Peace between Israel and Palestine – a Task Too Difficult for Obama?
Published in Ziare
(Romania) on 26 August 2009
by Ana Ilie (link to original)
(Romania) on 26 August 2009
by Ana Ilie (link to original)
Translated from
by Veronica Pascarel.
Edited by Christie Chu.
The Middle East is a region haunted by the ghosts of leaders of states and governments that have tried to find a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The U.S. president, Barack Obama, is the latest one to hope for a solution that could be accepted by both sides.
And why wouldn’t he succeed? We are definitely talking about an internationally-admired president, unlike his predecessor. Obama seems to be a president capable of grasping the issues and complexities of this region, being a president that believes in diplomacy and one that has an exceptionally good image throughout the Arab world, according to The Guardian.
To his advantage, it is the perfect moment: For the first time, big representatives of the Arab world have a common interest regarding Israel.
Saudi Arabia and others are more afraid of Tehran than Tel Aviv – a reason why they would be willing to reconcile old disputes with Israel, hoping it would lead to a unified international action, a force against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Will it be possible for Obama to bring peace to the Middle East?
It is not a completely impossible task. However, for peace to even stand a chance, the White House leader will first have to resolve an issue which seems to have no solution.
Obama and the Palestinians are demanding a complete stop to the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, settlements that are considered illegal by international law.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not believe in a complete halt of the settlements. However, in a recent visit to London, the prime minister suggested a position similar to Obama’s – only some new settlements will be built, because children of the settlers need kindergartens and schools.
They will not be new colonies, said Netanyahu, “it is very different from territory occupation…We will not expropriate new auxiliary territories.”
This might be a turning point on the way to resolving the conflict – if each party agrees to a year's halt of the settlements, with the exception of some absolutely necessary building.
However, we are left with the Palestinian repudiation before any talk even begins concerning a complete halt. If Washington keeps insisting, Palestine authorities might concede. Nevertheless, this would represent an inconvenient beginning for the new peace prospect.
In comparison with Israel, Obama will be the one that “yielded,” the one that will seem weak and unable to convince a dependable ally to comply with Washington. It will represent a loss of power for a leader that needs both sides to respect and fear him in order to obtain results.
There will be one more obstacle, this time from the Israeli side. Netanyahu’s insistence on the settlement’s “natural” growth is a false concession.
The settlements continue growing three times faster than any other communities in mainland Israel, and the settlement borders extend far beyond their allowed regions.
Palestinians are trapped in continuously diminishing territories between the West Bank’s security wall and the streets and military zones only accessible to settlers.
Let’s imagine that Obama will be able to overcome all these obstacles and will be able to start peace negotiations. At first glance, the best approach will complicate the issue even more.
In the last two decades, the advocates from both sides have made considerable efforts to reduce the scale of the Israeli-Palestine problem, proposing a peace solution that would reverse the effects of the 1967 occupation, giving the Palestinians the title to the land they lost.
However, this would signify that the conflict started in 1967. The conflict has deeper roots, since the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948, if not from the arrival of the first Jewish people determined to reconstruct their country in the last years of the nineteenth century.
Maybe the failures of all the efforts intended to reconcile the conflict were caused by avoiding the central problem from the year 1948.
Perhaps peace will only come if all the difficult problems are confronted: the deprivation the Palestinians, a nation forced to become refugees and the wish so central to the creation of Israel, the Jewish desire to finally live in their own state after 2,000 years of exile.
And why wouldn’t he succeed? We are definitely talking about an internationally-admired president, unlike his predecessor. Obama seems to be a president capable of grasping the issues and complexities of this region, being a president that believes in diplomacy and one that has an exceptionally good image throughout the Arab world, according to The Guardian.
To his advantage, it is the perfect moment: For the first time, big representatives of the Arab world have a common interest regarding Israel.
Saudi Arabia and others are more afraid of Tehran than Tel Aviv – a reason why they would be willing to reconcile old disputes with Israel, hoping it would lead to a unified international action, a force against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Will it be possible for Obama to bring peace to the Middle East?
It is not a completely impossible task. However, for peace to even stand a chance, the White House leader will first have to resolve an issue which seems to have no solution.
Obama and the Palestinians are demanding a complete stop to the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, settlements that are considered illegal by international law.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not believe in a complete halt of the settlements. However, in a recent visit to London, the prime minister suggested a position similar to Obama’s – only some new settlements will be built, because children of the settlers need kindergartens and schools.
They will not be new colonies, said Netanyahu, “it is very different from territory occupation…We will not expropriate new auxiliary territories.”
This might be a turning point on the way to resolving the conflict – if each party agrees to a year's halt of the settlements, with the exception of some absolutely necessary building.
However, we are left with the Palestinian repudiation before any talk even begins concerning a complete halt. If Washington keeps insisting, Palestine authorities might concede. Nevertheless, this would represent an inconvenient beginning for the new peace prospect.
In comparison with Israel, Obama will be the one that “yielded,” the one that will seem weak and unable to convince a dependable ally to comply with Washington. It will represent a loss of power for a leader that needs both sides to respect and fear him in order to obtain results.
There will be one more obstacle, this time from the Israeli side. Netanyahu’s insistence on the settlement’s “natural” growth is a false concession.
The settlements continue growing three times faster than any other communities in mainland Israel, and the settlement borders extend far beyond their allowed regions.
Palestinians are trapped in continuously diminishing territories between the West Bank’s security wall and the streets and military zones only accessible to settlers.
Let’s imagine that Obama will be able to overcome all these obstacles and will be able to start peace negotiations. At first glance, the best approach will complicate the issue even more.
In the last two decades, the advocates from both sides have made considerable efforts to reduce the scale of the Israeli-Palestine problem, proposing a peace solution that would reverse the effects of the 1967 occupation, giving the Palestinians the title to the land they lost.
However, this would signify that the conflict started in 1967. The conflict has deeper roots, since the foundation of the Israeli state in 1948, if not from the arrival of the first Jewish people determined to reconstruct their country in the last years of the nineteenth century.
Maybe the failures of all the efforts intended to reconcile the conflict were caused by avoiding the central problem from the year 1948.
Perhaps peace will only come if all the difficult problems are confronted: the deprivation the Palestinians, a nation forced to become refugees and the wish so central to the creation of Israel, the Jewish desire to finally live in their own state after 2,000 years of exile.
Previous article![]( "Lion of the Senate")
Next article![]( "The Struggle of the Patriots")
