DistantNews
Support us
๐Ÿ‡ฎ๐Ÿ‡ฑ Israel /Culture & Society

Palestinian rejectionism, not poverty, remains the main obstacle for peace with Israel - opinion

From Jerusalem Post · () English

Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.

At a glance

Opinion Named sources Context piece
  • The article argues that Palestinian rejectionism, not poverty or living conditions, is the primary obstacle to peace with Israel.
  • It cites historical instances where Palestinian leadership rejected partition plans and peace proposals, including the 1947 UN Partition Plan and Camp David.
  • The author contends that violence persists regardless of economic conditions or Israeli policies, driven by an ideology that questions Israel's legitimacy.

A persistent idea suggests that improving Palestinian living conditions, through more jobs, better infrastructure, and economic opportunities, would diminish violence and foster peace. This compassionate-sounding argument, however, is deeply flawed and contradicted by generations of evidence, according to an opinion piece in The Jerusalem Post.

Treat them kindly, the argument goes, and they will eventually come around to peace. A heavy hand, by contrast, only breeds resentment and fuels more attacks. This sounds compassionate on the surface, but it is also deeply flawed, and the evidence against it has piled up for generations.

โ€” Aliza PilichowskiIntroducing the flawed argument that improving Palestinian living conditions will lead to peace.

The core issue, the author argues, is Palestinian rejectionism, which has been evident since the early 1920s. Arab leaders consistently rejected proposals for an independent state alongside a Jewish one, including the 1937 Peel Commission and the 1947 UN Partition Plan, the latter leading to war. The 1967 Khartoum summit famously produced "three no's": no peace, no recognition, no negotiations. Subsequent peace efforts, such as Camp David in 2000 and offers from Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, were also rejected, not due to insufficient details, but because the very existence of a Jewish state was deemed illegitimate.

It ignores a full century of Palestinian rejectionism. From the early 1920s onward, Arab leaders in the region rejected every serious proposal that would have created an independent state alongside a Jewish one.

โ€” Aliza PilichowskiHighlighting the historical pattern of rejecting peace proposals.

Improving daily life, the piece contends, does not erase an ideology that views Israel itself as the fundamental problem rather than a neighbor. Furthermore, it overlooks the consistent record of Palestinian violence, which has surged even during periods of increased Israeli concessions and economic cooperation, such as after the Oslo Accords. The Second Intifada, which began in 2000, resulted in over a thousand Israeli deaths and thousands more wounded.

The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 offered a two-state solution with clear borders, and the Arab states and Palestinian leadership rejected it and launched a war instead.

โ€” Aliza PilichowskiCiting a specific instance of rejection of a two-state solution.

Even Israel's unilateral disengagement from Gaza in 2005, which removed all settlements and soldiers, led to the rise of Hamas, tunnel construction, and repeated conflicts. Periods of relative calm, increased work permits, and international aid have not brought lasting quiet; attacks have continued irrespective of checkpoint ease or economic indicators. The violence, the author concludes, is not merely a reaction to hardship but possesses its own momentum and justification for those who perpetrate it, independent of Israeli actions.

After Israelโ€™s victory in 1967, the Khartoum summit produced the famous โ€œthree noโ€™sโ€ โ€“ no peace, no recognition, no negotiations.

โ€” Aliza PilichowskiReferencing the post-1967 Arab stance on peace.
DistantNews Editorial

Originally published by Jerusalem Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.