IN SEARCH OF PEACE PART 2
THE CASE FOR ISRAEL
Alan Dershowitz (John Wiley & Sons:2003) p104-105, p108-112, p115-119
Reprinted with Permission
The following is an edited version of the complete text.
HAS ISRAEL MADE SERIOUS EFFORTS AT PEACE?
THE ACCUSATION
In recent years, Israel has made no serious efforts at peace with the Palestinians
THE ACCUSERS
“By now it has become clear that, because Western audiences are so poorly informed,
Israeli public officials can say anything, including out-and-out lies. Last week a major television
debate in the US between PA Minister Nabil Shaath and Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg
confirmed this sad fact. … Burg sat there and brazenly manufactured one falsehood after another
– that as a democrat and a peace lover he was concerned there was no real Palestinian peace
camp; that Israel is trying ever so hard to remain calm while Palestinian terrorists (encouraged by
the Authority) threatened his daughter, no less, with brutal killing; that Israel has always wanted
peace; … and on and on. All of it making the point, in the style of classical propaganda (to repeat
a lie often enough is to believe it), that Israel is victimized by Palestinians, that it wants peace, and
that it is waiting for Palestinians to catch up with its magnanimity and restraint.” (Edward Said)
“The longer the U.S. and Israel reject a political settlement, the worse it’s going to be.”
(Noam Chomsky)
THE REALITY
Israel has offered the Palestinians every reasonable opportunity to make peace, but the
Palestinians have rejected every such offer, most recently at Camp David and Taba in
2000-2001.
THE PROOF
Israel did manage to make some halting progress in peace talks with the Palestinians starting in
the early 1990s. Even before that time, a number of senior Fatah figures had been preaching a
“two-state” solution, but these individuals had experience assassination – what George Bernard
Shaw had once characterized as “the ultimate form of censorship” – at the hands of other
Palestinians. From its founding in 1964 (and even before), the PLO (and its predecessors) had
rejected the two-state solution in favor of terrorism, the destruction of Israel, and the transfer
out of the Jewish population.
1
IN SEARCH OF PEACE PART 2
Palestinian terrorism had, however, been quite successful in bringing the grievances of the
Palestinians to the attention of the world. Although the Palestinian demand for the destruction of
Israel and the transfer of its Jewish population – as articulated in its covenant – is far less
compelling from a moral perspective than the complaints of other stateless and occupied people,
such as the Tibetans, the Kurds, and the Basques, the PLO’s resort to global terrorism has
leapfrogged Palestinian claims over the more compelling claims of others. […]
When the Oslo peace process began in the early 1990s, Israel was willing to accept the
Palestinian Authority as an equal negotiating partner so long as the Palestinian Authority was
willing to accept Israel’s right to exist. Never before in history had the winning side of defensive
wars been willing to negotiate with the losing side that had started the wars being treated as
equals. To regard those who have initiated aggressive wars and lost as equal bargaining partners is
to encourage the waging of war as an adjunct to negotiation. There must be a price paid for
starting and losing wars. That price includes a diminished status in the postwar peace
negotiations. […]
The end result of these negotiations has been an ongoing start-and-stop and restart-andrestop process that has held much promise followed by much disappointment for a resolution of
the Palestinian-Israel, and perhaps even the Arab-Israel, conflict. The Oslo peace process
ultimately led to an end of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian cities, towns, and villages (with a
few exceptions). On September 25, 1994, Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed an
agreement under which Israeli troops were to withdraw from most of the populated areas of the
West Bank and Gaza. Palestinian Authority police, numbering 30,000, assumed control over these
Palestinian population centers. Although Israel still maintained control over substantial areas of
the West Bank with few or no Palestinian residents, the occupation of Palestinian population
centers was substantially ended in 1995. It had lasted twenty-eight years. Israel did not reoccupy
any of these population centers until 2001, approximately a year after an epidemic of Palestinian
suicide bombings began, and even then it only reoccupied on a temporary basis those places that
were being used as launching pads for terrorist attacks. Jericho, for example, has not been
reoccupied, since it has not served as a base for terrorism.
