Benny Morris: Secular Palestine, the myth

"The phrase ... "a secular, democratic Palestine" ...serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab-dominated polity to replace Israel." -- Benny Morris

The myth of a secular Palestine

Benny Morris, National Post Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Palestinian national movement started life with a vision and goal of a Palestinian Muslim Arab-majority state in all of Palestine -- a one-state "solution" -- and continues to espouse and aim to establish such a state down to the present day. Moreover, and as a corollary, al-Husseini, the Palestinian national leader during the 1930s and 1940s; the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which led the national movement from the 1960s to Yasser Arafat's death in November, 2004; and Hamas today --all sought and seek to vastly reduce the number of Jewish inhabitants in the country, in other words, to ethnically cleanse Palestine. Al-Husseini and the PLO explicitly declared the aim of limiting Palestinian citizenship to those Jews who had lived in Palestine permanently before 1917 (or, in another version, to limit it to those 50,000-odd Jews and their descendants). This goal was spelled out clearly in the Palestinian National Charter and in other documents. Hamas has been publicly more reserved on this issue, but its intentions are clear.

The Palestinian vision was never -- as described by various Palestinian spokesmen in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to Western journalists -- of a "secular, democratic Palestine" (though it certainly sounded more palatable than, say, the "destruction of Israel," which was the goal it was meant to paper over or camouflage). Indeed, "a secular democratic Palestine" had never been the goal of Fatah or the so-called moderate groups that dominated the PLO between the 1960s and the 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power.

Middle East historian Rashid Khalidi has written that "in 1969 [the PLO] amended [its previous goal and henceforward advocated] the establishment of a secular democratic state in Palestine for Muslims, Christians and Jews, replacing Israel." And Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah has written, in his recent book, One Country: "The PLO did ultimately adopt [in the late 1960s or 1970s] the goal of a secular, democratic state in all Palestine as its official stance."

This is hogwash. The Palestine National Council (PNC) never amended the Palestine National Charter to the effect that the goal of the PLO was "a secular democratic state in Palestine." The words and notion never figured in the charter or in any PNC or PLO Central Committee or Fatah Executive Committee resolutions, at any time. It is a spin invented for gullible Westerners and was never part of Palestinian main-stream ideology. The Palestinian leadership has never, at any time, endorsed a "secular, democratic Palestine."

The PNC did amend the charter, in 1968 (not 1969). But the thrust of the emendation was to limit non-Arab citizenship in a future Arab-liberated Palestine to "Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion" -- that is, 1917. True, the amended charter also guaranteed, in the future State of Palestine, "freedom of worship and of visit" to holy sites to all, "without discrimination of race, colour, language or religion." And, no doubt, this was music to liberal West-ern ears. But it had no connection to the reality or history of contemporary Muslim Arab societies. What Muslim Arab society in the modern age has treated Christians, Jews, pagans, Buddhists and Hindus with tolerance and as equals? Why should anyone believe that Palestinian Muslim Arabs would behave any differently?

Western liberals like, or pretend, to view Palestinian Arabs, indeed all Arabs, as Scandinavians, and refuse to recognize that peoples, for good historical, cultural and social reasons, are different and behave differently in similar or identical sets of circumstances.

So where did the slogan of "a secular, democratic Palestine" originate? That goal was first explicitly proposed in 1969 by the small Marxist splinter group the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). According to Khalidi, "It was [then] discreetly but effectively backed by the leaders of the mainstream, dominant Fatah movement ... The democratic secular state model eventually became the official position of the PLO." As I have said, this is pure invention. The PNC, PLO and Fatah turned down the DFLP proposal, and it was never adopted or enunciated by any important Palestinian leader or body -- though the Western media during the 1970s were forever attributing it to the Palestinians. As a result, however, the myth has taken hold that this was the PLO's official goal through the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.

And today, again, and for the same reasons -- the phrase retains its good, multicultural, liberal ring -- "a secular, democratic Palestine" is bandied about by Palestinian one-state supporters. And a few one-statists, indeed, may sincerely believe in and desire such a denouement. But given the realities of Palestinian politics and behaviour, the phrase objectively serves merely as camouflage for the goal of a Muslim Arab-dominated polity to replace Israel. And, as in the past, the goal of "a secular democratic Palestine" is not the platform or policy of any major Palestinian political institution or party.

