Giuliani Realism and a Palestinian State

In his Foreign Affairs article (“Toward a Realistic Peace”), Rudy Giuliani wrote that too much emphasis has been placed on brokering negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, that the problem is not the absence of Palestinian statehood but corrupt and unaccountable governance, and that statehood must be earned through “sustained good governance, a clear commitment to fighting terrorism, and a willingness to live in peace with Israel.” 

During a Q&A session last week in Los Angeles, Giuliani was asked to expand on his thoughts about a Palestinian state.  Here is an excerpt from Giuliani’s response (the complete answer is in the video below):

I think there has been a kind of movement within our State Department that was best reflected during the Clinton Administration – but you can see a little of this in Bush I, and it is still there in Bush II -- and it is to create a Palestinian state for the purpose of creating a Palestinian state, to say that we have achieved peace.

Well, that could be extremely dangerous.  We want to create, not necessarily a Palestinian state for the purpose of creating a Palestinian state -- we want to create a state that is now particularly going to help us in the Islamic terrorist war against us, not become another breeding ground for terrorism. . . .

So if we are going to create a Palestinian state that assists us, and doesn’t become a terrorist state, here’s what they have to do: they have to first renounce terrorism. . . .  Secondly, they have to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.  If they do that, we can then begin a process of trying to create a Palestinian state.  But we shouldn’t do it until we are sure that those two things are real, and we’re not getting fooled, because we’ve gotten fooled in the past.

. . . And I say a third thing is, they have to show that they can sustain that for at least some safe period of time, that it isn’t just a statement for the purpose of lulling people into a negotiation.  Then we won’t give people false expectations of being able to achieve something.  We won’t give the Israeli people false expectations; we won’t give the Palestinian people false expectations; we won’t give the rest of the world false expectations, when the United States will get blamed for why it’s not working. 

The reason we have not been able to create a Palestinian state to date is not because of lack of trying by the United States or Israel.  It is because of the Palestinians.  Clinton got Ehud Barak to agree to every single thing -- I think unwisely, actually -- that Arafat wanted, and Arafat walked away.  The major problem of the Palestinian people is a corrupt, dishonest leadership.  Arafat was a murderer and a thief . . .

You can’t negotiate with people like that.  This isn’t a matter of being stubborn. . . . [T]here are people that are so dishonest, so dishonorable, that it is counter-productive to talk to them; it’s counter-productive to empower them.  It just delays the ability to solve a problem. It’s like trying to buy a house from somebody who doesn’t own the house.  What’s the point of doing it?  Maybe you kind of satisfy yourself and others that you are talking to somebody, but you’re never going to buy the house, because the person doesn’t own the house.  You keep offering him money for the house and he keeps agreeing, but then you don’t get the house.  It's just stupid.

When he endorsed the Road Map, Ariel Sharon recognized that peace is produced not by peace agreements, but by conditions on the ground conducive to peace:

The concept behind [the Roadmap] is that only security will lead to peace.  And in that sequence. Without the achievement of full security within the framework of which terror organizations will be dismantled it will not be possible to achieve genuine peace, a peace for generations. This is the essence of the Roadmap.

The opposite perception, according to which the very signing of a peace agreement will produce security out of thin air, has already been tried in the past and failed miserably. And such will be the fate of any other plan which promotes this concept.  These plans deceive the public and create false hope.  There will be no peace before the eradication of terror.

As it heads toward a November peace conference on final status issues, without having insisted on prior compliance with Phase I or II of its own Road Map, the Bush Administration is pushing expectations higher again, beyond what conditions on the ground will support.  It could use a dose of Giuliani realism (not to speak of Yaalon realism).

<

Photo Sharing - Video Sharing - Share Photos - Free Video Hosting

Comments

[JAF]

Rudy understands the Middle East better than any other candidated.

And he is absolutely correct in standing by Israel and against the formation of a terrorist Palestinian state.

Go Rudy!

