But
letting well enough alone is not what Will really means. He is not
suggesting that the United States "restrain" itself from
giving a $2 to $3 billion annual subsidy to Israel (a sum larger
than US aid to any other country, despite Israel's distinctly first
world economy), nor that it restrain itself from shipping to Israel
the most up-to-date weaponry the American arsenal can produce. Nor
does he suggest that Washington restrain from deploying its veto
in the UN Security Council in order to shield Israel from unpleasant
resolutions.
Feeding
a large stream of dollars, tanks, helicopters and jet fighters to
one side in a nasty conflict is not the kind of intrusion which
upsets Will. What irks him is that Colin Powell has laid out a plan
to follow through on the George Mitchell and Warren Rudman plan
to prod Israel into a peace settlement with the Palestinians who
inhabit the land it seized in 1967. For Will, working towards a
peace process trying to create the kind of settlement backed by
every one of America's NATO allies, and every friendly Arab country
is reckless intervention.
Will
seeds his argument with a few untruths, or half-truths, perhaps
hoping readers won't notice. He claims that at Camp David in the
summer of 2000, former Israeli premier Ehud Barak offered 98 percent
of the West Bank to the Palestinians and they scorned the offer.
Actually Barak's maximum offer at Camp David at least the verbal
suggestion that went from Barak to President Clinton to the Arab
negotiators came to about 90 percent of the West Bank, with a
compensating 1 percent to be taken from Israel proper.
This
was certainly a more realistic offer than any previous Israeli leader
had made, and demonstrated considerable political courage on Barak's
part. Most observers, (including knowledgeable Palestinians) agree
that it was a shortsighted mistake for Arafat's team to fail to
respond in kind. But it falls well short of the 98 percent claimed
by Will, or the 95 percent touted by various Israeli spokesmen after
the collapse of the negotiations.*
Will
takes some detours for slaps at Arafat's provisional governing authority;
it is a "thugocracy" which could not successfully govern
Switzerland, he writes. Apparently Will thinks it a simple matter
to establish democratic rule in a territory whose commerce and roads
and water supply remain under the control of a hostile occupying
power. More realistically, he might have said that even the Swiss
would have a trouble governing themselves properly as subjects of
the occupation in Palestine.
Will
then amuses himself wondering whether Powell will try to persuade
Ariel Sharon to drop his "supposedly utopian" demand for
seven days without violence before proceeding even to talk to the
Palestinians. Yet the sincerity of Sharon's wish for seven days
of "peace and quiet," can be viewed in the light of the
Israeli prime minister's response to Powell's peacekeeping speech,
delivered the Monday before Thanksgiving. The day after, Reuters
reported "Israel demolished Palestinian houses in Gaza and
said it would build new homes for Jewish settlers in the West Bank
city of Hebron." The day after that, the Israeli military settled
on a Palestinian militant to kill with their American built helicopters.
The
death toll since Powell's speech: 13 Palestinians, including some
elementary school boys in Gaza who touched an Israeli tank shell
rigged as a booby trap and a thirteen-year-old shot in the chest
for throwing rocks; one Israel soldier, killed by mortar fire in
the occupied territories. Sharon desperately wants seven days of
peace and quiet before negotiations can begin, you see.
I
understand that there are Israelis who believe, as Sharon's late
tourism minister Zeevi so charmingly put it, that the Palestinians
are "lice" who deserve no better than extermination; I
understand too that some American Jews have invested their hearts
and souls in the belief that Israel has a divine right to the biblical
lands of "Judea" and "Samaria." I don't understand
the Waspish George Will.
The
United States will be fighting terrorism in one form or another
for a long time to come, and the Palestinian situation has become
a festering wound which has diminished and diminished again America's
standing in the Middle East. The failure of American peacemaking
efforts have erased whatever positive image the United States might
once have had by virtue of not being a colonial power. The Israeli
settlers in Gaza and the West Bank many of whom, to our shame,
are actually American citizens serve objectively as agents for
fomenting animosity against this country animosity both from the
Palestinians whose land and resources they take and from all those
throughout the Arab and Muslim world who identify with the Palestinian
plight. Why does George Will want to exacerbate the problem?
If
he were putting forth an argument based on concern for Israel's
security, it would be morally understandable. But he doesn't even
bother. Perhaps that is because it is so clear that those who want
to destroy Israel or submerge it under endless terror are the major
beneficiaries of the Israeli occupation. It gives them a large and
growing pool of Palestinians living in hopeless circumstances from
which to recruit.
A
peace settlement one which gives Palestinians promise of normalcy,
education, and careers, and the prospect of a better life for their
children would go far toward draining the swamp of future terrorists.
Peace would thus benefit the Israelis who want and deserve tranquil
lives of their own. Its benefits to the United States and the West,
which cannot win its struggle against terrorism without allies in
the Muslim world, are vast. Colin Powell understands this and is
trying to make progress accordingly. George Will's sneering answer
is, "Create more Terrorists."
*Ron
Pundak's "From Oslo to Taba: What Went Wrong?" is a concise
analysis of the Camp David negotiations and their failure. This
can be found in the Autumn
2001 issue of Survival, the publication of London's International
Institute for Strategic Studies. Pundak
is Director General of the Peres Center in Tel Aviv.
|
Text-only
printable version of this article
As a committed
cold warrior during the 1980s, Scott McConnell wrote extensively
for Commentary and other neoconservative publications. Throughout
much of the 1990s he worked as a columnist, chief editorial writer,
and finally editorial page editor at the New York Post. Most
recently, he served as senior policy advisor to Pat Buchanans 2000
campaign , and writes regularly for NY Press/Taki's Top Drawer.
Archived
columns on Antiwar.com
George Will:
Sneering at Powell, Flacking for Sharon
11/27/01
Season
of the War Party
11/20/01
Among
the Paleos
11/13/01
Muslim
Hearts and Minds
11/6/01
The
Strategic Withdrawal Option
10/30/01
An
Open Letter to Arab Readers
10/23/01
The
Push for A Wider War
10/9/01
The
Bushes and the Palestinians: Act 2
10/5/01
The
Struggle Over War Aims
9/25/01
Why
They Hate Us
9/21/01
Why
Many Arabs Hate America
9/14/01
War
Fever
8/28/01
Right
is Still Right
7/24/01
Poor
England
7/11/01
A
Real Plan for the Mideast
5/29/01
UNPopular
5/21/01
A
Just Mideast Peace
4/17/01
We're
Not Humble
2/20/01
Ugly
Again
1/23/01
The
Arab Vote
12/12/00
Pat
Smears
9/28/99
An
American Quebec
9/21/99
Authoritarian
Liberalism on the March
9/9/99
The
New Peaceniks
6/22/99
|