The News Behind The News
March 11, 2001
Ben-Ami's "Change of Heart"Reviewing the impeccable "peace camp" credentials of Israel's just replaced Foreign Minister Ben-Ami (see the following relevant links), Israel's dean of military affairs journalists Ze'ev Schiff reports the professor's "change of heart." Noting Ben-Ami's "double" disappointment --that "[1] there's no chance to reach a final agreement...because [2] the Palestinians did not go through a generational change as expected," Dr. Ben-Ami also see now there is "no chance of persuading Arafat" to accept a final agreement."
But Ben-Ami has not "retreated from the idea of peace," reports Mr. Schiff. This is in spite of his double disappointment which includes his discovery that "the Palestinians did not go through a generational change as expected."
Schiff notes too that Ben-Ami is finding it hard to "shake the memory of a phone conversation with Marwan Barghouti...head of the Tanzim [terrorist organization to the right of Arafat, who] said after Camp David,"'Shlomo if by September you don't finish this, things won't be good.'" This man, a main figure in a terrorist strategy called Intifada Two, made good on the threat the day after Sharon ascended the Temple Mount.
But what about "generational change?" This is an example of so-called Conflict Resolution or the social science approach to human conflict. It is based upon the fact that no one is right, no one is wrong so "peace" is a matter of talking it out and stopping the violence. But if no one is right or wrong why is violence wrong?
The phone call in which a self-advertised killer-leader of Intifada Two threatens the Jewish foreign minister who believes this conflict turns on "generational change" seems to show that only the Arabs have grasped Conflict Resolution. When IASPS said after Camp David that Option 1 (continue the peace process) and Option 2 (oppose the peace process) were a single option: violence, it was our point at the time that Ben-Ami understood this. Now it seems we were wrong. Schiff asks: "Was...continuing violence...Arafat's plan from the start even when he signed the Oslo accords....? [Schiff answers:] Neither Ben-Ami nor Barak have a decisive answer."
But this will not stop Ben-Ami or the peace camp. Their answer now? Schiff records it: "'an imposed, agreed arrangement' around the Clinton proposal....The international envelope in which it came would also pay for 'the price of peace.'" Then we were not wrong?
"Imposed"? But isn't that "violence?" Ben-Ami does understand then? And then there is the money; in an "international envelope." This means the "imposed" arrangement will be "agreed" because the world will pay the Arabs not to shoot their guns?
IASPS said it in 1991: "The peace process is a gimmick for aid and free money."
Relevant links: Israel is Taking Option #1; The Four Options after Camp David; Ben-Ami's Latest Twist; Peace Process Madness; The Meaning of Sneh's Remark; Paying for Peace, Paying for War (back to the text)
The News Behind the News Archive