Get PJ Media on your Apple

The Peace Process is Dead. Let it lay in Peace

To everyone except, apparently, Kerry of Arabia himself, the "peace process" was a mirage.

by
Jonathan Spyer

Bio

April 8, 2014 - 11:53 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

The April 29th deadline has not yet been reached, but it may be said with confidence that the initiative by Secretary of State John Kerry to revive the ‘peace process’ between Israelis and Palestinians has already reached its final destination: failure.

The failure of this initiative was obvious from the beginning. To everyone except, apparently, Kerry himself. This reality lent an element of low farce to the entire proceedings.

By now, it should really be obvious to any serious observer that there is no chance that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process will produce a comprehensive peace between the two sides.

There are two core reasons for this. One of them is of long-standing, the other is a development of the last decade.

The first reason is because the Fatah movement, headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, is simply not interested in exchanging its historic goal of reversing the verdict of 1948 for the establishment of a small Palestinian state in the West Bank.

This is the reason why it has refused every concrete proposal to end the conflict along these lines – from the Clinton proposals of 2000, via then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s plan in 2008, to the recent refusal by Abbas to declare that any agreement reached would mark an end to the conflict and to further Palestinian claims.

The volume of proof supporting this contention is now so enormous that it is truly astonishing that this point needs to be made. But illusions die hard, apparently.

So once more with feeling. The Fatah movement considers the acceptance of any sovereignty west of the Jordan river other than Arab Muslim sovereignty to be unimaginable. It will therefore never sign an agreement that includes the acceptance of such sovereignty. It will always find a reason not to do so, while for tactical reasons where necessary pretending that the problem is with the precise details of the agreement.

As to why Fatah cleaves to this position. On the more superficial level, mainstream Palestinian nationalism considers that the ‘imposition’ of Jewish sovereignty over part of former British Mandate Palestine (not ‘historic Palestine’, an entity that never existed) constitutes a crime of such horror and magnitude that it can never be accepted.

On a deeper level, this unusual refusal to compromise with reality derives from the movement’s Islamic roots (the very name ‘Fatah’ derives from a Koranic term meaning ‘Islamic conquest), which make it unimaginable that land once possessed by Muslims or Arabs can be accepted as having passed to another sovereignty. This process is experienced as particularly humiliating when the other sovereignty in question is that of a traditionally despised people, the Jews, rather than some mighty foreign empire.

Thus far, so obvious. The second, newer development, however, deserves closer attention.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process also has no chance of success because there is no authoritative Palestinian Arab partner to the talks. Why not?

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Arab citizens of Israel remain proud "Palestinians" because of a fantasy that one day the Jews will be massacred/driven away, and the country's wealth will become theirs. The same Arab citizens of Israel retain and treasure their citizenship because of a reality that, should they ever actually no longer be permitted to live among the Jews, they will be butchered by their Arab brethren as "collaborators."
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Cut off ALL Western aid to the pals and they'll change their minds soon enough. But of course that will never happen because Western leftists are as obsessed with their Jew hatred as the Muslims.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Please, Mr. Spyer, that's "...Lie in Peace".

And copyediting apart, there will never be an end to "the peace process" because Palestinians and their various enablers and supporters stand to lose a lot of influence, money, and power if it is ever resolved. So all the attention and opinionating on it is wasted.

The only way out of this pointless exercise is to change the middle east in a dramatic way. We should do as a WSJ op-ed said the other day: sell (give, lend, or lease) to the Israelis a stockpile of bunker-buster bombs and some B-52s to carry them.

But I'm not holding my breath.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (49)
All Comments   (49)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Re: "the very name 'Fatah' derives from a Koranic term meaning 'Islamic conquest"
In Arabic, the name فتح (Fatah) is a reversed acronym of حركة تحرير فلسطين (Harhat Tahrir Falastin - The movement for the liberation of Palestine)
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Liberal Jewish America's chickens are coming home to roost. And they most like will vote for H R Clinton in 2016. How "enlightened" they must feel at this moment in time.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why? When has American policy been different? The US has been doing this since it stopped openly supporting Israel's enemies when Nasser stabbed the US in the back.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
What is that old saying? If the Arabs lay down their arms there would be peace; if the Israeli's lay down their arms there would be no Israel. There will never be peace between Israel and her Arab "neighbors" until those so called neighbors learn to accept that Israel is a sovereign state with legitimate and recognized borders that will not change because of pressure from Arab suicide murderers. The "Palestinians" have a state if they care to live there; it's called Jordan. Maybe the world community could somehow persuade all the "Palestinians" to move to Jordan; then we can build a giant wall around Jordan and keep the animals in their cage.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
There never will be peace so long as Israel exists. Therefore there never will be peace.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Calling Arabs "Palestinians" is Soviet propaganda; Gamal Nasser, ruler of Egypt, and the Soviet Union, haters of Jews and of Israel, in 1964 in Cairo founded the "Palestine Liberation Organization" (P.L.O.), which came to fame by the massacre of the Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972, an effect of which was to call Arab enemies of Israel and Jews "Palestinians."
The names "Palestine" and "Palestinian" were synonymous with "land of the Jews" and "Jew" from the time that the Roman Emperor Hadrian, in 135 A.D., after having defeated the Jewish rebellion under Bar Kochba, changed the name of Judea to "Palestina," in order to eradicate all memory of Judea and the Jews; he outlawed Judaism and renamed Jerusalem "Aelia Capitolina," his gens name being "Aelius."
Great Britain, after World War I, was awarded the "Palestine Mandate" to be "the homeland of the Jews."
Since calling Arab enemies of Israel "Palestinian" is Soviet propaganda invented to destroy Israel, there can be no peace between Israel and the so-called "Palestinians."
Secretary of State John Kerry's pressures on Israel reflects the policies of President Barack Obama, for whom Muslims and Muslim states can do no wrong. Obama does nothing about Iran's developing nuclear weapons and promise to destroy Israel, but instead pressures Israel to give up its defences, including Judea and Samaria.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
And "Palestinian", as a derivative of "Philistine", is a Hebrew word meaning "invader". It also cannot be pronounced in Arabic, Arabic having no hard P.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Kerry of Arabia is just digging himself a deeper hole. Everything he tries to achieve will come to naught. He is nothing and so is his boss.

