Posting a reply

Updated I got a comment from a reader named Trey on my post a few down called "This is just too much," which called for a suspension of US aid to Israel. In writing my reply, I realized it was much too long to reasonably be a comment, so I've taken a different route. I hope and expect Trey won't mind; consider it a sign of how seriously I took the remarks.

Immediately below is the text of the comment. I have changed nothing except the formatting for easier reading here by making it clear where Trey is speaking and where I am being quoted. (Well, okay, I also changed a typo.) Below that is my reply.

Trey's comment:

just for another point of view (though we both seek the same goal, I hope) -

Bluntly, we do understand. We understand people acting out of fear. We also understand that fear makes people and yes, nations, act irrationally.

then why not work toward realistically decreasing that fear, which, unfortunately, is not irrational - it's the result of terrorist acts directed toward the nation and it's citizens, and the refusal (despite the propaganda) of the Palestinian charter and many Arab states to unequivocally accept Israel as a Jewish state with the right to live in safe and secure borders.

Until there is genuine change, a genuine shift in Israeli policy

Camp David showed such a shift, and it was met with intransigence and violence by Arafat and his followers, leading to the last for years of violence and destruction for both sides.

until the "separation fence" comes down

you call it a separation fence, I call it (as Israel does) a security measure - the Israel Supreme Court has ruled that it's route must be directed to minimize hardship on the Palestinians (as if any other Middle East Country has such a system of checks and balances) and it has decreased the terrorist attacks in those areas where it's been completed

until Israel accepts its responsibility for undermining both the Palestinian economy and the Palestinian Authority

the Palestinians have done both of things quite successfully themselves

until it declares outright, unequivocally, its acceptance of a Palestinian state

see above comments re: Palestinian charter, and keep in mind that many of the Arab states still are in a state of war with Israel. See also, history of original partition plan in 1947/48, and wars launched by Arab states in '56, '67, '73..

until it willingly negotiates directly, honestly, and as full equals with whoever emerges from the upcoming Palestinian elections

now that Arafat is off the scene, the chance for such a negotiation is better than it has been in a long time, providing it is reciprocated from the other side

until then, all US aid to Israel beyond purely humanitarian support should stop

do you feel the same way about all U.S. foreign aid to other countries in the Middle East and around the world, including those guilty of far worse accusations than those targeted against Israel?

And my answer:

First, thank you for commenting and thank you for laying out your arguments/questions clearly without the emotional accusations that usually figure heavily in discussions of the problems of the region. To save space and avoid repeating things I have said at length before, on several points I'm just going to link to earlier posts.

- On Israel's right to exist: The PA (and earlier, the PLO) made it clear long ago that it's willing to negotiate mutual recognition with Israel. In fact, on September 9, 1993 - over 11 years ago - Yasser Arafat, as chairman the PLO, stated in a letter to then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security. The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338." But like occasions before and since, Israel ultimately decided that getting what it demanded - in this case, an explicit statement of Israel's right to exist - was not enough. It's also good to remember that a formal diplomatic recognition of Israel within specific boundaries is the only real thing the PA has to offer in negotiations, so demanding it as a prior condition for a settlement is to demand the Palestinians come to talks as supplicants, not as negotiating partners.

- On terrorism: That is exactly why we can understand the fear. But terrorism does not only consist of suicide bombings, it also consists of bombing villages and bulldozing homes. One of the great difficulties is that we are constantly called on to understand Israeli fears yet we are expected to ignore - or at least regard as highly overblown - Palestinian fears, fears which are every bit as real and bluntly have every bit as much justification. It was an Israeli general who said "secure borders do not bring peace; peace brings secure borders."

- On Camp David: It was no shift, it was a fraud, a fake offer Israeli officials knew in advance Arafat would not, could not accept. It was made for the conscious purpose of having Arafat reject it in order to declare Israel had "no partner" for negotiations.

- On the separation fence: I call it that because that's its declared purpose. It was condemned by the World Court and the IRC. The fact that the Israeli Supreme Court forced a change in the route only proves how unjust the original route was. The government claim of reduced terrorism in the area is based on very limited data and could easily reflect targets of opportunity in a temporary shift. If Israel wants to build its wall, let it - inside the Green Line, where its legal right to do so is not in question. Interestingly, Israel rejected the WC decision on the grounds that the wall, which in places extends miles into the West Bank, is an internal Israeli matter. What does that tell us about how Sharon views the West Bank?

- On the Palestinian economy: The World Bank disagrees with you on that subject.

- On the PA's authority: Haaretz commentator Zvi Bar'el disagrees with you. In fact, even the Council on Foreign Relations, surely no friend to the PA, which it regards as providing a haven for terrorism, disagrees with you:

Have Israeli reprisals targeted the PA? Yes. After suffering a devastating wave of Palestinian terrorism during the Palestinian intifada (uprising) that began in September 2000, Israel struck Arafat’s police forces, destroyed his helicopters, and crossed into PA territory. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon also pinned Arafat down in his Ramallah headquarters for about a month during a major incursion into the West Bank after a suicide bomber murdered 28 Israelis at a March 2002 Passover seder near Tel Aviv. Israel’s incursion severely damaged the PA’s civil and security infrastructure. Following two deadly suicide bombings in June 2002, Israel announced a new policy of seizing PA-held West Bank land in retaliation for terror attacks.

- On Arafat off the scene: He was the excuse, not the reason, in the same way that demands that terrorism stop before negotiations - something Israeli officials knew was beyond Arafat's ability - were.

- On other nations: I feel no obligation to somehow "prove" I'm entitled to make criticisms anymore that I felt obliged to demonstrate my criticism of Saddam Hussein before I could be allowed to object to the invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, I'll answer directly. Foreign military aid: end it. Foreign economic aid: deny it to nations violating human rights, a category in which I now include Israel, unless it can be assured that such aid directly benefits those in need. Humanitarian aid: continue, indeed expand, it.

Finally, and I deliberately left this for last,

- On seeking the same goal: I, too, hope so. My goal is peace, but the true peace of justice, not the phony "peace" of domination. I still believe in a two-state solution (I have since 1970), even as some others on both sides are losing faith in it. I still believe it is possible. And I still believe that the best answer - in fact, the only true answer - to terrorism is justice.

But I also believe that Ariel Sharon - and, frankly, most every other top player I see in Israel right now - does not want peace. "Peace," yes. Peace, no. His "disengagement" plan is not a way to get peace but to avoid it. He himself has said that once his plan is finished, there may be no negotiations for a long time. His own negotiator in the US, Dov Weisglass, said the purpose was to "freeze Palestinian statehood indefinitely." And his plan for disengagement in Gaza intended to "dispel the claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians" there while continuing to maintain control over them.

And until that changes, there will be no peace. And until it does, we should not be enabling its continuance.

Updated to include Arafat's letter to Rabin and the CFR reference.