Duty Honor Country
Active member
Former Israeli U.N. Representative Abba Eban once said that when it comes to making peace with Israel, "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."
With the passing of Yasser Arafat from the scene, yet another opportunity materializes for new Palestinian leaders, not compromised by terror and corruption, to negotiate a peace deal with Israel.
Likewise, Arafat's departure presents The Register-Guard with an opportunity to re-examine its editorial policy of blaming Israel for the current stalemate in the peace process.
While Israel, like other nations, makes its share of mistakes, criticism should be informed and fair, not one-sided, ignorant of the history of the peace process and insensitive to the real dangers that the Israeli people face.
In a series of seven editorials over the last 10 months, The Register-Guard has criticized Israel for the construction of the security fence (Jan. 21 and July 13), the occupation (April 5), the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank (Aug. 22 and Sept.15), the abandonment of peace negotiations with the Palestinians (April 3 and Aug. 28), and the planned unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (Sept.15).
After the death of Arafat, The Register-Guard did finally acknowledge, in a Nov. 11 editorial, his responsibility for the failure of the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate a two-state solution.
But The Register-Guard's editorial stance is noteworthy for failing to address a fundamental question: Is the Palestinians' real grievance with Israel about security fences or settlements? Or is the real problem that, 56 years after Israel declared its independence, the Palestinian mainstream still refuses to accept a Jewish Israel in the Middle East?
Israeli leaders from Yitzhak Rabin to Ariel Sharon have conditioned the Jewish people for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. Starting with the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, Israeli leaders have convinced the vast majority of its citizens that the way to achieve security was to trade land for peace. Give up the tangible for the intangible. The Palestinians get land, and eventually a state, if they recognize Israel's right to exist within secure borders and do not allow extremist Islamic groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad to operate at will and attack Israel.
In negotiating the Oslo Peace Accords, Israeli leaders broke a significant taboo. They were willing to dash the dreams of the religious right of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel). Significant territorial compromises, including the dismantling of many of the settlements, would have to occur. The Jewish state would not encompass the entire West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem. These areas would be the home of a Palestinian state.
Prime Minister Sharon's current plan to withdraw the Israeli military and Jewish settlers from Gaza, which is supported overwhelming by the Israeli public, but nonetheless is an extremely painful and politically risky concession to make, demonstrates that Israel recognizes that the establishment of a Palestinian state is inevi- table.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership has been unwilling to similarly defy the dreams of its people of a "one-state solution" consisting of a Palestinian state following the destruction of Israel.
Yasser Arafat did not accept the moral legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian media and educational system under Arafat's leadership portrayed Israel as an illegitimate state.
As long as the Palestinian leadership views Israel as a transient entity, violence against Israel will continue to be deemed legitimate and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for moderate Palestinians to accept making compromises with Israel that are essential for peace. And as long as the violence against Israeli citizens is condoned by the Palestinian leadership, dialogue between the parties will not resume.
Arafat's successors have an opportunity to publicly reject the ideology of the terrorist organizations - an ideology that denies the legitimacy of Israel and encourages violence as a political tactic.
While The Register-Guard may be correct in stating that the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, hardships created by the security fence and inordinate Israeli control of internal Palestinian affairs are obstacles to peace, they are not insurmountable ones if placed in historical context.
Following the 1967 Six Day War, Israel temporarily occupied and built settlements in the Sinai - only to completely abandon them, relocate thousands of settlers and return sovereignty to Egypt as part of a peace agreement with Egypt signed in 1979.
The difference between the stalled peace process today and 1979 is that Israel had a partner for peace it could trust: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Sadat gained the trust of the Israeli public by appearing before the Knesset (Israeli parliament) in 1977, calling for an end to the bloodshed and accepting Israel's right to exist. Yasser Arafat was never willing to make the transfor- mation from revolutionary to statesman.
