restoring them to their national home in Palestine.” Lincoln said this was “a noble dream and one shared by many Americans.” The President said his chiropodist was a Jew who “has so many times ‘put me upon my feet’ that I would have no objection to giving his countrymen ‘a leg up.’”

Woodrow Wilson
The allied nations with the fullest concurrence of our government and people are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundations of a Jewish Commonwealth. (Reaction to the Balfour Declaration)

Recalling the previous experiences of the colonists in applying the Mosaic Code to the order of their internal life, it is not to be wondered at that the various passages in the Bible that serve to undermine royal authority, stripping the Crown of its cloak of divinity, held up before the pioneer Americans the Hebrew Commonwealth as a model government. In the spirit and essence of our Constitution, the influence of the Hebrew Commonwealth was paramount in that it was not only the highest authority for the principle, “that rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God,” but also because it was in itself a divine precedent for a pure democracy, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy or any other form of government.

Warren Harding
It is impossible for one who has studied at all the services of the Hebrew people to avoid the faith that they will one day be restored to their historic national home and there enter on a new and yet greater phase of their contribution to the advance of humanity.

Calvin Coolidge
Coolidge expressed his “sympathy with the deep and intense longing which finds such fine expression in the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine.”

The Jews themselves, of whom a considerable number were already scattered throughout the colonies, were true to the teachings of their prophets. The Jewish faith is predominantly the faith of liberty.

Herbert Hoover
Palestine which, desolate for centuries, is now renewing its youth and vitality through enthusiasm, hard work, and self-sacrifice of the Jewish pioneers who toil there in a spirit of peace and social justice.

Harry Truman
I had faith in Israel before it was established, I have faith in it now. (Granting de facto recognition to the new Jewish State—11 minutes after Israel's proclamation of independence)

I believe it has a glorious future before it—not just another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization. (May 26, 1952)

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Our forces saved the remnant of the Jewish people of Europe for a new life and a new hope in the reborn land of Israel. Along with all men of good will, I salute the young state and wish it well.

John Kennedy
This nation, from the time of President Woodrow Wilson, has established and continued a tradition of friendship with Israel because we are committed to all free societies that seek a path to peace and honor individual right. In the prophetic spirit of Zionism all free men today look to a better world and in the experience of Zionism we know that it takes courage and perseverance and dedication to achieve it.

Israel was not created in order to disappear—Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

Lyndon Johnson
The United States and Israel share many common objectives...chief of which is the building of a better world in which every nation can develop its resources and develop them in freedom and peace.

Our society is illuminated by the spiritual insights of the Hebrew prophets. America and Israel have a common love of human freedom and they have a common faith in a democratic way of life.

Most if not all of you have very deep ties with the land and with the people of Israel, as I do, for my Christian faith sprang from yours....the Bible stories are woven into my childhood memories as the gallant struggle of modern Jews to be free of persecution is also woven into our souls. (Speech before B'nai B'rith)

I may not worry as much as Prime Minister Eshkol does about Israel, but I worry as deeply. (February 7, 1968, Memorandum of Conversation with Israeli Ambassador Harman)

When Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson why the United States supports Israel when there are 80 million Arabs and only three million Israelis, the President replied simply: “Because it is right.”

Richard Nixon
Nixon asserted that the United States stands by its friends and that “Israel is one of its friends.”

Americans admire a people who can scratch a desert and produce a garden. The Israelis have shown qualities that Americans identify with: guts, patriotism, idealism, a passion for freedom. I have seen it. I know. I believe that.

Gerald Ford
[The American] commitment to the security and future of Israel is based upon basic morality as well as enlightened self-interest. Our role in supporting Israel honors our own heritage.

Jimmy Carter
The United States...has a warm and a unique relationship of friendship with Israel that is morally right. It is compatible with our deepest religious convictions, and it is right in terms of America's own strategic interests. We are committed to Israel's security, prosperity, and future as a land that has so much to offer the world.

The survival of Israel is not just a political issue, it is a moral imperative. That is my deeply held belief and it is the belief shared by the vast majority of the American people...A strong secure Israel is not just in Israel's interest. It's in the interest of the United States and in the interest of the entire free world.

Ronald Reagan
Only by full appreciation of the critical role the State of Israel plays in our strategic calculus can we build the foundation for thwarting Moscow's designs on territories and resources vital to our security and our national well-being.

Since the rebirth of the State of Israel, there has been an ironclad bond between that democracy and this one.

In Israel, free men and women are every day demonstrating the power of courage and faith. Back in 1948 when Israel was founded, pundits claimed the new country could never survive. Today, no one questions that Israel is a land of stability and democracy in a region of tyranny and unrest.

