On 25 May, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a speech to an audience of business leaders at London’s Royal Institution, stating that US President Barack Obama is “frankly worried about the position that Israel is in.” Of course, Blair currently serves as the Quartet’s (the U.S., the EU, the United Nations and Russia) senior mediator. His American counterpart, George Mitchell, resigned last month. Blair described Obama’s initiative as “an attempt to fill a vacuum which he sees as dangerous, particularly dangerous for Israel in the run-up to September,” when the UN is expected to take up the issue of Palestinian statehood. 
Later that same day Blair gave an interview to Britain’s Channel 4 News, saying that it was too early to tell how the recent Fatah / Hamas reconciliation would affect the peace process, but that “it could be positive if there is a genuine reconciliation around principles that promote peace”. Really? Unless Hamas gives up all of its core principles such as the establishment of an Islamic state and the destruction of Israel, the reconciliation is unlikely to resemble even vaguely that looks like a commitment to peace.
Obviously, this is Blair’s attempt to shore-up the American administration shoddy performance during the last two weeks of May. In the short span of two weeks, Obama once again failed to impress the Arab world, alienated American voters who support Israel’s positions 2:1, and Netanyahu himself delivered a backhand comeuppance in front of an exuberant US Congress. Blair’s insistence on Obama’s already rejected plan was a great example of keeping on the same page with the US, but hardly anything more.
The Quartet would like Israelis (not necessarily including Netanyahu) to believe that a “diplomatic tsunami” will hit Israel in September. Netanyahu has dutifully flown from one European capital after another expressing his dismay that such a resolution would even be brought to the floor of the UN General Assembly (UNGA). Yet, the Israeli Prime Minister knows that this is already a fait accompli. The Palestinian Authority has committed itself to this; they have the backing of the 22-member Arab League and the backing of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Congress (OIC).
However, we are forced to ask a simple question: hasn’t Israel already been hit with dozens of UN tsunamis? Since 1947, the UN has passed over 200 different resolutions regarding Israel or regarding Israel and its neighbors. The vast majority of these have been against Israel, including such memorable UN classics as:
- UNGA 138 condemning Israel for bringing Nazi mass-murdered Adolf Eichmann to trial (after all, he only killed Jews)
- UNGA 3379 equating Zionism with racism
- UNGA 38/9 condemning Israel for bombing Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak
- UNGA 38/85 condemning Israel’s consideration of building a canal linking the Mediterranean Sea and Dead Sea (obviously, Zionists are not even allowed to consider matters, let alone act on them)
A diplomatic tsunami? Really? The truth of the matter is that one day after any UNGA resolution recognizing the Palestinians’ right to an independent state nothing will really change, except for the worse. Any UNGA resolution is likely to trigger a series of political, economic and security sanctions – by Israel against the PA. It is also likely to trigger a third Intifada – rebellion by the Palestinians. This would most likely bring about a total collapse of the entire Palestinian enterprise.
As Yediot Ahronot (Israel’s largest daily paper) columnist, Sever Plocker has pointed out, “The second Intifada contradicted and disproved two basic assumptions, axioms almost, which were commonly accepted at its outset and end. The first one: Economic prosperity brings peace. The second one: Terrorism cannot be defeated by force.” Indeed, there was an economic expansion was underway prior to the second Intifada; it did not lead to a clamoring for peace. Militarily, the PLO was defeated, broken.
While the Palestinian economy in Judea and Samaria has prospered under the tutelage of Salam Fayyad, it has not resulted a clamoring for peace from the Palestinian middle-class. Despite America and Jordan training PA forces, five battalions will offer a few days of resistance and then be slaughtered by a vengeful IDF. Israel has grown adept at fighting irregular forces in both the small villages and urban landscapes that predominate in Judea & Samaria.
Mr. Blair and Mr. Obama can make all the speeches they want. They can wring their hands in mock concern all they want. However, we need to put things in perspective. The PA is based in the city of Ramallah, in the West Bank. It has been there since 1993. From 1982 until 1993, it called itself the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and was based in Tunis, Tunisia. Did some deus ex machina transfer it to Ramallah? No, it was created by the 1993 Oslo peace accords between Israel and the PLO. In other words, the Palestinians’ greatest diplomatic achievement was obtained by negotiating with the Israelis.
Since then, there have been a dozen minor agreements. There has also been one Intifada in which the PLO tried to gain by force when Israel rejected its sham diplomacy. This September, the PLO will again attempt to gain through maneuver that for which it refuses to negotiate. Of course, it would be unfair to blame Mr. Blair for the Palestinians’ obstruction and duplicity. As the Quartet’s ambassador, he does not formulate policy. He does not control a vast aid budget, nor can he levy sanctions. He cannot bestow the prestige of attendance at a Royal wedding.
However, he does have an obligation – a moral obligation – to speak the truth. The situation will only change when the Quartet develops the intestinal fortitude and political will to confront the truth: the Palestinians refuse to negotiate with Israel because they do not want peace with the Jewish state. If Mr. Blair were to speak this truth, instead of acting as Mr. Obama’s faithful interpreter, he might well lose his job. Then again, if he were to speak this truth, he will likely save thousands of lives.
BigMo is not a journalist, lawyer, politician or mutli-level marketeer. That’s at least four good reasons you should read this blog and share it with friends. Apoligies to all my legal-eagle & politician friends, LOL! He is a bit of a grouch, especially when he’s trying to quit smoking. His bark is worse than his bite, but his bite is not unsubstantial in and of itself. (Shout-out to G. for clarifying that “unsubstantial” is a word!) He is an unrepentant J-walker and addicted to caffeine (one of the four basic food groups).
Site infoBigMo’s Blog
Blog at WordPress.com.