Another glaring omission in The Register-Guard's editorials is that it was Arafat who rejected the offer, made by Israel and endorsed by President Clinton at the July 2000 Camp David summit, of a Palestinian state on 94 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem.
The primary obstacle for Arafat was giving up the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel rather than limiting the right of return to the Palestinian state only. This was tantamount to calling for Israel's demographic destruction as a Jewish state. The Palestinian leadership then opted for a strategy of terror and murder, forcing Israel to focus on security.
In his recent book, "The Missing Peace," Dennis Ross, former Middle East envoy under the first President Bush and President Clinton, explains, "Part of the Israel ethos is a readiness to make serious, far-reaching concessions when it is clear they have a real partner. This Israeli ethos reflects the deep-seated desire for peace in Israel."
Ambassador Ross attributes the historic Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1993 to Israel's trust of the late King Hussein of Jordan.
A Palestinian leader who truly wants to live in peace with Israel, and is prepared publicly, and in Arabic, to accept Israel's moral legitimacy as a state, will find Israel willing to make significant concessions about settlements, the security fence and a host of other issues.
But, as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently observed, before peace can be initiated, the Palestinians must find new, legitimate leadership. That opportunity has arrived.
Chances are a Palestinian state would exist today if the Palestinian leadership had made different decisions at Camp David. As David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Report writes, "With an Anwar Sadat or a King Hussein, rather than an Arafat, across the negotiating table, (Israel) would be living side by side with Palestine."
Israel must do more to lessen the grip of the occupation and more than ever before, encourage new Palestinian leaders who are willing to prepare its people to make compromises. The road map will awaken from its current slumber when Arafat's successors, like Anwar Sadat and King Hussein before them, renounce the use of violence as a political tool and accept Israel's right to exist in peace as a sovereign Jewish state within secure and recognized borders. And The Register-Guard should awaken to the more complex situation in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced and sensitive view of Israel's, as well as the Palestinians', predi- cament.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/11/21/b1.ed.col.helphand.1121.html
With the passing of Yasser Arafat from the scene, yet another opportunity materializes for new Palestinian leaders, not compromised by terror and corruption, to negotiate a peace deal with Israel.
Likewise, Arafat's departure presents The Register-Guard with an opportunity to re-examine its editorial policy of blaming Israel for the current stalemate in the peace process.
While Israel, like other nations, makes its share of mistakes, criticism should be informed and fair, not one-sided, ignorant of the history of the peace process and insensitive to the real dangers that the Israeli people face.
In a series of seven editorials over the last 10 months, The Register-Guard has criticized Israel for the construction of the security fence (Jan. 21 and July 13), the occupation (April 5), the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank (Aug. 22 and Sept.15), the abandonment of peace negotiations with the Palestinians (April 3 and Aug. 28), and the planned unilateral withdrawal from Gaza (Sept.15).
After the death of Arafat, The Register-Guard did finally acknowledge, in a Nov. 11 editorial, his responsibility for the failure of the Israelis and the Palestinians to negotiate a two-state solution.
But The Register-Guard's editorial stance is noteworthy for failing to address a fundamental question: Is the Palestinians' real grievance with Israel about security fences or settlements? Or is the real problem that, 56 years after Israel declared its independence, the Palestinian mainstream still refuses to accept a Jewish Israel in the Middle East?
Israeli leaders from Yitzhak Rabin to Ariel Sharon have conditioned the Jewish people for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state. Starting with the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, Israeli leaders have convinced the vast majority of its citizens that the way to achieve security was to trade land for peace. Give up the tangible for the intangible. The Palestinians get land, and eventually a state, if they recognize Israel's right to exist within secure borders and do not allow extremist Islamic groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad to operate at will and attack Israel.
In negotiating the Oslo Peace Accords, Israeli leaders broke a significant taboo. They were willing to dash the dreams of the religious right of Eretz Israel (Greater Israel). Significant territorial compromises, including the dismantling of many of the settlements, would have to occur. The Jewish state would not encompass the entire West Bank, Gaza and all of Jerusalem. These areas would be the home of a Palestinian state.
