For your perusal, my latest INTO THE FRAY column:
WHY PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD OBVIATES ISRAELI VICTORY – RESPONDING TO DANIEL PIPES
(Kindly consider “liking”, sharing, tweeting – please use hash-tag #IntoFray)
For fruits of Israeli victory to endure, any post-victory reality must preclude a self-governing Palestinian entity, which would always be subjected to external incitement to fight the Jewish “intruders”
It appears this week on the following sites (in alphabetical order):
ISRAELI FRONTLINE: http://www.israelifrontline.com/2017/05/fray-palestinian-statehood-obviates-israeli-victory-responding-daniel-pipes.html
ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20525
ISRAEL NEWS ONLINE: https://israelnewsonline.org/into-the-fray-why-palestinian-statehood-obviates-israeli-victory-responding-to-daniel-pipes/
ISRAEL RISING: https://www.israelrising.com/palestinian-statehood-obviates-israeli-victory/
ISRAEL’S VOICE: https://www.israelsvoice.org/2017/05/19/fray-palestinian-statehood-obviates-israeli-victory%E2%80%8A-%E2%80%8Aresponding-daniel-pipes/
JEWS DOWN UNDER: https://jewsdownunder.com/2017/05/19/fray-palestinian-statehood-obviates-israeli-victory-responding-daniel-pipes/
JEWISH PRESS: (To be posted)
Several short excerpts:
Of all the nations at the UN the Palestinian state would be the only one which has limits imposed on its sovereignty, the only one without an army or air force. It would be the only one in the world that would be classified as second-class state; it would resemble the black protectorates in South Africa. Such inferiority…would mean a deepening of Palestinian humiliation, an intensification of the enmity towards Israel and the perpetuation of the Arab-Jewish conflict. This is the real pitfall in the proposal to establish a separate Palestinian state between us and the desert. – Prof. Amnon Rubinstein “The Pitfall of a Third State” (Hebrew), Ha’aretz, August 8, 1976.
This was not really the topic I originally intended to write on this week.
Eagerly accepted invitation
However, following this week’s response by Daniel Pipes, the driving force behind CIVC, to my tripartite analysis of his initiative, a good number of readers urged me to address the points he raised—particularly the few on which our views appear to diverge…
Accordingly…I shall turn my attention once again to the issue of Israeli victory and Pipes’s comments on the positions I articulated thereon…
Revolutionizing the rhetoric?
Arguably one of the most significant contributions the promotion of the CIVC initiative has made to the discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the realm of the rhetoric in which it is conducted…For the first time in several decades, certainly within the post-Oslo period, has a prominent center of intellectual endeavor, the Middle East Forum, headed by Pipes, himself a scholar of international repute, adopted language invoking harsh coercive measures, specifically designed to break the will of the Palestinian-Arabs to sustain their struggle against Israel.
Pipes concisely sums up the principal point of disagreement between us: “Sherman and I directly disagree on only one point – Israel accepting the possibility of a Palestinian state”. He goes on to speculate that “… the allure of a state after the conflict ends offers benefits to both sides. Israelis will be free of ruling unwanted subjects. Palestinians have a reason to behave.”…I confess to a certain amount of surprise at encountering this view from someone as knowledgeable and well-informed as Pipes. For he appears to be embracing the unfounded thesis that Arab/Muslim enmity towards the Jewish state centers solely—or at least , almost so—on the issue of self-determination for the Palestinian-Arabs.
“Root cause” or “red herring”?
The crucial question is therefore whether the demand for Palestinian statehood is indeed a genuine grievance, which, once addressed, will remove any further pretext for rejection of Jewish statehood? Or whether it is not? There is little to substantiate the former and much to corroborate the latter…
Inevitable symbiosis with hostile environment
The surrender of the Palestinian-Arabs in Judea-Samaria (and presumably Gaza as well) to the hated Zionists is unlikely to placate hatemongers of the ilk of the hugely influential Qatar-based Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qardawi, the head of Hezbollah, Hasan Nassrallah , the theocratic tyrants in Tehran, or the countless Salafist/Wahhabi firebrands across the Arabian peninsula and beyond…
Who is doing the surrendering?
Israel has repeatedly—and rightly—raised—the question of who, among the Palestinian-Arabs, is authorized to sign a binding peace agreement with it. But an equally valid question is which Palestinians would be authorized to sign a binding document of surrender?
Pipes…has expressed reservations as to the practical efficacy of funded emigration. He writes: “Due to intense nationalism, even stronger social pressure, and likely threats of violence, I highly doubt this scheme will find significant numbers of takers” although he does concede that “it’s certainly worth a try”…It is not precisely clear on what the skepticism regarding the effectiveness of funded emigration, is based. Indeed, much of it would appear unwarranted. After all, not only is its conceptual logic far sounder than other alternatives but it also rests on far more empirical support than they do –particularly the two-state proposal.
Unwarranted skepticism (cont.)
…several years ago, the New York Times wrote of the growing desire to emigrate: “Where young Palestinians once dreamed of staying to build a new state, now many are giving up and scheming to get out”, reporting that “According to…polls for Birzeit University, 35 percent of Palestinians over the age of 18 want to emigrate. Nearly 50 percent of those between 18 and 30 would leave if they could”. When a prospective emigrant was asked by the NYT “What about those who would accuse you of giving up your rights in your land?” he replied “I don’t care…I want to live happily”.
My appeal to the CIVC
Accordingly, since the CIVC cannot remain a politically viable enterprise if it restricts itself to generic calls for victory—especially if it plans to partner with a sister victory caucus in the Knesset—I urge its authors to adopt the funded emigration paradigm as its preferred path to victory.