America has never flinched from its commitment to the State of Israel--a commitment which remains unshakable.1

Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts. I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.2

Since the foundation of the State of Israel, the United States has stood by her and helped her to pursue security, peace, and economic growth. Our friendship is based on historic moral and strategic ties, as well as our shared dedication to democracy.3

For the people of Israel and America are historic partners in the global quest for human dignity and freedom. We will always remain at each other's side.4

George Bush
The friendship, the alliance between the United States and Israel is strong and solid, built upon a foundation of shared democratic values, of shared history and heritage, that sustains the life of our two countries. The emotional bond of our people transcends politics. Our strategic cooperation—and I renew today our determination that that go forward—is a source of mutual security. And the United States’ commitment to the security of Israel remains unshakeable. We may differ over some policies from time to time, individual policies, but never over the principle.

For more than 40 years, the United States and Israel have enjoyed a friendship built on mutual respect and commitment to democratic principles. Our continuing search for peace in the Middle East begins with a recognition that the ties uniting our two countries can never be broken.

Zionism...is the idea that led to the creation of a home for the Jewish people....And to equate Zionism with the intolerable sin of racism is to twist history and forget the terrible plight of Jews in World War II and indeed throughout history (Address to the United Nations, September 23, 1991).

Bill Clinton
Our relationship would never vary from its allegiance to the shared values, the shared religious heritage, the shared democratic politics which have made the relationship between the United States and Israel a special—even on occasion a wonderful—relationship.

The United States admires Israel for all that it has overcome and for all that it has accomplished. We are proud of the strong bond we have forged with Israel, based on our shared values and ideals. That unique relationship will endure just as Israel has endured. (From a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on occasion of Israel's 50th birthday.)

America and Israel share a special bond. Our relations are unique among all nations. Like America, Israel is a strong democracy, as a symbol of freedom, and an oasis of liberty, a home to the oppressed and persecuted.

The relationship between our two countries is built on shared understandings and values. Our peoples continue to enjoy the fruits of our excellent economic and cultural cooperation as we prepare to enter the twenty-first century. (Clinton’s reply after Israeli Ambassador Shoval presented his credentials, September 10, 1998).

George W. Bush
We will speak up for our principles and we will stand up for our friends in the world. And one of our most important friends is the State of Israel (Speech to American Jewish Committee, May 3, 2001).

Israel is a small country that has lived under threat throughout its existence. At the first meeting of my National Security Council, I told them a top foreign policy priority is the safety and security of Israel. My Administration will be steadfast in supporting Israel against terrorism and violence, and in seeking the peace for which all Israelis pray (Speech to American Jewish Committee, May 3, 2001).

Through centuries of struggle, Jews across the world have been witnesses not only against the crimes of men, but for faith in God, and God alone. Theirs is a story of defiance in oppression and patience in tribulation — reaching back to the exodus and their exile into the diaspora. That story continued in the founding of the State of Israel. The story continues in the defense of the State of Israel (Address to the National Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance, April 19, 2001).

Notes:

1 Remarks in New York City on Receiving the Charles Evans Hughes Gold Medal of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, March 23, 1982.
2 Address to the Nation on United States Policy for Peace in the Middle East, September 1, 1982.
3 Remarks at a White House Meeting With Jewish Leaders, February 2, 1983.
4 Remarks at the Welcoming Ceremony for President Chaim Herzog of Israel, November 10, 1987.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: Mitchell G. Bard. U.S.-Israel Relations: Looking To The Year 2000. DC: AIPAC, 1991, the American Jewish Committee and the Near East Report.

I don't know if I'd call it an intifada victory, both populations still see death and there has been no peaceful settlement over the occupied territories. There is victory for neither side.

The Israeli Government CHOOSE to take more land for settlements to be created in...and that's a nice little clever wording you've got there to work around the problem, but to the whole international community regards the settlements as illegal.

George W Bush (American President): “Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories must stop.”

George Mitchell (former Senate): “Every American administration, going back to President Carter, and including President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton and the current President Bush, have opposed the policy of the government of Israel on settlements.”

Jimmy Carter (American President): "We consider these settlements to be contrary to the Geneva Convention, that occupied territory should not be changed by establishment of permanent settlements by the occupying power."

Now if American Presidents are condemning the settlements, then you know something's wrong!

Note that the American President states that the settlements break international law...I think he's in a better position to know don't you??

(Also can I just add international humanitarian law prohibits any permanent change to an occupied land, including imposed demographic changes, which are not intended to benefit the local [occupied] population.)

You're absolutely correct that the US government opposes the settlements, but it's for political reasons. I do as well, for the same reasons. The government needs a legal backing for its position, so they rely on Article 49. Article 49 doesn't really apply though. It's clear from the wording and context in which it was passed that it was meant to refer to forcible deportations.

