Reflecting on the Palestinian state which would be approaching its twentieth year of existence had Arafat and the Palestinians been interested in living peacefully next to Israel Barry Rubin writes.
Today, two decades later, there is no such state. But there could have been. The reason why there isn’t has very little to do with Israel and a lot to do with Palestinian and Arab politics. Briefly, the PNC was called on to pass a simple resolution–mere words–saying that it accepted Israel’s existence and would stop using terrorism. In exchange, it was promised U.S. and international help to receive a state.
He attributes the failure to the negotiations so far to the failure to understand the dynamic between the two sides. It’s what he aptly calls the Win/Win attitude (the Israeli/Western attitude) versus the Zero sum (the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim attitude):
When win-win (WW) and zero-sum (ZS) come together the negotiating process is something like the following:
* ZS: We demand 100 percent!
* WW: We’ll give you 50 percent!
* ZS: 100!
* WW: 75!
* ZS: Perhaps if you offer me 100 I will make a deal.
* WW: Wow, what a window of opportunity! How about 90?
* ZS: 100
* WW: 95, and that’s my last offer!
* ZS: 110!
This is the history of Israel-Palestinian negotiations, of talks about Iran’s nuclear drive, attempts to deal with Hamas or Hizballah, and diplomatic exchanges with Syria. All fail for very real reasons. But refusing to understand the fundamental problem, these failures are interpreted differently: not enough was offered, cultural sensitivities were disregarded, the table was shaped wrong, the democratic side did not prove its good intentions sufficiently.
In his introduction Rubin focused on Arafat’s “acceptance” of Israel in Geneva in 1988. That led to American recognition of the PLO until mid-1990 when a faction of the PLO atttempted a terrorist attack on Israel and Arafat refused to condemn it. In the aftermath of the American rejection of the PLO, the New York Times reported, “P.L.O. Sees Deeper Arab Hostility After U.S. Move”
A senior adviser to Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said tonight that Washington’s suspension of talks with the P.L.O. would produce ”a loathing of the Americans” and prompt the organization to seek a greater Arab show of military strength in the conflict with Israel.
At the same time, the adviser, Nabil Shaath, who lives in Cairo, said in an interview that the P.L.O. is ”not considering at all going into any military operations or any terrorist actions against civilians” targeted at Americans living in the Middle East. He said the P.L.O. would maintain its avowed commitment to peace.
So remember the PLO had just failed to uphold its obligation to fight terror and the United States was at fault for responding to that failure. The Chutzpah is incredible. But that follows from the assumption that the zero sum side believed that the West (and Israel) needed it more than they needed the z.s. to abide by its agreements.
And the New York Times faithfully reports this news from the perspective of a wronged PLO leadership, encouraging the zero sum side (the Palestinians in this case) to stick to its guns and avoid responsibility for its breach.
Gen. Moshe Ya’alon takes a different approach to the same problem. He argues that the failure to create a Palestinian state results from a refusal of the Palestinian leadership (and population in general) to accept Israel’s right to exist. That being the case, negotiations are rather fruitless. What’s needed to be done is to seek changes in Palestinian education so that they teach their children to accept Israel and maintain military pressure on Hamas.
The former is out of Israel’s hands. The latter is still possible, though the current Israeli leadership is averse to such an approach. This might be an attempt by Gen. Yaalon to make a case for a future Likud government as he is expected to possibly receive the defense portfolio should Binyamin Netanyahu return to power in an upcoming election.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
