From Cairo to Jerusalem to Tehran
Published in Die Zeit
(Germany) on 15 June 2009
by Josef Joffe (link to original)
The harsh Palestinian reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech shows that there’s still a long way to go for the creation of a Palestinian state. And for Obama, the same old problem has become his latest new one: Iran.
The opening moves have been made. Barack Obama strongly urged both sides – Israelis and Palestinians – to compromise with the goal of a two-state solution in mind. The Palestinians would have to renounce terror, the Israelis the building of settlements in the West Bank.
On Sunday, it was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s turn. He had to give Barack Obama, the man in the middle, something so he said what he had heretofore never said: he was in favor of a Palestinian state existing side by side with Israel.
The White House found that “completely satisfactory,” sounding much like a former employer’s letter of recommendation. It called his speech “an important step forward.” But the rest of the speech and the immediate reaction from the Palestinians left little doubt that not a single stumbling block on the road to peace had yet been removed.
Refugees? The problem had to be “solved beyond Israel’s borders.”
A Palestinian nation? It had to be demilitarized and be accompanied by “cast-iron security guarantees for Israel.”
The Palestinians’ obligation? They had to agree, fully and finally, to “recognize Israel as the Jewish national homeland.”
President Abbas had already rejected that last demand; behind it, recognizable to every Israeli, lurked a single monster state stretching from the Mediterranean to Jordan – a bi-national entity with a future Arab majority population. Unacceptable.
The Palestinians demanded the right of return for all refugees driven from their homeland. Unacceptable.
Jerusalem? Netanyahu wants it as an undivided and solely Israeli city. The Palestinians want their own capital in Jerusalem, thereby making a partitioned city necessary. Unacceptable. Not even open to discussion.
Palestinian chief deputy negotiator Saeb Erekat’s conclusion: Netanyahu has in no way accepted the creation of a Palestinian state. Instead, he has set up “a series of conditions that make a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state an impossibility.”
Of course these are just the opening moves. But they repeat age-old demands that cannot solve the world’s oldest political problem despite a great speech in Cairo that praised and chastised both sides in equal measure. The same failure can be expected in the Kashmir–Tibet situation.
And since Friday, Obama has a completely different problem. It’s name is Ahmedinejad, who was reelected with an almost two-thirds majority. He feels vindicated and is sure to continue in his bid to make Iran the principle power in the Middle East. But they seem to believe just the opposite in the White House: the protests against a rigged election, they feel, will make Ahmedinejad more receptive to Obama’s ideas and he will pursue a softer foreign policy line in order to silence his rebellious countrymen.
It’s a pretty scenario. We’ll see whether it has legs over the coming days and weeks.
The opening moves have been made. Barack Obama strongly urged both sides – Israelis and Palestinians – to compromise with the goal of a two-state solution in mind. The Palestinians would have to renounce terror, the Israelis the building of settlements in the West Bank.
On Sunday, it was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s turn. He had to give Barack Obama, the man in the middle, something so he said what he had heretofore never said: he was in favor of a Palestinian state existing side by side with Israel.
The White House found that “completely satisfactory,” sounding much like a former employer’s letter of recommendation. It called his speech “an important step forward.” But the rest of the speech and the immediate reaction from the Palestinians left little doubt that not a single stumbling block on the road to peace had yet been removed.
Refugees? The problem had to be “solved beyond Israel’s borders.”
A Palestinian nation? It had to be demilitarized and be accompanied by “cast-iron security guarantees for Israel.”
The Palestinians’ obligation? They had to agree, fully and finally, to “recognize Israel as the Jewish national homeland.”
President Abbas had already rejected that last demand; behind it, recognizable to every Israeli, lurked a single monster state stretching from the Mediterranean to Jordan – a bi-national entity with a future Arab majority population. Unacceptable.
The Palestinians demanded the right of return for all refugees driven from their homeland. Unacceptable.
Jerusalem? Netanyahu wants it as an undivided and solely Israeli city. The Palestinians want their own capital in Jerusalem, thereby making a partitioned city necessary. Unacceptable. Not even open to discussion.
Palestinian chief deputy negotiator Saeb Erekat’s conclusion: Netanyahu has in no way accepted the creation of a Palestinian state. Instead, he has set up “a series of conditions that make a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state an impossibility.”
Of course these are just the opening moves. But they repeat age-old demands that cannot solve the world’s oldest political problem despite a great speech in Cairo that praised and chastised both sides in equal measure. The same failure can be expected in the Kashmir–Tibet situation.
And since Friday, Obama has a completely different problem. It’s name is Ahmedinejad, who was reelected with an almost two-thirds majority. He feels vindicated and is sure to continue in his bid to make Iran the principle power in the Middle East. But they seem to believe just the opposite in the White House: the protests against a rigged election, they feel, will make Ahmedinejad more receptive to Obama’s ideas and he will pursue a softer foreign policy line in order to silence his rebellious countrymen.
It’s a pretty scenario. We’ll see whether it has legs over the coming days and weeks.
Every American president since Israel became a nation thinks they can solve the problem.
Whether it is naive or arrogant or both they all have one thing in common. They have failed and will continue to fail. Even dare I say Obama?
Oh Americans will try to buy a peace agreement like Carter did. Americans try to buy their way out of everything.
Even the current “recession” that is a decline of wealth of a nation they are trying to buy their way out with Chinese money and then brag about how great their economic system is. That is the American way borrow and print money and then brag about how great their country is as they use almost slave labor for their cheap food supply. ie capitalism defined.
The middle class started their decline over four decades ago but borrowed money has lessened the impact. But now the impact of capitalism can be felt by this middle class big time so they go with hope. Well they are finding out even hope will not solve the destruction that capitalism brings to a country like imperialism and the decline of the middle class.
“Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty which are embodied in one maxim: the fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate” Bertrand Russell.
Pure arrogance on America’s part but then wealth can be as harsh a teacher as poverty. Few in the world understand this simple axiom stated by Russell. More American money is spent on the Jewish people that live in Israel than is spent in America per capita. Take a trip through America and ask how much money is given to Egypt and Israel so they don’t kill one another. You will find few Americans that know what Carter paid for that peace agreement. Very few.
Americans have their nose stuck in everybody’s business that is the true description of imperialism. 700 military bases around the world is another indicator of America’s imperialism.
Ok last but not least Americans don’t have a clue they are imperialists. Not a clue. Either did Germany, Soviet Union, Rome, or England. Until history proved that they were indeed imperialists.