INTO THE FRAY: Obsessing over Oslo – Einat Wilf in “The Atlantic”

For your perusal, my latest INTO THE FRAY column:

Obsessing over Oslo – Einat Wilf in “The Atlantic”

(Kindly consider “liking”, sharing, tweeting – please use hash-tag ‪#‎IntoFray)

Wilf seems oblivious to “pesky details” such as the murderous terror unleashed by the Palestinians, their Judeophobic indoctrination and Judeocidal incitement, as “grand obstacles to peace”

It appears this week on the following sites (in alphabetical order):


Several short excerpts:

Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not, who have ears, but hear not – Jeremiah 5:21

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See – traced to John Heywood (1497 – c. 1580)

Fair-minded, rational human beings might surely been excused for believing that the “jury is no longer out” on the land-for-peace doctrine and its “two-state” corollary.

A desperate & dogged obsession

Ignoring inconvenient facts?

After all, by any conceivable criterion, the endeavor to implement them, beginning over a quarter-century ago with the ill-conceived—and hence, ill-fated—Oslo Accords have proved a tragic and traumatic failure—

precipitating all the perils its opponents warned of, but none of the promised pay-offs it proponents pledged.

Yet, despite the fatal fiasco that two-statism has proven, many of its proponents, impervious to both reason and bitter experience, refuse to admit error—clinging to their credo with a desperate and dogged obsession, reminiscent of the most devout religious radicals.

The “Constructive” culprit

Thus, Wilf writes: “What doomed the Oslo Accords is also what made them possible in the first place: constructive ambiguity”.

This, according to Wilf, was both the factor that facilitated Oslo and caused it to fail: “This constructive ambiguity, imbued in each element of the Accords, proved to be utterly destructive”—leaving the rational reader to conclude that, if what made Oslo possible also caused is failure, then surely, it was never feasible in the first place! For, according to Wilf, Oslo, the flagship endeavor of two-statism, was either doomed to failure—or never to exist. Or am I missing something here?

The snake-oil of “specificity”

As an alleged antidote to ruinous “ambiguity”, Wilf suggests replacing it with “specificity”. She writes: “In place of destructive ambiguity, we need constructive specificity. Serious peacemakers need to let go of vague and nebulous concepts such as ‘trust’ and ‘confidence building’, and…spell out every detail”.

So instead of delaying agreement on intractable core issues for later resolution, Wilf proposes resolving them immediatelyi.e. Israel should agree, posthaste, to Palestinian demands for the physical establishment of a Palestinian state, the physical division of Jerusalem, the physical demolition of Jewish communities, and the physical influx of potentially hostile hordes into the territory abutting and overlooking Israel’s coastal megatropolis… Accordingly, translated into plain English, Wilf’s proposal is indistinguishable from saying that the sides should agree on what they disagree so that they can agree. Gee! What a splendid idea.

Seen in this light, “specificity” is clearly little more than “snake-oil”.

Specifying abandonment of Jewish communities

The city of Ariel: “…should be left to wither economically…”

As for the fate of her countrymen not included in her designated (sans-Ariel) blocs, Wilf is again unabashedly specific, prescribing that they should be abandoned: “The “no” to the settlements must be unambiguous. There is no need to evacuate them, and there is no need for a compensation plan for those who leave. The settlements beyond the border should be left to wither economically and be deprived of support”.

Doesn’t get much more specific than that!

Invoking divorce rather than marriage

A trenchant question

According to Wilf, in order to achieve some kind of lasting settlement “the parties need to approach the negotiations not as a marriage, but as a divorce.”

This kind of reasoning does have some superficial appeal to it—until one considers the context.

… a basic flaw in Wilf’s reasoning is her seeming assumption that once a Palestinian state is established, all grievances will disappear. This of course is a grave miscalculation—and any putative Palestinian state will certainly be subject to incitement and infiltration by the most radical elements that abound in the Muslim world—spurring it on to further aggression against the infidel Zionist entity—with or without the complicity of Israel’s purported peace partner.

It is thus clearly time for obstinate two-staters to accept that their two-state formula is little more than a prelude to a flimsily disguised, more sinister and longer range design: A two-STAGE strategy for the total elimination of the Jewish state.

As usual your talkbacks/comments/critiques welcome,
Best wishes,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.