Click to View in Browser
David Harris Oped featured in
The Times of Israel [link removed]

[link removed]

Dear John,

American Jewish Committee (AJC) CEO David Harris has coined a term
- "If Only Israel (IOI) Syndrome" - to
describe an approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, quite common
among some diplomats, academics, and journalists, that essentially
assigns all blame and responsibility to Israel. Read David's
latest piece in The Times of Israel as he confronts head-on this
skewed thinking.
[link removed]

Best wishes,
Kenneth Bandler

AJC Director of Media Relations

"If Only Israel Syndrome"
The Times of Israel

[link removed]

By David Harris

February 9, 2021

"If Only Israel (IOI) syndrome," a term I began using
several years ago, is the misguided notion, peddled in the name of
Israel's "best interests" by some in the diplomatic,
academic, and media worlds, that if only Israel did this or that,
peace with the Palestinians would be at hand.

Poor Israel. If only it had the visual acuity of these
"enlightened" souls, everything would be hunky-dory. After
all, according to them, Israel holds all the cards, yet refuses to
play them.

The thinking goes: Why can't those shortsighted Israelis figure out
what needs to be done - it's so obvious to us in Brussels,
Paris, Dublin, and Stockholm, in our ivory towers from Cambridge to
Berkeley, and as commentators on BBC and CNN - so the conflict
can at long last be brought to a screeching halt?

Thus, if only Israel stopped any settlement building. If only Israel
understood that Gaza's tunnel-diggers and rocket-builders
don't really mean it when calling for the Jewish state's
extinction. If only Israel restrained itself rather than responding to
terrorist attacks against Israeli targets.

If only Israel stopped assuming the worst about Iran, Hezbollah, and
Hamas. If only Israel went the extra mile with Palestinian Authority
President Mahmoud Abbas. If only Israel got beyond its Holocaust
trauma. If only Israel...

The point is, for the IOI crowd, it always seems to boil down to
Israel.

And the syndrome has only been strengthened by its adherents'
assessment of the current Israeli government, of course.

Many media outlets, from the Associated Press to CBS News to Der
Spiegel, branded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as
"hardline," or some variation thereof, from the get-go.
Their word choice simply reinforces the notion that the conflict is
all about alleged Israeli intransigence, while avoiding any
descriptive judgment of a seemingly unassailable Abbas, other,
perhaps, than "aging."
It's important to underscore a few basic points too often lost
in the din.

First, the current Israeli government follows on the heels of previous
governments that sought to achieve peace based on a two-state
settlement with the Palestinians - and failed. Each of those
governments went far in attempting to strike a deal, but, ultimately,
to no avail.

Prime Minister Ehud Barak, joined by President Bill Clinton, tried
mightily to reach a pathbreaking agreement with PLO Chairman Yasser
Arafat. As confirmed by Clinton in his autobiography My Life, the
answer was, in effect, a thunderous rejection, including denying any
historical Jewish connection with Jerusalem, accompanied by the
launching against Israel of a deadly wave of terror attacks, which
came to be known as the second intifada.

And, not to be forgotten, a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from
southern Lebanon also took place during the Barak era. It was met by
the entrenchment of Hezbollah, committed to Israel's destruction, in
the vacated space.

Then, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who had also earned the
media's label of "hardline," defied his own Likud
Party - indeed, he left it to create a new political bloc
- and uprooted thousands of settlers to leave Gaza entirely. It
was the first chance ever for Gaza's Arab residents to govern
themselves. Neither the occupying Egyptians or Ottoman Turks had ever
done this for Gaza.

Had Gazans seized the opportunity in a constructive manner, they might
have created unstoppable momentum for a second phase of significant
Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank. Instead, Gaza quickly turned
into a terrorist redoubt, realizing Israelis' (and Egyptians')
worst fears.

Then, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, urged on by Washington, pressed hard
for a deal with the Palestinians on the West Bank. According to the
late Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, the Israeli offer
"talked about Jerusalem and almost 100 percent of the West
Bank." Not only was it not accepted, but no counter-proposal
from the Palestinian side was ever forthcoming.

