Peace in the Middle East: The Obama Ambition
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 Sacha Christianson.
Edited by Amy Wong.
We knew the relations between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu were cold. They’ve been predicted to be frigid. Indeed, 24 hours after the American president had proposed that all agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians be structured on the 1967 borders, the Israeli prime minister expressed his strong opposition. In other words, the stagnation will continue in the coming months.
During his speech on Middle East policy, the chief executive of the United States distinguished himself from his predecessors by arguing that the first discussion for an eventual peace agreement be devoted entirely to security and territorial trade that involves the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. After which, if agreement is reached on these issues, the representatives of either side will begin negotiations on the status of Jerusalem and the return of refugees — in reality the descendents of the latter — to Israel. By doing so, Obama distinguished himself from George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and others by giving up, more specifically and for an indeterminate time, the idea of an Israeli military presence in three locations locked inside the 1967 lines and not ruling out the refugee issue. We know that the return of the aforementioned brings about friction, notably because of their demographic weight, but by taking the opposing position to Bush and company Obama allocated a medium of exchange for the Palestinians. In brief, he just ended forty years of U.S. policy on this front.
He was able to defy conventional policy because, unlike his predecessors, the Arab potentates have been overthrown and autocrats have been weakened. Gadhafi comes to mind. He just broke ties because he certainly does not want to thwart democracy in action in Tunisia and especially in Egypt. In this regard, his support of the aspirations of freedom of expression and political pluralism has been as strong as expected. What concerns Netanyah, like a possible destabilization of Egypt for example, he does not fear.
On his part, the prime minister of Israel has done what he is used to doing while Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, among others, announce a policy shift. What now? Permission has been granted for another colonization project. Netanyahu wants to highlight his ill will and the fact that he won’t act otherwise. However, the fact remains that after a meeting yesterday with his U.S. counterpart, Netanyahu clearly stated that it was out of the question, for the moment at least, to initiate a dialogue based on the 1967 borders.
It’s out of the question to discuss this with Palestinian representatives as well, as long as Hamas will not recognize the right of Israel’s existence. While we know that Hamas’ slogan is “Israel to sea,” the least we can say is that Netanyahu’s demand is well based.
This being said, in the coming months there will be strong pressure put on the aforementioned for a gesture of goodwill, now that the European Union has praised the Obama plan. And we will wholeheartedly put pressure on him as well.
During his speech on Middle East policy, the chief executive of the United States distinguished himself from his predecessors by arguing that the first discussion for an eventual peace agreement be devoted entirely to security and territorial trade that involves the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. After which, if agreement is reached on these issues, the representatives of either side will begin negotiations on the status of Jerusalem and the return of refugees — in reality the descendents of the latter — to Israel. By doing so, Obama distinguished himself from George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and others by giving up, more specifically and for an indeterminate time, the idea of an Israeli military presence in three locations locked inside the 1967 lines and not ruling out the refugee issue. We know that the return of the aforementioned brings about friction, notably because of their demographic weight, but by taking the opposing position to Bush and company Obama allocated a medium of exchange for the Palestinians. In brief, he just ended forty years of U.S. policy on this front.
He was able to defy conventional policy because, unlike his predecessors, the Arab potentates have been overthrown and autocrats have been weakened. Gadhafi comes to mind. He just broke ties because he certainly does not want to thwart democracy in action in Tunisia and especially in Egypt. In this regard, his support of the aspirations of freedom of expression and political pluralism has been as strong as expected. What concerns Netanyah, like a possible destabilization of Egypt for example, he does not fear.
On his part, the prime minister of Israel has done what he is used to doing while Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, among others, announce a policy shift. What now? Permission has been granted for another colonization project. Netanyahu wants to highlight his ill will and the fact that he won’t act otherwise. However, the fact remains that after a meeting yesterday with his U.S. counterpart, Netanyahu clearly stated that it was out of the question, for the moment at least, to initiate a dialogue based on the 1967 borders.
It’s out of the question to discuss this with Palestinian representatives as well, as long as Hamas will not recognize the right of Israel’s existence. While we know that Hamas’ slogan is “Israel to sea,” the least we can say is that Netanyahu’s demand is well based.
This being said, in the coming months there will be strong pressure put on the aforementioned for a gesture of goodwill, now that the European Union has praised the Obama plan. And we will wholeheartedly put pressure on him as well.