Obama's Speech: To Outline a True Vision

Should Obama indeed give his “second Cairo speech”? That would be an important contribution to shaping the Middle East and especially to the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Should he come up with the address, he’ll arouse a tailwind behind the revolutionaries of the Arab countries. He’s going to have to refer not only to the revolutions that already have taken place, which nonetheless haven’t given growth as yet to an alternative leadership, but also to the revolutions taking place, as we speak, in Libya and mainly in Syria. He’ll have to refute claims, according to which there are positive dictatorships and negative ones, and to provide backing to anyone who wants to struggle for freedom in our world. He’s going to need to give his piece of mind as well to the post-revolutionary phenomena, for example, of Muslim violence against Christians in Egypt, and warn of the ugly face of the outbreak of hatred as a part of the feeling of freedom.

And he’s going to need to tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This conflict is one of the most important ones to the masses in the Arab world undergoing regime change at the moment. True, it was not the central issue in the revolutions, and we can say it thousands of times: The Arab world has way more important issues to take care of, and a suitable solution to the conflict will also be far from able to solve the problems of the Arabs in the region. But in almost every article published in the independent Arab press, in every demonstration and in every survey, it turns out that it is an issue refusing to drop from the agenda. Every Arab regime is going to have to give its consideration to this [subject matter] and not merely in order to convince its voters that it is doing what is expected of it.

Obama needs to demand that Hamas accept the quartet conditions and to bless the effort to return the Gaza Strip to the common Palestinian framework. He needs to inform that should the Palestinian government, made up of professionals and devoid of Hamas people, rise up, the United States will examine its conduct, particularly from the security standpoint, and will determine its attitude to it correspondingly. Obama has to assert the principles for the arrangement and to call for the sides to discuss it immediately, while avoiding certain unilateral steps: The Palestinians will refrain from bringing up the question of the Palestinian state in the U.N., and Israel will be obliged to stop building beyond the Green Line. If it were possible to arrive at a permanent agreement with [Mahmoud] Abbas in the coming months, the arrangement will turn into a fait accompli for any future Palestinian government. It’s preferable, therefore, to reach an agreement now than to wait for the results of elections to be held (or not to be held) in another year.

However, even if it won’t be possible to strike a permanent agreement (and the demands voiced by the Israeli side do not allow for such a deal), the points outlined by Obama should constitute the vision the Palestinians need, like an insurance policy, in order to get an agreement with Israel regarding the second stage of the road map.

The practical thing is Obama’s speech this week and following it, Netanyahu’s speech before the two houses of Congress as an echo to this speech. Both sides will declare that they will refrain from taking unilateral steps. From this point, we should open intensive negotiations that, even if unable to lead to a permanent agreement, will likely lead to a country within temporary borders, recognized in the U.N. (and first and foremost, by Israel), and will become a de facto arrangement for Hamas, too.

Editor’s note: (SEE HERE) to read Part 2, “Obama’s Speech: Back to Bush’s Outline?,” by Isi Leibler.