During the nearly six years of Palestinian control over its population centers, some
progress was made toward resolving outstanding issues. The PLO, although not Hamas and the
other radical Islamic groups, appeared to be moving toward accepting a two-state solution to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
By the early summer of 2000, it looked as if peace might actually be at hand. Terrorism
had abated somewhat over the previous several years, and now a dovish Israeli government
headed by Ehud Barak was actively seeking peace. Bill Clinton, serving his last year as president,
was determined to leave a legacy of peace in the Middle East. […] In the course of these
meetings, which lasted until January 2001, Barak startled the world by offering the Palestinians
nearly all the territory they were seeking. By the time negotiations ended, Barak had accepted
Clinton’s even more generous proposal and was offering the Palestinians “between 94 and 96
percent of the West Bank” and all of the Gaza Strip. In exchange for the 4 to 6 percent that
Israel would retain for security purpose, it would cede 1 to 3 percent of its land to the
Palestinians. This would plainly have satisfied Security Council Resolution 242, which mandated
2
IN SEARCH OF PEACE PART 2
return of “territories,” not all territories, captured in Israel’s defensive war with Jordan. Few, if
any, Palestinian people would remain under Israeli occupation.
In addition, Barak offered the Palestinian a state with Arab Jerusalem as its capital and
complete control over East Jerusalem and the Arab Quarter of the Old City, as well as the entire
Temple Mount, despite its historic and religious significance to Jews. Israel would retain control
over the Western Wall, which has no significance for Muslims.
On the refugee issue, Israel would “acknowledge the moral and material suffering caused
to the Palestinian people as a result of the 1948 war and the need to assist the international
community in addressing the problem.” Israel would accept some of the refugees on humanitarian
and family unification grounds, but most would live in the Palestinian state; $30 billion in
compensation would be agreed to for those who did not move to Israel. No compensation was
offered for the Jewish refugees from Arab states following the 1948 and 1967 wars. As far as the
Jewish settlements were concerned, Barak agreed to the “dismantling of most of the settlements
and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside” the small percentage of the West Bank
to be annexed by Israel.
Yasser Arafat rejected the Barak proposal, making it clear that he would never surrender
the right of more than 4 million Palestinians to return to Israel rather than live in the Palestinian
state with compensation. This would, of course, quickly turn Israel into yet another Palestinian
state, in addition to Jordan and the new West Bank-Gaza Strip state. The Palestinian refugee issue
has always been a ploy designed to turn Israel into a Palestinian state, and Arafat’s rejection of the
generous Barak offer demonstrated this with little ambiguity. […]
A real peace in the Middle East must be able to endure the kind of symbolic verbal
provocation represented by Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount. Any enduring peace should
expect these kinds of provocations on both sides. What cannot be tolerated are violent
responses to these provocations, especially if the violence is orchestrated or even accepted at
the top levels. This is a major lesson that was misunderstood during the bloody days following
Sharon’s visit.
The Israelis are provoked daily by similar verbal and symbolic actions, ranging from the
teaching of Holocaust denial and anti-Judaism in state-run Palestinian schools to a provocative
visit to the Western Wall by Arab legislators. The appropriate response to verbal and symbolic
provocation is political protest, including demonstrations and perhaps even work stoppages. But
throwing rocks and bombs and shooting guns is utterly unacceptable and should not be
encouraged by the international community. […]
It may seem ironic that so soon after Israel offered the Palestinians nearly everything they
and the international community wanted – a Palestinian state with Arab Jerusalem as its capital,
return of the entire Gaza Strip and almost the entire West Bank, a fair and practical resolution of
the refugee issue, and an end to Jewish settlements – it is now a pariah of the international
community, European public opinion, and large segments of the American academic and religious
left. Israel has become the object of divestiture and boycott campaigns and other efforts at
demonization, while the Palestinians – who rejected the peace offer and responded with the
systematic and deliberate murder of Israeli civilians – have become the darlings of the same
group. […]
WAS ARAFAT RIGHT IN TURNING DOWN THE BARAK-CLINTON PEACE PROPOSAL?
