Bruce Thornton, writing on Victor Davis Hanson’s website, says the “instant conventional wisdom” is that:
[N]ow that [Arafat] is dead the major obstacle to restarting the "road map" peace process has been removed.
All it takes for a final resolution of the conflict is for the U.S. to compel Israel to show some "flexibility" and make some "concessions" to strengthen the "moderates" like newly elected PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Yet what should be obvious is that even after Arafat rejected the best chance at such a solution — the Camp David offer of 2000, which included 95% of the West Bank, joint possession of Jerusalem, and billions in cash — he did not suffer any loss of prestige or position among the Palestinians for that lost opportunity to achieve what presumably they had wanted for so many years. . .
Only those in the West . . . could fail to see that Arafat’s continuing prestige despite his failure to deliver a "homeland" was in fact based on something more important than a state: his commitment to the destruction of Israel.
The obstacle wasn’t Arafat but what Arafat embodied and expressed for the Palestinians: hatred of Israel and a passionate desire to make it disappear, a position he made clear whenever he spoke in Arabic. . .
The Jerusalem Post reports that yesterday:
Yasser Arafat’s three top successors vowed on Tuesday to follow in his footsteps by refusing to compromise on the right of return for all refugees and insisting on the establishment of a Palestinian state on the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, with Jerusalem as its capital.
The three — PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei and interim Palestinian Authority Chairman Rouhi Fattouh — were speaking at a special session of the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah to commemorate Arafat.
“We will follow in the path of the late leader Yasser Arafat, and we will work toward fulfilling his dream,” Abbas told the council. “We promise you that our hearts will not rest until the right of return for our people is achieved and the tragedy of the refugees is ended.” . . .
Addressing the session, Qurei said the Palestinians will follow in Arafat’s footsteps by remaining committed to the right of return and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Notice the dual goals: the right of return and the establishment of a Palestinian state. Even Amos Oz knows that “right of return” is a code for the destruction of Israel.
Perhaps Condoleeza Rice got it right, more than two years ago, when she spoke with the Editorial Board of the Mercury News, shortly before George W. Bush’s landmark June 24, 2002 speech:
“Frankly, the Palestinian Authority, which is corrupt and cavorts with terror . . . is not the basis for a Palestinian state moving forward,” Rice told the Mercury News editorial board.
"Without creating democratic institutions . . . there is not much hope for an eventual peace settlement with Israel," Rice said.
“Everybody focuses too much on the personality. If you build the institutions and they are legitimate reformed institutions, they will serve the Palestinian people better . . .
“We don’t think of this as reform of the Palestinian Authority,” said the president’s top foreign-policy adviser. “We think of this as building the institutions of a state that will be capable of actually moving to statehood.” . . .
This is precisely the theme of Natan Sharansky’s new book — "The Case for Democracy" — which Sharansky discussed with Bush and Rice on November 11 at the White House.
As of yesterday, the book was No. 79 on the Amazon list of best sellers. It is definitely worth reading.