And the volcanic lava flow that erupted in response to Pres. Obama’s outrageous assertion that Israel does not have the right to permanently annex the Palestinian land that it has illegally occupied since seizing it in the 1967 Six-Day War, continues, via the Wall Street Journal (emphasis is mine):

Mr. Obama got some applause Sunday by calling for a “non-militarized” Palestinian state. But how does that square with his comment, presumably applicable to a future Palestine, that “every state has a right to self-defense”? Mr. Obama was also cheered for his references to Israel as a “Jewish state.” But why then obfuscate on the question of Palestinian refugees, whose political purpose over 63 years has been to destroy Israel as a Jewish state?And then there was that line that “we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.” Applause! But can Mr. Obama offer a single example of having done that as president, except perhaps at the level of a State Department press release?

What, then, would a pro-Israel president do? He would tell Palestinians that there is no right of return. He would make the reform of the Arab mindset toward Israel the centerpiece of his peace efforts. He would outline hard and specific consequences should Hamas join the government.

Such a vision could lay the groundwork for peace. What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets one.

Wow. What a steaming hunk of junk. Let me count some of the ways, with reference to those lines I have bolded.

• The WSJ objects to the concept of a future Palestinian state having the same right to self-defense that every and any other sovereign state has. But this is only a problem if Israel plans to aggressively invade a future Palestinian state, thus forcing such a state to defend itself. Is the WSJ suggesting that this is what Israel will do, or should do?
• The WSJ says that a pro-Israel president would take the same hard line toward Palestinian aspirations that every president since 1948 has taken. And this would “lay the groundwork for peace” — how? Has that approach led to peace in the past 60 years?
• I am truly fascinated by the WSJ‘s belief that the “Arab mindset toward Israel” can be “reformed” by telling Palestinians “there is no right of return” and ordering them to choose the leaders that Israel wants them to choose. How do they envision this outcome unfolding? Palestinians are going to meekly accept and agree to Israel’s demands because Israel is the boss and that is just fine? Why would they do that? Would Israel do that, in reverse?

Here is another point of view, from Maen Rashid Areikat, who “is the Palestine Liberation Organization ambassador and chief representative to the United States.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accepted House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. The speaker says his invitation is a chance to promote freedom, security and peace in the Middle East.

We Palestinians cannot agree more, for it is Israel’s denial of our freedom that prevents us from exercising our right to live in peace and security with our neighbors.

But, unfortunately, Palestinian freedom is not likely to be on the Israeli leader’s mind when he addresses Congress. Instead, he will probably avoid dealing with the core issues of Palestinian statehood on the 1967 borders and the end of the Israeli military occupation.

He is far more likely to defend illegal settlements now being built on Palestinian lands in defiance of the U.S. and the international community. An articulate speaker, the prime minister may well distract his listeners by talking about threats — imaginary and real — that Israel is facing. He may well insist that the significant changes sweeping the Middle East are not related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and, therefore, do not warrant a push to end the conflict.

In addition, he will most likely use the recent Palestinian reconciliation agreement as a pretext for his refusal to engage with the Palestinians. Netanyahu’s speech is sure to be aimed at influencing U.S. domestic politics — not making peace with the Palestinians.
[…]
But the U.S. has principles that must be protected and preserved. These principles of justice, liberty and freedom, the foundation the United States was built on, must be Congress’s guiding light in helping President Barack Obama and his administration bring peace, stability and security for all people in the region.

Congress has a moral responsibility to defend oppressed peoples in a collective, not selective, manner. The Palestinian people’s desire for freedom and independence does not contradict Israel’s quest for security. Actually, the former complements the latter. Israel’s security and prosperity are best guaranteed if peace is reached with the Palestinians.

Israeli actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and policies of changing the geography and demographics there show that Israel is in the business of prolonging the occupation, not ending it. Preserving the unsustainable status quo is disastrous for all parties. Subjugating more than 4 million Palestinians by force is a blatant violation of international law and human rights. Obama and other U.S. officials have clearly stated that ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state are in the interest of U.S. national security.

In 1988, the Palestinian leadership accepted the two-state solution and unequivocally recognized the state of Israel. The future Palestinian state will be in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — approximately 22 percent of historic Palestine. In 2002, the PLO endorsed the Arab Peace Initiative, which calls for the end of Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Arab lands in return for normal relations with Israel and a just resolution to the Palestinian refugee problem.
[…]
The recent Palestinian national reconciliation is an opportunity to advance peace in the region. Divided Palestinians cannot sign a peace agreement with Israel to end the conflict. Israel has, in the past, exploited Palestinian divisions as a pretext not to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.

Today, Israel is using Palestinian unity as a reason not to move forward. U.S. support of the Palestinians has both moral and strategic dimensions: It enables the Palestinians to build and improve their capacities and become independent. It also serves U.S. national interests in the region.

The Palestinians expect Congress to adopt an evenhanded approach to dealing with them. Listening to both Israelis and Palestinians is the key to a balanced position. Taking Israeli positions at face value — and disregarding Palestinian viewpoints — can seriously hurt U.S. credibility and its international role.

How can members of Congress formulate their positions if they refuse to meet with Palestinian representatives? How can Congress contribute to peace in the region if lawmakers do not have information from both sides?

Josh Marshall has an excellent editorial at Talking Points Memo on all of this (emphasis is mine):

Just as no man is an island, no country can be either. On its present course Israel is on its way to becoming a pariah state, a status in which it cannot indefinitely or even perhaps long survive. Neither the fact that Israel faces a profound cultural animosity among the region’s Arab populations nor the bad faith that often greets its actions nor even the anti-Semitism that is sometimes beneath the animus changes this essential fact. The make-up of the 21st century world is simply not compatible with a perpetual military occupation of another people, especially one that crosses a boundary of ethnicity and religion. Only the willfully oblivious can’t see that.

I’ve had so many conversations with American and Israeli hardliners who say essentially, why give up this land as long as the Palestinians won’t do this or that thing? Such folly. As though the settlements of the West Bank were a thing of great value as opposed to a lethal threat. …

Netanyahu believes that US power is forever and that the US political consensus to support Israel in almost any policy choice it makes will never change. So he can simply ignore the currents of history and international affairs and thumb his nose at every other country in the world. But neither is true
[…]
The occupation itself represents the true existential threat to Israel. Most who don’t have a profound and over-riding ideological commitment to maintaining a state in all of historic Palestine get this. That’s why even someone like Tzipi Livni, a former member of the Likud and someone from a Revisionist family, realized that partition is the only viable path forward.

Kathy Kattenburg

PAST CONTRIBUTOR.