Posted on 02/11/2002 9:24:14 PM PST by anapikoros
In an op-ed in Wednesday's Yediot Aharonot, author Amos Oz argues that the Palestinians are split in two: those seeking independence and those seeking to destroy Israel. The Palestinians could have had their independence a year ago, writes Oz, were it not for the "cowardly evasion" of the Palestinian leadership, which has "blurred the lines between the Palestinians fighting to be a free nation and those conspiring to deny the Jews that very right."
In an op-ed in Sunday's New York Times, Yasser Arafat claims to be in Oz's first school. The Palestinians want a state "living as an equal neighbor alongside Israel with peace and security for both the Israeli and Palestinian peoples," writes Arafat.
Since Arafat's op-ed appeared, in which he once again pledged to "put an end" to terrorism, a suicide bomber was intercepted on a bus, Kassam missiles were captured on their way to Jenin, and a terrorist shot his way into a home in Moshav Hamra and murdered a mother and her 11-year-old handicapped daughter, as well as killing a soldier.
Arafat also stared directly into a television camera and denied any connection between him and Iran.
The pace and baldness of Arafat's lies seem to reach new heights almost daily, yet most people are inclined to believe him about one basic point: that he is striving for a Palestinian state. If we question this core assumption, the evasion that mystifies Oz may become more understandable.
Currently, the reigning explanation for why Arafat would not even negotiate over Bill Clinton's and Ehud Barak's entreaties to accept a state over 97% of the West Bank and Gaza is that the offer was not good enough. Since Israel conceded almost completely on the territorial issue, many Israelis understandably conclude that the real obstacle to an agreement was the Palestinian refusal to drop the "right of return."
But this explanation is somewhat strained. If the Palestinians really want a state, why would they persist with demands that have little to do with their own state and seem designed to destroy Israel?
An alternative explanation is that Arafat, rather than championing the drive for statehood, secretly belongs to an opposing school that views a rump state as an insult to Palestinian aspirations.
In a poem published in October 1995 and reprinted in Fouad Ajami's book Dream Palace of the Arabs, the most popular poet of the Arab world, Nizar Qabbani, described the Oslo Accords thus: "In our hands they left / a sardine can called Gaza / and a dry bone called Jericho / ...they gave us a homeland smaller than a single grain of wheat / a homeland to swallow without water like aspirin pills..."
Ajami notes that the poem was an "overnight sensation" in the Arab world. The idea that a state alongside Israel is a betrayal of Palestinian dreams rather than their fulfillment obviously runs strong and deep.
ARAFAT MAY not look forward to the day when he is no longer a revolutionary on a quest to liberate Palestine, but a leader who must worry about water, electricity, education and other needs of his new truncated state.
When Ariel Sharon opposes Shimon Peres's plan of recognizing a Palestinian state and starting negotiations from there, he cites the deadlines in the plan, while remaining largely silent about the principles behind it. Even Sharon may see merit in exactly what Arafat may fear: once a Palestinian state exists, much of the basis for the struggle against Israel will have been removed.
Just as the Palestinian national movement has carefully and cruelly preserved the refugee problem (by opposing all efforts to resettle them) as a cudgel against Israel, Arafat could well see a state that "ends the occupation" as detrimental for same reason.
Though some Israeli advocates of Palestinian statehood may still believe that a state would bring peace by satisfying the Palestinians, more sophisticated proponents see a state as blunting the conflict rather than ending it. These Israelis argue that Arafat's refusal at Camp David proves that Arafat does not see a state as part of the "strategy of stages" to eliminate Israel - because if he did, he would have taken the deal on the spot. Unfortunately, there may well be another explanation for Arafat's behavior: he has not given up on destroying Israel, but sees a state as a hindrance to that goal.
No "may" about it - it IS the explanation because Arafat wants to go down in the history books as a "revolutionary" not a peace maker.
... "In our hands they left / a sardine can called Gaza / and a dry bone called Jericho / ...they gave us a homeland smaller than a single grain of wheat / a homeland to swallow without water like aspirin pills ... "The most popular poet in the Arab world?
|
The Euros are desperately trying not to seem irrelevant, even taking up Russia's old position as the pro-"Arab" force. |
You seem to have a certain child like excitement about this......About a Pallie State that will be a terrorist base for the Pallies to attack Israel. A Palestinian state is like have a crack house open right next door to you.
Why do you want one?
As a Jew all I see is a big Palestinian terrorist base right on Israel's doorstep. Rockets mortars etc placed that much closer to Israeli population centers such as Jerusalem. You really should look at a map sometime.
Arafat and the Pallies just want a better platform to attack Israel from. Surely you're not so stupid as to believe that this whining for a Palestinian state is about peace and co-existence with the Jews of Israel????
I guess you missed it when Barak offered Arafat a state and Arafat said no thanks.
So how did you get to listen the conversations between Bush and Sharon? You bugged the Oval Office? Peres is not even taken seriously in Israel...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.