Hillary Clinton says the status quo threatens Israel’s future — is this so?

Secretary of State Clinton argues:

Demography (‘Arab womb’), ideology (‘rejectionism’) and technology (better rockets) compel a true friend of Israel to force it to negotiate with the PA.

Clinton has the historical trends backwards.

Speaking at the AIPAC policy conference last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton portrayed herself as a true friend of Israel, engaging in a little tough love on new Israeli housing in east Jerusalem.

The motivation for the tough love, she said, is that the status quo is not sustainable. Without a two-state solution, which she candidly admitted will not solve everything, Israel’s existence is nonetheless threatened. It is imperative to get negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority started — and housing in east Jerusalem stops that.

We shall leave aside for now the fact that Israel is willing to engage in direct negotiations, while the PA is balking even at indirect negotiations.

We shall concentrate on Clinton’s claim that the status quo is not sustainable. She made her case on the basis of demography, ideology and technology.

Each undermines Israel, she said. Is she right?

I. DEMOGRAPHY

The conventional wisdom says that the “Arab womb” will destroy Israel. The Palestinian population will simply overtake and then overpower the Israeli population.

This argument has been put forth ever since the days when Menachem Begin took power in Israel in 1977. Thirty-three years later, the “inevitable” triumph of the Arab womb has not happened. Why?

The inevitability theory of the demographers did not take into account four factors: a) immigration into the Jewish state; b) emigration from the Palestinian areas; c) modernization of the Palestinian society, leading to a much reduced Palestinian birthrate; and d) Israeli awareness of the potential problem, leading to a much increased Israeli birthrate.

It would be foolhardly to deny the potential of a Palestinian demographic timebomb, but just as back in 1977 it was supposed to happen by now, it is not likely to happen in the near future, perhaps not even in the long term, given the way Israel — and the Palestinians — have responded.

By the way, one of the reasons for the emigration from the West Bank is the Arab Muslim persecution of the Arab Christian population. Case in point: Bethlehem.

II. IDEOLOGY

Clinton says that Arab society generally, and Palestinian society specifically, is increasingly dominated by the “rejectionists.” By rejectionists, she means people who reject the existence of a Jewish state in the Middle East in principle. She is surely right to be concerned about them. But doesn’t she have the historical trends exactly backwards?

Revert to 1967, just after the Six Day War. Israel was willing to negotiate peace and had no dream of holding on to the West Bank in perpetuity — holding on to Jerusalem, yes; holding on to the Jewish holy places in Hebron and Bethlehem, yes; but the whole West Bank? No. In Israel, the areas of the West Bank were universally referred to as “the shetachim ha-muchzakim” — “the territories held in abeyance” — not “the shetachim ha-meshuchrarim” — “the liberated territories,” as Menachem Begin called them 10 years later.

And West Bank settlements? In 1967, there were none.

Yet, how did the Arabs relate to Israel’s willingness to talk peace? In Khartoum, in the fall of 1967, the Arab nations issued their famous response: three “no’s,” no peace, no recognition, no negotiations.

Today, 43 years later, Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel. Palestinians have negotiated with Israel, and are under pressure from the US to do so now, even if only in indirect negotiations. Is it not evident that the “rejectionists” have lost ground, not gained ground? Is not history working against them, not for them?

To be sure, there has been a dangerous turn in the rejectionist camp. While in 1967 it was largely secular, today it is largest religious, dominated by militant Islam. It will be much more difficult to reach an accommodation with, say, Hamas or Hezbollah, than with most Arab states.

As dangerous as this is, it still does not change the overall pattern: Arab rejection of Israel has no resemblance to the three no’s of Khartoum. In addition to Egypt and Jordan and some West Bank Palestinians, Saudi Arabia is singing a somewhat different tune, not to mention the United Arab Emirates.

Bottom line: Israel’s toughness on her right to exist, her right to Jerusalem, and her right to live anywhere in Israel, has brought around some Arabs. As we say, Clinton seems to have it backwards.

A related point: To the extent that Israel has accommodated the rejectionists, Israel erred egregiously. Israel accommodated the Palestinian leadership of Gaza by withdrawing from Gaza unilaterally in 2005. This emboldened the rejectionists, who now rule Gaza. If Israel unilaterally stops building houses in east Jerusalem, this would likely unleash the same dynamic.

Likewise, Israel’s acceptance of the “Declaration of Principles” in 1993 on the White House lawn led to a dramatic increase in terrorism against Israel. The pursuit of peace, at least as conceived and practiced under the Oslo concept, weakened Israel and strengthened the rejectionists, not the other way around.

This is the bitter lesson Israel has learned. Clinton should take note of this, which she pointedly refused to do last week when she repeatedly called on Israel to take “risks for peace.” Does she not see that Israel did take risks for peace in 1993 by agreeing to deal with Yasir Arafat, and again in Gaza in 2005 — and lost? To be successful in her peace efforts, Clinton is going to have to come up with a better strategy than urging Israel to take “risks for peace.”

III. TECHNOLOGY

Clinton correctly notes that armaments have become far more threatening to Israel. Rockets, for example, have longer range and more power. Hezbollah is in possession of tens of thousands of such rockets. Even the weak rockets in Hamas’ possession wreaked havoc in southern Israel for years before Israel fought back in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009.

Clinton also correctly notes that true peace between Israel and the Palestinians would make it harder for Israel’s enemies — the likes of Iran-armed Hamas and Hezbollah — to attack Israel.

But does it follow from all this that Israel should renounce building in east Jerusalem — and more generally renounce any act that the Palestinian Authority takes offense at? Put another way, is there truly anything that Israel can do, short of concede every PA demand in advance of negotiations, to get the PA to the table?

Put still another and far more basic way: Does the PA really want a two-state solution? Does the PA really want to live alongside an independent Jewish state, strong enough to defend itself, even if it were entirely denuded of West Bank Jewish settlements?

And put still another way: Do Israeli concessions to the PA in advance of negotiations make it more likely, or less likely, that all this firepower in the hands of Hamas and Hezbollah will be unleashed? This is a critical question, for, after all, the entire point of Clinton’s diplomacy is peace. What is more likely to sustain the current uneasy quiet, not to mention the Israeli and Palestinian economic boom — Israeli steadfastness, or Israeli weakness?

If Israel backed down every time the PA objected to this or that — to direct negotiations, to 1,600 homes in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, to a security fence — this would invite more distancing from peace negotiations, and lay the ground for a future war.

IV. WHAT TO DO NOW

We can appreciate that the Obama administration wants to move the Israel-Palestinian peace process forward. But a major reason for the Obama administration’s failure to do so is its own mistakes. Early in his presidency, Obama erred dramatically by focusing on the symbolism of settlements, when everyone knew that the land they occupied could easily be traded for Israeli land in the Negev. Israel already agreed to this. Now, by apoplectically responding to an admittedly ill-timed announcement of new Israeli building in east Jerusalem, the Obama administration has once again sent an unmistakable signal: Concessions are expected from Israel, not from the PA.

And so, Palestinians feel free to name a square in Ramallah in honor of a murderer of 37 Israelis in the worst terrorist attack in Israel. Very belatedly, Clinton condemned this — but look how she did it. She blamed it on Hamas. Excuse us? This square is in the West Bank, in Ramallah. Hamas holds no sway there; Gaza controls Gaza. It was not Hamas but the PA that named this square — squarely in a PA area — or let the naming happen.

What to do now: Let the Obama administration stop trying to wring a “victory” out of the Israel-Palestinian mess. If the PA does not want to negotiate, let the Obama administration say: Your choice. And you will need to pay the price.

If the forces in the PA that do favor reconciliation with Israel are strong enough, they will cause sufficient dissension within the PA to force it to come to the table. If they are not yet strong enough, then only American steadfastness — and a strong Israel — will allow cooler heads to prevail.

All this bending-over-backwards by Hillary Clinton, presumably under orders from President Obama, to accommodate every minor, touchy feely tantrum by the PA only emboldens it to move farther from peace. Clinton’s overanxious attempt to force a victory is lowering her chances of getting it — ever.