Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Pact or Fiction

The recent rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas may be a blessing. It exposes the fatal flaw at the heart of the peace process: the West’s fantasy of Palestinian moderation.

Print Email
Lookalikes of Palestinian Authority President Mahomud Abbas (right) and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal at a May 6 rally celebrating the Fatah-Hamas pact. (Abbas Momani/AFP/Getty Images)

With Osama Bin Laden now in the bag, a triumphant President Barack Obama will be searching for new promises to keep—like clinching the comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace treaty that he promised the world during his first two years in office. And since any lasting peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians must include Hamas, it is no wonder that the White House seemed untroubled by the recent announcement of a pact between Fatah and Hamas, whose leadership greeted Bin Laden’s death with proclamations that the al-Qaida boss was a “martyr” and a “holy warrior.” Some in the White House are letting it be known that the administration believes the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation may be even a good thing for U.S. strategic interests.

Presumably, when Benjamin Netanyahu gets to Washington next week, the Hamas-Fatah deal is going to be at the top of his talking points. Even those in the pro-Israel camp who were pushing the prime minister to make concessions to the Palestinians recognize that this new partnership jeopardizes the entire peace process. All the money and prestige the United States and European Union have poured into the Palestinian issue has come to this: The carefully tended moderate camp has merged with the extremists. Of course, some will argue that the deal is a sign of Hamas’ weakness and that Fatah will help moderate the Islamic Resistance movement that rules Gaza. In other words, Palestinian unification is all about exposing the Palestinians’ true colors. If you’re a peace-process pessimist, it shows Fatah’s latent extremism; if you’re an optimist, it will make clear Hamas’ pragmatism.

I, too, think the deal reveals something important, which is why I am a big fan of Hamas-Fatah reconciliation—not because I think it will make peace likely, but because I think it is the only way to expose the hypocrisy and moral rot that has been at the core of Western thinking about the Arab-Israeli conflict for more than 30 years.

Osama Bin Laden’s death offers a good opportunity to take stock of the larger incoherence of American Middle East policy, whose most outstanding feature seems to be an inability to tell our friends from our foes. One easy yardstick to use might be this: If you enthusiastically support a man whose grand strategy consisted of killing as many Americans as possible then you are our enemy. So, why are we seemingly insensible to the fact that Hamas mourned Osama’s passing and its leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, the elected prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, said that his killing was a “continuation of the United States’ policy of destruction”?

I’m actually more comfortable with Haniya’s public devotion to Bin Laden’s memory than with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s conviction that the al-Qaida chief’s death will “mark the beginning of the end of a violent era.” To be fair, though, I suspect Fayyad really means his encouraging words, but in terms of American strategy his statements are useful only as fodder for Western publications that have an interest in furthering the fantastical narrative of Palestinian moderates waiting patiently in Ramallah to make peace while enduring the daily humiliations of a pointless Israeli occupation. Fayyad also says he was “not aware” of Hamas’ condemnation of the killing, which is absurd because his life depends on his knowing what Hamas says about everything—just as his U.S.-sponsored salary and the institutions he seeks to build require him to oppose Hamas. In short, Fayyad is an American invention, the latest in a long series of moderate phantoms that we summon forth to hide the gap between the way we want the world to be and a reality that is often cruel but not often difficult to fathom.

The original model of the imaginary Palestinian moderate was none other than Yasser Arafat, a lifelong believer in one Palestine, who never peddled any illusions about his ultimate aims or the violent methods he was willing to employ in order to achieve them. The myth of the moderate Arafat, the Nobel peace prize winner, the Palestinian Mandela, was a Western invention. His 1974 U.N. speech promising either an olive branch or a freedom fighter’s gun was clear: If I don’t have peace on my terms, there will be death. This was two years after the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics and only months after he’d personally ordered the assassination of American diplomats in Sudan. What was Arafat’s peace? He was always clear about this—it meant Israel’s destruction.

