Michael Kolker: Why doesn't anyone ever ask Palestinians to take risks for peace?

For many years now we have heard politically correct pundits, diplomats and now the Obama Administration repeat the mantra that “Israel must be willing to take risks for peace” in the Middle East. This means that Israel must withdraw from land it captured in the Six Day War of 1967, the West Bank and the Golan Heights (it already withdrew from the Gaza Strip and Sinai), if there is ever to be peace between Israel and the Arab world.

Those repeating this slogan believe that the major barrier to peace in the Middle East is the Israeli settlements in these areas. They are convinced that if only Israel would withdraw to its pre-1967 borders, peace and harmony would reign in the region. Therefore, they believe Israel is to blame for the lack of peace between it and the Palestinians.

President Obama shares this belief. (This President is nothing if not politically correct.) This is why his administration has publicly criticized Israel for the announcement of its intention to build apartment buildings in a Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem.

Of course, there were many terrorist attacks by Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip against Jews in Israel between 1948 and 1967. In addition, the PLO, dedicated to the destruction of Israel, was founded in 1964, before any Jews lived in these areas. And there was obviously no effort by the Palestinians to create a peaceful Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip at any time between 1948 and 1967.

Those who blame Israel for the conflict forget or ignore these facts, proving once again that where Jews are concerned, facts and logic have never been particularly relevant.

Israel did take a “risk for peace” when it completely withdrew all of its citizens from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The Palestinians then had a simple choice: 1) build a decent, peaceful society and improve the lives of their citizens; or 2) continue their efforts to kill Jews and destroy Israel, continue to live in misery, and continue to blame the Jews for their dysfunction.

The Palestinians chose the second alternative. They fired literally thousands of missiles into Israel and carried out many terrorist attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli men, women and children.

These missile attacks and suicide bombings were obviously acts of war, as well as war crimes, intended to kill and terrorize as many Israeli civilians as possible. They were carried out groups that have declared war on Israel. These groups publicly and proudly proclaim that their goal is the destruction of the State of Israel, and the death of every Jew in Israel.

When Israel finally undertook military action to try, to the best of its ability, to stop these missile and suicide attacks, the world community reacted with horror and outrage- not against those who attacked Israel for years, but against Israel for taking any military action defend its citizens.

The world community, politicians, scholars and politically correct pundits, all of whom remained silent while missiles flew into Israel by the thousands, uniformly condemned Israel for using “disproportionate force” and inflicting “collective punishment” on the Palestinians. Of course, every missile fired into Israel from Gaza and every suicide bombing of Jewish men, women and children is obviously “collective punishment’ of Jews for the perceived crime of simply being alive and living in Israel. But we never heard that in the press or from any politically correct politician, pundit or NGO.

The world community demanded that Israel act with “restraint” so as not to “upset the Peace Process”. No matter how many Israeli citizens are killed or terrorized by Palestinian missiles or suicide attacks, the Palestinians must not lose any territory. They must not have their electricity cut off. They must not suffer any shortages of food, water, or medical supplies. Buildings that provide shelter for tunnels, terrorists or weapons must not be destroyed. The Palestinian economy must not be harmed. Unemployment must not increase. Those attacking Israel must not be attacked, for fear of harming civilians. Checkpoints and fences designed to deter suicide bombers must be dismantled. Border crossings must be opened.

The Palestinians have in essence convinced much of the world, and now the Obama Administration, that, not only do they have the right to wage war against Israel and kill Jews as they wish, they must suffer no adverse consequences as a result of their actions. Theirs is perhaps the first risk-free war.

This is of course absurd. Any group that can wage a risk-free war has no incentive to stop its efforts until its goals are achieved. The Palestinians know that they can resume killing Jews as they please, and, if Israel responds militarily, pictures of wounded Palestinians will be all over the news, the world community and the Obama Administration will condemn Israel for the conflict, pressure Israel to take further “risks for peace” and give the Palestinians billions for reconstruction.

It is not a coincidence that immediately after President Obama publicly criticized Israel the missile attacks from Gaza into Israel resumed. President Obama has made sure that Israel will be blamed for any resumption of violence between it and those determined to destroy it. He either knew or should have known this would be the case.

We have never heard anyone in the Obama Administration say that, “The Palestinians must take risks for peace.” There is a reason for this: The only thing the Palestinians risk by making peace with Israel is their publicly stated goal of destroying Israel. This is apparently simply too much for them to even contemplate, and too much for this President to expect. 

Michael S. Kolker is a Seattle trial attorney who has lived in Israel.