An Argument for the PM’s Speech at the UN

1/ Here is an argument that Prime Minister Netanyahu might wish to use in his speech to the UN General Assembly on September 26th. But first, a word of caution.

2/ In attempting to Influence the governments and the international public, there is a danger that frequently obstructs Israeli efforts. This is the habit of ‘talking tough’ by lecturing and hectoring states and individuals about what they must do or must think. Those states that we most seek to influence, the western democracies, hate this approach. Therefore, it may be useful to be guided by the saying that telling isn’t selling.

3/ The argument begins with a question addressed to all members of the GA. It also outlines how Israel should proceed afterwards. The question is this:

How will a Palestinian state that intends to destroy Israel bring about a peaceful and successful two-state solution?

4/ Anticipating that advocates of the two-state solution are unable to answer, and prefer not to think about it, it remains the case that for many states and large numbers of people, the two-state solution seems a fair solution.

5/ The thinking behind it is that its fairness essentially solves the problem – and so will end the conflict. But it won’t because the Palestinians seek a totally different ‘solution’ and have consistently opposed any two-state solution that would accept the Jewish state and end the conflict.

6/ The UN and the International Court of Justice persistently ignore this. This means that ‘selling’ the prospect of a peaceful and successful two-state solution relies on ignoring Palestinian intentions. Yet Palestinian intentions are hardly a secret. For example:

The main daily paper of the Palestinian Authority, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida issues calls for the destruction of Israel on a daily basis. The PA program, the Palestinian National Charter, 1968(!) consists of little else.
The West Bank is festooned with banners, murals, maps, monuments, slogans and posters claiming the whole of Israel and the West Bank. None demand peace, acceptance of Israel, or a two-state solution.
There is no Palestinian body with any political weight, with any social weight, with any economic weight, with any numerical weight, with any religious weight, or with any military weight, that sees the conflict differently. It is impossible to openly and safely speak and organize in favor of acceptance of a Jewish state.
Supported by the PA educational system, the mosques, and the media, the aim of eliminating Israel is the glue that holds the different Palestinian factions together. It dominates PA ideology, saturates leaders’ speeches and broadcasts, and motivates anti-Israel and anti-Jewish violence such as the Pay-to-Slay program.

7/ This hostility to the existence of the Jewish state explains why the conflict has been so prolonged. It explains why the Palestinians have refused a two-state solution on many occasions (notably, 1937, 1947, 2000, 2008). It is the driving force of the conflict which existed well before Israel captured the West Bank from Jordanian occupation in 1967. It is not and never was about the West Bank.

8/ The Palestinian rejection of Israel remains the rock against which all peace attempts crash. Therefore, the question focuses attention on the real causes behind the continued conflict. This opens a path to pressurize the UN and galvanize at least some member-states to consider how they could persuade or pressurize the PA to jettison the Palestinian National Charter and abandon its aim of destroying Israel?

9/ Why should this be a priority? Because it is the ONLY measure that can possibly produce a successful and peaceful solution to the conflict. Without it, the failures of all previous peace ‘plans’ will be repeated and the conflict will persist far into the future.

10/ Further, without this measure, it’s easy to see that a Palestinian state would not be peaceful, tolerant or democratic. As a result, how can it be reasonable to expect Israel to accept a state on its border devoted to its destruction?

11/ Naturally, to successfully push the UN into such a course of action will require more than a single speech. Therefore, following the speech, the PM should write to all member states with the same question and urge high-level discussions with Israel. This is likely to need an extended period of engagement.

12/ A critical issue is that the unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood by many states effectively supports the continued Palestinian rejection of Israel and the continuation of the war. Instead of this dead-end, the best hope for the Palestinians BY FAR is to abandon their war on the Jewish state and instead align themselves with it and not against it.

13/ Obviously, those states hostile to the existence of Israel will reject this approach. And for many others the question needs to be repeated ad infinitum in both state and public diplomacy, and in as many foreign media outlets as possible to have any effect. Repeated persistently in order to make it the expected Israeli question effectively makes it public knowledge and so much harder for governments to avoid.

14/ In sum, bringing the intransigence of the Palestinians to the forefront of public knowledge exposes the Palestinian rejection of a reasonable solution: the acceptance of Israel. Simultaneously, it exposes to the international public the relentless Palestinian adherence to an unreasonable solution: the destruction of Israel.

15/ The political advantage to Israel is that the usual blame for the conflict is reversed onto the Palestinians. This will provide sound political grounds to enable states to rescind their acceptance of Palestinian statehood (or at least to make it CONDITIONAL on Palestinian acceptance of the Jewish state).

16/ Therefore, instead of lashing out in an all-too-typical Israeli fashion, the purpose is to sow doubts and weaken the political support for Palestinian statehood by means of an obviously relevant question that can be seen to require a convincing answer. Efforts can then be focused where they belong – directly on the Palestinians.