During Annapolis
There were no big waves, so it is tempting to think nothing happened at Annapolis. But the joint statement of which the White House seems so proud minimizes the sacrifices Israel has made; misrepresents the “occupation”; ignores Arab responsibility for the problem that “Palestine” is meant to address; and minimizes the damage to Israel of 60 years of Arab wars, rejection and terrorism. Thus, it starts small waves that may gather momentum and wreak havoc later in the form of pressure on Israel to produce incentives to show progress.
There were no big waves, so it is tempting to think nothing happened at Annapolis. But the joint statement of which the White House seems so proud minimizes the sacrifices Israel has made; misrepresents the “occupation”; ignores Arab responsibility for the problem that “Palestine” is meant to address; and minimizes the damage to Israel of 60 years of Arab wars, rejection and terrorism. Thus, it starts small waves that may gather momentum and wreak havoc later in the form of pressure on Israel to produce incentives to show progress.
There were the usual platitudes about “an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict… new era of peace… justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition… culture of peace and nonviolence…” Isn’t that OK? No. The last clause reads, “to confront terrorism and incitement whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.” Only one party has failed to stop terrorism and incitement and to this day pays preachers and teachers who openly teach and call for the violent destruction of Israel, and has to this day not condemned the Qassam rocket attacks against Israel that it, in fact, started when Abu Mazen was in control of Gaza. It is a false symmetry, blaming everyone and thus no one, erasing cause and effect, equating Palestinian terrorism with Israel’s response.
The parties recommitted to the long-abandoned Road Map. But the United States “will monitor and judge the fulfillment of the commitment of both sides… implementation of the future peace treaty will be subject to the implementation of the road map, as judged by the United States.” This leaves the United States as arbiter of Israel’s security. Far be it from us to tell the Israeli government how to govern, but for the United States to judge whether another country has an “acceptable” level of security seems to cede an important sovereign obligation.
After reading the declaration, the President made a few additional remarks – lines of which were lifted from his excellent June 24, 2003 speech, but reconfigured to change history in a way that cannot go unchallenged. “The Israelis must do their part. They must show the world that they are ready to begin – to bring an end to the occupation that began in 1967 through a negotiated settlement.”
As if “Palestine,” to the extent that one believes in it, was occupied in 1967 and not in 1948.
To suggest that Israel has waited until 2008 to begin ending its administration of the territories minimizes the faith in democratic principles and the enormous risks Israel took – deadly risks, as it turned out – in helping to establish the Palestinian Authority under the Oslo process. The Palestinians would have had an independent state long ago, except that they used their freedom to establish a corrupt, terrorist dictatorship – in which Abu Mazen was Deputy to Yasser Arafat.
More important, Israel’s inability to achieve legitimacy in the region is unrelated to 1967 or to Palestinians. It is related to the failure of Arab states to reconcile to Israel’s establishment 60 years ago, and the ongoing failure of those states to address the Palestinian refugee problem they created. The President failed to demonstrate a serious understanding of history and thus lets the Arabs off the hook for a solution.
The Annapolis meeting itself was not a bad thing, but the President of the United States should not be party to diminishing Israel’s very real sacrifices to survive, thrive and create a modern, successful democratic country.