Superb article from Pipes, some excerpts below:
The Palestinian-Israeli War: Where It Came From, and How to End It
Daniel Pipes
The Commonwealth
March 2006
What went wrong with Oslo?
There was an assumption that the Palestinians would follow the leadership: If Yasser Arafat signed a document, others in the Palestinian leadership – the Palestinian body-politic more broadly – would likewise accept Israel's existence. Trouble was, first, that the leadership didn't really accept Israel. Look at areas where the leadership had control – television stations, political rhetoric, schoolbooks; while they were on the one hand shaking hands and making deals with Israelis, they on the other hand continued the message that Israel must be destroyed. Symbolic of this would be the maps. Every map produced showed a Palestine instead of an Israel, not alongside it.
Second mistake was to believe that governments or authorities can deliver their populations. If one looks at not just the Palestinian-Israeli accord but the Egyptian and Jordanian accords as well, we see a population – Egyptian, Jordanian or Palestinian – fairly passive and inclined to allow its leadership to take steps on its behalf. Once an agreement has been signed with Israel, the population becomes far more engaged, far more fervently anti-Zionist. It's as though the populations were saying to the leadership, You have our proxy – but when the leadership signed an agreement with Israel, that proxy was taken back.
I lived in Egypt in the 1970s. Before the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, Egyptians were not that engaged in this problem. After it, they became far more engaged. Songs like "I Hate Israel" became blockbuster hits. Giving money to organizations that would engage in activities – violent and otherwise – against Israel became far more common.
The net result of the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993 was to produce a population of Palestinians that was more vehemently anti-Israel than before. The hope of destroying Israel acquired more traction, seen in words and in actions, in text and in maps. The muted Palestinian mood of 1993 turned into the enraged ambition of 2000. A population not so confident about its prospects – the Iraqis had just lost their war, the Soviet Union had collapsed, the Palestinians were in a precarious situation; they wanted to destroy Israel, but they could see no means of achieving it. By the year 2000, due to the diplomacy, to Israeli concessions, one found a Palestinian population that was truly inspired, that saw within its grasp the destruction of Israel.
What we might do better in the future
To look to the future requires us to acknowledge the faulty presumptions that underlay Oslo. First, that the Palestinians did in fact accept Israel; and second, that the elites could take a softer line and have this accepted more broadly. We must resolve not to make the same mistakes. Instead – and this is my key point – we must make popular Palestinian acceptance of Israel's existence the primary goal. We must work, in other words, for what is now assumed.
The consensus view is that Palestinians have accepted Israel. That lies in the future. Survey research consistently shows that somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of Palestinians, both within the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere, have come to the conclusion that Israel's there and permanent. Interestingly, 15 to 20 percent of Israeli Jews believe that Palestinians have accepted Israel. Americans, when asked if the Palestinians have accepted Israel, about 20 percent say that Arafat sought a small state living alongside Israel. How might this be resolved?
I'm a historian, so I look at the historical record – how conflicts have been resolved in the 20th century. Over and over again, international conflicts are resolved not through mediation and compromise and good will, but through one side coming to the conclusion that it can no longer achieve its goals. The Germans lost in World War I, but they lost without being convinced that they had. They turned to Hitler and tried a second time. In the Second World War, the Allies made clear to the Germans that they had lost. The Korean War ended 50 years ago, but neither the North nor the South came to the conclusion that they could not prevail, and as a result, it could start up again at any time. The Arabs and Israelis fought time after time, yet neither side came to the conclusion it had lost. Iraq and Iran fought for eight years; neither side came to the conclusion it had lost.
....
Q: The notion of political correctness aside, is it not incumbent to be doubly careful in terms of the rhetoric used? Is it not possible that even Muslims who might agree with a great deal of what you're saying feel targeted and identified by some of the things you're saying – and that, perhaps, you tend to drive away some of the people who perhaps you need to support this moderation?
