And in the Middle East, conventional wisdom – on both sides of the conflict – is tripping over itself with glee at the speech that Colin made. The Israelis think the speech was great because Powell demanded an end to the violence before negotiations could begin. The Arabs think it was a great speech because Powell called for an immediate freeze in Israeli settlement activity. The Israelis think it was great of Powell not to refer to the Arab demand for a Right of Return, and the Arabs think it was great that Powell called for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands.
Well, I am always in support of giving conventional wisdom credit when credit is due – which is rarely ever. The chief, number one, top of the heap problem facing the world today is that it is run by conventional wisdom. In general, I have found that conventional wisdom has its place in the world. It is very useful for showing what policies should not be followed. It is also a great indicator of a rudderless ship of state – kind of like the one whose navigator is named Colin.
Because conventional wisdom seems to be getting in the way quite a bit of late, I think the time has come to set the record straight. There was almost nothing good about Powell’s speech yesterday, despite what every Israeli talking head – or politician – has been saying today. Giving credit where it is due, I should point out that Powell did recognize there actually is violence caused by the Palestinians, and he did not actually demand that Israeli ignore it. But that’s where his credit ends.
To begin with, the Israelis are not occupying anyone’s land but their own. Even should one assume that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to territory in Israel, an assumption to which I most certainly do not subscribe, 98% of Palestinians living in these areas do not live under Israeli control of any kind. In many cases, they are prevented from leaving PA occupied territories, but hey, they are Israel’s enemies – even they say so. Syrians are not allowed into Israeli territory, nor are Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis, Afghans, or any other enemy of Israel. Why should Israeli forces allow Palestinians out of their own territory into Israel?
Then there is the Right of Return. In no place on Earth do citizens of one country have the automatic right to settle in the territory of another. But that is what Arafat is demanding of Israel. He wants millions of Palestinian expatriates to be allowed to settle in Israel, upsetting the demographic balance of the country and totally obliterating any national identity of Israel as a Jewish State – its stated identity in both UN resolutions and its own Declaration of Independence.
It was this issue alone that torpedoed the Camp David talks in the summer of 2000 and led directly to the current violence. Not settlements, not “occupation”, not anything else. Then-prime minister Ehud Barak was prepared to pull Israeli presence, including settlements, out of 97% of Judea and Samaria and all of the Gaza Strip. He was prepared to turn over the eastern half of Israel’s capital to enemy hands. He paid for his recklessness with his political life.
But while Israel offered to meet all the demands set out in Powell’s speech 16 months before that speech was made, Arafat was not prepared to accept it. It seems that under no circumstances will Arafat be prepared to end the violence – short of Israel’s total destruction as represented by the Right of Return.
Powell knows that the Right of Return is a non-starter. He knows that no such thing exists anywhere in the world, and he knows that it is the single issue that will destroy any future talks. He was intelligent enough not to mention it in his speech.
But judging by what he did say in his speech, it seems that Kentucky is still best known for chickens. Powell still doesn’t get the truth. The violence will not end, because Arafat doesn’t want it to. Arafat had as much offered to him as he could ever dream of getting. He chose violence instead. The Bush Administration has spent its first 10 months in office watching, looking, examining, and considering the issues. Last night’s speech was a foreign policy disaster simply in that after so long an opportunity to develop a real, imaginative, innovative Middle East policy, the only thing Powell could do was trot out the same unworkable formulas and tired cliches.
So I am left with the following dilemma. Was Powell’s speech more indicative of an ostrich sticking its head in the Middle Eastern sand, or of a chicken running around without its head? Given that Powell is the top foreign policy official in the US, and that the speech was made in Kentucky, the answer should be obvious.
Copyright 2001. Yehuda Poch is a writer living in Israel. Reproduction in electronic or print format by permission only.
