By Bruce S. Ticker
The New York Times could have headlined U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s column last Saturday “The half-truths my party needs to face.” Instead, the editors erroneously called it “The Hard Truth My Party Needs to Face.”
I concur with much of Van Hollen’s critique of the current Israeli government. The present Likud Party-run government is the most reckless and incompetent government that I can recall, but it is still outdone in horrific stewardship by the Palestinians. In reference to the Palestinians, I could not locate the part in Van Hollen’s commentary about their responsibilities to end this conflict.
Like many critics, Van Hollen’s opinion piece was one-sided against Israel. What’s more, the Maryland senator deliberately lied or exposed his ignorance about recent Middle East history.
“For decades, we have called for a two-state solution, but we’ve failed to use our leverage to make it real,” Van Hollen writes. “It’s past time that we use that leverage to end the occupation and achieve two states with full political and legal rights for all. That means withdrawing taxpayer support from Israel and conditioning arms sales.”
For decades? How many decades back did he go? Not to year 2000, when President Clinton hosted a summit at Camp David where Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arab leader Yasser Arafat a plan for an independent state covering all of Gaza, eastern Jerusalem and 93 percent of the West Bank. Arafat would not even consider the offer and launched or facilitated an uprising against Israel.
Let us not jump all over Van Hollen. He could have been too busy focusing on Maryland state issues because he was a state senator at the time and not yet a member of Congress. After all, following news coverage of a foreign issue would have been distracting. The future of the Middle East was hashed over at the iconic location of Camp David, which is located in Van Hollen’s home state. That’s Maryland. Maybe Van Hollen’s newspaper subscription had run out or his television was on the fritz.
Let’s give the 1990 Georgetown Law graduate every excuse…er, consideration or benefit of the doubt…for being unaware of Israel’s offer of a Palestinian state.
It is true that Israel’s current Likud Party’s coalition opposes a two-state solution, but can we blame them? Gaza was a de facto independent state tightly controlled by Hamas, and it exploited its proximity to southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, by swarming in and murdering 1,200 Israelis. Also, they kidnapped 250 more Israelis and held them hostage, some for two years.
Van Hollen neglects to mention Oct. 7, but writes, “The next Democratic president should recognize a State of Palestine that is subject to clear benchmarks, including free and fair elections.”
How about clear benchmarks for Israel’s security? A guarantee of security was a high priority for Israel in 2000 and will definitely be Israel’s most urgent concern if negotiations are ever restarted.
Israel should be open to negotiations for an independent state and, in so doing, hold the Arabs’ feet to the fire to ensure Israel is not disadvantaged.
It will be nice if Israel and the Arabs can reach a fair agreement, but if talks fail let the blame fall on the Arabs. If they make impossible demands, Israel and America must spell out the reasons for said failure. Clinton and Israeli leaders should have done that at Camp David which, to remind readers and Sen. Van Hollen, is located in Maryland.
Van Hollen’s opinion piece is conspicuous for his failure to question if the Palestinians want an independent state. It may well be that many do not know what they want because they have had no chance to sort things out. In recent years, someone suggested reviving a confederation with Jordan and the West Bank which would put the West Bank under Jordan’s control. A newspaper quoted at least one Palestinian who liked the idea. That option is worth exploring.
If Arafat rejected an independent state nearly 26 years ago, why would Palestinian leaders change their minds now? In fact, who will represent the Palestinians? Will negotiators seek out the views of their people or will they impose their own ideas that will benefit them and not their people? Are there other alternatives to an independent state and will they be considered as viable options?
Like so many others, Van Hollen automatically backs a two-state solution without considering whether it will work.
“Democrats should pursue a last-gasp effort to salvage a two-state solution,” the senator writes. “If that effort fails, the United States will have to consider other options to secure equal political and legal rights for all. The alternatives – either a permanent apartheid state or the expulsion of Palestinians – should be abhorrent and unacceptable to everyone. They would result in the unending oppression or displacement of Palestinians, chronic unrest throughout the region and Israel becoming a pariah state.”
If the Palestinians through their representatives undermine negotiations, how can Van Hollen in good conscience blame Israel? Based on his record, maybe he will find a way.
*
Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia-based columnist.
Bruce S. Ticker is a Philadelphia-based columnist.