Indeed, the idea of a "secular democratic Palestine" is as much a nonstarter today as it was three decades ago. It is a nonstarter primarily because the Palestinian Arabs, like the world's other Muslim Arab communities, are deeply religious and have no respect for democratic values and no tradition of democratic governance.

And matters have only gotten worse since the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. For anyone who has missed the significance of Hamas's electoral victory in 2006 and the violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in 2007, a mere glance at the West Bank and Gaza today (and, indeed, at Israel's Arab minority villages and towns) reveals a landscape dominated by rapidly multiplying mosque minarets, the air filled with the calls to prayer of the muezzins and alleyways filled with hijab-ed women. Only fools and children were persuaded in 2006-07 that Hamas beat Fatah merely because they had an uncorrupt image or dispensed aid to the poor. The main reasons for the Hamas victory were religious and political: the growing religiosity of the Palestinian mass-es and their "recognition" that Hamas embodies the "truth" and, with Allah's help, will lead them to final victory over the infidels, much as Hamas achieved, through armed struggle, the withdrawal of the infidels from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

-Excerpted from One State, Two States by Benny Morris. Published by Yale University Press. © 2009 by Benny Morris. Reprinted by permission of Yale University Press.

Americans: diplomatic efforts can't stop Iranian nuclear quest

A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that Most Americans think that

Iran is developing nuclear weapons,

that it cannot be stopped by diplomatic efforts,

that this situation is so dangerous
that Israel is justified in attacking the Iranian regime’s installations, and

if that were to happen,
the United States should either help Israel or do nothing to punish or oppose it.
----------
From:
American Public Opinion, Iran, and Iraq: The People, Yes! By Barry Rubin. Monday, May 11, 2009

US 'deadline' for concluding talks with Iran?

Negotiating Negotiations
Shmuel Rosner - 05.10.2009

I don’t know whether this report is accurate but I doubt it is. It reads that “The United States has set October as its target for completing the first round of talks with Iran on its nuclear program, according to confidential reports sent to Jerusalem” — but is based on “classified notice reporting on a meeting between a senior European official and the special U.S. envoy on Iran, Dennis Ross.” That’s second or third hand reporting. Contradicting it, just a week ago, an American official spoke on the record with reporters:

White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told foreign journalists Wednesday that “it’s not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables, but rather seeing how the engagement can move forward.”

Contrary to what critics on the left tend to argue, Israel isn’t the only one thinking that a deadline is necessary. Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, and today a Harvard Professor, had more Iran-related negotiating hours in recent years than anyone, and he seems to think that prolonging the talks will not produce for better results:

“We’ve got to negotiate from a position of strength. We can’t go hat in hand to these negotiations and think by just talking we are going to make progress,” Burns said. Any negotiations with Tehran must have a strict timetable and include a previous agreement with both Russia and China for harsh sanctions if the talks fail, Burns said. And they should be backed up by the possibility of military action, he added.

Assuming that the U.S.-Iran dialogue will start in earnest only after Iran’s June election, October seems like a sensible date to Israel:

“It is important that the dialogue with Iran be limited, and if after three months it will become clear that the Iranians stalling and are not shelving their nuclear program, the international community will be required to take practical measures against them,” Lieberman said in a meeting with Italy’s Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi on Tuesday.

Whether or not there’s some truth to the fresher report from Jerusalem, “deadline” talk will be at the center of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s talk with President Obama next week. According to many reports, Obama realizes that the Iranians might be playing for time, and the Senate report, confirming Israel’s claims that “Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb in six months,” gives Netanyahu some additional ammunition for this meeting. The danger one might detect in the different, sometimes conflicting reports on “deadline yes or no” — is that time can’t only lapse in negotiations with Iran — it can also pass in negotiation over the right deadline for negotiation.

Jasser: Pious Muslims are needed to defeat Islamists

Pious Muslims are needed to defeat Islamists
Posted by M. ZUHDI JASSER April 30, 2009 6:10 PM

In his first three months in office, President Barack Obama has focused on creating a relationship of "mutual interest and mutual respect" with what he has described as the "Muslim world."

His inaugural address, his interview on Al-Arabiya and his most recent visit to Turkey were all long on platitudes and apologetics toward the religion of Islam and Muslims, and short on specifics. Most recently, the new administration was even discussing making overtures with the "moderate" version of the Taliban in order to achieve a quick solution to the violence in Afghanistan, at the expense of long-term violations of human rights and Western ideals.

