• MY BOOKS
    • 72 Virgins--Synopsis
    • 72 Virgins - Book Reviews
    • 72 Virgins--An Excerpt
    • Book Trailer
    • 72 Virgins - Links to Published Interviews
    • Fundamentals of Voice Quality--Synopsis
    • Funsamentals of Voice Quality Engineering - Book Reviews
    • Special Promotions
  • Buy a Book
  • MY TALK SHOW
  • 6-Day War Remembered on Shalom TV
  • Published Articles
    • Political Blogs
    • Writer's Blog
    • Political Satires
  • My Biography
  • My Life in Pictures
  • Islam
    • Islamic Terrorism
    • Arab-Israeli Conflict
  • Favorite Sites
  • Conjugate Gradient
  • The Lahaka
  • O.J. Simpson's Song
  • My Music
    • Original Music--Password Required
    • My Xmas Jazz
  • Contact
Avi Perry

Was Netanyahu right to rebuff Obama?

6/1/2011

1 Comment

 
In his latest speech to the American Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. He added that as long as the Palestinian Arabs continue to perpetuate their fantasy that the Jewish state will cease to exist, there could be no peace between them and Israel.

He was right.

The conflict is not about the pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed territorial swaps. It has always been about the pre-1947 border, when there was none.

The Palestinians have been unwilling to end the conflict. Had they been interested in a two-state peaceful solution, they would have abandoned their demand for the right of return; they would have agreed to settle the refugee problem within the confines of their (would be) independent, occupation-free Palestinian state. They would have stopped educating their children to hate. They would have ceased naming public squares after terrorists; they would not have fired anti-tank missiles on Israeli school busses, rockets and mortar on civilians, or (even) on the Israeli military; they would have worked tirelessly to gain Israel’s trust.

But they have not.

And there is no peaceful logic behind the Palestinians’ great grandchildren’s insistence on “returning” to Israel — a land they have never stepped a foot on, a land as foreign to them as Guatemala. Why would any Palestinian Arab want to leave his or her newly established, democratic, free country and come to live under what they refer to as an “apartheid-practicing” Jewish government? It defies logic. Unless, of course, Israel has no Jewish government, no Jewish majority and it is no longer a Jewish state.

Palestinians perceive a peace agreement with Israel as a document formalizing their unconditional surrender. Their humiliating defeat in 1948, in which they watched the Jewish people establish a Jewish state on land they considered Islamic, is a shameful experience they are unable to shake off. That humiliation and the corresponding urge to redeem the lost honor is more commanding than the sensible strategy of calling for a peace offensive.

Some cool-headed Arab leaders have claimed that the peace process can serve as a smoke screen in pursuit of what had been defined as the Salami Principle — one slice at a time. It boils down to putting international pressure on Israel to weaken itself through a series of withdrawals to earlier borders, preceding the final assault on what’s left of the Jewish state whose indefensible borders would make it an easy prey. And in the Arab Middle East, reclaiming a lost honor overshadows straightforward logic.

Focusing on the pre-1967 borders as the main issue for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is like using sterile needles for lethal injections, or playing video ballgames on your Xbox and calling it physical exercise.

Considering the apparent irrelevance, why did Netanyahu — while gazing into president Obama’s private thoughts — make the pre-1967 border the centerpiece of his argument? Why didn’t the Israeli PM try to call the Palestinians’ bluff by agreeing to the fake notion?

“Yes Mr. President,” Netanyahu could have declared. “Let’s restart the peace process from the pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed swaps,” trusting the other side to derail any meaningful negotiations, then be blamed for the failure once they insist on including Hamas at or behind the negotiating table?

Had Netanyahu swallowed the pill served by Obama, even though analysis had deemed it a placebo, it might have undermined his job. His coalition partners would have abandoned him, likening him to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, the loser who wrongly believed that appeasing an aggressor would bring about peace.