3
IN SEARCH OF PEACE PART 2
THE ACCUSATION
Arafat was right in turning down the Barak-Clinton peace proposals of 2000-2001, and the
fault for the breakdown of the peace talks is either all on the Israeli side or shared by Barak and
Arafat.
THE ACCUSERS
“In the wake of the collapse of the Camp David Summit in July 2000, the finger of blame
was instantly pointed at the Palestinian President, charging him with willful sabotage of the peace
process by repudiating Ehud Barak’s ‘generous offer,’ by indirectly espousing the liquidation of the
Jewish state and then by launching a violent uprising to this end. He has been reviled as an
unrepentant terrorist and an inveterate liar, who could no longer suppress his true aims. Even US
President Clinton and many self-proclaimed supporters of the Israeli peace camp – nursing a deep
sense of trust betrayed – joined the orgy of defamation.” (Tony Klug, former head of
international development at Amnesty International)
“The Israeli Government called off the Taba negotiations.” (Noam Chomsky)
THE REALITY
Not only have Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush placed all of the blame on Arafat
but so have many of Arafat’s closest advisers. And now even Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, who
played a central beyond-the-scenes role in the peace negotiations, has called Arafat’s rejection of
the Barak offer “a crime against the Palestinians – in fact against the entire region.” Prince
Bandar’s assessment of Arafat’s rejection of the peace proposal and of the resulting widespread
support for the Palestinians provides a case study of how Arafat’s use of terrorism is encouraged
by the double standard under which Israel is blamed for offering peace and the Palestinians are
rewarded for rejecting peace.
THE PROOF
Virtually everyone who played any role in the Camp David-Taba peace process now
places the entire blame for its failure on Arafat’s decision to turn down Barak’s offer. President
Clinton, who was furious at Arafat and has called him a liar, has blamed the failure completely on
Arafat. Dennis Ross, who was the chief U.S. negotiator, has said that Arafat was unwilling to
accept any peace proposal, because for Arafat “to end the conflict is to end himself.” The best
proof of Ross’s point is that Arafat did not even offer a counterproposal to Israel’s offer. He
simply rejected it and ordered preparation for renewed terrorism. President Bush, according to
The New Yorker, also “places all the blame for the increase in violence on Arafat.”
Even some of Arafat’s most trusted advisers and senior associates are now regretting the
decision, and Arafat himself has let it be known that if the same offer would now be made, he
might accept it – after approximately 3,000 entirely avoidable deaths. Of course, no one in
4
IN SEARCH OF PEACE PART 2
Washington or in Israel takes Arafat’s promises seriously after he lied both to President Clinton
at Camp David and to President George Bush when he denied knowledge of the boatload of
Iranian arms destined for use by Palestinian terrorists, despite an admission by the ship’s captain
that his orders came directly from Arafat. Nor is Arafat trusted by the most dovish members of
the Israeli peace camp, many of whom feel absolutely betrayed by his rejection of an offer that
they pressed Barak to make and that they assured Barak that Arafat would accept. They blame
Arafat for Barak’s electoral loss to Sharon following the rejection of what many Israelis now
regard as a naïve and overgenerous offer. If Arafat was unwilling to accept that offer, they believe
he will be unwilling to accept any peace offer that leaves Israel in existence.
In a remarkable series of interviews conducted by Elsa Walsh for The New Yorker, Prince
Bandar of Saudi Arabia has publicly disclosed his behind-the-scenes role in the peace process and
what he told Arafat. Bandar’s disclosures go well beyond anything previously revealed by an
inside source to the negotiations and provide the best available evidence of how Arafat plays the
terrorism card to shift public opinion not only in the Arab and Muslim worlds but in the world at
large.
