Cosigning for the devil

News item:

Israel sought a $1 billion IMF bridging loan for the Palestinian Authority earlier this year, but was turned down, an Israeli newspaper said Monday in a report confirmed to AFP by a senior Israeli official.

Haaretz reported that Israel’s central bank chief Stanley Fischer approached the International Monetary Fund for the money after discussing the Palestinian Authority’s financial crisis with Palestinian prime minister Salam Fayyad.

Absurd, isn’t it: Israel should take a loan to support an organization that officially considers Jews the offspring of apes and pigs and which venerates ‘heroes’ like Samir Kuntar and Dalal Mughrabi whose heroism consisted of murdering Jewish children?

I suppose I can understand the reasoning of the Israeli government: if the Palestinian Authority (PA) were to collapse, it would be replaced by Hamas or worse. Israel would lose whatever leverage it has over corrupt PA officials, and there would be an end to ‘security cooperation’ (PA people arresting or helping Israel to arrest Hamas terrorists). In the short term there would be more terrorism.

But I am not sure propping up the PA is a good long-term policy for Israel. The PLO-run PA does not differ from Hamas and more extreme elements in its ultimate goal: the elimination of Jewish sovereignty and the replacement of Israel with an Arab state. Its strategy differs — it endeavors to present a ‘moderate’ image to external observers — and perhaps it is marginally more corrupt than Hamas, but that is not to say that it is less likely to achieve its objective.

What is dangerous about the PA is that while its existence reduces the chances of a military confrontation in the near term, it facilitates the longer-term diplomatic war against Israel.

The PA enables the US president to demand that Israel stop construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem and withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. The PA manipulates UN agencies like UNESCO, which it uses to deny Jewish history.

The existence of the PA is necessary to the myth of a ‘peace process’ — the idea that somehow there can be a negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians that will result in a partition of the land which will end the conflict and cause the Arabs to accept the existence of a Jewish state.

The myth has been refuted over and over by the words of Mahmoud Abbas and other PA leaders, who insist that they will not recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, regardless of borders.

The PA is ‘unnatural’. It exists only because it is supported by the US, the UN and Israel. It was created by the failed Oslo process, which was based on the aforementioned myth.

Maybe the myth, and the PA, has outlived its utility. Maybe it is time for the Palestinian Arabs to stand on their own, without subsides, without special UN agencies, departments, “special rapporteurs,” etc. Maybe they should have to accept the consequences of their multiple refusals to compromise, to accept a sovereign state when offered, and rather to insist that only the elimination of Jewish sovereignty would be acceptable to them.

Would this make them more ‘realistic’? Probably not.

Perhaps they will choose Hamas or perhaps they will descend into civil strife. It is not Israel’s responsibility to protect them from themselves, only to defend herself against aggression if that is the path they take.

As I’ve argued before, Israel should unilaterally establish a defensible eastern border. It’s been 64 years since the War of Independence, and it should be clear by now that the Arabs in general, and the Palestinian Arabs in particular, are not prepared to agree to the permanent existence of a Jewish state.

Technorati Tags: ,

3 Responses to “Cosigning for the devil”

  1. Shalom Freedman says:

    The U.S. is not showing repulsion to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood victory there which has been so cheered in Gaza suggests that the PA has a great deal to worry about. Should Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood lead to the downfall of the PA the US might well embrace them also.
    Would this be worse for us, or better?

  2. Vic Rosenthal says:

    I do not expect the US to support Hamas. We know that Hamas and the MB are two parts of the same snake, but the US position on Hamas is that they are a ‘terrorist organization’, something they do not apply to the Egyptian MB. I can’t see even Obama accepting Hamas as legitimate.

    I could be wrong — after all, the Government of Israel treated the PLO as legitimate!

  3. Robman says:

    In this instance, I beg to differ with you, Vic.

    I’ve seen blurbs about U.S. contact with Hamas. Some EU members are already open about this (e.g, Norway). We know how much Obama aches for the U.S. to emulate Europe in every way.

    Our local newspaper, The Toledo Blade, is a virtual mouthpiece for Obama. In an usigned, official editorial from spring of ’11 – this was the official position of the paper, mind you, not an op-ed piece representing the views of an identified columnist only – the paper castigated Israel for not WELCOMING the Hamas/Fatah “unity agreement”.

    The only reason Obama has held Hamas at bay is because of a) bureaucratic policy inertia, and b), the need to be re-elected in general, and the perceived need for Jewish campaign $$$ in particular.

    I predict with full confidence that if Obama were re-elected, he’d have no problem with Hamas replacing Fatah, and would then expect Israel to negotiate with them as a legitimate party. Of course, as with Fatah, he’d mouth the right platitudes about the “need to recognize” Israel (notice Obama never specifies, “as a Jewish state” when he says this), but without any defininite timetable or penalty for not doing so. Meantime, it is Israel that MUST make concrete concessions FIRST, or it is THEIR fault that there is NO PEACE.

    But otherwise, I agree completely with your article. Super job, that. Yes, it is absolutely insane for Israel to be supporting the PA or in any other way going to bat for them.

    My guess is that they are only doing this as a temporary measure to maintain calm until Obama is out of there, whereupon they can defend themselves without worrying about losing their only major power ally while doing so. They have to know that if another big Intifada breaks out with Obama in office, they’ll get no U.S. support, and if anything, the U.S. will lead the charge against Israel in the UN. This is the only way I can make sense of the current behavior of Israeli leaders towards the PA, that you find so puzzling.