Had Netanyahu followed Obama’s lead he might have run the risk that the Palestinians, including Hamas, would have played along by resorting to deception, by whispering a ”yes” (in English) to negotiations. They would have employed Obama’s proposal as a fresh starting point — blessed by the U.S. president and endorsed by the Israeli PM — in preparation for a full-scale implementation of the Salami Principle.

The seeming gap between Obama’s and Netanyahu’s approaches to peace with the Palestinians yanks its intensity from their knowledge of history as it relates to their personal experiences and risk assessment.

Netanyahu has plenty of reasons for placing mistrust in the Palestinians. He remembers that Israeli withdrawals from territories occupied during defensive wars have always been met by Arab deadly aggression in return. It was true in the West Bank following the Oslo accord when suicide bombing inside Israeli cities became a daily affair; it was true following Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon when Hezbollah took over the territory and began shooting rockets at Israeli towns. And it was true all over again following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.

Netanyahu knows what the Palestinians’ true goals are; he knows that the peace process is a smoke screen, designed to mask their true intentions. On the other hand, President Obama — like Nixon and Kissinger before him when negotiating peace with the North Vietnamese — is looking for a short-term stress relief.

If the peace agreement turns into a fiasco, if it is proven hollow, or if the concluding handshakes around the negotiating table were intended to relax and weaken Israel’s (or U.S.’s) guards, making the final assault by the Arabs (or by the North Vietnamese in Kissinger’s case) more effective, then it’s a problem. But it’s somebody else’s problem. From an American point of view, the promise of peace is worth the risk since the true burden of facing the potential catastrophic consequences is borne by someone else, by someone far away from home.

Netanyahu was right to reject President Obama’s approach. He understood that further Israeli concessions toward peace with the Palestinians would only bring about more violence in return. He understood that the Palestinians’ talk about a peace process is unmistakably consistent with their view of the Salami Principle, while their Islamic teaching forbids treatment of Jews as worthy human beings. He understood that peace with the Palestinians or a two-state solution, living peacefully side by side is a mirage, an illusion borne by the U.S. president. He knew that Israel rather than the U.S. would be the one bearing the catastrophic consequences of making premature concessions.

Netanyahu had no other choice but to push back. The reaction delivered by the U.S. Congress proved him right.

Well done, Mr. Prime Minister!

BIO
Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN), is the author of "Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks," and more recently, "72 Virgins," a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories - distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to the ITU—the UN International Standards body in Geneva, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government.

1 Comment

    Archives

    August 2019
    August 2018
    July 2018
    July 2017
    February 2016
    December 2015
    July 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    September 2009
    January 2008
    October 2007

    Categories

    All
    Abbas
    Abu Mazen
    A Large Mosque Near Wtc Ground Zero
    Al-Jazeera
    American Policy
    American Politics
    Cordoba Mosque
    Debt Ceiling Analogy To The Middle East Peace Process
    Deception
    Dirty Politics
    Egypt
    Erromous Assumptions
    Fatah-Hamas Unity Agreement
    Foreign Policy
    Gaddafi
    Geneva Conventions
    Gilad Shalit
    Hamas
    Hate Armada A.k.a. Gaza-Bound Flotilla
    Ideology
    Iran
    Iran War
    Islam
    Israel
    Israeli Hospitals Treats Palestinians
    Israeli Politics
    Itamar
    Libya
    Mahmud Abbas
    Middle East
    Middle East Peace
    Mideast Us Policy
    Mubarak
    Muslim Brothers
    Netanyahu
    Nuclear
    Nuclear Weapons
    Obama
    Pa
    Palestinian Authority
    Palestinian Authority (PA)
    Peace Process
    Persian Gulf
    Plo
    Political Humor
    Qadhafi
    Religion
    Revolt
    Stealth Jihad
    Suicide Bombing
    Terrorism In New York
    The \"Occupation\"
    The Turks Quest For Human Justice
    Two-state Solution
    Two-state Solution
    Un
    Us Aircraft Carrier
    Us Economy
    War
    War Crimes

Dr. Avi Perry