While the president's public relations initiative may yield some immediate benefit globally as measured in the public opinion polls of Muslims abroad, this is hardly the kind of real needed "change" that will last generations. Our security is not threatened by the tactic of terrorism, but rather by those individuals who are driven by the political ideology that feeds the mind-set of radical Islamism.



Islamists seek to put into place Islamic states and the associated system of laws best described as governmental sharia. Islamism is to this global conflict of the 21st century what communism was to the Cold War and Nazism was to World War II.

It seems the Obama administration is choosing the same old path of the cold war of appeasing the power brokers, which got us into the mess we are in. Siding with the lesser of two evils is not an option that will ever allow liberty-minded Muslims an opportunity to win a war of ideas against any of the autocrats already in power.

Whether it be the so-called "peaceful Taliban" or the deceptive Muslim Brotherhood, or even the Iranian Islamists who have chosen thus far to keep their fists clenched, they will tell Obama whatever he wants to hear in order to gain legitimacy and ascend to power. Once in power, Islamists will turn around and put into place their signature draconian systems. Obama squandered a rare opportunity in Ankara to reboot the contest of ideas between political Islam and the West.

Militant Islamists are simply more extreme, violent and intolerant than the nonmilitant Islamists. All have the same goal of eventually establishing a theocratic Islamic state. Simply describing their world as the Muslim world feeds into their false collectivization and division of the world by faiths.

Moderation among Muslims today is not gauged by their willingness to denounce wanton violence and the targeting of noncombatants, but rather by a Muslim's willingness to take on the ideology of political Islam in all of its forms from within the Muslim community. We should only empower those Muslims who are willing and able to take on this battle within the House of Islam.

While we are all distracted by valid immediate concerns over the economy, just one terror incident could quickly plunge us even further into defense against a spreading ideology with many metastases. The real threat of Islamist terror did not go away with 9/11. We have seen more than 30 attacks against Americans thwarted since 9/11.

The only ones who can marginalize and defeat the ideas of political Islam are pious Muslims who believe in their spiritual faith, but insist on separating religion and government. It is time to find ways to support an intellectual offensive promoting liberalism, freedom, equality and secularism over Islamism. This should be fueled by a public-private partnership of all faiths and led by Muslims from within the faith.

Government personnel oddly have been asked to strike from their lexicon terms like Islamism, jihad or Wahhabism. This is surrender in the war of ideas. If the language of our enemies is ignored, the needed civil war within Islam will never occur.

As long as this administration ignores ideology and focuses only on superficial public relations, the Islamists will continue to advance the ideas of political Islam while we sleep. It is time for a comprehensive, public domestic and foreign strategy against Islamism. It is time for Muslims to lead this effort with real American support and not just lip service.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in Phoenix, Ariz. He spoke April 29 at the Rotary Club of Birmingham.

Rabbi Kaufman: An Impression of AIPAC 2009

An Impression of AIPAC 2009

 

Commentary by Rabbi David Kaufman   

 whose commentary may be found at http://rabbikaufman@blogspot.com

 

Shalom All,

 

There is a false perception that AIPAC is somehow an organization of the political right. Anti-Israel groups have worked hard to give people that false impression. Many in the Jewish community, see AIPAC also WRONGLY as an advocate for the Israeli political right. In many ways, Jewish peace groups are responsible for that falsity. One need only look at the depth and breadth of the AIPAC Policy Conference to see the dramatic error in those false conceptions of AIPAC.

 

AIPAC is a BI-PARTISAN organization seeking to maintain and strengthen the bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel. It DOES NOT advocate for or against specific policies of the nation of Israel. AIPAC's lobbying agenda this year included three things, all of which were sponsored by leading Senators and Representatives from BOTH parties.

 

First, efforts need to be strengthened to increase the diplomatic pressure put upon Iran to cease its development of nuclear weaponry and to allow its nuclear efforts, regardless of whether they are intended for peaceful purposes as Iran contends or for military purposes as others contend, to be monitored far more closely by the IAEA. Failing this effort, should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, the Middle East will become a new home for nuclear proliferation as other nations will follow in their footsteps. Additionally, as a grossly destabilizing force in the Middle East, Iran's power and influence would be strengthened, something that bodes ill for the future of the region. To have the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world in possession of nuclear weaponry will enhance the threat that all terrorist organizations backed by Iran pose to Iran's enemies, which includes at the top of the list, Israel and the United States. Furthermore, to have Iran, which has threatened Israel's demise, in possession of the means to execute that plan is simply unconscionable. Thus, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is being introduced in the House and Senate by leading members of BOTH parties in the hope of achieving an end to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions short of military action by strengthening sanctions against Iran.

