Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Formal U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital has not spawned the intense violence from the Arab and Muslim street that was commonly predicted. But the question remains whether, as President Donald Trump's critics say, it will damage prospects for peace and forfeit America's status as an "honest broker." Trump has declared that he is not only honoring a campaign promise and acknowledging an indisputable reality but also making peace likelier. Who has the better argument on peace? The president does, though he didn't offer a persuasive case. It's remarkable that so many commentators offer thoughts on how to promote peace without showing any understanding of why the parties are fighting. At the heart of the matter is the conviction that all of Palestine, like all of the rest of the Middle East, belongs exclusively to the Arabs and it is an unendurable and uncompromisable injustice for Jews to exercise sovereignty on Arab land.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Palestinian Authority schools teach that the ultimate goal of Arab control over all Arab land cannot be renounced without an unacceptable violation of honor. That is why, for example, Alrowwad, a beautiful community center funded by progressive Europeans and located in Bethlehem's Aida refugee camp, displays a multistory banner on its outside wall that reads: "The right of return is not negotiable and not subject to any compromises." In other words, tactically useful peace agreements may be permitted, but permanent peace with Israel is not. This is a philosophical point rooted in both religious and nationalistic principles that are widely held as sacred in the Palestinian community.

Part and parcel of such thinking is the depiction of Israel as a foreign intrusion into the region.

The conventional wisdom for decades has held that the heart of the Arab-Israeli problem is the territory that Israel won in 1967 and the Israeli settlements there. But it should be obvious that that's wrong. Why did Egypt, Syria, and Jordan provoke the 1967 war to begin with? In fact, the conflict goes back long before 1967 -- it even predates 1948, when Israel became an independent state.

U.S. officials will be able to help end the Palestinian-Israeli conflict only if they actually grasp what the conflict is about. The conventional wisdom has produced diplomatic failure for decades. It's time to take a new, better-grounded approach.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Polls show that most Israelis have for decades been willing to make peace with the Palestinians based on dividing the land now under Israeli control. If Palestinian leaders were willing to make a permanent land-for-peace deal, there could be peace. The two great barriers are conceptual. Palestinian leaders have to abandon the belief that Israel is a temporary thing that can someday be eliminated. And they have to set aside abstract notions of justice in favor of the practical question of what's the best deal available to them.

Onward to Peace in the Middle East!

#1 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2017-12-12 06:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Polls show????

And yet they vote for Netanyahu.

#2 | Posted by bruceaz at 2017-12-12 06:35 PM | Reply

The conventional wisdom for decades has held that the heart of the Arab-Israeli problem is the territory that Israel won in 1967 and the Israeli settlements there.

Laura?

#3 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-12 07:34 PM | Reply

The conventional wisdom for decades has held that the heart of the Arab-Israeli problem is the territory that Israel won in 1967 and the Israeli settlements there.

Laura?

Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-12 07:34 PM | Reply

Which they were told to give back in UNSC Resolution 242.

#4 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-12-12 07:39 PM | Reply

At the heart of the matter is the conviction that all of Palestine, like all of the rest of the Middle East, belongs exclusively to the Arabs and it is an unendurable and uncompromisable injustice for Jews to exercise sovereignty on Arab land.

Making Jerusalem the capitol of Israel is the exact opposite: an assertion that it belongs exclusively to Jewish Israelis.

I don't see how anyone can possibly claim that promotes peace.

#5 | Posted by rcade at 2017-12-13 10:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

UNSC Resolution 242.
#4 |LAURAMOHR

I get your point. Doesn't change the fact that for the last 50 years Israel has held, and built settlements on land that was held by Muslims before the '67 war. Yes, some was given back, but not all, resolution or not.

Cities back in the day had bricks in their walkways that said 'Don't spit on the sidewalk'.
Cities today have light up signs that say 'Don't walk'.
The UN has a resolution that says,
'Operative Paragraph One "Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;'

All carry about the same weight.

#6 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-13 06:15 PM | Reply

At the heart of the matter is the conviction that all of Palestine, like all of the rest of the Middle East, belongs exclusively to the Arabs and it is an unendurable and uncompromisable injustice for Jews to exercise sovereignty on Arab land.

Making Jerusalem the capitol of Israel is the exact opposite: an assertion that it belongs exclusively to Jewish Israelis.
I don't see how anyone can possibly claim that promotes peace.
#5 | RCADE

I don't believe that recognition of Jerusalem is the problem. Israel has stated that they would trade land for peace.

[Muslim view] "The right of return is not negotiable and not subject to any compromises." In other words, tactically useful peace agreements may be permitted, but permanent peace with Israel is not. This is a philosophical point rooted in both religious and nationalistic principles that are widely held as sacred in the Palestinian community."

And more Muslim thoughts on the matter:
"Part and parcel of such thinking is the depiction of Israel as a foreign intrusion into the region. It is called a "crusader state" and analogized to European colonialist outposts, such as French Algeria. The point is that the Israelis, like the Crusaders in the Middle Ages and the French a half-century ago, can be demoralized through relentless violent resistance and induced to pack up and leave the land to its true owners, the Arabs. Israelis, like the Crusaders in the Middle Ages and the French a half-century ago, can be demoralized through relentless violent resistance and induced to pack up and leave the land to its true owners, the Arabs. It's a common refrain that 130 years had to pass before the French could be expelled from Algeria and 200 years were needed to drive the Crusaders out of the Holy Land; though it may take at least that long to get rid of Israel, the time will come.
It is these kinds of ideas that perpetuate the conflict."

As long as the Muslims believe that the Israelis can be driven out by spilling enough blood over enough time, there will not be peace. Jerusalem being recognized as it's capital by us is irrelevant. Maybe it's time for them to understand that Israel is there permanently. That would help promote peace.

#7 | Posted by Whizzo at 2017-12-13 06:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort