The Oslo Delusion (Part II)

Raphael Israeli

In Palestinian eyes, their "days of rage" are merely the legitimate expression of their rejection of Israeli occupaiton. They have the right over any territory they consider theirs, to the exclusion of all the others. And if the others resist, they are dubbed "Nazis." One would assume that Palestinian (and other Arab) intellectuals and educated people would not only understand the difference between what the Nazis did in Europe and what they are subjected to under Israeli rule, but would refrain from using that comparison, knowing how offensive it is to the Jews. But perhaps precisely because of that, it is widely used in the media, politics, religion and education. As "proof," there is a flurry of Palestinian accusations against the Jews, especially focused around the theme of "poisoning," a reversion to the old European anti-Semitic theme of well-poisoning. Suha Arafat delivered an impassioned speech in December 1998, in the presence of Hillary Clinton who was visiting Gaza with the President, where she accused Israel of having systematically poisoned Palestinian lands and waters. The lack of reaction on the part of the American First Lady only emboldened the speaker to pursue her broadsides, and the audience to believe them.

This concentration of hatred and venom against the Jews and Israel has ceased to provoke sharp reactions in the world, and most Israelis are not even cognizant of it! While one could claim that the underdog Palestinians have no other way to vent their anger, one is advised to look at the same intensive use of this vocabulary in Egypt 22 years, and Jordan 6 years, after their peace accords with Israel.

For the Arabs it is always a jihad, a war to the finish, without limits or constraints. Their inability to achieve that annihilation in one stroke prompts them to derive pleasure from smaller feats which point in that direction. The bombing of Israel by missiles from Iraq during the Second Gulf War (1991) drew tremendous enthusiasm among the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab street, which regarded Saddam as the new Saladin who would deliver the coup de grace to the hated Zionist entity. Short of that, murdering innocent Israeli passersby, mutilating corpses of their victims and dragging them in the streets, or luring Israelis into their domain and ambushing them, have been their way to achieve a long series of small total annihilations. On the symbolic level, torching and destruction of Jewish synagogues and holy places, digging up tombs and crushing bones, burning Jewish books and Torah parchments, trampling, tearing, stabbing and then setting ablaze Israeli flags and effigies provided them the same partial satisfaction.

It is not the case that both parties seek a settlement and a compromise; the Palestinians (and the rest of the Arabs) want victory, justice, and restoration of Arab splendor and hegemony, while the Israelis have a much more modest ambition of security and being accepted and recognized by their neighbors. This asymmetry in goals is the reason why every time Israel is close to a settlement, and after it makes far-reaching concessions for the sake of peace, but short of total surrender, the Arabs back down and retreat. Israeli negotiators, and many Western observers, are unable to comprehend the "Arab propensity to miss yet another opportunity." But the Arabs would rather wait for the whole than bend to the humiliation of accepting the part, which signifies that they have reconciled themselves to injustice. Justice is whole and indivisible; therefore they educate their children to claim it all and to deny their rivals any part of it; and when they report about their clashes with Israelis, there is never an understanding of the other's pain, losses and ambitions. In Israel, there is a whole political camp which sympathizes with the Palestinians, diffuses their grievances and expresses them in the media. No trace of that is found on the Palestinian side, and were there to be, the "culprit"