How is it possible, despite the manifold and clear proofs to the contrary, that there are still Israeli politicians and journalists who believe in the stupid assertion that it is only through negotiations such as Oslo, Camp David, etc., that peace can finally come to this region? It is clear for anyone who is willing to see that even if an Israeli government would offer more than Ehud Barak did at Camp David there would still not be peace because all the main sections of the Palestinian side pursue the destruction or dissolution of all of Israel as the only way to peace in this region.

How silly are these endlessly repeated mantras: "In the end there is no other way than to go back to the negotiating table." "We cannot choose our partners for peace." "We simply must find a way to live with them." What nonsense! Did we say that concerning our neighbours in Europe? Did we say in Holland, Denmark and Norway, "We just have to learn to live with Adolf Hitler. We cannot choose our neighbours; we just have to live with them?"

There has been peace in Europe now for over fifty years because we did not accept Hitler and his Nazis. We allowed the Allied Armies to win a war over our enemy Hitler -- we did not limit those armies to a battle here or there with endless ceasefires and even more endless negotiations. We won a war and therefore with God's help and mercy we won a peace that has now lasted for more than half a century. If only Israel's leaders could be as wise as those Western leaders who totally ignored the clever 'peace ploys' of the Nazis -- men like Rudolf Hess sent to Britain to weaken the Allied forces resolve. It was not peace negotiations that defeated Hitler, but war.

You do not make peace with enemies, you make war with enemies, and when you win, then your enemies will make peace with you! You have to win a war in order to achieve a peace, Mr. Peres!

It was the unwillingness of most European Jewry, especially their own leaders, to take what Hitler said seriously that made them such easy victims. How after all we have seen and suffered, can there still be Israelis who do not understand that the great majority of Muslim Arabs and Palestinians aspire to the same aims as the Nazis? That their fervent hope is that Israel will be no more? Why will Israelis not listen to what the Arabs say among themselves? Why is it that most Arabs have no serious problems with what Hitler did? Why is "Mein Kampf" still required reading in many of their universities and the Holocaust denied?

I want to end with a recent expression of this Hitler-like aim toward the sovereign Jewish state, a debate entitled "Three Palestinian Viewpoints on the Intifada and the Future of the Palestinian State" hosted by Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic news channel (it was reported by the Middle East Media and Research Institute on November 21, 2000).

Three prominent Palestinians participated in the program, representing the three major political viewpoints within the Palestinian public. PA Minister of Information Yasser Abd Rabbo represented the PA's official position, deputy head of the Hamas political bureau Musa Abu Marzuq represented the position of the militant Islamic movement, and Bilal Al-Hassan, an analyst with the London-based daily, Al-Hayat, represented the position of the Palestinian left.

Abu Marzuq explained that Hamas has no objection to a Palestinian state and even allowed that "A state within the borders of the West Bank and Gaza would be considered an achievement at the present stage." However, he promptly added, "It is clear that if a state is established within the 1967 borders, these will not be its final borders. We must further aspire for borders that will include Palestine in its entirety." PA Minister Abd Rabbo refused to elaborate on what will follow once a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is established. "There is almost a consensus among Palestinians that the direct goal is to reach the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the June 4, 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital," he said, "[but] regarding the future after that, it is best to leave the issue aside and not to discuss it." Bilal Al-Hassan declared: "At this stage we talk about a state within the 1967 borders, but this is not the end of the story." A unified Palestine, once the Palestinian state is established, he continued, can come about in one of two ways: through peace, or through war. It can be established through peace, if the Israelis accept the logic of a [unified] democratic Palestinian state. If they don't accept this logic, then the logic of history will lead to a confrontation."

So after all that has happened, if there are still politicians who want to prove that they were right to believe in the so-called "peace process" and are determined to continue with it, then let us realise that even if they bring about a "peace agreement" by offering Arafat even more in the next Camp David-like meeting, including a Palestinian state on all the area occupied by Israel in the Six Day War with East Jerusalem as its sovereign capital, even then that will not be the end of the conflict. It will be, yes, an acceptable intermediate phase for most Muslims and Palestinians until they feel strong enough to take the rest of Israel. So why negotiate at all if what it means is that we make it easier for our enemies to finish off what will be left of us?

Outpost               - 4 -               January 2001