Peace Isn't Arab's Goal (Boston.com)
Who favors a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict?
President Obama does, of course, as he made clear in welcoming Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Monday. So does former president George W. Bush, who began advocating Palestinian statehood in 2002 and continued until his final days in office. The Democratic Party's national platform endorses a two-state solution; the Republican platform does, too. The UN Security Council unanimously reaffirmed its support a few days ago, and the European Union is strongly in favor as well.
Pope Benedict XVI called for a Palestinian state during his recent visit to the Holy Land, thereby aligning himself - on this issue, at least - with the editorial boards of The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times. And, for that matter, with most Israelis. A new poll shows 58 percent of the Israeli public backing a two-state solution; prominent supporters include Netanyahu's three predecessors - former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Barak - as well as president Shimon Peres.
The consensus, it would seem, is overwhelming. As Henri Guaino, a senior adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, put it on Sunday: "Everyone wants peace. The whole world wants a Palestinian state."
It isn't going to happen.
International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down.
In 1936, when Palestine was still under British rule, a royal commission headed by Lord Peel was sent to investigate the steadily worsening Arab violence. After a detailed inquiry, the Peel Commission concluded that "an irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country." It recommended a two-state solution - a partition of the land into separate Arab and Jewish states. "Partition offers a chance of ultimate peace," the commission reported. "No other plan does."
But the Arab leaders, more intent on preventing Jewish sovereignty in Palestine than in achieving a state for themselves, rejected the Peel plan out of hand. The foremost Palestinian leader, Haj Amin al-Husseini, actively supported the Nazi regime in Germany. In return, Husseini wrote in his memoirs, Hitler promised him "a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world."
In 1947, the Palestinians were again presented with a two-state proposal. Again they spurned it. Like the Peel Commission, the United Nations concluded that only a division of the land into adjacent states, one Arab and one Jewish, could put an end to the conflict. On Nov. 29, 1947, by a vote of 33-13, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine on the basis of population. Had the Arabs accepted the UN decision, the Palestinian state that "the whole world wants" would today be 61 years old. Instead, the Arab League vowed to block Jewish sovereignty by waging "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre."
Over and over, the pattern has been repeated. Following its stunning victory in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel offered to exchange the land it had won for permanent peace with its neighbors. From their summit in Khartoum came the Arabs' notorious response: "No peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."
At Camp David in 2000, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians virtually everything they claimed to be seeking - a sovereign state with its capital in East Jerusalem, 97 percent of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, tens of billions of dollars in "compensation" for the plight of Palestinian refugees. Yasser Arafat refused the offer, and launched the bloodiest wave of terrorism in Israel's history.
Secondly, since this is the age of Obama, I suppose we can excuse these comment's complaints about the solution because - as we are painfully learning - not all solutions will work simply because it's "doing something."
In speaking to some of my more moderate to left-leaning friends, the consensus was, regarding Obama, "at least he's doing something."
That is not a reason to follow him. Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Ladin were "doing something." If I want to fix a radio, I could just "do something". That doesn't mean it will work. Taking a hammer to my radio is "doing something." Blowing up the Twin Towers is "doing something."
Furthermore, "doing the opposite of Bush" is a bad path as well. Say what you want about the man, he did a lot of things right as well. Why else is Obama moderating his views more in line with those of the former President.
The two-state solution is a joke and always was. As long as we continue to be fooled by the Arab intentions, there will never, ever be peace in the region. Obama is nothing more than a teleprompter in a suit. His idea of "doing something" is not change. And the only hope is that he hopes no one notices that he isn't bringing change.
In order to do something right, the who fallacy of the two-state solution must be repudiated. Let's be perfectly clear, the Arabs have absolutely no interest in making peace with Israel. And those few who do wield zero power. Even today, Israeli intelligence reports that in an election in the West Bank, Hamas would defeat Fatah. So who really is interested in a two-state solution?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can not make peace with a partner who wants nothing more than to exterminate you. The United Nations, the so-called "quartet" and even President Obama are either still fooled or are complicit. There is no way around it.