 

Second, as there is a new administration and new Congress in Washington, there is a desire to reiterate the basic points essential to maintaining a positive working relationship between the United States and Israel regarding the peace process. To that end, a letter was written to President Obama, again with Bi-Partisan origin, asking that the fundamental principles of the peace process be maintained, namely that the US must continue to insist that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, that they renounce terror, and that they abide by previous resolutions. This is particularly important considering efforts to form a unity government including Hamas, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, promotes and practices terror, and refuses to abide by previous resolutions. Additionally, the administration is asked to promote a bi-lateral solution to the crisis between the Israelis and Palestinians with the understanding that imposed solutions have failed to achieve positive results. The parties must negotiate face to face with each other.

 

Third, maintaining the Security Assistance to Israel and passing the entire Foreign Aid bill is essential. The assistance is vital to Israel's security and since 75% of the money given in aid is spent in the US, Foreign Aid also provides a stimulus to our economy.

 

These three issues have overwhelming BI-PARTISAN support.

 

As I listened to the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, once vilified in Israel for his dovish attitudes by its political right and who spent almost his entire speech talking about Israel's pursuit of peace, being shouted down by American Jewish peace protestors chanting "Free Gaza," as if this Nobel Prize winning peace maker wanted something other than freedom for the people of Gaza , I felt strengthened. Peres' voice of peace, honored by AIPAC, was far more powerful than the "peace protesters" voices in support of ignorant hatred. I wanted to call out to those souls blinded by hatred of their fellow Jews, "Free them from Hamas! Free them from hatred!" But, to have interrupted Shimon Peres again would have been to insult the desire for peace, because that desire was the central theme of his speech that day and that desire has been the central theme of his life. Three misguided protestors brought that point home all the stronger.

 

The first protestor shouted without listening as he said, "It is clear in our eyes that peace may require painful compromises, difficult concessions.. Compromises require two conditions. First, peace must be real, lasting, mutually respected. We have to guarantee that our children -- actually, all children -- will be free from war, will breathe the fresh air of peace -- all children, from all nations, from all parties. And then, secondly, peace
should enable Israel to protect its people, to realize the fundamental responsibility of a free
government, namely to defend its people from harm, to enable them to meet opportunities."

The second jeered without caring as he said, "The same is true for the future of the Palestinian people as well. I say it loudly, because I believe in it more fondly. The Palestinian people have the right to govern themselves. We don't want to be their masters. They have the right to invest their resources, to direct aid to civil high tech, not military rocket -- to books, not bombs -- to their people, so their people can be both free and prosperous, free from fear, free from hunger."

 

The third stood and blotted out his memory when he remembered, "I can still see with my eyes and feel with my heart when President Sadat landed from Egypt. We thought he came from the moon. If Anwar Sadat had not courageously taken the one-hour flight between Cairo and Jerusalem, I doubt peace would be achieved. We were ready. He showed his readiness."

 

And at the conclusion of his speech, he might as well have been speaking to those protestors when he said:

 

Ladies and gentlemen, to know the future you have to remember our history. Calling history is actually remembering the past. But as you know, we are pragmatic people. So when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he turned to his people and called them. "People, listen, Israel. Shema Yisrael." He asked them -- he asked us to listen, so we shall be able to hear the prophetic message, the mountainous music of peace and justice to this very day. But as you know, we are pragmatists. So the people replied, "We shall do and listen. Naaseh Venishma."

 

AIPAC is an organization that includes large numbers of Christian supporters of Israel from every ethnicity in America, of every economic level, and of walk of political life. It is an organization for all of those who support Israel's security and advocate for its peaceful future. It's membership does not by any means all agree on the ways to go about achieving those goals, but that membership understands that the friendship between the United States and Israel is essential to them and mutually beneficial. If only more of us listened, perhaps more of us would do the right things. Naaseh v'nishma!

 

Od yavo shalom aleinu v'al kol Yisrael v'al kol amim.

Someday peace will come for us, for all of the people of Israel, and for all peoples.

