This quotation raises two questions, which are the focal points of this piece:

(1) How did it come to pass that a president who presented Israel's position as "they will not negotiate under terrorist threat", turns around and shoves the Roadmap down Israel's throat?

(2) How did it come to pass that a journalist can say with a straight face that "today the Israelis pushed farther into Palestinian territory", without anyone challenging the premise of the statement and the term "Palestinian territory"?

The answer to the first question is, of course, oil, oil, oil. In view of all the proof that has been presented to corroborate this statement, it may be taken as axiomatic. Nonetheless, it is useful to provide, for the record, the corroboration that has been offered in a FrontLine programme, aired just the other day (available in transcript form on the web).

A video segment, reporting an interview with ADEL AL JUBEIR, Adviser to Crown Prince Abdullah, has this advisor state:

As soon as the Bush administration came into office, we had discussions with them about the American policy in the region. We were urging the United States to get engaged in the peace process. And when there was an escalation of violence and the president was asked about Sharon's actions, his response was perceived in the region as a signal to Sharon that he could do whatever he wanted...

And at that point, the crown prince sent a very powerful message to the president, "It is obvious that you have decided to support Sharon, irrespective of what the consequences are to American policy or to your interests or to the interests of your friends. You're a sovereign country. You can do whatever you want. We are now in a position where we have to take actions that serve our interests without any regard to how they may affect your interests...

And within 24 hours, we had a response from the president to the crown prince, in which the president laid out his vision for the Middle East: two states, shared Jerusalem, just settlement of the refugee issue, in very clear terms. And he said, "But we can only do that if we can stop the violence." The crown prince responded to the president and said, "This is a positive step, and you need to articulate this publicly." And the president agreed to do so two or three days before September 11th.

In the transcript of the interview with Prince Amr ibn Mohammad al Faisal, one finds further details about the background to this "letter":

[Interviewer] How does [that letter] come about?

[Prince Amr ibn Mohammad al Faisal:] It comes about from an accumulation we have been seeing [in] the United States over many years behaving in a way that is unjust, unfair and totally biased in favor of the Israelis. We hear a lot about the rights of the Israelis and all that kind of thing, but nobody talks about the rights of the Palestinians. Finally, I think Prince Abdullah was merely expressing the frustration that all of us feel in the Arab world, not just in Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim world as well. ...

He wrote a very strongly worded letter ... where he essentially told President Bush that either you be more fair, more equitable in your dealings with the Arab world, or we will simply find a different arrangement than the one we are having with the United States. We can no longer have the same kind of relationship that we have had for the last 60 years.

... This [letter] is all an expression that we can't take it anymore; we have had it up to here. And this was widely, widely popular, not only in Saudi Arabia, but throughout the world, even the non-Muslim world. Enough is enough. And this trend was building up, and it was given a setback by the events of Sept. 11 in the United States, When the U.S. was attacked, that sort of put everything on hold. Then the United States embarked on this worldwide war on terrorism. ...

There is nothing new in this "revelation", for we all know that the oiled hand of the Saudis was behind Bush's decision to join those who are attempting to destroy Israel. But it is important, IMHO, to have the Saudi royals themselves confirm this fact and demonstrate the stranglehold they have over US policy.

But even Saudi oil needed a lubricant to ensure that the Arab line got through, and the lubricant is nothing other than the myths about "Palestinians", "right to self determination" and similar fairy tales. This is the second root cause of the ongoing campaign to destroy Israel (in this connection, see, today's IsraPundit article Howard Gerson and Harold Waller).

Readers who agree with me to this point may wish to know what I suggest as remedies. If oil is one root cause, then weening ourselves off oil is logically one remedy. Had we adopted the weening strategy as a cause in 1973, when the Arab oil blackmail became apparent to all, this root cause would have been buried ages ago. Unlike intractable social problems, finding an oil substitute is a technological problem that the west is expert at solving, provided we start. This remedy, however, is hardly a comfort to those who want a quick fix today. Unfortunately, quick fixes only exist on Sesame Street.

The second remedy I wish to propose deals with the legitimate stature that the "Palestine" myths have acquired, and, unfortunately, the second remedy too is for the long term. Israel has allowed the myths to flourish, and the GOI itself has adopted the terminology and notions of the enemy. We must start by purging our language of all "Palestinians" and associated fairy tale terms (personally, I use "Yesha Arabs" in lieu of "Palestinians"). This purge, conducted systematically and relentlessly, should signal a vigorous, rejuvenated campaign to debunk the Arab myths.

Who are the partners that can assist with such a campaign? Patriotic Israelis should be the first partners, of course, followed by Israel's supporters abroad. Some of these supporters identify themselves as Jews, but I am not sure whether or not this group is larger than the Chomsky group plus the indifferent group of Jews. Surely, one has to pay attention when one observes the proliferation and impact of the groups to which Steven Plaut has appropriately assigned the label, Jews for a Second Holocaust. This observation underscores the need to forge links with Christian Zionists as well as with unaffiliated individuals. In both of these categories, one can find rivers of good-will and energy to support Israel, but tapping such a resource requires recognition of its importance and organization. This should be a prime task undertaken by the GOI or such bodies as ZOA.

If implemented, neither of the two suggestion I outlined will yield results in the short term. In recognizing this fact, it would be useful to take a page from the enemy's own book. From 1948 to 1967, Israel had strong support in the West. Undaunted, the Arabs continued to build their base, step by step, until they acquired EUrabia, Western academe, and considerable portions of Jewish public opinion. Let Israel's supporters learn from them.

Note: This piece is cross-posted at Blogger News Network (BNN)