Prime Minister Sharon's current plan to withdraw the Israeli military and Jewish settlers from Gaza, which is supported overwhelming by the Israeli public, but nonetheless is an extremely painful and politically risky concession to make, demonstrates that Israel recognizes that the establishment of a Palestinian state is inevi- table.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership has been unwilling to similarly defy the dreams of its people of a "one-state solution" consisting of a Palestinian state following the destruction of Israel.
Yasser Arafat did not accept the moral legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian media and educational system under Arafat's leadership portrayed Israel as an illegitimate state.
As long as the Palestinian leadership views Israel as a transient entity, violence against Israel will continue to be deemed legitimate and it will be difficult, if not impossible, for moderate Palestinians to accept making compromises with Israel that are essential for peace. And as long as the violence against Israeli citizens is condoned by the Palestinian leadership, dialogue between the parties will not resume.
Arafat's successors have an opportunity to publicly reject the ideology of the terrorist organizations - an ideology that denies the legitimacy of Israel and encourages violence as a political tactic.
While The Register-Guard may be correct in stating that the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, hardships created by the security fence and inordinate Israeli control of internal Palestinian affairs are obstacles to peace, they are not insurmountable ones if placed in historical context.
Following the 1967 Six Day War, Israel temporarily occupied and built settlements in the Sinai - only to completely abandon them, relocate thousands of settlers and return sovereignty to Egypt as part of a peace agreement with Egypt signed in 1979.
The difference between the stalled peace process today and 1979 is that Israel had a partner for peace it could trust: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Sadat gained the trust of the Israeli public by appearing before the Knesset (Israeli parliament) in 1977, calling for an end to the bloodshed and accepting Israel's right to exist. Yasser Arafat was never willing to make the transfor- mation from revolutionary to statesman.
Another glaring omission in The Register-Guard's editorials is that it was Arafat who rejected the offer, made by Israel and endorsed by President Clinton at the July 2000 Camp David summit, of a Palestinian state on 94 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza, with a capital in East Jerusalem.
The primary obstacle for Arafat was giving up the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel rather than limiting the right of return to the Palestinian state only. This was tantamount to calling for Israel's demographic destruction as a Jewish state. The Palestinian leadership then opted for a strategy of terror and murder, forcing Israel to focus on security.
In his recent book, "The Missing Peace," Dennis Ross, former Middle East envoy under the first President Bush and President Clinton, explains, "Part of the Israel ethos is a readiness to make serious, far-reaching concessions when it is clear they have a real partner. This Israeli ethos reflects the deep-seated desire for peace in Israel."
Ambassador Ross attributes the historic Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty in 1993 to Israel's trust of the late King Hussein of Jordan.
A Palestinian leader who truly wants to live in peace with Israel, and is prepared publicly, and in Arabic, to accept Israel's moral legitimacy as a state, will find Israel willing to make significant concessions about settlements, the security fence and a host of other issues.
But, as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright recently observed, before peace can be initiated, the Palestinians must find new, legitimate leadership. That opportunity has arrived.
Chances are a Palestinian state would exist today if the Palestinian leadership had made different decisions at Camp David. As David Horovitz, editor of the Jerusalem Report writes, "With an Anwar Sadat or a King Hussein, rather than an Arafat, across the negotiating table, (Israel) would be living side by side with Palestine."
Israel must do more to lessen the grip of the occupation and more than ever before, encourage new Palestinian leaders who are willing to prepare its people to make compromises. The road map will awaken from its current slumber when Arafat's successors, like Anwar Sadat and King Hussein before them, renounce the use of violence as a political tool and accept Israel's right to exist in peace as a sovereign Jewish state within secure and recognized borders. And The Register-Guard should awaken to the more complex situation in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced and sensitive view of Israel's, as well as the Palestinians', predi- cament.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/11/21/b1.ed.col.helphand.1121.html
