Here is what Eldar just wrote in "If we give - we will also receive":
Sharon, a politician who was elected by a huge majority, is having difficulty enlisting a stable coalition for evacuating several hundred families from dangerous areas. How can we expect a newly elected Palestinian leader to declare an all-out war "immediately" - in the words of Labor Minister Haim Ramon - against his extremists? It's true that terror and occupation are not the same thing, but neither can we compare the tremendous power that Sharon has at his disposal in the struggle against Jewish extremists with the meager power - both political and military - of Abu Mazen.
Abu Mazen was elected on a platform of ending the violence and developing a political solution to the conflict. However, the desire of a leader, no matter how charismatic and popular, is not enough to restrain a violent struggle against a foreign occupation that continues to steal more and more land.
No one can write the above words and say that they favor Israel. He justifies violence against Israel. Like many at Ha'aretz, Eldar puts the onus of the making peace on Israel. So when he reports that the Palestinians are becoming more reasonable ... well he wouldn't report anything else.
Second there's the issue of Khalil Shikaki. Maybe he really is an academic. Maybe we can trust his polling methodology. But his brother was the late Fahti Shikaki the founder of Islamic Jihad. Dr. Shikaki (the pollster) made a splash a few years ago when he "found" that
only 10% of all Palestinian refugees wanted to exercise a "right of return."
Max Abrahms took issue with Shikaki's findings in the National Review Online, "
Right of Return Revisited":
Yet Shikaki fails to consider that Palestinians generally do not want to become "Israeli citizens" or move to Israel if only a "small number" of Palestinians will be living there. For this reason, the shallow support for "becoming an Israeli citizen" and "returning" to Israel in "small numbers" may indicate nothing more than a broad-based desire to relocate to Israel under more propitious circumstances. Indeed, Shikaki downplays a more noteworthy finding: According to his own data, 95 percent of Palestinian respondents agree with the statement that the "right of return" is a "sacred right that can never be given up." And "When asked how the respondents feel about the proposal," half said that they are presently opposed to compromising with Israel on the refugee problem.
Shikaki responded
here. The rebuttal lacks clarity so I'm inclinced to trust Abrahms reading of the data. But read what Shikaki wrote and make up your own mind.
In essence the article is by a reporter who tries to present the Palestinian in the most reasonable possible light about a pollster who does the same.
On the other hand, about 20 years ago, Milton Himmelfarb wrote an article for Commentary "No Hitler, No Holocaust.' His thesis was that - as the title implies - if Hitler hadn't had lived there never would have been a Holocaust. Hitler was a necessary catalyst to make the Holocaust happen.
The poll here might be saying much the same thing about Yasser Arafat, that he was the sole impediment to peace. I guess it's possible. Certainly his death was a necessary (but insufficient) condition for peace.
The illegitimacy of Israel is a basic component of Palestinian nationalism.
Article 20 of the Palestinian National Covenant reads:
The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.
This is a deeply held belief not something that can be simply voted out of existence. Until this changes I see little prospect that peace is possible. It's one of those odd things that someone who denies roughly fifteen years of Jewish history is considered beyond the pale (unless he's an Arab) but someone who denies 2000+ years of Jewish history is a "partner for peace."
So has anything changed with the death of Arafat? Maybe. But in order to find out we need to ask different questions from the ones Shikaki asked.
Crossposted on
Israpundit and
Soccer Dad.
Sufficient?
Crossing the Rubicon2 runs an excerpt from an article in Ha'aretz that asserts that Arafat's death has led to the softening of opinions in the PA. It's hopeful and it's worth considering that the PA is at least making noises about stopping terror; something we haven't heard in a long time.
However I have a few reservations. First of all the article is by Akiva Eldar. Eldar is one of the most vile anti-Israel columnists at Ha'aretz.
Here is what Eldar just wrote in "If we give - we will also receive":
No one can write the above words and say that they favor Israel. He justifies violence against Israel. Like many at Ha'aretz, Eldar puts the onus of the making peace on Israel. So when he reports that the Palestinians are becoming more reasonable ... well he wouldn't report anything else.Second there's the issue of Khalil Shikaki. Maybe he really is an academic. Maybe we can trust his polling methodology. But his brother was the late Fahti Shikaki the founder of Islamic Jihad. Dr. Shikaki (the pollster) made a splash a few years ago when he "found" that only 10% of all Palestinian refugees wanted to exercise a "right of return."
Max Abrahms took issue with Shikaki's findings in the National Review Online, "Right of Return Revisited":
Shikaki responded here. The rebuttal lacks clarity so I'm inclinced to trust Abrahms reading of the data. But read what Shikaki wrote and make up your own mind.
In essence the article is by a reporter who tries to present the Palestinian in the most reasonable possible light about a pollster who does the same.
On the other hand, about 20 years ago, Milton Himmelfarb wrote an article for Commentary "No Hitler, No Holocaust.' His thesis was that - as the title implies - if Hitler hadn't had lived there never would have been a Holocaust. Hitler was a necessary catalyst to make the Holocaust happen.
The poll here might be saying much the same thing about Yasser Arafat, that he was the sole impediment to peace. I guess it's possible. Certainly his death was a necessary (but insufficient) condition for peace.
The illegitimacy of Israel is a basic component of Palestinian nationalism. Article 20 of the Palestinian National Covenant reads: This is a deeply held belief not something that can be simply voted out of existence. Until this changes I see little prospect that peace is possible. It's one of those odd things that someone who denies roughly fifteen years of Jewish history is considered beyond the pale (unless he's an Arab) but someone who denies 2000+ years of Jewish history is a "partner for peace."
So has anything changed with the death of Arafat? Maybe. But in order to find out we need to ask different questions from the ones Shikaki asked.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Posted by David Gerstman at January 18, 2005 07:08 PM