A: It's not for me to say whether my words are driving people away or not. But it is far more difficult to deal with the situation we have now, where there are pious statements made that No, there's no discrimination, there's no special attention paid to Muslims, there's no profiling – whereas in fact, everyone knows there is. That is more insidious than having a situation where one is forthright and says, Well, reluctantly, painfully, we must take these steps. It is in the interest of us all, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. Let us take these steps sensibly, intelligently, politely and knowledgeably, but let's take these steps because these steps are being taken in any case.
Many of the Muslim organizations protest that Muslims are being singled out and the authorities invariably say, No, no, no. I say, Yes, yes, yes. Let's not lie.
Q: Is it possible some Palestinians will say, "We have a vested interest in building a society and economy for ourselves"?
A: Yes, some will say that here's an opportunity. But this is not a predominant reaction. Look at the response to the Israeli withdrawal – leaving behind houses, fields and agriculture infrastructure with the intent that this could be used by the Palestinians. This was destroyed within hours. There was no interest in building the economy; there was interest in stamping the Palestinian victory over the Israelis, burning synagogues, desecrating synagogues. Was that about fixing the economy and the society and the polity and the culture? No, it's about winning.
The Israelis are fooling themselves if they think that they can finesse the Palestinians into forgetting that the Palestinians want to destroy Israel. They are intent on destroying Israel, and if that means giving up their children as suicide bombers, having a lower standard of living, living under autocracy, they will take it. What they need to be convinced is: You're going to achieve nothing by it. This is where the United States and its allies can be so helpful, to send a signal that is steady and unremitting to the Palestinians: Forget it, you can't win this. Then the Palestinians might have second thoughts more quickly than they will if the outside world doesn't send that signal.
2 comments:
Daniel Pipes Interview: ‘I watch with frustration as the Israelis don't get the point'
Jerusalem Post
June 9, 2006
"The basic problem is that the Arabic-speaking Muslims have had a great deal of difficulty in coping with modern life, and blame others for their problems."
What do you "lambaste" Israel for? Israelis have lost their way when it comes to relations with the Arabs, and more specifically, when it comes to war goals. I criticize Israelis - and I mean the body politic, not specifically the leadership - for thinking that management of the conflict is the best that can be done.
As opposed to…? As opposed to winning. Over the course of the past 15 years, one has seen a host of proposals on how to manage the conflict. Some of these proposals became government policy; many others are simply proposals. What they have in common, from Left to Right, is that they see this conflict as unwinnable, as merely manageable.The security fence is a case in point. I am for it. Clearly, it has had - and in the future, when it's completed, will have even more - the effect of keeping out would-be murderers. But a wall is not the way to win a conflict. A wall is a tactical mechanism to protect oneself, not a strategic way of winning a war. Winning a war requires imagination - perspective - to impose your will on your enemy. That is classically what victory means: imposing your will on your enemy. It doesn't mean massacring or impoverishing the enemy, but causing him to give up his goals. This notion is virtually absent from Israeli political discussion.
You say that Israelis have "lost their way" in relation to the Arabs. This implies a shift. When do you see this shift from aiming to win the conflict to merely managing it as having taken place? A profound shift took place during the decade between the 1982 war in Lebanon and the 1993 Oslo Accord.
Is there really such a thing as an Arab "point of view?" After all, there are so many different Arab and Muslim countries in the world. There are enormous numbers of differences and exceptions among them, but I think in general one can draw a broad outline of a viewpoint, yes.
So, from an Arab point of view, what constitutes the imposition of will on an enemy? I understand this conflict between Israel and the Arabs to be defined by war goals. Israel's war goals consist of winning the acceptance of its Arab enemies, in particular that of the Palestinians. Acceptance means no longer using force - or other means, for that matter - to eliminate the Jewish state. The Arab war goals, conversely, are to eliminate the Jewish state. I see this as binary - as black and white. One side wins, one side loses. Compromise cannot take place. Oslo was a grand experiment in compromise, and it failed. In the end, one side imposes its will on the other.Now, if the Arabs impose their will on Israelis, it means there will be no sovereign Jewish state. There could be a Jewish population living under Palestinian or other Arab rule. Or it could be that the Jews flee. It could be that they're murdered. But there's no more sovereign Jewish state.Should the Israelis win, the Arabs acknowledge, however grudgingly, that Israel's there and is a permanent fact of life. They don't have to have trade with it, or sponsor Hebrew classes in their schools - these would be nice things, but they're not necessary. A cold peace, as it were, would work. But unlike the one with Egypt, there truly must be acceptance.What's so striking is that Israel, which is a modern, sophisticated, globalized country, seems not to understand this. Very few Israelis are aware of the need to win. As an outsider, I watch with frustration as the Israelis don't get the point.
