There are two phony arguments raised by those who believe Israel obstructs the peace it desperately needs: settlements, and demography. It should take only a moment to dispel this nonsense. These arguments must be pushed out of the mainstream debate by ridicule and insult.

Can settlements be blocking a successful peace process? Of course not. If the Palestinians were so discomfited by construction of settlements they would logically want to accelerate the peacemaking process. This is what King Hussein of Jordan warned them about at the 1984 Palestine National Council meeting. Hurry and get peace, he said, before the settlement process has gone forward too long. They ignored the advice; they weren’t in any hurry.

Again, though, if settlements are gobbling up the land perhaps to the point of no return, shouldn’t the Palestinians demand negotiations immediately instead of refusing to talk for a dozen years and setting countless preconditions that seem to become more demanding as any previous ones are met?

Then we have the bogus demographic issue. The Gaza Strip and West Bank are not part of Israel. Nobody today seeks annexation. Palestinians — except those who live in Israel’s borders — are never going to be citizens of Israel. Ironically, let’s remember, it is the Palestinians who demand that they, through the fictional “right of return,” get to be Israelis.

Bill Clinton recently said, with total ignorance:

Is it really okay with you if Israel has a majority of its people living within your territory that are not now, and never will be, allowed to vote?

They do not live within Israel’s territory. Therefore, the question does not arise and it will never arise.

Israel has not annexed and never will annex the Gaza Strip and West Bank. No one thinks the Palestinians there are citizens and they do not want to be citizens. In fact, they vote in their own elections, or at least once did so, and live under their own government and laws. How could anyone not understand this?

Finally, there is the never-addressed issue of what I call “the day after.” Let’s face it: the Obama administration and its predecessors have made — how can I put this politely? — some mistakes with the Middle East. They have often urged Israel towards very dangerous, even suicidal courses. They have not always been faithful to allies.

Are these the best-informed, best-intentioned, most trustworthy people to follow?

Perhaps it is possible that Israeli leaders actually do know more about the Middle East and their people’s interests than does Washington (and Western journalists and “experts”). Perhaps Israel’s people, as shown by their own repeated votes in free elections, are better informed than those thousands of miles away who never lived through this history, and understandably don’t put Israeli interests first.

After all, these are policymakers who have just formed alliances with a former Nazi collaborator (the Muslim Brotherhood) and other groups which preach genocide against all Jews, hate the West, hate Christians, want to murder gays, and to make women second-class citizens.

Would you listen to advice by people who do such things?

Moreover, what would happen the day after a successfully negotiated two-state solution? If cross-border terror attacks began, would the United States act decisively to condemn the Palestinian regime? Could it “fix” the problem of a Palestinian state that did not live up to its commitments?

What about a state that was taken over by a Hamas coup or even a Hamas electoral victory, which happened in the last Palestinian election? Suddenly, Israel would be ringed by a Hamas-ruled Palestinian state that rejected peace; a Muslim-Brotherhood ruled Egypt and perhaps Syria; and a Hizballah-ruled Lebanon.

Do you think that two-state solution or even peace would long endure?

What about a Palestinian state that invited in the armies of neighboring Arab states or Iran, with their weapons or large numbers of advisors?

In short, would Israel be better off making agreements with those who have little intention of implementing their agreements, as has often been the case before, and taking advice from those who urge them to make such a deal but can and will do nothing significant to enforce it?

No.

Clinton said that Israel needs peace to survive. Yet the situation is one in which a certain type of peace would endanger survival. What Israel wants is a two-state solution that brings real peace and that would enhance survival. Why is there never any talk about the quality of the peace?

But finally here is the key concept, as voiced by the Huffington Post’s article on Clinton’s speech:

It underscored a chasm between the country’s official support for creating an independent Palestinian state and the hard-line opponents who dominate Israel’s ruling coalition.

The problem is the word “opponents.” Israel would be happy to create an independent Palestinian state that resulted in an end to the conflict. It was ready to do so at the 2000 Camp David meeting, but the Palestinian leadership then, and since, refused to say that even a two-state solution would permanently end the conflict. It would merely initiate the next round of a battle pursuing total elimination of Israel. This is not an ideological but a strategic issue. Wishful thinking and arguments like “if you don’t work for peace you won’t get it” are fine for the words of bystanders. They would be disastrous for actual policy.

Incidentally, the three most “soft-line” supporters of creating an independent state have been Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Ehud Barak. These men learned vividly the same lessons that their political opponents did.

The real blockage to peace comes from the Palestinian leadership (including Hamas and their open preference of massacring all Israelis) and the realities of the strategic situation.

Is this a right-wing position? No, it is just a recognition of reality. As I noted above, everyone knows it, and if they don’t there are three possible reasons:

1. They want to bash Israel and subvert Israel’s relations with the West and they know what they are doing.

2. They are ignorant about the region or at least very much out of date. And this goes for those ruled by wishful thinking.

3. They think that by pretending peace is possible they can make the Arabs feel that the United States is trying to help the Palestinians, and that therefore most Arabs and Muslims will think better of them and radical Islamists will like America.

Israelis know that since this is a firm belief in the West, keeping their mouths shut makes it easier to get along with those people who are in power in the West. And this goes for those ruled by wishful thinking, though proportionately far fewer than in the West.

It also goes for those who would gladly welcome a real, viable two-state solution but know that one is decades off, and has been made more difficult by the radicalism unleashed by the supposedly moderating “Arab Spring.”

Ironically, the current narrative was put in place in the 1990s precisely because an Israel that was striving for a two-state solution gave peace a chance. The effort proved to Israelis that the Palestinian leadership wasn’t ready to make peace. The effort made the rest of the world think that the Palestinians were victims, desperate for peace. Committing terrorism must have been a cry for help.

Arafat rejected peace; Israel was falsely blamed for rejecting peace even though the facts were well-known to people like Bill Clinton ,who even said so in early 2000.

Fixing this political disaster is not a matter of politics, but of starting the difficult task of correcting the narrative.