Michael Oren who used to be Israel 's
ambassador to America , and
is now running for Israel 's
Knesset, has an ingenious idea: how to sell diplomatic stale bread soaked in
water by calling it gourmet food. He explains all that in an article he wrote
under the title: “Israelis, Palestinians and the Two-State Situation” and the
subtitle: “Instead of demanding what each side cannot do, we must ask what each
side can do – and then make the most of it.” It was published on February 25,
2015 in the Wall Street Journal.
Oren begins the article by stating what the promise of
policy makers had been for more than 20 years; goes on to say that the effort
has failed and then explains why this happened. Without saying it bluntly though,
he basically tells that Israel
could not keep a single one of the promises with which it entered the peace
talks. No way was Israel
going to cede land that many regard as sacred; no way was Israel going to evict 100,000 citizens from the
territories they occupied by force of arms; and no way was Israel going to vacate East
Jerusalem .
But he was blunt about something else … actually, someone
else. He writes this: “A final-status agreement would also mean creating a
Palestinian state ruled by a corrupt, unelected regime that...” and he
continues: “...in the current regional chaos, is likely to fall to radicals.”
Well, in the first part of this statement, the author makes the point that the
Palestinians would remain the bad guys even if they will keep their promises –
having made the point earlier that the Jews will remain the good guys even if
they already broke the promises they made. Explanatory note: This is the Jewish
sense of balance as explained by Jewish moral clarity and reinforced by Jewish
straightforward ambiguity.
As to the second part of that statement – referring to the
current situation, and using it as if to say there is some cosmic force out
there agreeing with him – is a Jewish habit that used to impress the people who
first heard of it, but has now turned into a kind of farcical expression
capable at times, but not always, of eliciting a smile.
Sensitized enough by now to feel that he will not get away
with a Jewish-style presentation of reality that is skewed to this extent, Oren
tries to iron things out by blaming the Palestinians. He says this: “Such
sacrifices and risks could be justified if the Palestinians were genuinely
willing to end the conflict.” Mind you, he says so having shown earlier that Israel did not
keep the promises it made. Still, he feels that the Palestinians are not
willing to end the conflict because if they were, they would do something to
prove it, he says.
He explains what that would be: “They would have to renounce
all further claims to Israeli territory and a 'right to return,' and to
recognize a legitimate Jewish state on their border.” He then unfurls the big
deception: “But no Palestinian leader has ever agreed to those terms.” Well, even
if we accept that these are meaningful demands – which they are not as we shall
see in a moment – look at what Israel is holding back against them: No way is
Israel going to cede land that many regard as sacred; no way is Israel going to
evict 100,000 citizens from the territories they occupied by force of arms; and
no way is Israel going to vacate East Jerusalem. Explanatory note: This is the
Jewish sense of equity as explained by Jewish moral clarity and reinforced by
Jewish straightforward ambiguity.
Let's now look at the Oren deception. By agreeing with the
UN resolution to swap lands of equal value with Israel , the Palestinians have, in
effect, renounced further claims. By stating that the right of return is a
decision that only a Palestinian can make for himself, the Authority did the
only thing it could do which is to invite Israel to negotiate individually
with the Palestinians it displaced.
As to the recognition of a “legitimate Jewish state,” this
is something that never happened before because nations call themselves what
they want but do not force others to accept it. Moreover, the stupidity behind
the call that Netanyahu made was demonstrated not long ago when he tried to ram
the idea through his own regime. He caused a counter-reaction so fierce; he was
forced to back off. Thus the question: Why would the Palestinians call Israel a Jewish
state when the Israelis themselves will not do it?
Nothing is working, says Michael Oren, because the Jews are
inherently good, and the Palestinians inherently bad. For this reason, he
suggests that: “the time has come for a new approach,” which is this: “we can
strengthen what already exists: the two-state situation.” Translated into
English, this means: Let’s keep the status quo but call it something else …
like saying ‘situation’ instead of ‘solution.’