To fulfill those ends, Arafat tried to topple the king of Jordan and then drove Lebanon to civil war in the 1970s and ’80s. When the Israelis and Syrians finally drove him out of Beirut, Western policymakers rescued Arafat from watching Tom and Jerry cartoons in Tunis. A Palestinian-Israeli agreement was to be part of Bill Clinton’s peace dividend, and the Americans gave Arafat a makeover. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, he was reconstituted as a man of peace.

Arafat never asked for the Nobel Peace Prize he shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin in 1994. It was given to him as part of a Western pantomime. He announced his intentions clearly when he said that the Palestinian movement had made a “strategic choice” for peace. But if peace itself isn’t the point, then what could possibly be the larger strategy, except the final elimination of Israel?

But why blame Arafat, or any of the Palestinian leadership, including Hamas, for taking American and European money, not giving anything in return, and saying they want more? They believe they’re in the right and that the land they get from Israel is theirs by right. The Palestinians, after all, do not see themselves as the beneficiaries of an international goodwill society, to whom they should be grateful. They are a real people who fight, kill, and die for what they believe in.

The Hamas-Fatah unity government does not lay bare the Palestinians’ hatred of Israel, which has been obvious for decades to anyone who reads the statements of Palestinian leaders or the textbooks they distribute to their children. It says nothing about the Palestinians themselves, for the Palestinians—moderates and radicals alike—have never been opaque about their goals. The debate between Palestinian moderates and radicals is a debate over the means, and the timetable, for reaching a common goal. They’ve been encouraged by Western mendacity for decades, and they’ve played a weak hand well.

Rather, Palestinian unification reveals the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American and other Western policymakers who have been peddling a fantasy of Palestinian moderation and peaceful coexistence for more than 30 years. It is time for us to realize that the suggestion that fine words about peace will discourage people from shooting at each other is not clever or hopeful or even naïve: It is actively immoral. The Palestinians aren’t the liars; we are.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Barry Meislin says:

Rather….reveals….peddling….It is time for us….The Palestinians aren’t the liars; we are.

Yep. Absolutely correct. Even if we would prefer to ignore it.

To deny it.

Because we’re hooked on the illusion of peace.

And we couldn’t get off “The Stuff” even if we tried.

Yep, we are hooked on our drug of choice.

It makes us high on the illusion that we are benefitting the Middle East, the world. The people of Israel. The Jews….

Peace! Peace! Peace!

…Even as it allows us to despise the people of Israel. To deligitimize the State of Israel (for all the right reasons, of course). To bitterly hate the Jewish nationalist movement and all those who fail to hate it along with us.

A heady mix. We dare not give it up.

We can’t give it up.

We couldn’t if we tried.

No. This intoxicating intoxicant of Peace has become “Our Struggle”!

And Israel—as Jews have had to in the past—will just have to bear the consequences.

Ever Again!!

Forest says:

Israel also fell for the illusion of the Oslo “peace process”. However as the near extinction of the left shows , most of the Israeli public is aware of who our “peace partners” are, and though we suffer the most from a lack of peace, we are not willing to commit suicide for an illusion of peace. The problem, as you clearly state, is that the US and Europe don’t want to be confused by the facts

maayan says:

I always read Lee Smith’s articles with interest. They are often rather convincing. The analysis he offers is compelling, particularly by throwing western motivations into relief. Yet, I wonder if he has any positive, forward-looking directions to offer regarding the conflict/ peace process.

