Jewish
Frontier

It is hard to remember a time when doubletalk wasn't part of Mideast politics. Lately, however, obfuscation and duplicity have become so blatant in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that it is almost impossible to tell fact from fiction.

As Israelis buried their dead from a series of Palestinian attacks, supporters of Israel continued to rage at what they perceive as the Arab/Muslim world's duplicity. Yassir Arafat, notorious in Jewish circles for saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, continued to incite violence at home while playing the peace card abroad.

Moreover, such duplicity underscores the purposeful ambiguity that characterizes calls for the "liberation of Palestine." Certainly, when the few Palestinian moderates left speak of it, they mean the West Bank and Gaza. But when groups like Hamas talk about it, they mean all of historic Palestine. And when Arafat speaks of it? Well, no one really knows.

As for what will happen to the Israelis when Palestine is liberated — whatever that means — I don't think Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, or even the radicals within Mr. Arafat's Fatah Party are above genocide. Ultimately, Israel and the Israelis will simply have to leave or be eradicated. Perhaps that is why Yassir Arafat betrayed the strong support of President Clinton by rejecting the Camp David compromise. Without the promise that Arafat was seeking for the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, the Palestinians could not unleash the demographic bomb that would eliminate Israel once and for all.

Nor is this penchant for doubletalk limited to Arafat. Take the Saudi peace plan adopted by the Arab League at their meeting in Beirut. While seemingly a step in the right direction for its offer of full normalization of relations with Israel, the plan is little more than the old maximalist Arab position that Israel has already rejected. Again the sticking point is the so-called right of Palestinian return. Those closer to the situation recognize that not only is the return of Palestinian "refugees" impossible if Israel is to survive as a democratic Jewish state, but all the palaver about restoring Palestinians to their homeland is merely a smokescreen for the threat they pose to the growing volatility in Arab states. The reality is that Arab governments are itching to relieve themselves of their Palestinian populations, once a thorn in Israel's side, now a thorn (as Lebanon had discovered) in their own.

It is a shame that Arab governments could not muster the courage to offer full normalization of relations with Israel at the start of the peace process. Here, too, double talk abounds. This is apparent in how greatly the Arab League's peace plan differs from that outlined earlier by Crown Prince Abdullah in conversation with the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. While you can't blame the Prince for the wheeling and dealing of a summit, the fact that his plan was initially floated in English and not in Arabic has led many to question its sincerity. As Norman Podhoretz pointed out in an opinion piece on National Public Radio, if peace with Thomas Friedman was the Arabs' objective, it could have been achieved long ago.

The double talk in Europe has also gained traction as politicians fell all over themselves to denounce Israel's inhumanity in the territories while anti-Semitic violence kicked up its heels throughout the continent. Not suprisingly, France — with its large Arab population, strong economic interest in Iraq, and history of malevolent indifference to Jews — led the call for European Union sanctions against Israel. Meanwhile, France's Jews experienced a series of outrageous anti-Semitic demonstrations and hatecrimes. Indeed, things got so bad that Frances President and Prime Minister actually commented on the matter. Meanwhile, European intellectuals, pooh-poohing any charge of anti-Semitism, rushed about trying to delegitimize the state of Israel by branding Israeli scholars academic outlaws. I guess labeling any Israeli action, regardless of provocation, as state terrorism clears Europe's conscience for the millions of Jews murdered on its soil over the centuries. You can imagine the Europeans saying: "See, those Jews weren't really so nice after all."

Even the United States has spoken with a forked tongue about the Arab-Israeli conflict. For a short while even I considered Dubya "our man on Israel," that was until the "Crawford Oil Summit," where Poppy, Dick and the Saudis issued new marching orders. Don't get me wrong, of course, the United States is undoubtedly still Israels best friend. And the Arab/Muslim world is correct when it argues that America favors Israel. Israel, after all, is more culturally familiar to Americans and a more trustworthy ally. But the United States' failure to see the recent Palestinian attacks in Israel as part and parcel of the terrorist threat that America has committed itself to eradicate has many Israelis and supporters scratching their heads. The United State can overrun entire nations when attacked but Israel must sit on its hands to appease Arab dictatorships and Western oil interests.

