8 | JUNE 2 • 2022
opinion
Why There’s No Peace
in the Middle East
R
ecent Congressional
proposals seek to
prohibit Israel’s use of
American funds or military
equipment to maintain
control of the West Bank.
Such
proposals reflect
a (by no means
uncommon)
belief that Israeli
insensitivity
to Palestinian
aspirations
is the main
reason peace has never been
achieved. If only Israel would
commit to withdraw from
the West Bank and adopt a
more conciliatory approach,
Palestinians would accept a
two-state solution along the
1967 lines — and the conflict
finally would end.
Those assumptions, I fear,
have little historic justification.
Since its creation in 1994, the
Palestinian Authority (PA) has
faced conflicting imperatives.
On the one hand, it cannot
remain in power without
military support from Israel
— including regular raids on
Hamas cells in the West Bank
— and financial support from
the U.S., Europe and Arab
states. The PA cannot ignore
demands from those parties
that it remain open to a two-
state solution.
On the other hand,
Palestinian popular opinion
has always been, and is now
more than ever, opposed
to the existence of a Jewish
state. Eliminating Israel,
polls show, remains the
cherished objective for
70%-80% of Palestinians.
The PA, therefore, cannot
accept a two-state solution
without risking a total loss of
legitimacy or an uprising such
as allowed Hamas to drive the
PA from Gaza in 2007.
What then does the PA
do? It refuses to say yes to
any proposal. It refuses to say
no. Indeed, it refuses to say
anything, however generous
the settlement may appear
to outsiders. That was what
the PA did in 2000-2001,
2008 and 2014. On those
occasions, in return for
recognition, Israel offered
to withdraw from territory
equal to 96-100% of the West
Bank, to divide Jerusalem, to
accept a limited refugee return
and to arrange generous
compensation for the rest.
Those offers met almost
everything the PA President
Mohammed Abbas says he
wants. But Palestinian popular
opinion demanded not only
that those offers be rejected,
but also that they be rejected
with violence: bombs in
Israeli cities in 1993-1996,
the second intifada of 2000 to
2003, Hamas-initiated wars
in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021;
all such attacks issued from
territory Israel had evacuated
in an effort to reduce tensions.
True, of course, Israel
also had and has diehard
opponents of compromise.
Nevertheless, three Israeli
prime ministers — Rabin,
Barak and Olmert — were
able to marshal pro-peace
majorities for which there was
no Palestinian counterpart.
REFUSAL TO ACCEPT
A JEWISH STATE
I would emphasize that refusal
to accept a Jewish state has
defined Palestinian politics
for generations. It was the
bedrock position of Haj Amin
al-Husayni (the Palestinian
leader from 1922-1948, who
allied with Hitler), of the
PLO’s charter and, today,
of Hamas and its patrons,
Iran and Hezbollah. Twenty-
first-century rejection of
peace offers awarding Arabs
extensive or total control of
the West Bank had precedents
in 1937, 1939, 1947 and 1968.
Virtually everything of
which Palestinians complain
— refugees, West Bank
annexation, the security
wall, settlements, the
Gaza blockade — began
as a defensive response
to Palestinian-initiated or
-supported violence,
If all past efforts at
reconciliation have failed, by
what logic are they likely to
succeed now — when Hamas,
with Iranian support, is more
popular than ever? If elections
were held today, polls agree,
pro-Hamas candidates would
trounce Mahmoud Abbas’ PA
by at least four-to-one. Hamas
leaders vow they will not only
destroy Israel but will expel all
Jews whose families arrived
after 1914, i.e., 99%.
Refusal to accept what
Palestinians see as the
Jews’ historic theft of their
land is understandable. In
effect, Palestinians had to
pay the price for European
antisemitism for which
they bore no responsibility.
Yet understandable though
Palestinian grievances may
be — and I can recite those
grievances as well as any
Palestinian — the fact remains
that the demand for Israel’s
destruction has been and
remains incompatible with a
two-state solution.
But imagine for a moment
that Congressional legislation
effectively prohibited Israeli
forces from operating in
the West Bank. The PA
would then face two grim
alternatives. Most probably,
as I just suggested, it would
lose power to Hamas, either
through an election or an
uprising. Hamas, and quite
possibly Iranian forces, then
would be on the doorstep
of major Israeli cities. That
almost certainly would lead
Israel to reoccupy the West
Bank, triggering violence on
a scale not seen in the last 55
years.
Or, to retain power, PA
authorities, like Bashar
al-Assad in Syria, would
mount a savage repression
of their own people that
also would make a mockery
of American dreams of a
peaceful, prosperous region.
Either outcome would be far
worse than a continuation of
the status quo.
POTENTIAL OUTCOMES
Of course, no one can predict
the future with certainty, but
such outcomes are far more
likely than a scenario in which
one-sided American pressure
on Israel yields a mutually
PURELY COMMENTARY
continued on page 11
Victor
Lieberman