(Continue to the end for an announcement of a NY right-wing rally!!)
There are only intimations at this point. I am not so naive as to suggest that we have reached a time of reason. We are still mired in a great deal that is crazy. As well as ugly.
Yet, I am seeing a glimmer, a shift, that offers hope for a better tomorrow (if I may employ that cliché).
~~~~~~~~~~
In my last posting, I wrote about Dennis Ross, who admitted 30 years after the Oslo Accords were signed, that it was a mistake not to hold Yasser Arafat’s feet to the fire, to demand that he stop terror instead of offering empty words.
I have had enormous contempt for Ross for many years, because he wrote an article in Foreign Affairs describing the fact that Arafat never relinquished the terror card. And yet, even knowing this, at the behest of his boss, Bill Clinton, he had pushed Israel to make concessions in order to further the “peace process.”
What, I wonder, brought his change in perspective now.
~~~~~~~~~~
And we have commentator Barry Shaw writing about Martin Indyk (pictured), a former US ambassador to Israel, who was really bad news in that position. Indyk lamented in a tweet:
“I have been despairing about how to respond to Abu Mazen’s [Mahmoud Abbas’s] profoundly anti-Semitic diatribe. How could someone who has treated me as a personal friend for three decades at the same time harbor such hateful views of my people?”
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/377097
It is difficult not to laugh at this. International law professor Eugene Kontorovich wondered how Indyk could have been such a fool: “Abbas wrote his dissertation denying the Holocaust, but he smiles at Martin, and everything is good?”
What Shaw exposes, however, is the fact that Indyk, who “ran John Kerry’s Israeli-Palestinian Arab negotiations…cashed a $14.8 million check from Qatar, in his capacity as vice president and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the prestigious Brookings Institution.” And so, perhaps fool is not the best way to describe him.
And yet, the question remains: after all this time, and all of his involvement with the PA, and all his promotion of the two-state idiocy, why did he tweet as he did at this time?
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, and most importantly, I look at a report by Nitsan Keidar on an interview that Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami (pictured) granted to Besheva weekly. Ben-Ami was foreign minister in the Ehud Barak government, participated in the Camp David talks in which Barak agreed to a Palestinian state on some 97% of Judea and Samaria, and later backed the far-left Meretz party.
Writes Keidar (emphasis added):
“For many years, the Israeli left pegged the Oslo Accords as the basis for the solution of a Palestinian state to be established in Judea and Samaria. Barely a voice was ever heard from the left saying otherwise. However, many who believed in this approach have recently changed their position, especially in light of the Abraham Accords, which showed that normalization with Arab countries does not require a prior agreement with the Palestinians…
“Thirty years later, he [Ben-Ami] estimates that nothing at all is left of the Oslo Accords.”
He cites Ben Ami (emphasis added):
“…The idea of a Palestinian state is alien and foreign to the Palestinian national movement…
“With Arafat, you could never tell what he really meant. I spent many hours with him, and not one word of his could be taken at face value. I really don’t know what he actually wanted, and i don’t think anyone did…
“Even when Israeli leaders agreed to make great concessions on their behalf, Arafat and his negotiators never agreed to anything.
“…I can’t guarantee that Arafat even read the Oslo accords. All he wanted was to be allowed back into the territories, and for this goal, he was willing to sign on Oslo. Even in his car on his way to Gaza, he brought with him a terrorist about whom Rabin expressly said would not be allowed in.
“…Oslo was Arafat’s ticket back into the Land of Israel…He desperately wanted to return to the territories so that he could supplant the local Arab leadership that he hated…”
Concludes Keidar, “Ben-Ami acknowledges that the nationalist camp was more correct in its analysis of future peace prospects than the left…”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/377210
~~~~~~~~~~
You might find it enlightening to read the entire article, which describes concessions made by Ehud Barak and then Ehud Olmert, all of which Arafat rejected.
Ben-Ami, who is viewed as a highly intellectual historian, remains ideologically left-wing. He tells the history here with honesty, but in the end, we are confronted with the same question: if he knew the Palestinian Arabs didn’t want a state, and he knew there was no dealing with Arafat, why did he remain quiet for so many years?
Something in the air has shifted. Perhaps the Abraham Accords, perhaps other factors as well. What we see is that the left suddenly feels comfortable saying that the two-state solution was not going to work.