And the Palestinians? The Palestinians, who have not scaled the same sophisticated heights, ironically, do understand that their goal is to win.
How much of this is connected to pressure from Washington? I have been struck for 15 years now by how Israelis make their own destiny with little reference to Washington. Looking at the relationship schematically, until the 1967 war, Washington exerted little diplomatic pressure on Israel, for there was no one to negotiate with on the Arab side. But then, even in the midst of the Six Day War, president Lyndon B. Johnson had formulated the outline of the land-for-peace policy that all these decades later still drives US diplomacy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.This became more real when [Egyptian President Anwar] Sadat took office and with the diplomacy that did ensue, especially in 1973.For the next 20 years, constant tension divided Washington and Jerusalem. Washington advised Jerusalem to take the plunge, and Jerusalem responded with caution, pointed out that the Arabs say one thing in Arabic and another in English - that they are not sincere.This tension finally dissolved in 1993, when, under [prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli government said, in effect, "OK, United States, you're right. Let's give it a try."Since then, there basically has been no tension, other than modest, temporary strains under [prime minister Binyamin] Netanyahu.The degree of agreement between Washington and Jerusalem has been remarkable, as has been Jerusalem's initiative. Consider three examples: The Oslo Accord was done in Oslo, not in Washington, to keep the Americans from knowing about it. At the tail end of [prime minister] Ehud Barak's and [US president] Bill Clinton's time in office, in January 2001, the former pushed the latter to come up with some arrangement that would finally settle matters at Taba. And there was [prime minister Ariel] Sharon's change of heart concerning Gaza in November 2003.
What about "occupation"? What is its role in all of this? The Palestinians hold the notion of occupation dear to them, to the point that no matter what Israel does - even withdraw forces completely from Gaza - they say the occupation continues. Israelis are trying to "un-occupy," in terms of currency, utilities and much else, and the Palestinians are saying, "No, we're your unwanted stepchild, and we're yours."They found that this word, ihtilal (occupation), is a very useful one, domestically and internationally.
What is the ultimate Palestinian war goal, then, statehood or the elimination of Israel? Oh, definitely the elimination of Israel. That is to say, there is far wider agreement on this than on the notion of a Palestinian state. Recall that making the region Israel controls into southern Syria drove Arab politics in the early 1950s. Then came the heyday of Pan-Arab nationalism in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Today, Hamas strives for an Islamic state whose boundaries need not be those of Mandatory Palestine. All of these outlooks agree on the need to eliminate Israel but disagree on what should replace it.
There is much talk now about the regimes in Egypt and Jordan being in danger of destabilization as a result of the chaos in the Palestinian Authority. If so, why are these countries more actively siding with the PA than with Israel? The Palestinian cause is a challenge to most Arab leaders - something they ride at their peril. It has a potential to challenge their regimes from the outside. So they handle the issue with great caution. Most Arab leaders, especially those of Jordan and Egypt, would like to end this conflict. Indeed, in both cases, their predecessors tried, by signing formal peace agreements with Israel, to pull out.
Why did that not succeed? In both cases, the population said no. They had given their proxy to their governments and said, "Here, leaders, you're in charge of anti-Zionism."When the leaders betrayed them by signing formal peace agreements - Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 - the popular reaction was, "We're taking back our proxy; we've got to do this ourselves."