C'mon, that's a totally unfair comparison. The Jews hadn't got a state for 2000 years. Six million of them had just been murdered in the most cruel way. You think 3% is gonna matter to such a desperate people in desperate times? They knew that if they rejected it they would completely blow it, and that would be it. However, the Palestinians now know that ultimately, they'll get their state due to international pressure, and they want what they should get. To them, "3%" makes all the difference.

It's not a totally unfair comparison at all. In fact, it is a very good one. After 33 years of occupation by a military power that much stronger than itself, the Palestinians won't take 97%? They'll take an Intifada instead? If they aren't weary of this dispute, now almost 100 years old, by now, I have to wonder if they ever will be.

Well I'm very left-wing and I personally think Palestinians should get at least 45% as defined in the original 1948 partition plan. However, I can't see Israel giving up that much land in a million years! Anyway, I don't think they were offered 97% of everything they wanted.

Yes, well, they could have had the 45% in 1947, or 55% in 1937. They just keep making excuses for why it is never enough. And it's clearly costing them every time.

Barak himself wrote in a New York Times Op-ed on 24 May 2001 that his vision was for
"A gradual process of establishing secure, defensible borders, demarcated so as to encompass more than 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in several settlement blocs over about 15 percent of Judea and Samaria, and to ensure a wide security zone in the Jordan Valley." [Source: "Building a Wall Against Terror," New York Times, 24 May 2001].
In other words, if Barak intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent.

Not familiar with the details of that interview, but it's irrelevant. The details of the offer all confirmed in 1000 sources: 100% of Gaza, 94% of the West Bank, and Israeli lands equal in area to 3% of the West Bank was the offer at Taba. Earlier at Camp David, it was 100% Gaza, 90% West Bank and 1% Israeli lands. More than likely, small portions of biblical Samaria and Judea are on Israel's side of the 1967 green line, and that's what he meant.

- woolfe

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

Note it doesn't say "forcibly" deport. It just says it shouldn't transwer parts of its own population into the occupied territories. Anyway, Jimmy Carter agrees this article proves settlements are illegal. And I'm gonna trust his judgement over yours.

Incidentally, why do you personally oppose the settlements??http://www.inreview.com/editpost.ph...123&forumid=117

We'll agree to disagree on the legality question. The words "transfer" and "deportation" in international law have a specific definition. I believe American administrations oppose the settlements because it is viewed as extremism not to.

As for my own view, I believe the settlements have clearly exacerbated what I view is a pre-existing extremism on the part of the Arabs. So I'd like to see them removed.

"Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighbourhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises."

If they accepted all those things, then they accepted the Israeli proposal lock, stock and barrel. Sorry, but they didn't accept all those things. Look, the details of the offer are even on the PLO's own website for crying out loud. And I've googled these comments from Malloy. Even Malloy accurately states what was and wasn't offered. The opening offer at Camp David that he describes is exactly what I said it was: 100% of Gaza, 90% of the West Bank, and Israeli lands equal to 1% of the West Bank. The counter-myth now holds that this 10-1 land swap was not fair. However, the counter-myth fails to consider that this was an opening offer and that Arafat never countered with anything. The counter-myth also focuses on Camp David and forgets that the parties continued to negotiate at Taba several months later in which Israel continued to show flexitbility. Ultimately, the Pals were offered 94% of the West Bank, 3% Israeli land, and 100% Gaza. The PLO's own maps show this.

What you're doing here is buying into the historical revisionism and whiney excuses of people who can never seem to accept ANY proposal for statehoods that's given to them.

These people need to dump their historical blame game and cut their losses. They reject peace agreements because they want all the land in Palestine to be Arab land; they start wars and lose them, over and over again. They have no military strength, no political stability, no ability to oppose Israel. And now they want 100%, not 97%, and will go to war, wreck their economy, and destroy their political stability over it? And you support this decision?

It's a miracle they are offered anything, let alone what was on the table. All you and the rest of the pro-Pal left are doing is egging them on into oblivion. Quit buying their lame excuses about how as a matter of abstract principle they are entitled to this or that strip of land. The time has long past for them to get real about this conflict, take what they can get, and be done with it. There is always a difference between reality and ideals. Whatever the Palestine ideals are, they are sooner or later going to have to face reality, and these constant excuses are not helping them do it.

He quite rightly concludes:

"If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality.&

If peace is to be achieved, the left needs to stop buying into the Arab fantasy "counter-version" of every well established historical fact. It only gives them more reason to continue a bloody struggle, and to refuse to take responsibility for absolutely any of their own problems. Read your own Tea With Terrorists piece please.

Arafat sold out his people in these negotiations, pure and simple. He had no realistic expectation of ever getting anything more from Israel through armed struggle. And even after all the bloodshed, if they got that last 3%, only a moron of epic proportions would say it was worth it.

Yes, they could have had the 45% in 1947. But at the time, it seemed highly illogical to give up 55% of your land to a foreign minority who only owned 7% of the land.