The best he can hope for is to live his life out on an estate ignored and not mocked.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Agreed, except, well, he's a lot less than his boss.

Both Hillary & Obama are truly evil, and pretty good at being so.

Kerry?

He's a boy, playing.

Pffft.

19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The so-called "Palestinians" were the invention of Gamal Nasser, ruler of Egypt, and the Soviet Union, in order to destroy Israel and Jews. In Cairo in 1964, Nasser and the Soviet Union founded the "Palestine Liberation Organization," (P.L.O.), whose name shows the Soviet origin. It came to fame by massacring the Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich in 1972, one effect being that these Arabs became called "Palestinians."
In fact, the names "Palestine" and "Palestinian" always meant "land of the Jews" and "Jew" from the time that the Roman Emperor Hadrian, in 135 A.D., defeated the last Jewish rebellion under Bar Kochba. He changed the name of Judea to "Palestina" in order to eradicate all memory of Judea and the Jews; he outlawed Judaism and renamed Jerusalem "Aelia Capitolina." his gens name being "Aelius."
After World War I, Great Britain was awarded the "Palestine Mandate" to be "the homeland of the Jews."
So calling Arabs who want to destroy Israel "Palestinians" is Soviet propaganda. The only peace there can be between then and Israel is that Israel be prepared to defeat them. Secretary of State Kerry is an ignoramus, reflecting his boss' President Barack Obama pro-Muslim, anti-Israel policies. Note that while President Obama tries to pressure Israel into giving up its defences and land - Judea and Samaria - he does nothing about the Iranian development of nuclear weapons and its threat to destroy Israel.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The so-called peace process? Indeed, let it rest in peace.
The U.S. has been intervening and interfering with the never-to-end
issues between Palestine and Israel for more than twenty years.
Let those two 'governments' sort things out on their own terms.....
if they can.
In the meantime, the U.S. should of course cease and desist from sending
any more financial, humanitarian or military aid to either country.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I'm sorry, I'm not aware that there was more than one country involved.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I wonder if the author would answer a couple of questions.

What is the connection to Islam, regarding Fatah. I am old enough to recall the time when Communism was in, and Islamism was out, and Fatah was basically a secularist movement allied with World Communism.

Secondly, since we all know these things, why did Netanyahu agree to release most of the murderers? Was there some deal between Obama and Bibi that we Israeli peasants may not know about?

PS - Of course the talks were a success. Abbas got most of the murderers released, and established the principle that there is no price to be paid for murdering Jews, even in the most heinous manner.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, it all depends on how one defines success, doesn't it?

I suspect you and I just might have a different view of it than Mssrs. Kerry & Obama.

19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps, although Obama might have the same view as Abbas. Kerry's view, I think is - will it be good for John Kerry?
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Agreed, though in a fuzzy, "Never at my expense, of course" kind of way, I'm sure Kerry, like all leftists, shares the Abbas point of view.

18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
How can there ever be 'peace' when one side does NOT want peace and the other side knows peace is impossible....
Kerry makes spitting into the wind a good idea...
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The whole concept of "peace" between groups with such ancient hatred is and always has been ridiculous. It's a big waste of time and money. There will be peace when one side annihilates the other.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
What ancient hatred? There is the hatred at the time of Mohammed, and the hatred that started around 1920 or so. And it is pretty one-sided hatred, also. The rest of the time the Jews of the Middle East, like the Jews of one-time Christendom, were like the Blacks of the old South, only with more lynchings.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
The one that goes back to Isaac and Ishmael.

19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
So you ask what hatred I speak of. . . then point out the hatred I speak of. First of all, I didn't say it was "one sided" but then, I suppose the Jews didn't hate being hated. . . is that your point?
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am saying it was episodic, not continual. Christian hatred of the Jews, being rooted in the Book of John and the Church Fathers, was much more intense and long-lasting, yet it is largely gone.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I am saying it was episodic, not continual. "

Ah, now it makes sense.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All