Identifying our mistakes is important, but an honest analysis has to include an alternative approach – which is always lacking in Mr Smiths writing. If cultivating a moderate “phantom” is wrong, as Mr. Smith says, then what would be better? Fighting extremists tooth and nail hasn’t been effective either in Lebanon or in Gaza. Is dreaming and working for peace more far-fetched than fantasizing about an absolute rout of the Palestinians’ aspiration to a nation? I don’t think so.

fred lapides says:

Why must there be an “alternative”? The Arabs surrounding Israel have taken a stand that has not moderated–Israel should not exist. Do they suggest an alternative? they are counting, perhaps, on wearing down Israel, the future of demographics etc to get what they want…Perhaps then,if Israel stands firm, just maybe the day might come when some rational elements among Israel’s neighbors might realize that they are going nowhere and getting little and try something else: when you are losing the game, change the rules.
Hamas has shown no indication of wanting a new direction. It will now have to work with, or against, Abbas and a stated desire for a two-state solution. In sum: the Palestinians have the alternative to choose.

Fatah/PLO/PA and Hamas invented a bogus Palestinian people as a tactic to destroy Israel. The majority of Palestinian Arabs in both the West Bank and Gaza have also elected Hamas whose charter reads:
“Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims…. The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him…. We must spread the spirit of Jihad among the [Islamic] Umma introducing fundamental changes in educational curricula: ‘I swear by that who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill.’

Um, what peace process? What peace deal is Netanyahu offering? And what sort of deal would you get if half of Palestinian society signed off? What are the achievements of five years of diplomatic boycott and sanctions of Hamas?

MethanP says:

This will not matter to the leftists & anti-semites who want Israel to go away! Reality can never be allowed to interfere with prejudice.

IE. The Moslems want payback for the Crusades, even though they WON!
They still want to reconquer the “lost” lands, Spain, the Balkins,
India & Israel! They can not, will not, EVER stop!

Peace, to these people, is only a stop along the way to CONQUEST.

Bennett Muraskin says:

With your generally hostile attitude toward the Palestinian polity, including some mind boggling statements of anti-Arab/Muslim bias, supporting Israeli intransigeance, don’t be surprised if the UN recognizes an independent Palestinian state in the pre-1967 borders.

Then you’ll be sorry.

I hope it exposes the myth of Palestinian nationality. Under the original partition agreement Jordan is the Palestinian state. Whatever happened to that I wonder.

Gene says:

The difference between Palestinian radicals and “moderates” is that radicals express their intentions openly. Many on the west, particularly among “intellectual” elite, who abandoned the notion of peculiarity, of national uniqueness and pride and who lost their sense of common (for the nation) destiny have real trouble to understand those who did not. Like Palestinian Arabs, for example.

Kirillov says:

What is most shocking about this article is how readily Mr Smith embraces the intellectual fallacy – par excellence – of looking for evidence to fit a pre-existing belief about the world. I would advise a preliminary glance at the work of Karl Popper, specifically his definition of pseudo-science. Based on this, Mr Smith’s thinking would seem a welcome fit alongside such movements as Marxism and fundamentalist Christianity, which search for evidence to ‘prove’ that a specific catch-all belief about the ‘how the world is’ is correct. Neither, as we can observe, has ever led to peace, especially for the Jews. I imagine Mr Smith’s program of action would lead to a similar outcome.

As an observer I cannot understand that Israel does not understand that people will always want independence to own their own country ,as an Irishwoman I know that as an Israeli surely you can u understand that.
We recognize that you have an right to own your land as have the Palestinians.

Gene says:

Jesse, no “deal” should be made. Only oppression. You don’t make “deals” with white supremacists, neo-nazis and similar garbage. You oppress them, you don’t allow them to do what they want and you don’t make with them “compromises”. Why do you want Israelis to make “deals” with people who stated very clearly that their intention is to kill or expel them? What is wrong with you? Oppression is not always bad. We all oppressed one way or another in case you don’t realize that. One thing is to oppress people in order to gain profit or to have fun and another – to do it for the purpose of self-defense, in order to save lives (on both sides) and to have peace.

Barry Meislin says:

All the more curious, then, that you have failed to observe that the Palestinians do NOT believe that the Jews have the right to a Jewish State….

(Curious, but not terribly surprising.)

Gene says:

Teresa, sorry to say that but you don’t understand the nature of the conflict.

