click here to jump to start of article
  • Torah Reading: Naso
Join Our Newsletter

Get latest articles and videos with Jewish inspiration and insights​

The Pattern of Palestinian Rejectionism

The Pattern of Palestinian Rejectionism

Palestinian suicidal self-pity has led them from one historic calamity to another, and is precisely the reason why Israel is now building the fence.


The tragedy of the International Court's ruling on the security fence isn't only its depressing predictability, a politicization that undermines the hope for a global system of justice. Nor is the tragedy only that Israel's right to self-defense has been branded illegitimate, while the criminals remain uncensured.

Perhaps the worst consequence of the ruling is that it will reinforce Palestinians' faith in their own innocence and victimization, and preclude a self-examination of their responsibility in maintaining the conflict. That suicidal self-pity has led Palestinians from one historic calamity to another, and is precisely the reason why Israel is now building the fence.

Palestinian political history follows a depressingly predicable pattern. First, a peace offer is presented by the international community, to which the mainstream Zionist leadership says yes, while all factions of the Palestinian leadership say no. Then the Palestinians opt for war and pay a bitter price for their failed attempt at politicide. Finally, the Palestinians protest the injustice of their defeat which, after all, was supposed to be the fate of the Jews.

From the Palestinian perspective, there have always been compelling reasons for rejecting each of the compromises that could have resolved this conflict in a two-state solution. The UN partition plan, Palestinians still argue, offered the Jews a state on a majority of territory though they were only a minority of the population. The argument ignores the fact that 62 percent of the Jewish state envisioned by partition would have consisted of desert, while the Palestinians were offered the most fertile land. The argument is even more absurd because the Palestinians, and the Arab world generally, would have rejected Jewish statehood in any form.

As for the Camp David offer, Palestinians argue that it would have left them with a series of non-contiguous cantons, not a real state. Yet a few months after Camp David, Palestinians rejected the offer of a contiguous West Bank under the Clinton Proposal and at Taba. The reason for that Palestinian rejection was, and remains, their refusal to waive the demand for refugee return to pre-67 Israel - that is, to accept the Israeli offer to cede the results of the 1967 war in exchange for a Palestinian acceptance of the results of the 1948 war.

The end result of each Palestinian rejection was that history moved on, and the map of potential Palestine that remained to be negotiated invariably shrank.

Under the Peel Commission, the Palestinians would have received 80% of the territory between the river and the sea; under the 1947 UN partition plan, 45%; under Camp David, around 20%.

And now, thanks to the latest Palestinian miscalculation, the fence is establishing a new border, in which a future Palestine will lose at least 10% of the West Bank, including east Jerusalem - all territories it could have possessed had the Palestinian leadership negotiated in good faith.

Where are the anguished Palestinian voices demanding an accounting from their leadership for the self-imposed wound of the fence?

Only a people convinced it can do no wrong because all right is on its side can fail to ask itself why it repeatedly brings disaster on itself. Where are the anguished Palestinian voices demanding an accounting from their leadership for the self-imposed wound of the fence? Where is the debate about whether four years of suicide bombings were a wise response to the Israeli offer of Palestinian statehood - let alone a debate about the moral and spiritual consequences of turning Palestinian Islam into a satanic cult?

During the first intifada, Israeli society underwent a profound, and necessary, self-confrontation. For the first time, non-leftist Israelis conceded that the Palestinians have a grievance and a case, and that, by not offering the Palestinians any option besides continued occupation, we shared at least partial responsibility for the conflict.

The result was that a majority of Israelis came to see the conflict as a struggle between two legitimate national movements, and that partition wasn't only politically necessary but morally compelling.

Rather than undergoing a similar process, though, Palestinian society has regressed even further into a culture of denial that rejects the most minimal truths of Jewish history and Jewish rights to this land.

This intifada should have been the Palestinians' moment of self-confrontation. Yet Palestinians still refuse to take the most minimal responsibility for their share of the disaster.

In almost every political conversation I've had with Palestinians who aren't political leaders, I've heard a variation of the following: "You and me, we're little people. We could make peace, but the 'big ones' on both sides don't want it. The leaders only care about their seats."

I used to be charmed by those words, imagining they contained hope for reconciliation. In fact, they explain why reconciliation eludes us. By passing the blame to others, Palestinians absolve themselves of responsibility for change, incapable of challenging those who speak in their name.