Bandar, who has been a Saudi diplomat in Washington for twenty years and is a highranking member of the royal family, served as a crucial intermediary between Arafat and the
Clinton administration. He, like nearly everyone else, was surprised at Barak’s “remarkable” offer
that gave the Palestinian state “about 97% of the occupied territories,” the Old City of Jerusalem
other than the Jewish and Armenian Quarters, and $30 billion in compensation for the refugees.
Arafat asked Crown Prince Abdullah, the acting monarch of Saudi Arabia, for Bandar’s help with
the negotiations. Bandar agreed but told Abdullah that “there’s not much I can do unless Arafat is
willing to understand that this is it.” No better offer from Israel was possible.
On January 2,
2001 – just weeks before the end of Clinton’s term – Bandar picked Arafat up at Andrews Air
Force Base, went over the Barak proposal, and asked Arafat whether he could ever get “a better
deal.” He also pointedly asked him whether he preferred to deal with Sharon rather than Barak.
Arafat agreed, since “Barak’s negotiators are doves.” Bandar then reviewed the history of missed
opportunities with Arafat: “Since 1948, every time we’ve had something on the table we say no.
Then we say yes. When we say yes, it’s not on the table any more. Then we have to deal with
something less. Isn’t it about time we say yes?” Bandar emphasized that the Arabs had always told
the Americans that if “[y]ou get us a deal that’s O.K. on Jerusalem and we’re going, too.” Bandar
laid out the options to Arafat: “Either you take this deal or we go to war. If you take this deal, we
will all throw our weight behind you. If you don’t take this deal, do you think anybody will go to
war for you?”
Shortly thereafter, Bandar sternly warned Arafat: “I hope you remember, sir, what I told
you. If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy, it is going to be a crime.” Despite
Arafat’s promises that he would take the deal if Saudi Arabia and Egypt gave him cover, and
despite Egyptian and Saudi assurances and Bandar’s threats, Arafat rejected the deal and flew
home without offering any counterproposals or amendments. As the negotiations faltered, Arafat
ordered his terrorist leaders to ratchet up the violence. He had a plan for how to turn a public
relations disaster and a crime against the Palestinian people into a public relations bonanza. It was
a tried-and-true plan; it worked even more effectively this time than it had in the past. […]
5
IN SEARCH OF PEACE PART 2
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION OF AUTHORS
Bard, Mitchell G.
Mitchell Bard is the Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise
(AICE) and a foreign policy analyst who lectures frequently on U.S.-Middle East policy. Dr. Bard is
also the director of the Jewish Virtual Library, the world’s most comprehensive online
encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture.
For three years he was the editor of the Near East Report, the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee's (AIPAC) weekly newsletter on U.S. Middle East policy. Prior to working at AIPAC,
Dr. Bard served as a senior analyst in the polling division of the 1988 Bush campaign.
Dr. Bard has appeared on local and national television and radio outlets. His work has been
published in academic journals, magazines and major newspapers. He is the author/editor of 18
books. Dr. Bard is also the author/editor of six studies published by AICE.
Bard holds a Ph.D. in political science from UCLA and a master’s degree in public policy from
Berkeley. He received his B.A. in economics from the University of California at Santa
Barbara.For further information: www.mitchellbard.com.
Dershowitz, Alan
Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is a Brooklyn native who has been called the “most distinguished
defenders of individual rights,” “the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,” “the top lawyer of
last resort,” “America’s most public Jewish defender” and “Israel’s single most visible defender –
6
IN SEARCH OF PEACE PART 2
the Jewish state’s lead attorney in the court of public opinion.” He is the Felix Frankfurter
Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale
Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David
Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg.
He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals such as The New York
Times Magazine, The Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Nation,
Commentary, Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal, and more than 300
of his articles have appeared in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers. Professor Dershowitz
is the author of 27 fiction and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience. His most recent
titles include Rights From Wrong, The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace, Blasphemy: How the
Religious Right is Hijacking the Declaration of Independence and Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both
Ways, Finding Jefferson – A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and The First Amendment In An Age of
Terrorism. For further information: www.alandershowitz.com.
7