Anti-Semitism Still the Biggest Obstacle to Peace

Vice Presidential Biden’s trip to Israel this week made news because of a spat over Jerusalem. It started when the Jerusalem District Planning Committee authorized the construction of 1,600 housing units in a part of East Jerusalem.

The Vice President reacted harshly to the decision.

I condemn the decision by the government of Israel to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem. The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks [newly proposed indirect talks between Palestinians and Israelis], is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions that I’ve had here in Israel.

We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations and not complicate them. The announcement underscores the need to get negotiations under way that can resolve the outstanding issues of the conflict.

In a speech at Tel Aviv University, Biden declared, “The United States will keep both sides accountable for their actions.”  This is disingenuous. Would Biden have condemned the Palestinians for any anti-Semitic actions? Consider this example. On Thursday the Palestinian Authority was planning to name a public square after Dalal Mughrabi. In 1978 she led a terrorist hijacking of bus that led to the death of 37 Israelis (including 11 children) and herself. Itamar Marcus, founder and director of Palestinian Media Watch said this week, “One of the biggest problems is the incitement, and how it creates heroes and role models for kids. The naming of the square is a clear message that whoever kills most Israelis is the greatest hero.” According to media reports on Wednesday night, the event was canceled on the evening of the ceremony.

These ceremonies are a way the Palestinians promote anti-Semitism, a significant obstacle to peace. Morton Klein the longtime president of the Zionist Organization of America points out, “The record shows that within the PA [Palestinian Authority], few opportunities have been missed to glorify a terrorist, celebrate a suicide bomber, or inculcate Palestinian youth into worshipping cold-blooded murderers.” Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin adds, “The record shows that all aspects of the PA life – the schools, youth movements, sports teams, newspapers, TV, even the names of streets – are made vehicles for honoring and praising terrorism. This in turn breeds more terrorists and bloodshed.”

Furthermore, in his Jerusalem Post blog, David Harris president of the American Jewish Committee, wrote about the continuing efforts by the Palestinians and other Arab states to use propaganda to make people in the rest of the world forget that the Jews have a historic connection to the land of Israel. Harris correctly asserts, “If Palestinians could cut the link between Jews and the region, they would undermine the very legitimacy of Israel.” Marcus says, “The message must get through that without peace education there cannot be peace, and if you teach and promote hatred there cannot be peace.”

Few administrations have recognized the role of anti-Semitism in obstructing the peace process. Jennifer Rubin was partially right to express exasperation by writing, “But the [Obama Administration] thinks that the problem is apartment buildings.” I say “partially right” because Rubin like many other conservatives has overestimated the extent to which President Obama’s Middle East policy is a departure from that of his predecessors. Every American administration has called “apartment buildings” an “obstacle to peace” – although some like the administration of George W. Bush have not pressed Israel as hard on the issue of settlements as Obama has. More importantly, no administration has ever seriously pressed the Palestinians and other Arabs to abandon their hatred of Israel or Jews, or to refrain from making Israelis and Jews the targets of violence.

The consequences of diplomacy that proceeded from the assumption that the occupation and the settlements have been the main barriers to peace have been disastrous. In the 30 months following the signing of the Oslo Accords Palestinian terrorists killed more Israelis than they had in the entire preceding decade.  Over the four years of the Second Intifada, starting in the year 2000, Palestinian terror claimed more victims that it had during the entire period between 1947 and 2000. More evidence of the Arab hatred of Jews comes from the increase of anti-Semitic violence in Europe as well as the spate of terror attacks targeting Jews in such far-flung places as Argentina, Turkey, and India. In his Tel Aviv University Speech, Biden asserted, that the reason he opposed the decision to build new houses in Jerusalem was because it “undermined the trust required for negotiations”. With the persistence of Arab anti-Semitism that governs the behavior of the Palestinians, it is absurd to talk about anything that Israel does undermining the trust needed for negotiations.

When Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to acquiesce to President Obama’s call for a freeze on construction of housing for Jews in the lands that Israel captured in 1967, he explicitly excluded Jerusalem from his pledge for obvious reasons: Israelis have always regarded Jerusalem as being different from all of the other territories, and only if Israel controls the city can Jerusalem be open and free. Consider the anti-Semitism when Jordan captured the eastern segment of Jerusalem: they drove all Jews out of the neighborhoods they controlled and Jews were prevented from visiting the holiest site in Judaism, the Western Wall.

Jordanian control over part of Jerusalem lasted only 19 years, from 1948 until 1967. This was the only time in the city’s history that Jerusalem was divided. It makes no sense to insist this temporary ad hoc arrangement should determine how the city is governed for the indefinite future.

Israeli control of Jerusalem has kept the city open and universally accessible. There are ultimately only three contenders to take control of the disputed portion of the city: Israel, a future Palestinian state, or some of international authority – most likely under the United Nations.  Were part of the city placed under the Palestinians, Jerusalem would almost certainly again be re-divided. (The Palestinians fierce opposition to any new Jewish housing in eastern Jerusalem probably anticipates that re-division.) The outcome would be the same with the city placed under international rule. Can anyone realistically see the UN standing up against an Arab government in defense of Jewish rights or interests? Under Israel, however, the city has remained undivided and open to people of all religions and ethnicities. In addition to the Jewish people’s historical right to Jerusalem, Israel has earned the right to have sovereignty over the whole city.

Even those who press for Israel’s immediate and unconditional surrender of the West Bank should not be opposed to Israel’s retaining of Jerusalem. The reason always given for the need for Israel to surrender the West Bank is an alleged “demographic threat”. Namely, if Israel held on to the West Bank, it could not go on being both a democratic and a Jewish state. But Israel could keep Jerusalem and its relatively small Arab population without facing a “demographic threat.”

There has been much talk about the timing of the announcement of the approval of the construction project. Was it a deliberate attempt to insult Vice-President Biden? Prime Minister Netanyahu claimed he didn’t know. But, does anyone really believe that the decision would have been much less controversial if it had been revealed when Biden was in the U.S.? The timing of the controversy was really about whether Israel must surrender its sovereignty and become subservient to the United States. There are some, for instance, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, who argue for the U.S. to cut off all aid to Israel because it has not acceded to the American demand to totally surrender the West Bank. Although Biden said during his trip that the Israel-U.S. bond is “unbreakable”, he clearly buys into the notion that Israel is obliged to align its policy towards Arabs with that of the United States. If he does not believe this, why did he make a point of Prime Minister Netanyahu setting up mechanisms that would prevent such future surprises?

Some of those who call for pressure on Israel are some of the same people who, during the presidency of George W. Bush, argued that America was arrogant and that it tried to impose its policies on the rest of the world. So, from the warped vantage point of conventional wisdom, America dictates to the rest of the world when it sends its own troops into battle without the permission of France, but it is not illegitimately flexing its power in telling Israel where it can build houses.

In all likelihood Biden’s pronouncements will not be remembered for as long as President Obama’s infamous Cairo speech, in which he apologized for America’s treatment of Muslims, and likened the suffering of Palestinians to the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust. Biden’s words are likely to be forgotten in a matter of months or even weeks. But they still have significance. Throughout his Senate career, Biden was a solid supporter of Israel. His public chastisement is emblematic of how hostile the international climate has become against Israel.