You see a ratcheting up in popular attitudes toward Israel.I lived in Egypt for three years before the signing of the peace agreement with Israel, and Israel was hardly ever a topic. Egyptians did not engage in economic boycotts of firms that were dealing with Israel or rumored to be sending money to Israel. No songs celebrated hatred of Israel. Political cartoons were nasty toward Israel, but just politically, not religiously.I conclude that we see a far deeper anti-Israel sentiment in the post-1979 period than before then. The same goes for Jordan, where the king signed a particularly warm agreement with Israel, the popular reaction to which was, "No! We will not have trade. We will not have other forms of contact with Israel."
What does this imply? That, contrary to common perception - according to which Arab governments foment trouble with Israel as a cheap way of diverting attention from their own malpractices - the issue of Israel is a grass-roots issue that scares them. We witnessed this, for example, during the violence of late 2000-early 2001, when massive demonstrations took place on Arab streets and the governments dealt with them very gingerly. A prime minister might head a demonstration in a show of solidarity, but he was clearly nervous about it.
Any comments on the actions of the Egyptian and Jordanian governments lately? They have begun to revert to their pre-1967 roles - Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in the West Bank. They exert nothing like the control they enjoyed before June 5, 1967, but both governments now - with Israelis pulling back and Hamas surging in power - are nervously concerned with what's taking place in their former territories.
Many Israelis who favored disengagement from Gaza say that the success of the withdrawal can be seen in the chaos - perhaps civil war, even - now taking place in the PA between Hamas and Fatah.
I disagree. First, I see no causal effect between the Israeli withdrawal and the anarchy in the PA - which began much earlier. I documented it from February 2004 in a blog titled "The Growing Palestinian Anarchy."Second, I'm not altogether sure that this violence benefits Israel. Short-term, there's a diversion of attention away from Israel. But long-term, the forces unleashed now might well harm Israel.Third, this surely is not the way to judge the withdrawal, which needs to be assessed from Israel's point of view on the basis of whether it has enhanced Israeli interests and security or not. I'd say there are strong reasons to claim it has not.
Is there a causal relationship between Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and the events leading up to disengagement from Gaza? I definitely think there was. There are a few pieces of evidence. First, a number of statements by Palestinian leaders indicated how deeply they were influenced by the Israeli withdrawal in May 2000. Second, it vindicated the Palestinian use of violence. This requires some background.The great debate among Palestinians is not over goals; the elimination of Israel is a consensus goal among 80 percent of the Palestinian population, while the other 20% has no voice. The debate among that 80% for two decades has been how best to deal with Israel.The PLO answer is to engage it. Look at all the benefits it won by making fraudulent statements and giving empty assurances: It got the Palestinian Authority, a proto-military force, greater world support and so forth.To which Hamas replies that the PLO has degraded itself, lost its purpose and betrayed the purity of the cause. This has been the key debate among Palestinians.In this light, the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, driven by Hizbullah, signalled that Palestinians, too, can achieve their goals without negotiations, without trucking with the enemy. Just relentlessly hammer away, kill, attack, year after year, and the Israelis will take flight. There's no need for negotiations, for agreements, for international involvement. This powerful argument resonated in Palestinian circles.
How so? The first manifestation of this came just two months later, in July 2000 at Camp David. Despite Barak's quite extraordinary offers, Yasser Arafat not only said no, but he did so without making any reciprocal offers. I mean, he was pressured to go there by the US government. And he showed up. But he said no to everything, and the talks collapsed. Two short months later, the violence began - violence in good part inspired by Hizbullah tactics - a very different form of violence from what had been seen before: particularly the suicide bombing, a Hizbullah tactic, and the use of videos to build up the would-be suicide bomber giving testimonial, or then showing the actual scene of the attack. So, whether tactical or strategic, Hizbullah set the pace. Showed the Palestinians how to do it.
How did this affect the withdrawal from Gaza? The dominant Palestinian slogan last summer was, "Today Gaza, tomorrow Jerusalem."There's no question that they saw the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as a vindication of their use of force. I'd be hard-pressed to gainsay them, because it's quite clear to me that had there not been violence in Gaza, the Israeli military and the Israeli civilians would still be there. They only left because of the violence.