[Marianne]

We, Jews and Christians, Americans and Europeans want Rudy to be the next President of the US. He is the only candidate who understands that you can't reason with the so called Palestinians. They never had a country and are liars. Rudy is not afraid to speak the truth. Western culture is at risk. Hear our message supporting Rudy at www.deprogramprogram.com

[Richard]

It's not so simple, Rudy. I agree about the violence but it should be renounced on BOTH sides. The Palestinians should be offered a viable portion of the land that is now called 'Israel' (you know, land with perhaps some water resources - not just the worst land). Ethnocentric declarations that "they never had a country" simply aren't true. Read some history, please. Both sides coexisted for centuries in what is now Israel. I certainly understand BOTH sides of the problem and that is violence on BOTH sides has created antagonism that has damaged any trust on either side of this mess. Vilification of a whole society won't ever solve the problem. What is important is to build good will. Doesn't Christianity say to 'turn the other cheek'? Perhaps that's why the Jews have rejected Christianity.

[Joseph]

A brief history:

After WWI, the Palestinian Mandate held by the Brittish stretched from the Mediterranean to present day Iraq. Before WWI, this area was a colony of the Ottoman Empire. The Brittish partitioned most to the Palestinian Mandate to creat Transjordan, which later became the country of Jordan. When Israel declared independence, Jordan attacked and took the West Bank, while Egypt attacked and took Gaza.

Current affairs:

Egypt doesn't want Gaza back, and Jordan doesn't want the West Bank back. Creating an independent Palestinian state from Gaza and the West Bank can work if the leaders are willing to coexist. Fatah's government looks promising. Fatah officers recently stopped a mob from killing an Israeli who accidentally wandered into a West Bank city. They've reigned in West Bank militants and cut funding to Hamas to stop wanton violence. In Gaza, Fatah supporters are holding rallies on Fridays to protest Hamas. Hamas responded by attacking the protestors and harassing journalists who tried to report the assaults. There are Palestinians who can be partners in peace. Arafat and Hamas have not been among them. Negotiating with Hamas instead of Fatah undermines the efforts of Palestinians who want peace.

[Richard]

Of course, there are Palestinians who want peace. This is a very important point the last writer made. And these are the people to deal with, not Hamas. History has proven that violence has never solved the problem. What good came out of the 2006 Lebanon War last year? We must resist the temptation to pursue violent solutions and continue to try to build trust as difficult as this may seem. The Palestinians would do well to follow the example of Mahatma Gandhi to achieve their goals.

[The New Centrist]

"We must resist the temptation to pursue violent solutions and continue to try to build trust as difficult as this may seem. The Palestinians would do well to follow the example of Mahatma Gandhi to achieve their goals."

The Palestinian national movement, to say nothing of the Islamist extremists, is based on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. To expect these political forces to willingly adopt non-violence is misguided at best. They must be forced to do so as happened with Fatah (who only just renounced "armed struggle" this year).

Anti-Zionism is *the* motivating ideology of all these groups. If you miss this aspect of the enemy's ideology--and I do consider those who want to kill my people an enemy--you will never be able to attain peace.

[Richard]

And so do those who you vilify consider you and your people to be the "enemy." And therein lies the problem. When will it stop? This is a vicious circle from which a positive resolution is unlikely to result - that is unless something different happens. Violence hasn't cured the problem. Isn't this clear yet? Why not try something different - like the non-violence that leads to peace? You didn't bother to answer my question: "What good came out of the 2006 Lebanon War last year?"

[Richard]

I read your web URL and agree that the mainstream of Israeli society are peaceful. Why the majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas is beyond my comprehension. Yet, I believe that violent solutions have only fueled the fires of future violence. Therefore, it seems clear that this is not the answer. Honest people disagree about the means to achieve a peaceful end. Clearly, I do agree that the terrorism inherent perpetrated by groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., must be renounced. The question is how to meet this goal and will violence achieve this. Call me naive, if you will, but perhaps kindness will awaken the majority of Palestinians to renounce violence.