A Road Map, or a Road without a Map?
Published in Al-Quds
(Palestine) on 6 July 2010
by Klufis Maqsud (link to original)
(Palestine) on 6 July 2010
by Klufis Maqsud (link to original)
Translated from
by Maggie Proctor.
Edited by Gheanna Emelia.
President Obama’s recent meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came at a time when Israel’s political climate is characterized by tense relations between Netanyahu and Lieberman, who protested the secret meeting between the Israeli Minister of Industry, Trade and Labour, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, and Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ahmet Davutoglu.
Between Obama and Netanyahu there is also a certain tension, which similarly has more to do with resentment than with anger. In this climate it can be expected that that this tension will translate into a sort of directness between the two. But this does not mean that they won’t continue to be suspicious of each other’s intentions since it appears that the meeting in Brussels between the Turkish and Israeli officials was held at the request of the American government.
Why did they make this request?
The United States has been trying to keep Israeli/Turkish relations from deteriorating because it would work against some of the fundamentals of American strategy in the Middle East. Consequently, the general sense is that Israel should comply with some of Turkey’s demands, which include an apology, reparations and a stronger stance regarding an easing of the siege on Gaza, a matter that has not yet been settled.
The most important thing to take away from this meeting is that what Obama wants is to end tensions and normalize Israeli/Turkish relations, guarantee that Egypt’s relationship with Israel won’t falter and ensure that the peace treaty won’t be subjected to any disturbances, doubts or worse. From this perspective it’s clear that any breakthrough in the peace process and resumption of negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel is impossible because — though the ongoing settlement operations are clear evidence that Israel is trying to create facts on the ground that will support its claim to ownership of the territory and that it will announce the settlements will continue after the ten months have elapsed — the American government is unable to get Israel to acknowledge that they are an occupying power in the Palestinian territories.
In this respect, if Obama can’t resolve the issue of settlements — requiring that they be dismantled, rather than supporting them — then any resumption of negotiations would seriously strain the PA and cause it to lose its legitimacy as a representative of the Palestinian people. Without this clarity, the peace process will continue indefinitely, with the settlements’ expansion and the Judaification of East Jerusalem facing no obstacle from the Road Map, which has created a road without a map.
In face of the conditions in the Palestinian territories as well as Obama’s many other domestic priorities — such as unemployment, immigration policies, a continuing financial crisis and the effects of the situation in Iraq, added to the current difficulties for NATO in Afghanistan — I believe that for the foreseeable future Obama will be inclined to expedite the two-state solution. This will be especially difficult because, at present, Israel is rarely held accountable for its actions, much less penalized; in other words, there is no real possibility that the Arabs will be able to counteract Israel’s practice of persistently violating U.N. resolutions while still conceding to the international community’s demands to allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with total sovereignty over its land, airspace and territorial waters, especially in Gaza.
In face of the current situation, where the Arabs aren’t capable of counteracting Israel, there is no willingness to cut established diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel, and no one is prepared to renew enforcement of the economic boycott of Israel. Obama can only make small adjustments that allow him to continue promoting the so-called “negotiations,” direct and indirect. Further, if there is no real Arab role in these efforts then we can expect little more from Obama than an alleviation of Israel’s misconduct, with no possibility of a policy that will eliminate the aggression toward occupied Palestine.
Indeed, if the Arabs were to surprise us by making a serious decision to break off relations with Israel, then the Israeli lobby in Congress would no longer be able to undermine the U.S. commitment to finalizing the two-state solution, and it would become clear that not every criticism of Israel before the U.S. government constitutes “pressure” on Israel and that neither the disestablishment of the settlements nor the end to the Judaification of East Jerusalem represents an “existential threat” to Israel. The Israeli/Zionist media’s attempts to paralyze international will, both globally and within the United States, are tantamount to a crime that is becoming disgraceful in the same way as the Israeli media’s attempts to suppress the current global feeling that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is immoral and thus that Israel is guilty of a crime. It has become necessary to impose punishment.
Between Obama and Netanyahu there is also a certain tension, which similarly has more to do with resentment than with anger. In this climate it can be expected that that this tension will translate into a sort of directness between the two. But this does not mean that they won’t continue to be suspicious of each other’s intentions since it appears that the meeting in Brussels between the Turkish and Israeli officials was held at the request of the American government.
Why did they make this request?
The United States has been trying to keep Israeli/Turkish relations from deteriorating because it would work against some of the fundamentals of American strategy in the Middle East. Consequently, the general sense is that Israel should comply with some of Turkey’s demands, which include an apology, reparations and a stronger stance regarding an easing of the siege on Gaza, a matter that has not yet been settled.
The most important thing to take away from this meeting is that what Obama wants is to end tensions and normalize Israeli/Turkish relations, guarantee that Egypt’s relationship with Israel won’t falter and ensure that the peace treaty won’t be subjected to any disturbances, doubts or worse. From this perspective it’s clear that any breakthrough in the peace process and resumption of negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel is impossible because — though the ongoing settlement operations are clear evidence that Israel is trying to create facts on the ground that will support its claim to ownership of the territory and that it will announce the settlements will continue after the ten months have elapsed — the American government is unable to get Israel to acknowledge that they are an occupying power in the Palestinian territories.
In this respect, if Obama can’t resolve the issue of settlements — requiring that they be dismantled, rather than supporting them — then any resumption of negotiations would seriously strain the PA and cause it to lose its legitimacy as a representative of the Palestinian people. Without this clarity, the peace process will continue indefinitely, with the settlements’ expansion and the Judaification of East Jerusalem facing no obstacle from the Road Map, which has created a road without a map.
In face of the conditions in the Palestinian territories as well as Obama’s many other domestic priorities — such as unemployment, immigration policies, a continuing financial crisis and the effects of the situation in Iraq, added to the current difficulties for NATO in Afghanistan — I believe that for the foreseeable future Obama will be inclined to expedite the two-state solution. This will be especially difficult because, at present, Israel is rarely held accountable for its actions, much less penalized; in other words, there is no real possibility that the Arabs will be able to counteract Israel’s practice of persistently violating U.N. resolutions while still conceding to the international community’s demands to allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with total sovereignty over its land, airspace and territorial waters, especially in Gaza.
In face of the current situation, where the Arabs aren’t capable of counteracting Israel, there is no willingness to cut established diplomatic relations between Egypt and Israel, and no one is prepared to renew enforcement of the economic boycott of Israel. Obama can only make small adjustments that allow him to continue promoting the so-called “negotiations,” direct and indirect. Further, if there is no real Arab role in these efforts then we can expect little more from Obama than an alleviation of Israel’s misconduct, with no possibility of a policy that will eliminate the aggression toward occupied Palestine.
Indeed, if the Arabs were to surprise us by making a serious decision to break off relations with Israel, then the Israeli lobby in Congress would no longer be able to undermine the U.S. commitment to finalizing the two-state solution, and it would become clear that not every criticism of Israel before the U.S. government constitutes “pressure” on Israel and that neither the disestablishment of the settlements nor the end to the Judaification of East Jerusalem represents an “existential threat” to Israel. The Israeli/Zionist media’s attempts to paralyze international will, both globally and within the United States, are tantamount to a crime that is becoming disgraceful in the same way as the Israeli media’s attempts to suppress the current global feeling that Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is immoral and thus that Israel is guilty of a crime. It has become necessary to impose punishment.