The Mideast Peace Process: An Autopsy

Rating:
Summary: A grim analysis of the clashes and bloodshed
Review: Compiled and edited by Neal Kozodoy and enhanced with an "afterword" by Mark Helprin, The Mideast Peace Process: An Autopsy is a grim analysis of the clashes and bloodshed between Israelis and the Palestinians. The contributions include Israel's New Polyannas (David bar-Illan); The Story Behind the Handshake (Yigal Carmon); Land for No Peace (Douglas J. Feith); Where is the Peace Process Going? (Dore Gold); In Arafat's Kingdom (Nadav Haetzni); When the Palestinian Army Invades (Yuval Steinitz); Israel's moment of Truth (Daniel Pipes); Intifada II: Death of an Illusion? (Norman Podhoretz); The Journalists and the Palestinians (Fiamma Nirenstein); On the "Right of Return" (Efraim Karsh). As immediately relevant as today's newspaper headlines, The Mideast Peace Process: An Autopsy is a highly recommended, contribution to Mideast Studies and Palestinian Studies reference collections and reading lists.

Rating:
Summary: Good book, but one major flaw
Review: I like this book, and I'm in favor of Israel in this conflict. However, the problem with this book is simple: it doesn't even attempt to present two sides to the story. It is so full of sniveling and whining against the Palestinians that it grates on your nerves after 30 pages. It doesn't present one single argument in the Palestinians' favor. It's just whining, whining, whining from Israelis, who fail to see that their actions may have some role in the current mess we're in.

Rating:
Summary: The death of peace
Review: In 1993, millions of people enthusiastically supported the Oslo peace accords. I was one of them. From the Jewish and Israeli perspectives, it was incredible and exhilarating to see the leader of Arab terrorists plan to recognize Israel's right to exist. The joyous prospect of an end to war, a lasting peace, allowed us to imagine a thrilling repeat of Anwar Sadat's triumphant visit to Jerusalem, to suspend our disbelief. Sadat had been murdered for his daring; he was not the first Arab leader killed for his pacifism and would likely not be the last. But we squelched all doubts.

Now, all doors seemed open. At a heady November 1994 Jerusalem business conference, Tansu Cillar became the first Turkish Prime Minister to visit Israel. Arab, Jewish and Israeli businessmen and politicians applauded wildly, crying in joyful expectation, as she spoke of the peace dividend about to engulf the Fertile Crescent.

Even in 1993 and 1994, skeptics warned that the perceived peace was, from the Arab side, a sham. Virtually no one in power--in Israel, the U.S., or Europe--listened to these professors, politicians and Middle East scholars who had spent their lives studying the region. But in Commentary magazine, they wrote their opinions, backed up by substantial and alarming data.

The 11 articles in this powerfully persuasive book were culled from essays that appeared between September 1993 and May 2001 and are framed by Neal Kozodoy's forward and Mark Helprin's afterward. The first, by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu communications minister David Bar-Illan, marked the "historic handshake" of Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn. It questioned why, given many disturbing facts, the Rabin government would throw caution to the winds.

Washington, he noted, had promised Arafat "the return of territories according to resolutions 242 and 338," which Arabs took to mean total withdrawal. Meanwhile, Washington had falsely assured Israel it would "give weight" to the latter's security concerns, that negotiations would be based on the 1978 formula from Camp David. While there could be an interim five-year period of Palestinian authority, with final status negotiations starting only in the third year, Washington assured Israel that every possibility would remain open. Given the incompatibility of these promises, Bar-Illan believed that hopes to achieve real peace were most likely mere chimera.

The last essay, by noted Middle East historian Efraim Karsh, discussed all the reasons that the Arab claim to a right of return is fictitious. It closed with comments of the late (supposedly "moderate") Faisal Husseini, who had in his final speech exposed his radical aim. "[We] may win or lose," Husseini said in March 2001. "But our eyes will continue to aspire to the strategic goal, namely to Palestine from the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] sea." In short, he desired Palestine to take Israel's place. Karsh noted that until Husseini's " 'supreme truth' is buried once and for all, no amount of Israeli good will, partial compensation, or symbolic acceptance of responsibility can hope to create anything but an appetite for more."

The nine essays in between each provided an alarming set of facts surrounding the peace accords as they occurred. Yigal Carmon, a former Israeli intelligence colonel and counter-terrorism adviser to Rabin, wrote in March 1994 that a path to dialogue with Yasser Arafat in 1988 was suspended in May 1990 after Arafat refused to condemn a PLO terrorist attack on a beach near Tel Aviv or disassociate from its commander, Abu Abbas. Norwegian social scientist Terje Larson in early 1992 nevertheless sought out Israeli Economic Cooperation Foundation chief Yossi Beilin, who a short time later became a deputy to Israel's Foreign Minister, Shimon Peres. Until December 1992, at least, Beilin negotiated without Prime Minister Rabin's knowledge. When Rabin finally did learn, he proceeded anyway, comforted falsely by Arafat's promise to declare an end to "armed struggle" and the intifada. But when the Declaration of Principles was signed in September 1993, Arafat failed to keep his promise.

Similarly, Douglas Feith wrote in June 1994 that Israel would be trading land for "no peace." For everything that Arafat had promised in the DOP he had promised in 1988, to gain a dialogue with the U.S. government, and every promise he had made in 1988, he broke. By now it was clear that the PLO had not and would not change its covenant to recognize Israel's most basic right--to exist. In fact, the very day Arafat signed the DOP, Jordanian television aired a speech in which Arafat called for intensified jihad, struggle and "sacrifices." Neither did the PLO leader delay his demands for sovereignty, as promised. Worse, Arab violence against Israel had actually increased. The DOP was supposedly conditional on Arafat's containing the violence. When the Arab violence continued, Feith cast the problem not as Israel's flexibility or intransigence, but "whether [Israel's] neighbors have the political leadership and the good will to sustain peace with a Jewish state on what, according to their religious and cultural convictions, is their land, Arab land--that is, anywhere in Palestine."

This idea was reiterated eloquently by Norman Podhoretz in a December 2000 essay, "Death of an Illusion?" He referred to T.S. Eliot's lines, "human kind/Cannot bear very much reality." Here, he wrote, the "unbearable reality being evaded is that Israel's yearning for peace was shared neither by the Arab world in general nor by the Palestinians in particular--that their objection was not to anything Israel had done or failed to do, but to the very fact that it existed at all."

That sums up the Oslo Accords. Rather than the promised peace, they brought death and destruction. Since August 1993, more than 575 Israelis have been murdered by Arab terrorists, thousands maimed for life. The victims were not fighting, not at war. They were going about their daily lives, praying for the final peace that Israelis have sought since the state's 1948 establishment.

This book will help you understand. Alyssa A. Lappen

Rating:
Summary: Exposes the deceit and the real agenda behind the talking...
Review: The dictionary defines autopsy as 'an examination and dissection of a dead body to determine the cause of death'.

Quite appropriate therefore that this book is titled an autopsy of the Mid-East Peace Process. Few in the Mid-East or the international arena now give credence to the evaluation that the 'peace process' is still functional.

This book is of considerable value in that it examines how the so-called 'peace process' actually died. This is not a 'play on words' but an actual investigation into what went wrong and why.

The basic premise for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian/Arab world was allegedly 'land for peace'. This book scrutinizes how this principle was actually just a facade. The most far reaching concessions ever offered by any Israeli leader only resulting in the Palestinian 'intifadas' that are analysed here and which 'grace' our television screens almost on a daily basis.

The book scrutinises the previously unheard of offers by former Israeli PM Ehud Barak in relation to ceding some 98% of the 'West Bank' and Gaza towards a Palestinian state, a deal on 'settlements' and 'refugees' plus an agreement to 'share' Jerusalem. Investigated too are the failure of Yasser Arafat & the Palestinian Authority to accept this as even a basis for negotiation, their violation of previous agreements and the reneging of their promise to resolve all disagreements through negotiations.

The authors themselves show that even despite agreed Israeli withdrawals peace was not forthcoming, the PLO not even amending it's Covenant calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.

The book outlines a statement through Jordanian Television by Yasser Arafat on the very same day as he appeared in 1993 on the White House lawn with Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Bill Clinton and co., shaking hands and making his promises of peace.

The book (on page 22) declares that Arafat, in his public statement in Arabic on Jordan Television, stated that he had no intent to halt terrorism, or any peaceful co-existence with Israel. Instead he described the agreement, in fact the whole 'peace-process', was in the context of the '1974 plan', known by the whole Arab world as the 'plan of phases' for the destruction of Israel.

Perhaps this should have opened everyone's eyes to the real intent and agenda behind the scenes, but clearly not so.

This book provides a number of essays by very learned people including Efraim Karsh, David Bar-Ilan, Dore Gold, Daniel Pipes and others, that investigate how Arafat duped the whole world into believing that he was pursuant of a peaceful co-existence with the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

This book also explores the regional & international consequences of the failure of the Mid-East 'peace-process' in light of September 11th. This becomes even more relevant in few of recent developments appertaining to Iraq. Also explored and discussed are the future, potential conventional and nuclear conflicts between Israel and the Arab world, also weighed against the possible existence of a Palestinian 'state' in Israel's very heartland.

A very illuminating, thought-provoking read and a handy reference book for the days ahead which we must all watch with interest.

Rating:
Summary: Exposes the deceit and the real agenda behind the talking...
Review: The dictionary defines autopsy as �an examination and dissection of a dead body to determine the cause of death'.

Quite appropriate therefore that this book is titled an autopsy of the Mid-East Peace Process. Few in the Mid-East or the international arena now give credence to the evaluation that the �peace process' is still functional.

