What's wrong with the 'Palestinian' case against Israel

There’s something wrong with the 'Palestinian' argument that there is no peace in the Arab-Israel conflict because of Israel. That argument says there can be peace only when Israel takes one certain action (see below). Until Israel takes that specific action (see below), the argument says, the Palestinian Authority (PA) can never sign for peace.

This is a clear statement. It contains no ambiguity. What's wrong is, that 'one certain action' keeps changing.

Some people like to support causes. They like consistency. They get worried when their favorite cause keeps changing its tune.

This is exactly what's happening with the 'Palestinian Cause'. Before 2010, the 'Palestinian Cause' said the number one obstacle to peace in the Arab-Israel conflict was Israel's refusal to grant to 'Palestinian Refugees' the right to return to their 'homes' ("The core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", reliefweb, November 23, 2007). There were indeed other issues. But until around 2010, the 'refugee' issue was the Number One problem 'Palestinians' wanted addressed to achieve 'peace'.

Then, around 2010, the 'Palestinian' core issue for peace changed. Yes, refugees were still an issue. But this was no longer the core issue. At some point near or during 2010, the core issue that kept peace from breaking out between Arab and Jew had changed--to borders and 'settlements' ("Middle East peace talks: key issues between Israel and Palestinians", telegraph, September 14, 2010).

Specifically, the PA demanded that, for peace to occur, Israel had to withdraw from all land it had won during its 1967 war with surrounding Arab states. Israel also had to dismantle all Jewish settlements built on that land (ibid). Refugees were no longer the 'core' issue.

By the time US Secretary of State John Kerry began his marathon peace negotiations during 2013-14, the 'goal-posts' changed yet again. The new "most important" core issue was now 'borders/territory' (Harriet Sherwood, "Israel-Palestinian peace talks: the key issues", guardian, January 30, 2014). 'Refugees' fell from the number three spot in 2010 (telegraph, ibid) to the number four spot (ibid).

A year later, the core issue became 'the occupation' (Marwan Barghouti, "There will be no peace until Israel’s occupation of Palestine ends", guardian, October 11, 2015). Refugees as an issue was relegated to a list of "issues" (ibid).

Now, 2017, the key issue for PA peace with Israel has changed again. The key issue now--the deal-breaker--was Jerusalem (David Rosenberg, "Trump gave Jerusalem to Israel - no peace until we get it back'", arutzsheva, December 13, 2017). When stating this demand--all of Jerusalem or no peace--Abbas didn't mention 'refugees' at all.

Hamas follows Abbas ("Hamas: West Jerusalem also belongs to Palestine", arutzsheva, December 19, 2017). So far as Hamas is now concerned, Jerusalem is the proverbial 'red line' (ibid). There will be no end of bloodshed, Hamas suggests, until both East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem are the capital of 'Palestine' (ibid). Hamas doesn't mention 'refugees' (ibid).

What's going on here? What's the core issue for peace? More important, why does that core issue keep changing?

While each of the 'core issues' (above) differs one from the other, they all share two common denominators. Each places the blame for 'no peace' squarely on Israel's shoulders. Each demonizes Israel.

This brings us to the real PA  'core issue'--to blame and to demonize the Jewish state so as to convince the UN it must un-list Israel as a state and declare an Arab-Muslim 'Palestine' in Israel's place.

It's come down to this: Israel must be destroyed because the entire Middle East suffers because of Israel. The bloodshed in Syria's civil war is Israel's fault. The Jew-hate of Iran is Israel's fault. The lack of water in the PA territories is Israel's fault. The collapse of Gaza's infrastructure is Israel's fault. PA unemployment is Israel's fault. Arab wife-beating in PA homes is Israel's fault. Hamas's wars against Israel are Israel’s fault.

Many in the world support such condemnation. But there may be winds of change. 

Some have begun to tire of Abbas and his hate-Israel agenda. Abbas may no longer have the backing he's become accustomed to. 

India, once a staunch supporter of all things 'Palestinian', has now refused to toe-the-line of 'support the Palestinian Cause' (Vijeta Uniyal, "India’s Stance on Jerusalem Angers Arab Regimes", legalinsurrection, December 19, 2017). India has refused to criticize US President Trump for recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (ibid). India has refused to condemn Trump for this recognition (ibid).

Arab leaders backpedal from Abbas. They have refused to parrot Abbas' line of condemning Trump for his Jerusalem declaration ("Palestinians get really upset when Arab leaders don't fall into line", elderofzyion, December 15, 2017). Are they growing tired of the Abbas hate-Israel obsession?

There's something wrong with the 'Palestinian' argument against Israel. It's beginning to wear thin. It's beginning to lose its appeal.

Has the Palestinian Cause finally run its course? Stay tuned.