Teresa, Israel has ceded Gaza in toto to the Palestinians and was rewarded with missiles. Likewise the territory it occupied and then abandoned in Lebanon. And finally, it has made two significant offers of peace for land in the West Bank, only to be spurned.

What American Jews and Israelis don’t understand Teresa is how it is that Europeans disregard this recent history.

carl says:

To Teresa: The Palestinans have in fact been offered a state several times and have turned it down. They seem to be more interested in destroying Israel than having their own state. It is incorrect to compare the situation with Ireland. Ireland never openly decalred that it wishes to destroy the UK and murder all the English as Hamas and other Palestinan organizations have vis a vis Israel.

HaSoferet says:

The so-called Palestinians had a wonderful opportunity to have their own country in 1948 under the original partition agreement. The Arab states rejected it in their name on the assumption that the Israel part of the partition agreement would be short-lived. And ever since then Israel and the rest of the world have been paying dearly for that rejection.

Dave says:

Bennett, why exactly will he be sorry if a state is declared at the UN? It will change nothing. The General Assembly has the moral and legal authority of, well, a bunch of morally bankrupt, self-interested, unrepentant human rights abusers who spend their time obsessing over the Palestinians while the world goes to hell in their own back yards.

George One says:

Mr. Smith’s article is spot on. Teresa, the problem if one looks at facts instead of Press presented propaganda, is that the Palestinians have always refused any compromise in order to achieve peace prefering – like most Arab leaders – to keep the Palestinian population in refugee camps and have Israel as an outside distraction and excuse for the poor lives their people lead (in fact due to their corruption and bad governance). Unfortunately many in the West and many Arabs, have ended up believing their own propaganda – and naïve Western suggestions and actions actually make it more difficult to reach any significant peace. The Israeli government – like any government – has the prime obligation of defending its civilian population from the unceasing attacks of its Arab neighbours.

Dan C. Winters says:

I agree with what Maayan just wrote.

Gene says:

Western media created an impression that Israelis (or, at least, majority of Israelis) want to have the land where Palestinian Arabs live, to oppress and control them. Why western media decided to brainwash naive readers is a different topic. But the truth is that only tiny minority of Israelis wants any piece of Arab land besides the so-called “East” Jerusalem. If Arabs would want the same the peace between two people could be established quite easy: just using Lieberman’s plan and exchanging land on the west bank settled by Jews to the similar amount of land in Israel’s proper settled by Arabs. Instead Lieberman’s plan is branded as a racist and both – Arabs and Israeli leftists rejected it without even considering. Though, obviously problem is not a land.

Johnny Mardkhah says:

Teresa, should I remind you that until 1916 the whole of the Irish island was part of the UK? And why did you Irish want to split from the country? Because you are Irish and the others are British. You are Catholic and they are Anglican, which, all in all, is a Catholic who does not recognise the Pope and head of the Church, not an out-and-out Protestant.
What, no “bi-natinal state” as you Irish want us Jews to live (and die … especially DIE) into? Doesn’t that make you Irish racist, just as most media and prople in your country accuse Israelis/Zionists? As a matter of fact, splitting from the UK makes you more “racist” than Israelis, as differences between you and the British are more a matter of semantics than of life and death.
One more thing. How did Irland conquer independence? Through negotiations? NO! By war, blood and violence. So, to use the same language lots of Irish use toward Israel, your country is illegal and has no right to exist.
Please, disband and beg Britain to take you back.
PS: sod Sinn Fein.

Ann Baker says:

I cannot understand the European mentality towards the MUslims (don’t forget many Arabsa are in fact Christians and just as concerned over what is happening as the Jews). Since the last war we have been flooded with refugess from all over the world, slowly they have intergrated in our society and yet over the past few years we have treated Muslim refugees as if they were different. Just why is this? We allow them to rant and rave in the streets, half of what they say, if we reversed the racial prejudice, we would end up in jail. Now, with all this unrest in the Middle East and not knowing what the final result will be, are we honestly going to agree to jepordise the future of the one democratic country in the area. Can’t anyone understand this is why the Muslim Arabs hate the Israelis, they are the Mecca for young modern thinking Arabs throughout the Middle East.