And the West Bank? The same applies there. Should there be a withdrawal there, too, it's because it became too difficult. When things get painful - whether in Lebanon or Gaza - Israelis leave. That sends a signal that violence works. It presumably will be applied in Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv as well.
How would the White House have responded after President Bush's June 24, 2002 speech, had Sharon gone to Washington and, instead of proposing disengagement, requested that the PA be treated as an enemy that had to be defeated militarily as part of the war on terror? It would have been a hard sell. US policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict, since 1993, has been premised on the idea that since 1993, Palestinians and Israelis are "partners for peace" - that their war is over and it's now a matter of finding the modalities of a resolution. Therefore, the sort of things that the US government does vis-à-vis the Taliban or al-Qaida are wrong, illegitimate and counterproductive for Israel to pursue vis-à-vis the Palestinians. America is at war, while Israel is making peace.The US government would have to be addressed on this level, something along the lines of, "No, Mr. President, we're not at peace; we're at war, just like you are. We tried negotiations, but they failed. Just as the US government is engaged in an asymmetric war, where the vastness of the US is arrayed against al-Qaida, so, too, in a lesser disproportion, Israel is arrayed against the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad."But Israeli leaders did not make the case, because it is not their view. Instead, Sharon agreed with Bush in principle and actually disagreed a lot on the ground - which was a reasonable approach, and it did work.I came out against that June 24th speech, which I thought rewarded terrorism. But I understand that the Israeli prime minister would rather not tangle with the US president. So he said, "Good idea" - both with this and the roadmap - and then implemented his own way. I, as an American foreign policy analyst, don't need to do that.
As an American foreign policy analyst, how do you explain the split among the neoconservatives regarding the Israeli policy of unilateral territorial withdrawals? I attribute the split to Sharon and his change of views. Given his personal history and his being prime minister, he had a lot of credibility on the Right. As he made his pirouette from one outlook to another - from opposing unilateral withdrawal to favoring it - a lot of people went with him. Basically, they said to him, "Arik, you understand this more deeply than I, and you see it further than I do, so I'm following you."
Can the Arab world democratize? Yes. There's nothing in the Arab DNA that is anti-democratic.
Do you see it making such a transformation? Possibly, but it will take a long time. A lot of things have to change. The basic problem is that the Arabic-speaking Muslims have had a great deal of difficulty in coping with modern life, and blame others for their problems. They're not introspective and not productive and constructive in their self-criticism. A notable exception would be the UN's Arab Human Development Report of 2002 - which made one take note. But it's such a wisp in the overall conspiratorial mindset, which requires profound changes taking place.
Profound changes in Islam, you mean? Like some kind of reformation? Religious reformation is certainly very important, but changes are also needed outside the religious sphere. A sense of taking responsibility for themselves. An attempt to be introspective, to figure out what the problems are.There are positive examples. The ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Muhammad Bin Rashed Al Maktoum, has recently come out with a book titled My Vision, for instance. He's of note, because he actually achieved something. He stayed away from ideology and built an economic success story. He did this through intelligence and good practices.But such positive elements are few and far between. The Arabic-speaking Muslim world - as the Muslim world as a whole, perhaps even more so - is in a state of anger, denial, fury, extremism and conspiracism that creates problems for the entire world. It's a threat to us all, including to those Muslims who want to live a modern, civilized life.
Do you think that they're demographically "a threat to us all?" The Muslim demographic upsurge is striking. But there's every reason to see it as temporary. Europe went through a huge population burst at a point in its development, then had a demographic levelling and is now experiencing collapse. A number of Muslim countries are already going through a demographic decline.
And the Muslim population in Europe? That's a different story. European women have an average of something like 1.4 children, when 2.1 is what's necessary for continuity. In other words, one-third of the needed population is never born. That one-third is primarily being replaced by immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries which are nearby, with which there are colonial relationships, or which are particularly eager to get to Europe because of troubles in their own countries. Europeans are not really coming to terms with this phenomenon. They do not bother to figure out how to adapt to their population deficit or to decide which immigrants they want.
