Peace Now's wishful thinking
On Monday night, I blogged an article by Barry Rubin that indicated that Muhammed Ghaneim had been chosen by the Fatah conference to be Abu Mazen's successor as 'President' of the 'Palestinian Authority.' Ghaneim rejected the 'Oslo Accords' in 1993, refused to return to Gaza or Judea and Samaria in 1994, and was likely rejectionist Farouk Kaddumi's choice for the position. Barry concluded that Ghaneim probably signals a harder line position from the 'Palestinian Authority' and Fatah in the future.Peace Now wasn't able to accept that analysis. After all, there's a fierce moral urgency to have peace, we just have to have peace, and if the other side doesn't want to make peace, we'll just ignore that little obstacle. So tonight, Peace Now's Ori Nir does a little wishful thinking about Muhammed Ghaneim's political views.
"[Ghaneim] implicitly committed to Fatah's pragmatic platform of peace..."And Barry gives five reasons that Nir's analysis is dangerously wrong as Peace Now turns into a pro-'Palestinian' lobby (Hat Tip: Norman F):
1. Ori has no evidence for this assertion. He is speculating because he assumes it is impossible for Fatah or the Palestinian movement to reject peace or be more radical. So you have to, in effect, search through the manure until you find the pony.The entire 'peace process' has been a hallucination from the get-go. Israelis have been convincing themselves for nearly 16 years ago that the 'Palestinians' want peace despite the fact that all of the evidence has always indicated the opposite. The fact that Israel now has a Right wing government shows that some - maybe even most - Israelis now understand that Fatah will never make peace with us. The real question is when we are going to act on that understanding. The talk about a 'settlement freeze' over the last few weeks shows that the answer to that question is "not yet."
2. Most important of all, it's one thing to have Ghaneim come back but why should Abbas make him his successor!
3. Nothing will make the locals angrier than importing another guy from Tunis and passing over all those from the West Bank--or at least living there!--including ones who support Abbas. He had a dozen choices at least who are no great doves but at least are status quo types who accept the peace process.
3. Did you catch the word "implicit" By this definition, anyone who joins Fatah on the West Bank or Gaza is by that very fact a supporter of peace! What's wrong with his explicitly saying: I have changed my views and I think Arafat was right in signing the Oslo agreement. Remember, Ghaneim's not being asked to endorse Benjamin Netanyahu's policy but rather Arafat's and can't even do that.
If he cannot do even that, how the heck is he ever going to negotiate a comprehensive peace with Israel ending the conflict and making some concessions?
4. And finally, what "pragmatic platform of peace"? I have no problem in principle for their demanding the 1967 borders as their opening position. The first problem is that this is also going to be their closing position. The real tip-off is that if they had a pragmatic platform of peace it wouldn't include the demand that all Palestinian refugees and their descendants had to be able to go live in Israel if they wished.
Read the whole thing.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:45 PM
2 Comments:
Jews are still not fully rid of the Oslo mentality that being nice to the Arabs will make them more accepting of Israel. There is NO evidence to support the proposition a settlement freeze will somehow dissolve Arab hostility towards the Jewish State. There's still plenty of denial - and resistance to facing painful reality in Israel.
Carl,
when PN was established 30 or so years ago, they claimed to have been former military leaders/heroes. Perhaps some were (although fighting for "Israelism" doesn't impress me), but the current leader Koppenheimer looks like a total doofus who would make Sgt. Shultz look heroic.
What is his story?
Post a Comment
<< Home