Bennett Muraskin says:

If the UN was good enough to authorize a Jewish state in 1947, when it was tiny in size and dominated by the two superpowers, it is good enough to authorize a Palestinian state in 2011, now that it is much more representative.

The international consensus is for a two state solution consistent with the 1967 borders with reasonable adjustments. The PLO recognized Israel in 1988. Deals was almost struck between Barak and Arafat and later between Olmert and Abbas that established a Palestinian state. As the Wikileaks have shown, the Palestinian negotiating position is quite flexible. Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel. Syria has not posed a threat to Israel since 1973. Iraq is neutralized. Iran rants and raves but poses no direct threat. Hezbollah is more concerned about the internal power struggle in Lebanon than about Israel.

All this hysterical talk about Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims bent on destroying Israel is a fear mongering. It also reeks of bigotry.

Ann Baker says:

Have you read the reports from Hamas, they have signed the agreement but don’t accept the right for Israel to exist, nor do they preclude the right to attack Israel. Is this a proposal for peace in the region. At this time I don’t think anyone can rely on Egyptian or even Jordanian peace treaties as both countries have internal problems. All we do know is that certain elements in the Muslim world have expressed their intent to spread their religion and their laws throughout the world. We know that many young Arabs are hoping for Democratic Governments to emerge, but they are a minority in most Arab countries. We should be very careful here, I agree with this article, we in the West want peace, so I assure you do the Israelis and the young Arab freedom fighters, but at this time the whole Middle East is in turmoil and nobody can be sure of the outcome.

HaSoferet says:

The UN authorized a Palestinian state in 1947 at the same time it recognized a Jewish state. It’s called Jordan.

Rick Goldberg says:

If the Palestinians truly wanted peace, they would do precisely as did Egypt and Jordan: they would loudly and immediately sue Israel for peace. Within a couple of months an agreement would be reached, even though knowledgeable people would correctly assume that a Palestinian government could (or would) never enforce terms of the agreement on their own population.

But for anyone who wants to know when the Palestinian coddling comes to an end, here it is: when a combination of depleting oil and novel energy technologies causes Islamic revenue to fall to the point that they can no longer fund their “in your face” international agenda. When that time comes, perhaps in 20 or even 200 years, they will fade back into history, occupying the same place they occupied before oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in the last century. No one will then care about that Persian-Arab world except a handful of Middle Eastern anthropologists at major Western universities.

Binyamin in O says:

Lee Smith’s views (and those of the majority of posters above) are just what we in the BDS movement need. The only conclusion to be drawn from Smith’s polemic is that the Palestinians are neo-Nazis and thus any level of violence Israel uses to suppress them is justified, even an ethnic cleansing. Have you noticed this view is receiving less support outside Israel and outside the precincts of the AIPAC echo chamber lately?

Lets be clear about this whole “right to exist” twaddle. It is simply a demagogic epithet that insinuates that anyone who says Israel is denying the Palestinians human rights is a Nazi. No one says the Jewish people of Israel do not have a “right to exist,” most especially Muslims, because the Koran requires special protection of the “peoples of the book”., i.e. Jews and Christians. And no, I am not some dolt that doesn’t understand that that “protection” has translated as Muslim theocrats oppression over the dhimmi. But there was never anything remotely resembling the Shoah in the Muslim treatment of the Jews. That was a Christian phenomenon. What Bibi proposes is Jewsih theocratic rule over the Arab dhimmi of Israel.

What we who love democracy say is no people are entitled to political power over another because of their religion. You get legitimate political power only if you are a democracy. And if you are occupying and laying siege to a people because they are not your religion and ethnicity, you are not a democracy.