~~~~~~~~~~
To make the situation absolutely clear: Ben-Ami spoke about Arafat, but it would be a huge mistake to imagine that his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, is any less a terrorist, any less corrupt or dishonest, than his mentor Arafat was.
In any event, Abbas is on his way out and his successor, whoever he might be – there are competitors vying for this position – will be no more moderate. There are no moderates in the running.
Actually, Yaakov Lapin says that the post-Abbas era has already begun in Judea & Samaria, with Hamas gaining strength. Lapin outlines one possible scenario in which Fatah (the mainstay of the PLO and Palestinian Authority) partners with Hamas.
~~~~~~~~~~
One additional observation that is highly relevant today:
“Even the Arab countries are not interested in a Palestinian state,” writes Keidar. He cites Ben-Ami:
“Jordan never wanted a state, but caved to the dictates of the Arab League. Egypt, too, never wanted a state; its president, Anwar Sadat, is quoted as having told Menachem Begin in Camp David that Jordan must be involved in the Palestinian solution. Carter agreed, and even Donald Trump asked King Abdullah to get involved – but he refused.”
~~~~~~~~~~
So, who wants that Palestinian state?
Maybe the Saudis; they say they do but…(more below). And today, maybe Jordan, because the king fears a “Jordan is Palestine” solution that might be advanced by the Saudis. (It is complicated and reports vary.)
Then the US, the EU, and the UN. Biden just mentioned “two-states” in his UN address.
It is useful, I think, to extensively cite the leftists who concede the error of that two-state approach. You help Israel and provide clarity when you do share this information.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Biden had their meeting on Wednesday, in the International Barclay Hotel, near the UN in New York. It was all very cordial on the surface: Talk about long friendships, etc.
However, I am no closer to being able to describe what Netanyahu may have promised in the way of concessions to the PA. Unsurprisingly, the public statements provided no specifics.
We know two things, however. One, that Biden made reference to a meeting in the While House before the end of the year, which he would not have done if he were displeased.
And two, Netanyahu said: “I think that under your leadership, Mr. President, we can forge a historic peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia.”
For the text of Netanyahu’s remarks in the public meeting for the press prior to their private meeting where everything of real importance was said), and a video of the remarks of both heads of state:
https://www.jns.org/u-s-israel/benjamin-netanyahu/23/9/20/320508/
~~~~~~~~~~
We must keep in mind that there is a limit to what Netanyahu can agree to and sustain his coalition. Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit) and Bezalel Smotrich (RZ) are opposed to major concessions to the PA, as are elements of Likud. Eleven Likud MKs led by MK Yuli Edelstein, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, have written a public letter to Netanyahu saying that they unequivocally support a “peace for peace” agreement with the Saudis and not one that will lead to major concessions towards the Palestinian Authority.
~~~~~~~~~~
And so we must wait to learn what are the minimum gestures that the Saudis are prepared to accept on this. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman gave a FOX interview in English on Thursday during which he said (emphasis added):
“Every day we are getting closer to an agreement with Israel. For us, the Palestinian issue is very important. We need to solve that part. And we have a good negotiations continue until now. We got to see where it goes. We hope that will reach a place that it will ease the life of the Palestinians, get Israel as a player in the Middle East.”
Ease the life of the Palestinians, meaning??
He went on to speak of “a breakthrough of reaching a deal that give the Palestinians their needs and make the region calm.” A big order. How do we interpret Palestinian “needs”? Making the region calm implies a cessation of terror, does it not? Facile words. Surely, he does not expect Israel to respond to PA demands so massively that they would consider halting terror? (Dubious in any event.)
See the full interview here:
~~~~~~~~~~
One of the demands of the Saudis is for the US to sign on to, and assist with, a Saudi program of uranium enrichment for peaceful purposes of clean nuclear energy. This has generated considerable unease regarding the possibility of turning this to military purposes.
Reports suggest that Netanyahu is willing to give a positive nod to this. According to The Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu has instructed senior Israeli officials to conduct talks on the matter with Washington.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-netanyahu-positively-considering-saudi-nuclear-program-report-
~~~~~~~~~~
For those who see this in time and live in the NY area or know people who do:
A STAND WITH ISRAEL RALLY IN SUPPORT OF ISRAEL’S DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT:
Today, September 21, 6-8 PM.
540 Park Avenue, across from the Regency Hotel.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by independent journalist Arlene Kushner. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
