Appeasing the Unappeasable
Where to start? When you're faced with an adversary who simply is not open to conciliatory efforts, who with anger aforethought and an unbridled attitude of entitlement anticipates that the two solitudes approach the problem of finding a solution to their shared problems on an unequal footing how can engagement for the prospect of peace be feasible?The unequal footing is the mind-set of the Palestinian Authority that they are owed by Israel submission to all their demands - unequivocally.
Equally, that they have no responsibility themselves to succumb to unreasonable demands put to them by Israel, as preconditions leading the potential for talks for a peace agreement be met. The PA smoothly agree in an international forum where intermediaries for peace are involved that they too, as partners in engagement, must submit to certain requirements, but they don't bargain in good faith.
As evidenced by the fact that not only has the PA not taken firm steps to stop terrorist attacks against Israel; they actively encourage the ongoing and bloodthirsty assaults as their right and their mission against the reality of Israeli occupation. This, despite a "commitment" by the PA to detain terrorists and emasculate their intent for which purpose the United States, with the agreement of Israel, has armed Fatah policing militias.
As a sign of good faith, and at the urging of the international community to engage in helpful overtures for the purpose of upholding the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, to further marginalize the truly intractably-murderous agenda of Hamas, Israel has, on a number of occasions, freed Palestinian prisoners - those who have been unsuccessful in their attempts to kill Israelis - in the hopes of creating an atmosphere conducive to trust. These efforts have gained the contempt of the PA who demand greater concessions.
This past Monday the latest prisoner releases, representing 429 Palestinian terrorists aligned with Fatah were set free to return to their homes. A small number - 21, returned to Gaza where the IDF's Gilad Shalit, despite interventions and promises, has still not been released. Amply illustrating the Palestinian version of good-will gestures.
While the PA, post-Annapolis, still displays a map of "greater Palestine" on its television channel, minus Israel, as a sign of their goodwill toward peace negotiations, this latest release of Palestinian prisoners has not been met in a spirit of appreciation; they claim the abysmally low numbers of freed terrorists does not meet with their expectations, but rather represents "a joke". Were Gilad Shalit to be released it would be cause for national celebration.
But then, the two solitudes are coming from entirely different mental landscapes. For any rational intellect to consider the arguments issuing from Palestinian Authority representatives at the highest level is to suspend logic entirely. As amply illustrated through an interview with Saleh Nazal, director of the PA ministry of detainees and ex-detainees affairs. Who contends the unequivocal truth that all Arabs engaged in acts of terrorism against Jews - including that period represented by PA-Israel negotiations post-Annapolis, must be released before the signing of any agreement.
The logic behind this is that all Palestinians dedicated to the commission of anti-Jewish terror activities do so with the consent of the Palestinian Authority who hold that these terrorists are legitimately engaged in "resistance" against the occupation. Which has nothing whatever to do with the peace process. Resistance to the occupation is an imperative; those who have been detained because they have dedicated themselves as prospective martyrs in the cause of Palestinian freedom and the need to circumvent the existence of the State of Israel by threatening its people and its actual reality are honoured by the PA.
This is the position of the moderates with whom Israel must deal, in whose integrity and political will to achieve a peace agreement Israel must trust. At least according to the international community demanding an end to the impasse. Aggrievement over the spread of West Bank settlements is understandable, but the blinkered vision with respect to the Israeli need to arrest terrorists and the building of barriers to protect the Jewish population leave much room to ponder with whom exactly the country is bargaining.
Lest anyone come away with the impression that this point of view is not shared by all within the PA, none other than Mahmoud Abbas sets the record straight by reiterating the stance of the entire Palestinian Authority by steadfastly refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. "Historically there are two states, Israel and Palestine. Israel is inhabited by Jews and others. We are willing to recognize that and nothing else. Israel can call itself whatever it wants, but the Palestinians will not recognize it as a Jewish state."
Lending credence to the PA's insistence on right of return, for the state it denies as Jewish in purpose and intent cannot then be diminished by the presence of additional Arabs. Whose presence as anti-Jewish agitators can then handily facilitate other plans for the reality of Israel within an Arab geography. On the other hand, if Arabs continue to refuse to recognize Israel as being essentially a Jewish state, then why the constant machinations against its rigorous embrace of Jerusalem undivided?
Immediately prior to the Annapolis summit both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni pointed out the precondition for negotiations with the PA must be acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. It is by its very existence, its constitution and its primary purpose exactly that, an undeniable fact. Despite which the entire Arab world adamantly refuses that tacit recognition.
The regard in which Israel within the geography of the Middle East is seen was amply demonstrated at Annapolis, when Tzipi Livni sought to approach her Arab-nation counterparts. Their refusal to acknowledge her presence, to shake her hand as an equal among equals, to commit themselves to future one-on-one meetings - with the exception of Jordan - told the story; the immutable background, the uneasy present, the questionable future.
Labels: Israel, Terrorism, Traditions
posted by Pieface @ Tuesday, December 04, 2007
<< Home