Palestinians, Once Again, Simply Blew Their Chance

TEL AVIV —  Despite the news from Washington, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that began with such hope and promise seven years ago is now deceased. While the reasons for its demise are complex, the main cause of death is a tragically short-sighted Palestinian policy. Once again, by demanding everything, the Palestinians have doomed themselves to getting nothing.

Surely, the earlier years of the process were fraught with conflict, delays and setbacks. Yet the avoidable collapse of the efforts for peace began three months ago when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat chose the road of violence.

Arafat was reacting to the Camp David summit of last July, whose results did not satisfy him. Ironically, Israel had gone further than ever before to meet Palestinian demands. For the first time ever, an Israeli government accepted an independent Palestinian state. In addition, it offered to give that new country all of Gaza and almost all of the West Bank in exchange for peace and even to take back 100,000 or so Palestinian refugees while arranging compensation for all the rest.

Certainly Arafat had a right not to accept that Israeli proposal. But he could have done so peacefully, making a counter-offer, including some concessions of his own to persuade Israel to give more too. Instead, he mounted an officially sponsored uprising, albeit a popular one, sparked and organized by the media under Arafat’s control. Schools were closed so that young people could demonstrate daily. The militia of Arafat’s Fatah group launched armed attacks on Israeli soldiers. Islamist radicals were released from prison and helped to restart terrorism. The police were ordered to stand by and do nothing, when they didn’t actually join in with their own guns.

In Israel, the credibility of the Palestinian side crumbled as deeds and words became increasingly more extremist. The popularity of Prime Minister Ehud Barak, who had staked his political future on reaching a peace agreement, plummeted and his government fell. Arafat promised President Clinton that he would stop the violence but did nothing.

Because of his personal commitment to achieving peace and his desire not to lose office, Barak made even more concessions to the Palestinians. In December, he added to his earlier offer a readiness to give them control over all the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, sovereignty over the Muslim holy sites on the Temple Mount (the most sacred place for Jews) and to trade an equal amount of Israeli land for minor border modifications on the West Bank.

At first the Palestinians sharply rejected the proposal, as if this were an Israeli trick. At the last moment Arafat said he would accept a plan put forth by Clinton in December, under certain conditions. But Palestinian statements show these conditions are that they get everything they want. They have demanded that all Palestinian refugees can return to Israel. So far they even have rejected Israel getting control over the Western Wall, even if it gives up the Muslim holy sites.

There can be no doubt that a Palestinian “return” to Israel would lead to that country’s destruction. Clearly, that suicidal concession will never be accepted by Israelis. It totally negates the idea of a two-state solution that is the basis of the Oslo process. Such an outcome would guarantee a level of bloodshed that would dwarf anything in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Aside from debates over what ought to be or attempts to score meaningless propaganda points, the fact remains that the current Palestinian policy and strategy guarantee there will be no peace agreement, no end to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza, and no Palestinian state. It assures continued strife in which everyone will suffer and Palestinians will suffer more.

Israelis ask why they would agree to make all the concessions without getting anything in return. The official Palestinian bargaining position has not changed on any issue since 1993, while Israel has shown flexibility and a willingness to take risks. Even the supposed Palestinian concession of recognizing Israel is rendered meaningless by the demand for a Palestinian influx that would destroy the Jewish state’s stability within a matter of months.

Generosity is one thing, but suicide is something else. After all, Israel has won the wars and holds the territories. It is in a stronger position and can continue for many years under the current conditions. At the same time, Israelis note that those who urged them to take risks for peace have not been there to support Israel when the risks went sour. They also see that sincere Israeli efforts to achieve peace go unrecognized in the Arab world and only seem to feed the appetite for more unrequited concessions.

The Feb. 6 election may well make Ariel Sharon prime minister of Israel. A few months ago, that would have been unthinkable.

Meanwhile, the Palestinians once again make the same mistakes that they committed in 1948 and so many times thereafter: rejecting partition into two countries. The damage done in the last three months will take a long time to repair before another chance for peace and material gains will come to them.