 

David Kaufman
Rabbi
Temple B'nai Jeshurun
Des Moines, Iowa

Netanyahu: Cooperation for peace can bring peace, deter Iranian quest for nuclear weapons

Remarks from Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu
AIPAC Policy Conference 2009 May 4, 2009 [excerpt]

Summary: PM Netanyahu spoke about the common danger of Iran developing nuclear weapons and the opportunity it presents for Israel to work in cooperation toward peace with the Arab world.

The Prime Minister stated that Israel is "prepared to resume peace negotiations [with the Palestinians] without any delay and without any preconditions" in a context of simultaneous work on a security track and an economic track.

Netanyahu further stated that peace cannot come without security for Israel and that "for a final peace settlement to be achieved, the Palestinians must recognize Israel ...as the nation-state of the Jewish people."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: As [noted in my introduction,] I have met President Obama. I respect him, and I look forward to seeing him in Washington in a couple of weeks. We plan to continue our common quest for security, for prosperity, and for peace.

Friends, there is something significant that is happening today in the Middle East. And I can say that for the first time in my lifetime -- I believe that for the first time in a century -- that Arabs and Jews see a common danger. This wasn't always the case. In the '30s and '40s, many of the Arab world supported another country, believing that that was their hope. In the '60s and '70s, '80s, they supported another country that was at odds with the Jewish state. But this is no longer the case.

There is a great challenge afoot; but that challenge also presents great opportunities. The common danger is echoed by Arab leaders throughout the Middle East; it's echoed by Israel repeatedly. It's echoed by Europeans, by many responsible governments around the world. And if I had to sum it in one sentence, it is this: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. If I had to sum up the opportunity in one word, it would be cooperation – cooperation between Israel and the Arab world, and cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians.

Next week I'll be visiting Egypt with President Mubarak, and I plan to discuss both values with him. We seek expanded relations with the Arab world. We want normalization of economic ties and diplomatic ties. We want peace with the Arab world. But we also want peace with the Palestinians. That peace has eluded us for more than 13 years. Six successive prime ministers and two American presidents have not succeeded in achieving this final peace settlement. I believe it's possible to achieve it. But I think it requires a fresh approach. And the fresh approach that I suggest is pursuing a triple-track towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians; a political track, a security track, and an economic track.

A political track means that we're prepared to resume peace negotiations without any delay and without any preconditions; the sooner, the better. The security track means that we want to continue the cooperation with the program led by General Dayton in cooperation with the Jordanians and with the Palestinian Authority to strengthen the security apparatus of the Palestinians. This is something we believe in, and something that I think we can advance in a joint effort.

The economic track means that we are prepared to work together to remove as many obstacles as we can, to the advancement of the Palestinian economy. We want to work with the Palestinian Authority on this track, not as a substitute for political negotiations, but as a boost to them. I want to see Palestinian youngsters knowing that they have a future. I want them not to be hostage to a cult of death and despair and hate. I want them to have jobs. I want them to have career paths. I want them to know that they can provide for their families. This means that we can give them a future of hope; a future that means that there is prosperity for all, and this has proved to be successful in advancing a political piece in many parts of the world.

I believe that this triple track towards peace is the realistic path to peace. And I believe that with the cooperation of President Obama and President Abbas, we can defy the skeptics; we can surprise the world.

But there are two provisos that I think have to be said at this point. First, peace will not come without security. If we abandon security, we'll have never security nor peace. So I want to be very clear. We shall never compromise on Israel's security. Second, for a final peace settlement to be achieved, the Palestinians must recognize Israel as the Jewish state. They must recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people.

A few hours ago I spoke at the Knesset. We mark the birthday of Theodore Herzl, the founding father of Zionism. Herzl revolutionized the history of the Jewish people; a people that were scattered and defenseless throughout the nations. He revolutionized Jewish history when he published a slim pamphlet called The Jewish State. This was our salvation, and this is our foundation; the foundation of our future and the foundation of peace.

Good night from Jerusalem. God bless America. God bless Israel. Thank you all.

Elad: Abbas won't bring peace

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3709243,00.html

Abbas won’t bring peace

Unlike other Arab leaders, Abbas proves time and again that he cannot change

Moshe Elad

05.01.09,

While we were marking Memorial Day, the most moderate Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, stated that “the Palestinians will never recognize Israel as a Jewish State.” Perfect timing for him. This declaration joins previous statements he made in Jordan and Lebanon, saying that “there will never be peace with Israel without resolving the refugee problem,” and that “the Palestinians will never lay down their arms and won’t abandon the armed struggle.”

Mahmoud Abbas has a history of such statements and has displayed significant hatred for Israel. Despite his fatherly and pleasant appearance in his suit, it turns out that he does not want to or cannot change. The Palestinian-Israeli issue is too much for him to handle. In the absence of vision, his leadership is summed up with raising donations from the West, the obsessive believer in Abbas’ ability to create a complete change.

In the past we already saw Arab leaders “changing their tune,” or in a more diplomatic language, “sobering up.” Anwar Sadat despised the Zionist movement and viewed it as a bitter enemy. He felt so threatened by it that during World War II he joined a Nazi underground organization in the hopes of eliminating the Jews. Later on, as the president of the Republic of Egypt, he pledged “a wild and brutal battle where we shall agree to sacrifice a million victims” in order to eliminate Israel. In October 1973, he indeed took the path of war. However, after the war Sadat was able to “change his tune” and talk peace. He became the first Arab leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel, and paid with his life.

The Palestinians, by the way, cursed him shamelessly, and referred to him as a “Sudanese slave” in protest of the unilateral peace treaty he signed. They will never forgive Egypt for renouncing the principles of the Arab nation – peace without resolving the Palestinian problem, without bringing the refugees back, and without liberating Jerusalem.

King Hussein, as it turned out after British archive documents were published, ordered his forces on May 25th and 26th in 1967 that any place to be occupied during the upcoming war (the Six-Day War) should see all its Israeli residents massacred. Indeed, Hussein’s hatred for Zionism and for Israel was clear. We must admit that the Hashemite king came a long way from issuing the terrible orders to butcher Jews to the signing of the peace treaty with Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, and later to kneeling as he offered his apologies to the families of the seven girls from Beit Shemesh who were murdered by a Jordanian soldier in 1997.

The Palestinians also have a score to settle with the Hashemite royal house, particularly since the killing of thousands of their people in “Black September” in 1970, and also as result of other actions by Hussein and his grandpa Abdullah against their people. Hussein also deeply hurt the Palestinians by signing a separate deal with us.

All or nothing

For many years, Syria served as a model for hatred and cruelty towards Israel and the Jews. We all remember the way the Syrians treated Israeli captives. However, some say that territorial compromise would prompt their leader Bashar Assad to sign a peace agreement with us, as the Egyptians and Jordanians did. Should that happen, the Palestinian attitude to the Syrians will be no different than their attitude to the Egyptians and Jordanians.

So why did this “work” with the Egyptians, Jordanians, and possibly with the Syrians, yet it’s not happening with the Palestinians? Apparently, it’s not going to work with them, because it appears the Palestinians will never “change their tune.” Yasser Arafat, who started the 1993 Oslo process with the hope that “we have found the Palestinian leader who will embark on a new path” and that “here is a leopard that will change his spots,” contributed greater servings of hatred and venom in his 10 years in office then what we saw in the past.

Several weeks after signing the deal with Rabin, Arafat called for jihad against Israel during a prayer session at a South African mosque. This is the same Arafat who smuggled wanted suspects and upgraded weapons to the Gaza Strip while at the very same time holding meetings in Tel Aviv.

Today, there is no fundamental difference between the Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas’ Khaled Mashaal. Both of them express the same principles. One of them does it from his fortress in Damascus, while the other does it from the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem, among other places. There are no two Abbas’, only the real one, just like the real, jihadist Arafat. The privilege granted in the past to Arab leaders to utter radical words for “domestic purposes” is today anachronistic and ridiculous.

Today, we can say that the Palestinian-Israeli issue is too much for Abbas to handle, as it was too much for Arafat to handle. We do not only have a territorial conflict vis-à-vis the Palestinian entity. Indeed, we share a national question whereby most people affected by it, in the region and beyond it, do not believe in compromise, but only in the principle of “all or nothing.” Time and again they publically declare that Israel does not exist in their mind. The old-time Arafat and current-day Abbas are merely a reflection of this public.

Therefore, we do not have too many choices; all we can do is cope with this, and wait for change to come.

Colonel (res.) Moshe Elad served as the head of the security coordination mechanism with the Palestinian Authority in the Oslo Accord period. Today he is a lecturer at the Western Galilee Academic College (in our Israel Partnership region.)