In December 2002, a month after the Turkish elections, you attended the Herzliya Conference, where you were chided for being pessimistic about the rise to power of the Islamist party. How do things look now in Turkey? Things look bad, especially of late. [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan is turning out to be a skilled, savvy, cautious politician who is moving to promote the Islamist agenda. Whether it be foreign policy, the judiciary, the role of the military, relations with majority-Muslim states or Turkey's regional standing, the Islamist influence is paramount.The great question about Turkey is whether Erdogan and his colleagues see themselves as countering the Ataturk Revolution - as being the anti-Ataturk cadres - or whether they're willing to work within the Ataturk structure.I can't say for sure that they're revolutionaries, that their goal is to upend the system. But it certainly seems more likely than not, and more so with time.
Do Middle East studies differ from other academic areas? No. They are perfectly representative of many social science and humanities fields, whether it be Latin American studies or anthropology or English literature. We focus on the Middle East because it has a prominence other areas lack. Take a concept like jihad, which is central to understanding the war on terror, and you hear historians of Islam, religious specialists or others, almost without exception saying that jihad is moral self-improvement - becoming a better colleague; working on behalf of women's rights; working against apartheid. They are generally unwilling to state what it really is, which is warfare that expands Muslim control of land. This is a very important concept, and whom does one turn to for an understanding of it? Not to politicians, not to the media, but to specialists. And they have failed, betrayed their profession, by not being candid as to what this means. This is disinformation and dissimulation. It is what we criticize.
When, in his victory speech in January 2005, PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas said the period of the "little jihad has ended, and now the big jihad is beginning," there was much debate in Israel as to the meaning of his statement. Some local Middle East analysts said that "little jihad" was warfare, and that "big jihad" meant internal spiritual ascension. Are you saying they were spreading disinformation? Not in this case. A secondary meaning of the word jihad comes from Sufism and means, in fact, moral self-improvement. But, when used in the public sphere - when Osama bin Laden uses it, or in statements by Islamic Jihad - it normally refers to warfare to extend Muslim control.
Do you envision a situation in which there will be a reverse shift - in Israel and elsewhere in the West - from managing conflicts to imposing victory on the enemy? I don't know. Sometimes I'm optimistic and think that the unending failures of not striving for victory will eventually lead someone to figure this out. On the other hand, I see how mistaken policies can go on year after year.
Were you optimistic in this way on 9/11? Did you believe it was the event that would "lead someone to figure this out?" Yes, I was, with "united we stand" being the slogan of that period, and with the sense of resolve, the willingness to undo the Taliban regime. The 50-50 division in the United States now between those who understand we are at war and those involved in a glorified police operation was not something I expected.But now, having seen that division, and having seen what happened after the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the 2005 London bombings and other major terrorist incidents, I'm no longer surprised.
Look Who's Threatening to Deport Palestinians...
Israel National News
18/3/2007
A Middle Eastern government has announced that it is considering a plan to deport untold thousands of Palestinians from their homes, forcibly uprooting them and compelling them to leave.
It won't be the first time this government has threatened such a move – in fact, back in 1995, it carried out those threats, and sent numerous Palestinians packing.
But you won't be reading much about this in the mainstream press, nor will you hear nary a peep of protest from much of the left and its sympathizers over the cruelty and brutality of such a move.
And that's because the government in question – believe it or not – is Libya, which views this as a form of protest against the policies of the new Palestinian Authority (PA) government.
In fact, the PA is so concerned about the possible Libyan move, that PA Minister for refugee affairs Dr. Atef Adouan went public on the issue, telling the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi this, "We hope that the Libyan leadership will act wisely and with patience. Deporting the Palestinians from Libya would cause greater suffering to the Palestinian refugees."
Further proof, once again, of the cynical and manipulative manner in which the Arab states continue to exploit the issue of Palestinian refugees – and of the selective morality of those who criticize Israel on a regular basis.
Post a Comment