Noah Pollak notes that now a majority of Palestinians object to a two-state solution and observes:
If a poll found that the majority of Israelis rejected the two-state solution, it would make headlines around the world. Yet when repeated polls of Palestinians find solid majority support for terrorism against Israel and rejection of peace with Israel, nobody even has the chance to bat an eye, because nobody hears about it.
Actually I’ve read news articles lately that mention that Palestinians are despairing of the two state solution. But the media doesn’t see this as outrageous because they - blame Israel. So I’m not sure the fact that it’s bad that this news hasn’t been widely reported.
Take a look, for example, at this opinion piece by Sari Nusseibeh:
Israelis have long described their West Bank settlements–long fingers of territory that stretch along the north-south and east-west axes, serviced by highways, electrical networks, etc.–as organic extensions of the Israeli community. But Israeli construction has (again according to Peace Now) increased by 550 percent in the past year. This building, combined with that of the nearly complete separation wall or barrier, and reports that Israel wishes to maintain security control along the eastern edge of the Jordan Valley, sends another message: that Israel plans to hold onto the land for good. Combine this with the still unaddressed refugee problem, and it’s no wonder many former two-staters are giving up hope.
It is important to remember that the Palestinian national movement only began to endorse the idea of a two-state solution 20 or 30 years ago, as a practical compromise. Realizing that Israel wasn’t going anywhere, moderates decided that their best hope for a state was one alongside Israel, not one that sought to replace it. Yet the 15 years of negotiations that have followed have produced little, and thus it’s no surprise that faith in this supposedly pragmatic option is waning. The lack of progress, as well as the unmistakably expansionist reality on the ground and the growth in popularity of Hamas, have left little room for anyone seeking a positive future for Palestine. Except, that is, to rejuvenate the old idea of one binational, secular and democratic state where Jewish and Arab citizens live side by side in equality.
Nusseibeh, a leading “moderate,” says that advocates of the bi-national state have come to their conclusion as a result of frustration that they’ve gained nothing in the past 15 years.
It’s a common refrain, and if the media picked up the results of the poll, that’s exactly how they’d frame it.
But what Nusseibeh ignores is that in 15 years Israel’s come quite far where what’s now considered mainstream was, back then, the view of the far left. (Rabin never endorsed the idea of a Palestinian state.)
And where are the Palestinian after 15 years. Here’s Shmuel Rosner explaining a recent article by Mahmoud Abbas:
A guide to the perplexed:
Enormous historic compromise: We already did our share, and we’re done compromising. It’s now Israel’s turn.
further erodes this tiny territory: No 93%, no 96%, not even 99%. Abbas wants 100% of the West Bank.
repackages the occupation: No settlement blocks should remain in Judea and Samaria.
sovereign, independent and viable: We will not accept an agreement that will limit our sovereignty. Thus, the Palestinians will reject Israel’s demands to have a demilitarized Palestinian state and will refuse to give Israel security rights along the border with Jordan. Security arrangements are the least debated part of the Israeli-Palestinian future agreement– most commentators tend to focus on the more sexy problems of territory, refugees and Jerusalem. However, reaching an agreement on security matters will be crucial to any future agreement, and it seems as if Abbas has just raised the bar.
Understand that first one. The historic compromise was accepting Israel’s right to exist. In other words the Palestinians as represented by their “moderate” political leader, considers that a compromise. But in any other set of international negotiations the legitimacy of your partner is an assumption of those negotiations. But to the Palestinians, that is a compromise.
Thus anything that fails to meet Palestinian demands justifies violence.
And there are those who continually equate the building of “settlements” with terrorism, as if the former justifies the latter. These people, of course, aren’t helping the cause of peace but the cause of Palestinian irredentism.
The peace process since 1993 has always been subject to the Palestinian veto. The premise in most of the diplomatic, academic and journalistic worlds is that Israel’s legitimacy depends on remedying all Palestinian grievances, thus all concessions from Israel are good for Israel, never mind the cost. Of course without making any serious demands on the Palestinians, all this has done is to cause the Palestinians to treat the peace process as a one-sided giveaway.
The poll showing the lack of Palestinian interest in a two state solutiono will be treated the same way as all those polls showing Palestinian support for terror: as proof that Israel has failed to make the necessary “sacrifices for peace.”
Maybe there hasn’t been much about it so far, but more will be reported. And when it is reported it will be used to show that Israel hasn’t done enough. Any suggestion that this poll just reflects the deeply held Palestinian belief that Jews have no right to the land of Israel or never have been interested in peace won’t be reported.
It’s just the state of mendacity of the Palestinians and their allies.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
