Israel v. Palestine is not a border dispute, by David Frum

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not like Barack Obama’s big Middle East speech, and for understandable reasons.

For two years, the Palestinian Authority (PA) leadership has refused to meet with Netanyahu. Rather than seek a negotiated outcome, the Palestinian Authority has tried to mobilize outside forces against Israel: first the Obama administration back in 2009; then (when that did not work out), the United Nations.

Now the PA has made a unity deal with Hamas. The new Hamas-tainted PA is now asking the UN General Assembly to vote in September to recognize “Palestine” as an independent state. In a New York Times oped last weekend, Abbas explained that such a vote would permit an intensified Palestinian campaign of lawfare and delegitimation against Israel: “Palestine’s admission to the United Nations would pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict as a legal matter, not only a political one. It would also pave the way for us to pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations, human rights treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.”

This behaviour merits a slap-down from the United States. Instead, President Obama devoted one-fifth of his speech on Thursday to Palestinian concerns. The president even endorsed the controversial concept that a future Palestinian state be granted control over an area equivalent in size to all the West Bank and Gaza territories occupied by Israel in 1967, albeit with border rectifications.

Netanyahu understandably complains: If that’s the consequence for bad behavior, why should the Palestinian Authority ever change to good behavior?

True enough. But now listen to the tough message the speech administered to the Palestinians. It said:

1. The PA should be talking to Israel, not seeking to bypass Israel at the UN: “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.”
2. The inclusion of Hamas in the PA government is unacceptable — and the United States will not resolve this problem for the Palestinians. They must resolve it themselves in a way that reassures Israel: “In particular, the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist? And in the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”
3. Any deal with Israel must be final. No using “declaration of statehood” as a basis for further demands against Israel. The Palestinians must accede to “a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims.”
4. The future Palestinian state will be non-militarized, and Israel’s military supremacy in the region must be accepted: “Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.”
5. Finally, while the President would wish to resolve the border question in the Palestinians’ favor, the security question would be resolved in Israel’s favor: “Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met.”

The president sent no message about the utterly unacceptable Palestinian demand for a “right of return”: i.e., a right to immigrate Palestinians into Israel itself, after the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. And he has never reaffirmed his 2008 campaign commitment to an undivided Jerusalem. Too bad in both cases.

But how relevant is either issue? When Bill Clinton in 2000 pressed Yasser Arafat to sign the most generous agreement ever offered to a Palestinian leader — an agreement that included unprecedented Israeli concessions, even over Jerusalem — Arafat answered, “You are asking me to sign my death warrant.”

Again in January 2011, the Guardian newspaper and Al Jazeera published a cache of Palestinian negotiating documents that showed amazing concessions from Ehud Olmert’s Israeli government, including exactly the kind of hectare-for-hectare land swap endorsed by President Obama. Palestinian opinion condemned this deal, too, as a sell-out — and the negotiators themselves disavowed their own proposals.

So Netanyahu can calm himself. The so-called peace process remains very far away from any real-world bargaining over borders. The process continues and will continue stalled in a Palestinian fantasy land where the one and only issue is: Destroy Israel now? Or later?

©David Frum