Prime Minister Netanyahu inherited a situation in which: (a) Hamas
holds the reins of power in Gaza since 2007, spends precious funds on
digging tunnels and amassing missiles to attack Israel, and teaches
children to aspire to "martyrdom"; (b) Hezbollah continues
to gain strength in Lebanon, thanks to Iranian largesse, and has an
estimated 100,000+ missiles and rockets in its arsenal, which its
leaders claim can reach any point in Israel; (c) the Palestinian
Authority has been AWOL for years from the negotiating table; and (d)
Iran continues to call for Israel's destruction, while enhancing
its own military capability, entrenching itself in Syria, and
supporting Hamas.
So, before Israel gets further lectures on what needs to be done,
perhaps we should take stock of what's transpired - and
why.

There have been several bold Israeli efforts since 2000 to create a
breakthrough - and repeated failures. And that doesn't
include Netanyahu's unprecedented ten-month settlement freeze,
at the urging of the Obama administration, and the Palestinian
Authority's refusal to seize this opportunity to break the
stalemate.

The vast majority of Israelis yearn for peace and understand the price
the country will have to pay in territory and, presumably, displaced
population. Poll after poll proves their readiness, but only if they
are assured that lasting peace, not new phases in the conflict, will
be the outcome.

Tellingly, few see that possibility on the horizon anytime soon,
though when an opportunity came from the United Arab Emirates, linked
to Israel dropping any plans for annexation in parts of the West Bank,
Israel quickly chose the UAE deal.

Israelis don't have to be pushed, prodded, nudged, cajoled, or
pressured to seek a comprehensive peace beyond the current treaties
with Egypt and Jordan, and now, notably, normalization agreements with
the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. More than any other nation, they
have lived with the absence of true, lasting peace for nearly 73
years, and know full well the physical, psychological, and economic
toll it has inflicted on the country.

Rather, they must be convinced the tangible rewards justify the risks
for a small state in a tough area. Those rewards begin with acceptance
of Israel's rightful place in the region as a Jewish-majority state
living in secure and internationally recognized borders. And that,
more than settlements, checkpoints, or any of the other items on the
IOI bill of particulars, gets to the essence of the conflict.

The 2005 Gaza disengagement, not to mention the earlier withdrawal
from the vast Sinai Peninsula, demonstrated that settlements (and
checkpoints) can be removed if needed.

But until the Palestinian side recognizes Israel's legitimacy,
and stops viewing the Jewish state as an "interloper" that
can be defeated militarily or swamped by "refugees"-
who are in most cases third- and fourth-generation descendants of the
original refugees from a war started in 1948 by the Arab world -
then whatever the IOI folks call for will be a secondary issue in the
real world.

Until this recognition is reflected in Palestinian textbooks, where
children have been taught for generations that Israelis are modern-day
"Crusaders" to be driven out, the hope for a brighter
future, alas, is dim.

Until the Palestinian Authority succeeds in building a serious and
accountable governing structure, including enhanced capacity (and
will) to combat extremism and incitement, Israel will have no choice
but to operate in the West Bank to prevent attacks against its
civilian population.

And until the forces seeking Israel's annihilation - from
Iran's current regime to Hamas to Hezbollah - can be contained,
there will be a long shadow cast over the road to peace. Some would
argue this view gives the spoilers too much power over the process.
Rather, it simply acknowledges the inescapable realities faced by
Israel, a country 1.3 percent the size of Iran, 11 percent the size of
neighboring Syria, and, in American terms, the size of New Jersey.

Israel doesn't need still more lectures on the importance of peace.
Rather, it needs genuine partners, starting in Ramallah. Without them,
peace remains elusive. With them, it becomes inevitable.

David Harris is the CEO of American Jewish Committee (AJC). Please
join 80,300 others and follow him on Twitter @DavidHarrisAJC.
[link removed]

If you haven't already done so, please also join the growing community
of more than 709,000 followers on Twitter and more than 1,841,000 fans
on Facebook to stay up-to-date on more AJC news and views.
[link removed]
[link removed]




AJC logo

[link removed]

Donate Button

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

[link removed]

AJC's mission is to enhance the well-being of the Jewish
people and Israel,
and to advance human rights and democratic values in the United
States and around the world.

© Copyright American Jewish Committee 2021

To unsubscribe or to manage your email preferences,
please click here.
[link removed]