Sometimes the middle of the road is just roadkill

I’m sure that my friend Snoopy is going to hit me back hard for this, because he’s a fan of Burston. But I gotta say this.

Bradley Burston’s Here’s to the ’67 borders, the new middle of the road is a load of hooey.

It’s not that I disagree with him that somehow the notion that Israel retreating to more or less its 1967 has become the mainstream in Israeli political discourse. At least among those running the country that appears to be true. And it’s something that I’ve said for a long time.

What I disagree with is that it’s a good thing, something that Mr. Burston seems to believe.

There was a time when the mention of 1967 lines was met with nothing more than one version or other of Abba Eban’s 1969 comment to the German newspaper Der Spiegel:”We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz.”

Many of those who cite the “Auschwitz borders” quote as a bulwark against giving up all occupied territory, conveniently forget that Abba Eban was an outspoken and unabashed dove.

Many of those who oppose territorial compromise of all kinds turn a blind eye to Abba Eban’s comment that an Israel which refuses to consider ceding land is “tearing up its own birth certificate.

“Israel’s birth is intrinsically and intimately linked with the idea of sharing territory and sovereignty,” Eban declared.

Actually I think that most people who quote Mr. Eban realize that he was a dove. And that’s what made the quote so compelling.

No I wasn’t aware of the other comment. But again, that’s not what’s at issue. Even so-called hard liners like Binyamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon ceded land.

The question is how much land to cede.

I’m glad that Burston acknowledges

It’s important to note that in an era of land-for-Qassams in Gaza and deadly Palestinian internal strife, any accord over borders is a distant prospect at best.

Of course he doesn’t accord this observation the importance it’s due.

At the same time, there is growing awareness among Palestinians that maximalism, in particular the forms of long-distance Islamic extremism exported by Iran and Osama Bin Laden, could in the end kill the prospect of a Palestinian state altogether.Even Hamas officials have spoken of being “able to live with” an interim situation of a Palestinian state along 1967 lines. “Where the Hamas Charter speaks of “an end to the conflict and the end of the occupation,” Hamas, from Khaled Meshaal on down, is speaking clearly of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Hamas official Razi Hamid told Army Radio in 2006.

“This is a new page today. We agree to an independent Palestinian state with the 1967 borders,” Hamid said. “Today there is an opportunity to reach a political settlement.”

“Live with an interim situation?” How someone can torture statements by Hamas into some sort of pragmatism is beyond me. The Palestinians haven’t been convinced that maximilism costs them anything. If they had there’d be a real difference, perhaps, between Fatah and Hamas. But there is none. These two terrorist organizations differ only in methods not in aim. (One could even go so far as to praise Hamas for its honesty that it seeks Israel’s destruction openly. Fatah has no such saving grace.)

Israel’s polity has changed over the past 40 years tremendously. On the other side we’ve seen no movement.

A few weeks ago Daniel Pipes offered some guarded praise for PM Olmert.

Unless the Palestinians recognize Israel as “a Jewish state,” Olmert announced on November 11, the Annapolis-related talks would not proceed. “I do not intend to compromise in any way over the issue of the Jewish state. This will be a condition for our recognition of a Palestinian state.”He confirmed these points a day later, describing the “recognition of Israel as a state for the Jewish people” as the “launching point for all negotiations. We won’t have an argument with anyone in the world over the fact that Israel is a state of the Jewish people.” The Palestinian leadership, he noted, must “want to make peace with Israel as a Jewish state.”

Raising this topic has the virtue of finally focusing attention on what is the central topic in the Arab-Israeli conflict – Zionism, the Jewish nationalist movement, a topic that typically gets ignored in the hubbub of negotiations. Since nearly the birth of the state, these have focused on the intricacies of such subsidiary issues as borders, troop placements, armaments and arms control, sanctities, natural resources, residential rights, diplomatic representation, and foreign relations.

Of course, Pipes points out that nearly ever major member of Fatah denies that Israel is or could be a Jewish State, and PM Olmert thus finesses the issue

“My impression is that he wants peace with Israel, and accepts Israel as Israel defines itself,” Olmert said. “If you ask him to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel, as Israel defines itself, I think he does. That is not insignificant. It is perhaps not enough, but it is not insignificant.”

Daled Amos acidly observes

Olmert has not just lowered the bar on what is required of a peace partner. He has removed it.

Again, the point is that while Israel’s political position has become more accommodating there has been no reciprocal movement on the Palestinian side. Worse, Israel has gained little in the arena of public opinion. Perhaps the most dramatic Israeli action since 1993 has been the withdrawal from Gaza. Not only did Israel forcibly remove thousands of its own citizen giving the Palestinians their own contiguous territory, since then Israel has suffered thousands of rocket and mortar attacks into its undisputed territory. Despite all this, Israel is still portrayed negatively in the media.

Although Israel’s leadership expressed an expectation that Israel’s unilateral disengagement would improve Israel’s image as an occupier and an oppressor, and would decrease demands by the international community for major territorial concessions to the Palestinians, it appears that the opposite is in fact the case.The research, conducted by Dr. Tamir Sheafer and Itai Gabai from the Departments of Politics and Communications & Journalism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has found that in Britain and the United States, Israel was represented in a more negative light after the disengagement in comparison to the period that preceded it.

(via Backspin.)

And so Mr. Burston concludes

So here’s to the all new middle of the road, an especially useful view – and test of Palestinian intentions and aspirations – at a time when Bin Laden chooses to stake out the maximalist ground of a one-state all-Palestinian, all-Islamist solution.Maximalists on both sides would have us believe that compromise invites murder. It’s time for the quieter majority to stand up and point out that its maximalists who do the great majority of the killing around here.

A test of Palestinian aspirations? Isn’t that Ehud Barak said he was testing at Camp David in 2000 after it blew up in his face? Palestinian moderates have been tested and revealed to be maximalists. No different from Bin Laden, though they may be more polished in their presentation.

And it’s not maximalists on the Israel side who believe that “compromise invites murder.” Rather it’s not a matter of belief. It’s a fact. This is something that Mr. Burston even acknowledge in passing – when he commented on “land for Qassams.” Israel has compromised and – for better or worse – will continue to compromise, but there’s no reason to suggest that anything short of the 1967 borders is a failure to compromise. But that’s exactly what Mr. Burston is doing. And that’s exactly why his analysis is nonsense.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad.