Memo to Ban Ki-moon: How about a workable idea?

By Bruce S. Ticker

Bruce S. Ticker
Bruce S. Ticker

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania — Ban Ki-moon is a curious kind of messenger.

He writes in The New York Times, “No one can deny that the everyday reality of occupation provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism and undermine any hope of a negotiated two-state solution.”

It may well be that “the weight of nearly a half-century of occupation” does just that, but what will the Palestinians do if Israel offers them an independent state?

Here’s a message for Ban: Israel offered them an independent state at Camp David in the summer of 2000 – 93 percent of the West Bank, part of Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. At the time, Prime Minister Ehud Barak – with President Clinton’s support – proposed this plan to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. That does not count more informal future offers.

Arafat rejected the proposal and initiated or facilitated a war that took more than 1,000 lives, while Israelis voted out Barak and launched a 16-year pattern of electing right-leaning coalitions in the Knesset.

So, Arabs demanded the end of “occupation” before Camp David and they persist in demanding an end to “occupation.”

Such reasoning may make sense to Ban, but the Secretary-General of the United Nations must explain what Israel is supposed to do after offering the Arabs exactly what they demanded and continue to demand.

One can only speculate why Arafat turned down the proposal. Per my personal interpretation, maybe Arafat believed that violent, dominant segments of the Palestinians would accept nothing short of Israel’s destruction, and he feared that his own people would murder him if he dared accept any reasonable deal.

Jewish leaders blasted Ban for suggesting in a Jan. 26 speech that the “occupation” factored into driving Palestinians to violence, particularly the relentless stabbing assaults against Israelis in recent months. He dug a deeper hole for himself in a Feb. 1 Times commentary headlined, “Don’t Shoot the Messenger, Israel.”

Besides using “occupation” as an excuse once again, Ban advanced a series of truisms that only the most irrational people would dispute, and it is irrational people who have blocked Ban’s proposals from becoming reality for the last century. For example, he writes, “The United Nations is calling for substantial changes in policy to strengthen the economic, institutional and security pillars of the Palestinian Authority.”

Who can argue with that?

Or, “We continue to work with Israel and the Palestinian Authority to rebuild Gaza and prevent another devastating conflict, and to press Palestinians for genuine national reconciliation.”

Wonderful idea.

Onward: “Palestinians must make political compromises to bring Gaza and the West Bank under a single, democratic governing authority according to principles laid down by their national umbrella organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Check.

Then: “This also means consistently and firmly denouncing terrorism and taking preventive action to end attacks on Israelis, including an immediate stop to Gaza tunnel construction.”

Ban neglects to mention in these passages that the Palestinian Authority has long been consumed by a bottomless pit of corruption; that Gaza is vulnerable to further destruction each time Hamas targets Israel with rockets and missiles; that Fatah and Hamas despise one another as much as one or both factions despise Israel (Fatah controls the West Bank and Hamas dominates Gaza); Fatah has routinely encouraged aggression against Israel; and Hamas is dedicated to building hundreds of tunnels.

The UN chief is right, but his views are not exactly fresh. Many leaders and observers have been sharing these approaches since time immemorial. If Ban wants to try something new, he would tell the world how to accomplish these goals and then act on it.

Isn’t that why the United Nations was created?

*
Ticker is a freelance writer based in Philadelphia. He may be contacted via bruce.ticker@sdjewishworld.com. Comments intended for publication in the space below must be accompanied by the letter writer’s first and last name and by his/ her city and state of residence (city and country for those outside the U.S.)

 

1 thought on “Memo to Ban Ki-moon: How about a workable idea?”

  1. Pingback: How To Become A Freelance Speechwriter – Information

Comments are closed.