Those who counsel people who are addicts and their co-dependents are very familiar with the concept of Addictive Thinking and Abraham Twerski’s well known book on the subject. The basic idea is that those who are addicted have distorted thinking. An example of this kind of thinking offered is:
A young man was procrastinating turning in his term paper for a class.
“Why don’t you finish it?”, I asked.
“It’s finished already”, he said.
“But I need to do some more work on it”, he said.
“But I thought you said it is finished”, I remarked.
“It is”, he said.
Using this thought process doesn’t necessarily mean that one is an addict, but it is found more often among addicts. This contradictory thinking is Addictive Thinking.
Now, lets look at the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. I can slightly change the words in this paragraph and you will recognize the arguments. For example:
“Why won’t the Israelis agree to a peace agreement with the Palestinians?”, I asked.
“They already did”, he said.
“But they need to stop settlement construction in order for the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table so that Israel can make peace with them”, he said.
“But I thought you said Israel already agreed to a peace agreement with the Palestinians”, I remarked.
“They did”, he said.
Or let’s try this one on for size:
“How can peace be achieved?”, I asked.
“The Israelis need to make peace with the Palestinians right now because the region is stable and Israel is surrounded by friendly governments,” he responded.
“But the region is changing. What if the region becomes unstable and Israel is surrounded by unfriendly governments?”, I asked.
“Then the Israelis need to make peace with the Palestinians right now because they may not get that chance later,” he said.
“But the Israelis are worried about the West Bank becoming like Gaza”, I noted.
“So they need to make peace now to stop that from happening,” he stated.
“But if the Palestinian Authority makes the concessions necessary for the process to move forward, they will be overthrown by radicals who support Hamas and oppose the peace process”, I remarked.
“The Israelis need to be forced to make concessions so that peace may be achieved,” he concluded.
What??? This makes no sense because it is addictive thinking. There is no logic to the argument. No matter what the circumstances, the argument is that Israel must make concessions and that it is Israel’s fault that peace has not already been achieved. Pressuring Israel to make concessions now that the Palestinian Authority may not even appear to be yielding on any of the core issues for fear of facing an uprising is about as ridiculous a conception as any heretofore applied to the peace process. No possible good may come of such pressure. In fact, if a strong Palestinian Authority is necessary to achieve peace, then those seeking peace must avoid encouraging it to come to the negotiating table now in its weakened state. Additionally, with the Palestinian Authority in a weakened state and potentially being toppled in favor of a much more radical regime, Israel cannot possibly make any concessions on borders or security.
While the addictive thinkers will no doubt argue that if only Israel had made concessions earlier it would have achieved peace already, those thinking clearly will readily understand that if the Palestinian Authority was in control over the entire West Bank today, an uprising could rapidly bring Hamas to power there with an abrogation of any peace treaty along with it.
The only reasonable solution is to allow the Palestinian Authority the chance to survive the onslaught of radical sentiment by giving it the ability to avoid having to make unpopular concessions now. Those who wish to pressure Israel to make concessions in order to bring the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table must both seek to weaken Israel without achieving peace and to strengthen Hamas in its attempts to remove the Palestinian Authority from leadership over the West Bank. Why? Because these will be the primary results if the act of urging Israel to make concessions in order to bring the two sides to the negotiating table were to be successful.
For the peace process to move forward, the region must stabilize first.
The article is completely correct. We’re back to the simple reality that Palestinians, like all Arabs, regard any concessions by Israel as a sign of weakness. They then start attacking. Withdraw from Gaza–the Palestinians don’t say thanks, they start shelling rockets into Israel. Surely they should think that such aggression would discourage further concessions by Israel. But Arabs cannot overcome their instinctive interpretation of Israeli concessions as weakness. Why? Probably because they would only make concessions out of weakness, not out of a sincere desire to compromise for peace. Liars think that the other guy must be lying. So they think Israel must be the same. That’s why it’s more important than ever for Israel to refuse to make concessions or to give up one inch of soil in the hope that the Palestinians might consider negotiating. Israel has in the past given up too much for too little. The present instability in the Arab world makes a tough stance ever more important.