This book is of considerable value in that it examines how the so-called �peace process' actually died. This is not a �play on words' but an actual investigation into what went wrong and why.

The basic premise for peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian/Arab world was allegedly �land for peace'. This book scrutinizes how this principle was actually just a facade. The most far reaching concessions ever offered by any Israeli leader only resulting in the Palestinian �intifadas' that are analysed here and which �grace' our television screens almost on a daily basis.

The book scrutinises the previously unheard of offers by former Israeli PM Ehud Barak in relation to ceding some 98% of the �West Bank' and Gaza towards a Palestinian state, a deal on �settlements' and �refugees' plus an agreement to �share' Jerusalem. Investigated too are the failure of Yasser Arafat & the Palestinian Authority to accept this as even a basis for negotiation, their violation of previous agreements and the reneging of their promise to resolve all disagreements through negotiations.

The authors themselves show that even despite agreed Israeli withdrawals peace was not forthcoming, the PLO not even amending it's Covenant calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.

The book outlines a statement through Jordanian Television by Yasser Arafat on the very same day as he appeared in 1993 on the White House lawn with Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Bill Clinton and co., shaking hands and making his promises of peace.

The book (on page 22) declares that Arafat, in his public statement in Arabic on Jordan Television, stated that he had no intent to halt terrorism, or any peaceful co-existence with Israel. Instead he described the agreement, in fact the whole �peace-process', was in the context of the �1974 plan', known by the whole Arab world as the �plan of phases' for the destruction of Israel.

Perhaps this should have opened everyone's eyes to the real intent and agenda behind the scenes, but clearly not so.

This book provides a number of essays by very learned people including Efraim Karsh, David Bar-Ilan, Dore Gold, Daniel Pipes and others, that investigate how Arafat duped the whole world into believing that he was pursuant of a peaceful co-existence with the Jewish people and the State of Israel.

This book also explores the regional & international consequences of the failure of the Mid-East �peace-process' in light of September 11th. This becomes even more relevant in few of recent developments appertaining to Iraq. Also explored and discussed are the future, potential conventional and nuclear conflicts between Israel and the Arab world, also weighed against the possible existence of a Palestinian �state' in Israel's very heartland.

A very illuminating, thought-provoking read and a handy reference book for the days ahead which we must all watch with interest.

Rating:
Summary: Why did the Middle East Peace Process Fail?
Review: The sponsors of the Oslo agreement of 1993 seemed to imply that Arafat represented people who wanted a fair division of land between Jews and Arabs and equal rights for both Jews and Arabs in the region. And that Arafat and his negotiators would be in favor of peace, justice, truth, and good behavior by both sides, in keeping with what was expected by society at large.

That is not what Commentary thought. Its articles tended to imply that Arafat and his gang were thugs who wanted to incite and sacrifice Arabs to benefit only themselves at best. To Commentary, the goals of Arafat's side were to destroy Israel, reduce or obliterate human rights for Jews, and rewrite and fabricate Arab and Jewish history. And Arafat's main demand seemed to be for the enshrinement of his right to perform all these misdeeds with worldwide blessing, approval, and applause.

Roughly speaking, Commentary's articles indicated that the dubiously named Peace Process would fail because neither side's goals would be met. In addition, they showed that any concession demanded of Israel by the Arabs, if granted, was almost invariably designed to reduce the prospects for peace. Meanwhile, it appeared that the international community was prepared to allow the Arab side to break its promises, and apply serious pressure only on Israel. In addition, Arab incitement against Israel was unlikely to lessen, and international propagation of Arab propaganda was expected to increase.

Sure enough, Oslo failed. And we can and should read the articles from Commentary that compose this book. I think the best of them is the one by Fiamma Nirenstein. However, let's face it: Commentary was basically claiming the Earth was round when it was politically correct to say that it was flat. That took some courage, maybe plenty of courage, but not much brilliance. At least, let's give Commentary credit for taking a moral and honest stand on this issue.

Rating:
Summary: A must read on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict
Review: These essays, which come from the pages of "Commentary," are an often cynical but always fascinating analysis of the mistakes, oversights and foolish optimism that went into the now utterly failed Oslo Accord. Certainly there is a bias against the Palestinian side, but that bias never goes so far as to be untruthful and serves as a much needed counterpoint to the ways in which the Mideast conflict is covered by most news agencies. I thought the collection was readable, informative, troubling and compelling, and even those who don't agree with the points of view presented here will learn a great deal about what has become one of the world's most disconcerting conflicts.

Rating:
Summary: Why The Peace Process Failed
Review: This book is a series of essays previously printed in Commentary Magazine from 1993 through 2000. They are printed in chronological order and demonstrate how and why the Oslo Process collapsed in failure. Commentary was long a Cassandra screaming into the wind. These essays which seemed provacative at the time they were written now seem remarkably prescient. The book will be of interest to any fair minded person interested in the state of Israel and its well being.