Even Israel and its supporters have become mired in their own form of double talk. Witness Ariel Sharons labeling of Yassir Arafat as "irrelevant" during the height of the attacks in March. Presumably, the move was meant to delegitimize the Palestinian leader and bring about a change of regime in the Palestinian Authority. Strategic benefits of this plan aside, it seemed a bit strange for Sharon to then turn around and call upon Arafat to personally stop Palestinian attacks. Clearly, the statements were awash in contradiction; is it any wonder that the whole effort came off looking immature, if not disingenuous? More to the point, the episode reflected denial on the part of the Israeli leadership to accept the inevitable reality of a Palestinian State, most likely with Yassir Arafat at its head. Had anyone doubted that, the Likud party, with Bibi Netanyahu taking point, went so far as to reject any Palestinian State no matter its borders. Sometimes denial is the greatest form of affirmation.

Clearly, Israel and its supporters have deluded themselves into thinking that somehow they are in control of the Palestinians, that theirs is a benevolent occupation, and furthermore, that the only path to security is through an ever-increasing show of military might. Though Israel has seen a reduction in suicide bombings since the Israeli incursion, attacks have not stopped and may well rise again. Deterrence continues to come at an enormous human, spiritual, and political cost. It certainly looks as if current tactics will fail to bring a permanent end to Palestinian incursions or lessen Palestinian determination. Despite the iron fist, Israel is still at a loss to find a way out of this morass.

These misapprehensions have led some of us to believe that somehow we can put off the inevitability of a Palestinian state and more of us to think that that we can dictate the nature of that state-in-the-making. Presently, even those who accept the idea of a Palestinian state want to impose any number of preconditions: the future Palestinian state must be demilitarized; Israel must control its borders; Israel must control its aquifers; Jerusalem must never be divided, and so forth. The past few months, however, have demonstrated that this approach is wrongheaded and ultimately self-defeating. Sure we can make demands that reflect our best interests, but these are only opening bids in what is going to be a long negotiation.

Trying to control the Palestinians seems to me an exercise in futility. First, they will see any meddling by Israel as repression, which will ultimately lead to more attacks. Of course, if the Palestinian state is completely demilitarized, it will not be able to protect itself from internal threats such as those posed by Hezbollah and Hamas. This, in turn, can only endanger Israel, just as the degradation of the Palestinian Authority's security forces exacerbated the situation in the past few months. Is Israel going to forever police Palestinian internal security? I hope not. Nor is this story any easier with respect to water and borders. Let's be realistic, how much can Israel control and still expect peaceful cohabitation?

I am certain that there will be an independent Palestinian state sitting alongside Israel. The Palestinians want it, the United Nations including the United States have called for it, and Israelis themselves recognize that it must be so. But what kind of state will the Palestinians have? That's a mystery that will only begin to be worked out when that state comes into being. This leaves Israel two choices: it can delay the inevitable and endure untold years of bloodshed and internal struggle, or Israel can accept this reality and prepare itself for it. As it stands now, however, Israel seems unable to move beyond tit-for-tat retribution.

So, what should Israel do now?

The first thing it should do is stop indulging in the type of double talk that depends on playing the end game at the beginning. Israel must accept that it cannot predict the future and focus instead on the present — what will improve the situation right now. Next Israel must find creative, 'near-term solutions. Those calling for unilateral separation are presenting one such solution. I am not necessarily advocating it, but at least it represents something beyond the current cycle of violence. Another idea would be for the Labor Party to formally declare the Alton Plan dead, thus differentiating itself from the Likud and sending the world a message that not everyone in Israel believes settlements are a solution. Finally, Israel must find leadership that can offer the Palestinians something they want more than revenge.

Negotiation is a two-way street. If Israel genuinely wants peace and security, only initiatives that improve conditions for the Palestinians themselves will bring it about.

In the end, once we get past the delusions that surround this conflict, Israel peaceniks face a fundamental question that no amount of double talk will do away with: Do the Palestinians want real peace? I'm not sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't give it to them. Iron may be strong but it is also brittle. To win this round of the conflict we must show the flexibility of steel.

Jay Eidelman is president of Camp Na'aleh Inc., a progressive Jewish summer camp serving New York, New England, and northern New Jersey.