American Ideas, but Still No Peace!

What Philip Crowley, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for Public Affairs, has revealed regarding his country’s determination to bring new ideas “to close the gap between Israelis and Palestinians” in preparation for the start of negotiations is not good news at all. On the contrary, [his revelation] constitutes a flagrant bias toward Israel, which is not concealing its intentions to stretch the duration of the negotiations until God knows when.

What is the meaning of new ideas? Are there any new ideas left, seeing as these negotiations have lasted for nearly two decades now? If these new ideas do not please Israel, shall we find ourselves in need of looking for new ideas?

The peace process is built on principles that the international community has recognized and unanimously approved of. There are also international legitimacy resolutions and resolutions by the Security Council, in addition to the Madrid Conference terms of reference and the principle of land for peace. Moreover, there is the Oslo agreement, the road map and so forth. Yet, the Obama administration is still looking for new ideas despite all the evidence confirming Israel’s rejection of peace and its procrastination to gain more time on the ground and in negotiations.

If the U.S. administration is looking for new ideas that comply with the principles of the peace process based on said reference pacts and treaties and it strives to impose them on Israel, then this will be a shift in U.S. policy and will reflect the essence of President Obama’s speech in Cairo.

However, if these ideas are to be submitted again to negotiations, then this will not lead to any results and it will be a shock to all those who wish for peace within the region.

The U.S. administration is wrong if it believes that it is possible for anyone, Palestinian or not, to submit to, or accept, what Israel seeks to achieve. It is also wrong if it believes that the Arabs’ only means to having their rights restored is through negotiations. Likewise, Israel and the U.S. are wrong if they believe that regional and international conditions will stay this way. The world is changing, and so are societies. Perhaps what our generation and the one before it have come to accept will not be accepted at all by the next generation. There are many perceptible ideological and practical indications of this.

Last but not least, Obama’s administration must be aware that announcing its intention to secure peace is not enough to achieve this goal. Sending the U.S. envoy George Mitchell to the region once again is a good thing, but what is not good at all is the American refusal to pressure Israel into accepting the U.S.’s ideas for peace.