Blah blah. Yes, they wanted an all Arab Palestine. They didn't want outsiders (infidels) to have land there. If I as a westerner felt that way about outsiders they'd have a name for me: racist. Boo hoo and too bad. More excuses for choosing war instead of peace.

Go read your own Tea with Terrorists article more closely. The Pals are psychologically incapable of accepting responsibility for any of their own mistakes.

Read Malley's observations for my answer to this point.

I did one better: I went to the source websites and read it all.

- woolfe

While it is true that the July 2000 Camp David summit ended without agreement, the negotiations did not end. They restarted and continued until Barak broke them off in January 2001. Since then Israel has refused to enter political negotiations with the Palestinians. On 19 December 2000, six months after Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators returned to Washington and continued with negotiations. These negotiations were based on a set of proposals by President Clinton which went beyond Barak's offer of July 2000, but still fell short of minimum Palestinian expectations. Nevertheless, the Palestinians went on with the talks.

See Israel4ever's post above. It jives with my understanding of what happened at Taba. Barak's last offer was that Israel would keep 3-4% of the West Bank. You can go on making excuses for why the Palestinians wouldn't accept it, but your excuses are only encouraging the Pals to make more bad choices. If you think Arafat's decision to start this Intifada was the right choice for the Pals, you're way out on in left field. This is Intifada has been a disaster for the Palestinians. It hasn't been good for Israel either, but it's been a lot worse for the Pals.

As for Sharon not wanting to negotiate - his view is that he will not negotiate with a terrorist state, which you should know that Arafat's state was after reading the interview with the PA leadership in your Tea With Terrorists article. He also believes that he doesn't have a viable negotiating partner, because no one faction is bound by the promises of the others, even if the promises could be trusted. Finally, Sharon is not as reasonable a man as Barak. And Sharon, as we well know, is in power right now because of the terrorist attacks that were stepped up in the months before the election.

It's just as easy for me to say the right need to stop buying into the Israeli fantasy "counter-version" of every well established historical fact.

It's just "as easy" for you say anything you want, including that the moon is made of green cheese. The fact is, the people who are now re-writing the events of Camp David and Taba are the same left wing pundits who for years were predicting that Israel would never offer anything more than half the West Bank to the Palestinians. These same pundits were proven idiots when Barak came forward and offered 91% at Camp David, then 97% at Taba. The world was initially stunned when these offers were made, and when Arafat rejected them. For a time, the pundits were quiet. Then slowly, the articles started to come out trying to justify Arafat's not taking either of these deals, and making various other claims. The unfortunate consequence of these attempts to revise history is that they discourage Israel from being reasonable in the future. Israel was damned by the perception that it would not offer anything of consequence to the Palestinians. When they defied that perception manyfold, they were damned because the pundits said they didn't offer enough. What incentive does Israel have to negotiate if they're damned if they do and damned if they don't?

Yes they wanted an Arab Palestine. Why? Because Palestine was an Arab state. This is a fact. Yes they didn't want outsiders, they weren't used to seeing such large numbers of foreign minority coming into their land. Especially when that foreign minority is trying to create their own state on the land you're calling home.

Blah blah blah. They didn't want Jews there. I get it and you get it. You just want to justify their racism because your political viewpoint here is formed already and acknowledging Arab intolerance doesn't fit in with that viewpoint.

As I have said before repeatedly, backed by historical reference, there was no Arab state there, and never was. I am puzzled that you continue to make this assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.

Incidentally, up until 1937, the British wanted a bi-national state there. You should read the lengthy Peel Commission report that explained why they recommended partition in 1937, with the Arabs getting 55% (this was the first offer rejected by the Arabs before the UN offer in 1947.) It basically says that British efforts to set up a bi-national state had failed, principally because the Arabs could not tolerate the Jews. Any such state would have been unstable. The report was written by the people who were there on the ground, day in and day out, observing the interaction between the Jews and the Arabs.

I'll tell you what. If I decide that I don't want any Arabs in the United States, would you support that? After all, I'm entitled to not want to live with people who are different than me, right? I mean, that's 100% justified when it comes to the Arabs, so why shouldn't I be allowed to take that position? Incidentally, that's the position of the neo-facist British National Party: they don't want non-whites immigrating to the UK. I assume you support the BNP?

The article is showing the mindframes of the terrorists, not the normal Palestinians.

The article speaks volumes about the culture that gave rise to these terrorists. Terrorists which, the article points out, are rapidly gaining majority support among the rank and file. The article also mentions that Arab media propaganda is bought hook, line and sinker there, and that their perceptions of reality are totally delusional. Those perceptions, including, for example, the Mossad connection to 9/11, are very prevelant among the Palestinian population at large. And they are not helping the situation at all. Indeed, they are hindering any chance at peace in the region.

Your article also makes abundantly clear that neither Hamas, IJ OR the PA supports a two-state solution.