Israel is at a crisis point in its struggle to subjugate the Palestinians. It is becoming clearer every day, thanks to the Lee Smith’s of the world, that Israel regards THE Palestinians (not Hamas, not THE terrorists) as the enemy. Therefore, as Lieberman says, bring on the settlers. Palestine has no right to exist. When Ehud Barak says the BDS movement is the real existential threat to Israel (not Iran), he’s more right than he knows.

Binyamin in O says:

From our fiend Gene above: “But the truth is that only tiny minority of Israelis wants any piece of Arab land besides the so-called “East” Jerusalem.”

Gene, I got two words for ya: Avigdor Lieberman.

Binyamin in O says:

I meant “friend”, not “fiend”. (Talk about a Freudian slip.)

Lou Gutnicki says:

Mr. Binyamin in O:

Fancy language is cool, but TRUTH is a lot cooler. I’m not fancy, but I know TRUTH when I see it. You use FANCY language as a weapon. Not acceptable.

We Jews have a moral obligation to ourselves, to our legacy, to our land to stop any and all adversaries, be it suicide bomber or FANCY language bomber.

no2islam says:

The Arabs have one goal, and one goal only; the total destruction of Israel. All talk of peace is just taqqiya, deception, a con game to shake down the West for billions of dollars in aid that only benefit the few, the powerful, and leave the many in perpetual misery, and hatred…

Note that Hamas are (possibly) calling for a state within the 67′ borders, so that offers hope. After all if Hamas accept our right to exist then we may have a chance for peace, and surely we all want that (don’t we?).

I also don’t trust Hamas and agree that it is an antisemitic organization but perhaps we should take a bit of time to understand what’s happening before we get angry.

Raymond in DC says:

Jonathan writes, Note that Hamas are (possibly) calling for a state within the 67′ borders, so that offers hope.”

Hamas has already made clear that they will “accept” a state based on the 1967 borders, but will never recognize the Jewish state of Israel as that would preclude the resistance from restoring the entirety of the state of Palestine. This is no different than Arafat’s “stages” strategy. So there’s no need to “take a bit of time to understand whats happening”. It’s already obvious what’s happening.

As to the rantings of Binyamin in O, who admits to belong to the BDS movement, it’s clear he lives in a world of hate and delusion when he writes, “Israel is at a crisis point in its struggle to subjugate the Palestinians.” In actuality, Israel simply wants to be left alone and at peace. But as long as the Palestinians work against that peace, then Israel must do what needs to be done.

Shalom Freedman says:

This article accurately describes the situation. As for the responses I can never really understand those people who argue that ‘Hamas’ is ready for a two- state solution, or about to ‘moderate’. They totally ignore not only the Charter and announced policies of Hamas, they ignore what ‘Hamas’ says all the time about never recognizing Israel. The arrogance of the Left is of course at work here, for they always believe that their wishes and their understanding are what really define others. They have a total inability to actually understand the mind- set and ideas of those who would destroy Israel.

HaSoferet says:

I don’t know about that. I’m pretty progressive in my politics and social outlook and that doesn’t stop me from recognizing the reality of this situation. So please don’t assume all leftists think alike.

asherZ says:

The Palestinian National Charter which calls for the elimination of the Zionist Entity,was supposed to be revised and the articles which call for Israel’s destruction were to be deleted under the understandings taken in the Oslo Agreements. To date those changes have never been ratified.
’nuff said.

James Price says:

Mr. Smith, I send you one billion thanks for this spot-on discourse. Heaven for me would be comprehensive English-language translations of the intra-Arab dialog broadcasted on prime-time television. The media, instead , chose to be lying partisans in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Gene says:

Benyamin, let put aside you little “mistake” and check out what Mr. Lieberman is actually saying. He is against stopping new construction on the land owned by Jews (not by Arabs). Tell me why a person could not build house on the land he owns? Should be a serious reason for denying humans basic human rights – no? Now, government of Israel prohibited its citizens to build houses on the land they own for 10 moths as a goodwill gesture in order to start negotiations. Palestinians waited for 9 and half months and then, as soon as the moratorium ended, walked away. I mean, these are not children games, the fate of millions, their welfare and lives depend on the actions of their representatives. Only if you think that irresponsibility and childish behavioral should be rewarded then , only then, you could disagree with Mr. Lieberman’s statement.

