Some observations about the charlatans in Israel’s “peace camp” and Israel’s “disloyal opposition”. The “legitimacy” clauses in the Camp David accord of September 1978 and the October 1994 peace treaty between Israel and the kingdom of Jordan.


In the course of his presentation of the main theme of his latest book, Financing the Flames, at a Zionist Federation gathering which took place on the 6th February this year, Edwin Black speculated about why all too many Jewish media outlets, inside and outside Israel, were continuing to devoted little coverage to the scandal of international aid being used to pay salaries to terrorist murderers,  He seemed perhaps unduly optimistic that the embarrassment felt within some media outlets about not having paid sufficient attention earlier on to the facts detailed in his book would not prevent them from remedying this situation.


In Israel, however, party political opportunism and the rigid adhesion to post-Zionist ideologies – in which “narratives” of Palestinian Arab victimisation at the hand of Israeli “colonisers”, allegedly guilty of perpetuating a collective injustice against a supposedly ancient “people”, remain unquestioned – continue to play a not insignificant role in the suppression of the facts that a major part of the Palestinian Authority’s budget is allocated to remunerating prisoners who have killed civilians and that one factor determining the salary levels paid is the number of people murdered by them   Instead of being put on the defensive, all too many representatives of Israel’s so-called “peace-camp” (not limited to leaders and militants of the misleadingly named Peace Now movement) persist in their whitewashing of the Palestine Authority’s supposed “partners for peace” – despite the latter’s never-ending threats of diplomatic war and glorification of individuals who have committed mass murder for the “Palestinian cause”.


Simultaneously outrageous and absurd accusations of  placing obstacles in the way of peace continue to be levelled by all too many supposed champions of harmonious coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians inside Israel’s mainstream opposition (not only by representatives of anti-Zionist and post-Zionist dominated Meretz) at those who dare to call for an end to the officially sponsored incitement and anti-Jewish indoctrination – as if calling for Palestinian Authority to observe the obligations imposed by the Oslo accords and other agreements constitute unacceptable pre-conditions for negotiations.   It is therefore both interesting and refreshing to note that the use of the expression “charlatans de la paix” in the article in French, by former diplomat Freddy Eytan – posted on the 17th February, on the site of the Jewish Center for Public Affairs, to which he regularly contributes.  (See “The moment of truth is approaching for Israelis and Palestinians” <A HREF=””>).  This expression he applies to the male and female politicians and activists of the Israeli left who, when they were in power, were unable to prove Yasser Arafat’s good intentions and now are striving to get the current US administration and various European governments to exert pressure upon Israel to force it to make further one-sided (potentially very dangerous) concessions.


Just because the Camp David treaty between Israel and Egypt led only to a “cold peace” does not mean that patriotic Israelis and their friends should abandon their struggle to bring about a more widespread acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy in the Arab world, however long it may take.  Glib declarations to the effect that it is unreasonable to expect Palestinians to become Zionists are a betrayal of all those who made enormous sacrifices to recreate a state for the Jewish people.


(A recent incident in the Knesset illustrates the deplorable fact that Meretz parliamentarians seem to have difficulty with accepting the legitimacy even of the acquisition and development of land which have been under Israeli control since the War of Independence.

“In this regard one should look at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the Interior Ministry recently held in the Knesset, and during which Arab MKs – among others – made surreal propositions that were totally ignored by the major Israeli media.

“The agenda focused on the declared will of the government to beef up the Jewish population in the Galilee region, which does not seem to be politically disputed in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is certainly what most Israelis think.

“Hanna Sueid, initiator of the debate, started by denouncing Construction Minister Uri Ariel’s alleged “obsession” with building “settlements” in Galilee. The term Hebrew word for “settlement” generally only refers to the villages erected by Jews in Judea and Samaria, and now an Arab representative used the term to refer to Jewish villages in Galilee. The deputy found a staunch ally in MK Tamar Zandberg, of the extreme leftist Meretz party, who vocally stated she too was categorically opposed to the establishment of new Jewish villages in Galilee! Taken aback, Yifat Kariv, of Yair Lapid’s centrist party “Yesh Atid,” became the sole voice of dissent, asking: “Is the Galilee region not a part of Israel?” This “insolent” question brought about a barrage of verbal abuse from Arab MKs.  See Shraga Blum’s “’Occupied Territory’ in Galilee” <A HREF=” “>.)


In this connection it may be useful to reproduce what may be called the “legitimacy” clauses in the Camp David accord of September 1978 and the October 1994 peace treaty between Israel and the kingdom of Jordan.


Peace requires respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. Progress toward that goal can accelerate movement toward a new era of reconciliation in the Middle East marked by cooperation in promoting economic development, in maintaining stability and in assuring security.


3. Associated Principles


1. Egypt and Israel state that the principles and provisions described below should apply to peace treaties between Israel and each of its neighbors – Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.


2. Signatories shall establish among themselves relationships normal to states at peace with one another. To this end, they should undertake to abide by all the provisions of the U.N. Charter. Steps to be taken in this respect include:

• full recognition;

•abolishing economic boycotts;

•guaranteeing that under their jurisdiction the citizens of the other parties shall enjoy the protection of the due process of law.


3. Signatories should explore possibilities for economic development in the context of final peace treaties, with the objective of contributing to the atmosphere of peace, cooperation and friendship which is their common goal.







1. The Parties agree to establish full diplomatic and consular relations and to exchange resident ambassadors within one month of the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty.


2. The Parties agree that the normal relationship between them will further include economic and cultural relations.






The Parties, wishing to remove biases developed through periods of conflict, recognise the desirability of cultural and scientific exchanges in all fields, and agree to establish normal cultural relations between them. Thus, they shall, as soon as possible and not later than 9 months from the exchange of the instruments of ratification of this Treaty, conclude the negotiations on cultural and scientific agreements.

About the Author
Paul Leslie is an occasional independent journalist and researcher, living in London. He has degrees from Exeter College, Oxford University and the Sorbonne (history of the Jews of Algeria and Tunisia, in two different colonial systems). Paul Leslie is am a fan of cinema – all genres – and is passionately interested in modern history.