If Palestinians continue to replace self-examination with self-pity, it's because their avoidance mechanisms are reinforced by the international community, whose sympathy for Palestinian suffering becomes support for Palestinian intransigence.

I had hoped that the fence would force the Palestinians to finally face some painful truths about the conflict. The fence, after all, confronts Palestinians with a constant, tangible reminder of the consequences of rejectionism. It marks the literal limits of the politics of terror.

Yet in choosing to judge Israel rather than the Palestinian leadership, the International Court legitimizes Palestinian self-pity and sabotages the possibility of change. That is a disaster for the moral health of Palestinian society, and for the possibility of reconciliation in the Middle East.

July 17, 2004

Give Tzedakah! Help create inspiring
articles, videos and blogs featuring timeless Jewish wisdom.
The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 4

(4) Anonymous, April 3, 2005 12:00 AM

Yossi Klein HaLevi has written an excellent article once again demonstrating his clear and lucid grasp of the "matzav" in Eretz Yisroel. What he says here about the Palestian attitudes mirrors my own thoughts about this topic, arrived at independently. Therefore, what surprises me is not so much the substance of what he writes, but why so few people find it obviously true! Why can't so many see that there is something terribly wrong with Palestinian society and that it is davka that "wrongness" that causes the conflict to drag on and on, causing so much death and misery? Instead, so many otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people, like the Palestinians themselves, blame Israel. Indeed, even before I read this article, I would have found such a conclusion (that Israel is to blame)to be patently false!

(3) James, July 22, 2004 12:00 AM

Beware of reckless remarks

Excuse me, but who does the writer represent when he claims the fence "is establishing a new border"? Hasn't Israel been at pains to maintain that the fence is a mere defence that can easily be moved as and when, and Klein's words are merely ammunition for critics of Israel who see the fence as a 'land grab'. As the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled, the fence is valid for self-defence but not to gratuitously separate Palestinians from land.

(2) Anonymous, July 20, 2004 12:00 AM

Israel and the palestinians by Mr. Klein

The article of Mr Klein is excellent and analyses well the palestinian psyche.
However Palestinian and israelis are victims of an another very important problem. The use of the palestinians by the arab nations and by the International community.

1 In order to unite the arab world and create his pan arabism project Nasser brandished Israel as a colonialist country and developed the first anti israeli propaganda.

Then during the cold war, the russian sided with the arab world to increase their influence in the Middle East

In the 70 France reinvented Arafat as a tool to reach the leaders of the arab world and establish itself as an economic partnair in the Middle eastern countries.

In one word international communities courted strongly the arab countries and especially those who had the oil and one of the tools they used to gain the approbation of the arabs was the palestinians.

The arabs leaders in the Middle East in their turn brandished Israel and developed a very strong anti israeli propaganda which helped them control their populations.

Unsatisfied elements linked themselves to the imams and islam. the anti israeli propaganda was transformed into an anti jewish propaganda.

The palestinians with Arafat played the cards of each of the players at each generation. As Mr Klein said they complained and blamed Israel counting on the arabs and the international community to
Arafat, never abandonned the idea to destroy Israel. He was supported by the arab leaders and encouraged by different political forces. Today it took the form of the rejection of the fence by the European countries.

To much is at stake here. When there will be no more oil in the Middle East or if oil is replaced by another form of energy, then Israel and the palestinian will become memory.

Unless... the palestinians realize that their best friends are the israelis and that they consider once and for all that it is in their interest to live in peace with its neighbour.

But there is another but.. the arab countries such as Iran, Syria, and Irak stop sending money for the antifada and for the education of young palestinian in the hate Israel.

So many if and but...

(1) Ruth Lowry, July 18, 2004 12:00 AM

Excellent article.

Mr.Halevi's article demonstrates thoughtful searching of the "Palestinian" mindset.
These people are captives of the ideology of their leaders who are obsessed with far out notions, and determined to have THEIR way..."all or nothing." They are their own and their peoples' worst enemies. They continue to lose out, and if they don't get rid of their power hungry leaders, "nothing" is exactly what they will get.

Submit Your Comment:

  • Display my name?

  • Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

  • * required field 2000
Submit Comment