Bennett Muraskin says:

Many of you are on another planet. The Arab world long ago accepted the existence of Israel and the necessity of a two state solution. Hamas equivocates on this issue, but it is not running the PA. Abbas is and he is fully committed to a two state solution.

Keep it up and Israel will become more and more isolated, but many of you don’t care. After all, the whole world is against us, right? They are all a bunch of anti-Semites, from Europe to the Middle East and South America. Good thing Israel has the bomb. There is always the Samson option.

Binyamin in O says:

Gene, come on. this is not a “property dispute.” Its a fight for political power. You say the Jews must rule forever because Hashem gave them the land. Hamas, Hizbollah and those Iranian knudnicks say Moslems must rule because Allah gave them the land.

Dude, we here in America believe in one person, one vote. Our Constitution has 4441 words in it (as amended). Is the word “god” or “Christian” among them? I support our Constitution not because I fortunate enough to be born here, but because these are great moral principles, which if adopted by the rest of the world, will immeasurably improve life on this planet for everyone for all time. You and Khalid Meshal just don’t get that democracy thing.

If you live in the U.S., please, make aliyah, the sooner the better. Have your pathetic little religious war. Just don’t subvert American ideals by asking us to support it.

michael livingston says:

It is sad to see that, with a few exceptions, most of this article (and the attached comments) is simply looking for evidence to support preexisting views. The comment about Karl Popper is a good one.

yesjb says:

Actually, Mr. Livingston, the evidence has been there for a very long time in plain site for all to see except those who live on a diet of wishful thinking.
Your comments reflect the arrogant blindness of those with a similar mindset who in their Ptolomeian construct believe that their own world view is the only view and everything else including the real world is a flatlander illusion.
As for Binyamin, the epitome of American arrogance, who should ask himself where the moral code of the Constitution originated and despite its lofty aims was scarcely carried out by centuries of ignorant bigots, racists, supernationalists, pro-fascists etc. all of whom at one time or another wielded power in that great country; and whose survival and greatness occurred in spite of them.
It behooves you to show a little humility (something difficult for Americans like you, Dude!), and not run off at the mouth as if you’re bringing the Law down on two stone tablets.
You ignore reality at your own peril.

Jehudah Ben-Israel says:

The Hamas-Fatah union will only be of a blessing if and when it and each of its components accept: Israel’s right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people; renounce terror and violence against Israel and its citizens and cease all preparations for such acts, including the decommission of all illicit weapons, rockets and missiles; and, accept and adhere to all agreements with Israel already signed by the parties.

Sadly, the Obama/Clinton team appears to be removed from reality in the Muslim-Arab Middle East and North African world, and not actually know how to approach the forces operate in this world, will likely demand of Israel, once again, to accept dealing with a union that is designated in the US and abroad as a terrorist organization, only so that Obama would be able to deliver some results to the American electorate, on the backs and perhaps bodies of the Jews of Israel.

To this, the American public must say: Never Again!!

Jews love to debate. I think this is good. Best posting on here is that of Maayan who said “Identifying our mistakes is important, but an honest analysis has to include an alternative approach.” I add that that approach cannot be self-defeating.

‘ I am a Man ‘
Graphic Commentaries on the Middle East


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Pact or Fiction

The recent rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas may be a blessing. It exposes the fatal flaw at the heart of the peace process: the West’s fantasy of Palestinian moderation.

More on Tablet:

Kerry Links Rise of ISIS With Failed Peace Talks

By Lee Smith — Secretary of State: ‘I see a lot of heads nodding’