Speaking at the U.N. in September, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid accepted the idea of a “Palestinian state” and made clear he was ready to negotiate with the Palestinians over the territory to be included in, and the conditions that would be imposed on, such a state. The Americans, and many others, were full of praise for Lapid. But the Palestinians did not respond as he had hoped. They are not ready to negotiate. And instead of talk of peace, they let loose with a continuous series of terror attacks that have not stopped. A report on their murderous behavior can be found here: “This Is What You Get When You Offer the Palestinians a State,” by Stephen M. Flatow, JNS.org, October 16, 2022:
…At the United Nations on Sept. 22, Prime Minister Yair Lapid announced his willingness to create a non-terrorist Palestinian state. Did the Palestinian Arab leadership respond by announcing an immediate return to the negotiating table to work out the details of the new state?
Hardly. The Palestinians responded with murderous violence. Within 24 hours of Lapid’s declaration, there was a car-ramming attack against Israelis near Havat Gilad that was publicly cheered by the Fatah movement, which is headed by Palestinian Authority chief Mahmoud Abbas. Another terrorist was caught trying to smuggle several dozen handguns into Israel via the Jordan Valley. Handguns for peace?
“The next day, Sept. 25, a Palestinian Arab mob assaulted Israelis on the Temple Mount. On Sept. 27, Palestinian Arabs threw rocks and bombs at Israeli soldiers north of Shechem and carried out a drive-by shooting as well. On Sept. 28, they fired shots at an Israeli motorist south of Hebron and carried out multiple shooting and bombing attacks on Israeli soldiers in Jenin.
“In the days to follow, the Palestinian Arabs continued to respond to Lapid’s statehood offer with bombs, bullets and bloodshed. On Sept. 29, they fired shots at an Israeli tour group near Kiryat Arba, stoned Israeli soldiers in Jilazoun and tried to run them over and tried to stone Israeli motorists to death near Bethlehem. When an Arab child died in unrelated circumstances nearby, the peace-loving P.A. Foreign Ministry immediately blamed Israel for his death.
On Oct. 1, Palestinian Arabs threw rocks, firebombs and explosive devices at Israelis in al-Azariya. On Oct. 2, they fired shots at Israelis near Itamar (one was wounded), shot at an Israeli bus and Israeli taxis on the road to Alon Shvut (one driver was wounded), stabbed and wounded an Israeli guard outside the Rimon prison and tried to ram an Israeli with a car in Jilazoun.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I note that on Oct. 6, Palestinian Arabs near Qalqilya threw firebombs at Israelis, and dozens of others near Ramallah threw rocks, hitting one Israeli in the head. On Oct. 8, Palestinian Arabs shot and killed an 18-year-old female Israeli soldier near Shuafat. Dozens of Palestinian Arabs threw firebombs and explosive devices at Israelis in Jenin and fired shots at them.
As I write this, there has been no let-up. On Oct. 11, Palestinian Arab terrorists murdered an Israeli near Shavei Shomron. On Oct. 14, they opened fire on Israelis in Jenin. Who knows what tomorrow will bring?
All of this leads to two obvious questions: Why have the Arabs responded to Lapid’s statehood offer in this way? And why is it that advocates of Palestinian statehood are always mistaken in their predictions about peace?…
For Muslims, a permanent compromise with Infidels is not possible, even if at times they pretend to believe in it. It is always viewed as a temporary measure, to be observed until the Muslim side has become powerful enough to breach the agreement, and can then attack. The model for Muslims of the breaching of agreements made with Infidels is the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. It was to have lasted for 10 years, but after 18 months, sensing that his forces had grown sufficiently strong, Muhammad broke the treaty and attacked the Meccans. For Muslims, conflicts must end not in compromise but with the Victor and the Vanquished. The Palestinians intend to be the Victor.
Thus, supporters of the Palestinian Arab cause can operate only according to theories, never according to actual experience or facts. They have to pretend that their proposal has never been tried before, in order to create the false hope that it can work. But it has been tried before. Over and over. It never works, as Lapid has belatedly discovered.
The merging of Hamas with Fatah, that took place in early October, now commits Fatah, and thus the Palestinian Authority, to the Hamas Charter, that calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. It’s good to have that clarified. Let’s hope that puts paid to all that wishful thinking about a “two-state solution.” All of the Palestinians, including the supposed “moderates” of the Palestinian Authority, have signed on to the same maximalist position of a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea.”
And Israel? Oh, for the Palestinians there is just no room for Israel, however reduced in size, in that future Middle East. After the Palestinian terror campaign that went into high gear after Yair Lapid’s offer at the U.N., Lapid must have been rudely awakened from his deep dream of peace. If there is to be peace, it will not come through negotiations and a treaty that the Palestinians will violate whenever they feel strong enough, with other Arabs, to take on the Jewish state yet again.
Instead, peace will come through deterrence, just as deterrence kept the peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Deterrence can keep the peace indefinitely between Israel and the Palestinians, as long as Israel remains overwhelmingly, and obviously, stronger. That requires that the Jewish state not give up territory, but holds onto every bit of what it now possesses, in order to retain some strategic depth in the West Bank and, by holding onto the Golan Heights, remains able to defend against potential invaders from the north. That’s the surest peace that Israel can hope for. Not a bad outcome, after all.
