Obama’s Initiative: Peace in the Middle East
Published in Le Devoir
(France) on 21 May 2011
by Serge Truffaut (link to original)
(France) on 21 May 2011
by Serge Truffaut (link to original)
Translated from
by Iryna Dzyubynska.
Edited by Jenette Axelrod
.
We know that the relationship between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu has been cold. It is continuing to freeze. Indeed, 24 hours after the U.S. president has proposed that any agreement between Israelis and Palestinians should be built based on the 1967 borders, the Israeli prime minister expressed his strong disagreement. In other words, the stagnation will continue in the coming months.
In his speech on Middle East policy, the American chief executive stood out from all his predecessors in arguing that the first discussion about a possible peace agreement between the two parties should be devoted exclusively to security and territorial trade that involves building the Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders. Then, if an agreement is reached on these issues, representatives from both sides will begin negotiations on the status of Jerusalem and the return of refugees, the real descendants of those in Israel.
In doing so, Obama has distinguished himself from George Bush, Bill Clinton and others in abandoning the idea of an Israeli military presence in three locations locked inside the 1967 lines, during these confusing times, and by not ruling out the refugee issue. We know that the return of the latter is fiction, mainly because of their demographic weight, but unlike Bush and company, Obama made the Palestinians a bargaining chip. In short, he is going to break with 40 years of U.S. policy on this front.
He will break with 40 years of U.S. policy because, differently from his predecessors, Middle Eastern dictators were overthrown, and the autocrats have been weakened. Examples include Gadhafi. He will break it off because he does not want to oppose democracy in action in Tunisia or especially in Egypt. In this regard, his support for the freedom of expression, political pluralism and other rights has been stronger than expected. Obama, in this situation, is afraid that a possible destabilization of Egypt, for example, does not scare Netanyahu at all.
For his part, the prime minister of Israel has done what he used to do when Obama, Vice President Joe Biden or anyone else announced a policy shift. What exactly? Permission has been granted to another settlement project. Netanyahu wanted to highlight his lack of support — that he would not act otherwise. Still, after a meeting yesterday with his U.S. counterpart, Netanyahu made it clear that there was no question, for now at least, to start a dialogue based on the 1967 borders.
There is nothing to discuss with Palestinian representatives as long as Hamas will not recognize Israel’s right to exist. When we know that the slogan of Hamas is "Israel into the sea," the least we can say is that Netanyahu has made up his mind.
However, the pressure on him for his well-meaning gesture will be even stronger in the coming months as the European Union praises Obama’s plan. We praise it as well, and not once, but twice.
In his speech on Middle East policy, the American chief executive stood out from all his predecessors in arguing that the first discussion about a possible peace agreement between the two parties should be devoted exclusively to security and territorial trade that involves building the Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders. Then, if an agreement is reached on these issues, representatives from both sides will begin negotiations on the status of Jerusalem and the return of refugees, the real descendants of those in Israel.
In doing so, Obama has distinguished himself from George Bush, Bill Clinton and others in abandoning the idea of an Israeli military presence in three locations locked inside the 1967 lines, during these confusing times, and by not ruling out the refugee issue. We know that the return of the latter is fiction, mainly because of their demographic weight, but unlike Bush and company, Obama made the Palestinians a bargaining chip. In short, he is going to break with 40 years of U.S. policy on this front.
He will break with 40 years of U.S. policy because, differently from his predecessors, Middle Eastern dictators were overthrown, and the autocrats have been weakened. Examples include Gadhafi. He will break it off because he does not want to oppose democracy in action in Tunisia or especially in Egypt. In this regard, his support for the freedom of expression, political pluralism and other rights has been stronger than expected. Obama, in this situation, is afraid that a possible destabilization of Egypt, for example, does not scare Netanyahu at all.
For his part, the prime minister of Israel has done what he used to do when Obama, Vice President Joe Biden or anyone else announced a policy shift. What exactly? Permission has been granted to another settlement project. Netanyahu wanted to highlight his lack of support — that he would not act otherwise. Still, after a meeting yesterday with his U.S. counterpart, Netanyahu made it clear that there was no question, for now at least, to start a dialogue based on the 1967 borders.
There is nothing to discuss with Palestinian representatives as long as Hamas will not recognize Israel’s right to exist. When we know that the slogan of Hamas is "Israel into the sea," the least we can say is that Netanyahu has made up his mind.
However, the pressure on him for his well-meaning gesture will be even stronger in the coming months as the European Union praises Obama’s plan. We praise it as well, and not once, but twice.