Obama’s Miscalculations Jeopardize Peace
Published in Maariv
(Israel) on 31 March 2010
by Ben-Dror Yemini (link to original)
Too much talk has been lavished by media punditry about the trap Netanyahu walked into during his last visit to the White House. It’s now time to talk about the trap Obama has laid down for the peace process. Obama’s latest maneuvers incapacitated the peace process and dealt a severe blow to the chance for peace.
In order to understand where Obama has led us, we need to remember that we have been in the peace process for 20 years now. Serious proposals were on the table. Ehud Barak proposed the partitioning of Jerusalem in 1999. Arafat refused it. When President Clinton added his own far-reaching ideas, Arafat’s answer was no, despite warnings from representatives of the Egyptian president and the Saudi King that rejection of these ideas was tantamount to a crime against the Palestinian people. Arafat, naturally, committed the crime.
To boot, during the former Israeli administration, negotiations with the Palestinians were conducted on two corresponding levels: between Olmert and Abu-Mazen, and on a more specific level, between Tzipi Livni and Abu-Ala, with depressing results. Abu Mazen rejected Olmert’s sweeping proposal, which included the partitioning of Jerusalem and a symbolic "Right of Return." Abu Mazen insisted on mass return of the refugees. That was the reason why Abu Mazen discarded the proposal and not, as proclaimed, due to Olmert’s waning days as prime minister. Abu Mazen said so himself, in his own voice. No need for parsing here.
In the parallel, more specific level there was some progress. The Palestinian side understood that there would be no withdrawal from Gilo, Ramat Shlomo or Givat Zeev. There were other points of dispute. But there were also midway agreements that should not be underestimated. Those agreements, though incomplete, had some significance. In any future negotiation, the negotiating parties are well aware of what has already been accomplished. This is the reason why the Palestinians, Europe and the American administration demanded a building freeze in the West Bank and in the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, but never fixed on Jewish neighborhoods such as Gilo or Ramat Shlomo. There was a silent consensus about it.
Whoever insists on withdrawal from the Jewish neighborhoods is not pleading for peace. Even the greatest devotees of the peace process understand that such a demand from Israel is like demanding that Americans withdraw from Washington in favor, let’s say, of the native Pistacaway Nacotchtank who lived in the Potomac Valley, where Washington D.C. is now located.
What has Obama’s administration wrought forth? Persuaded the Palestinians to go back to demands they had already given up and make Jerusalem their main concern. If Obama is asking for Gilo and Ramat Shlomo, how can the Palestinians demand any less? And, indeed, at the Arab League summit during the weekend, Abu Mazen has already affirmed a toughened position on Jerusalem. All former understandings are void and nil.
So, because of Obama, Jerusalem has become the main issue. This is how you turn a conflict between two nations into a religious clash. The sane followers of the peace process know what a peace agreement will look like; there are no secrets. The outline is there, in Clinton’s post Camp David II bridging proposals and even in the Geneva Convention. Olmert brushed against the over-extended existential capability of the Israeli side to compromise. He even crossed the red lines by agreeing to a symbolic Right of Return. Olmert never pictured giving up on Ramat Shlomo or Gilo.
In fact, moderate Palestinians (there are such, like those who supported the Geneva Convention or Clinton’s Proposals) also agreed to Israeli hegemony over the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. And now Obama has stepped in and thrown in a monkey wrench. Obama does not stand on the side of the Palestinian/Israeli peace camp. He stands on the side of the rejectionist front.
Pressure is a rule in this game. Only Obama’s pressure is not headed toward compromise. Quite the contrary. It is about inflaming the Arab street and strengthening the hands of radicals and Islamists. Will Obama admit his error? If he persists, he will give a boost to Hamas and Palestinian Irredentism while dealing a severe blow to the peace process. Obama will, not Netanyahu.
In order to understand where Obama has led us, we need to remember that we have been in the peace process for 20 years now. Serious proposals were on the table. Ehud Barak proposed the partitioning of Jerusalem in 1999. Arafat refused it. When President Clinton added his own far-reaching ideas, Arafat’s answer was no, despite warnings from representatives of the Egyptian president and the Saudi King that rejection of these ideas was tantamount to a crime against the Palestinian people. Arafat, naturally, committed the crime.
To boot, during the former Israeli administration, negotiations with the Palestinians were conducted on two corresponding levels: between Olmert and Abu-Mazen, and on a more specific level, between Tzipi Livni and Abu-Ala, with depressing results. Abu Mazen rejected Olmert’s sweeping proposal, which included the partitioning of Jerusalem and a symbolic "Right of Return." Abu Mazen insisted on mass return of the refugees. That was the reason why Abu Mazen discarded the proposal and not, as proclaimed, due to Olmert’s waning days as prime minister. Abu Mazen said so himself, in his own voice. No need for parsing here.
In the parallel, more specific level there was some progress. The Palestinian side understood that there would be no withdrawal from Gilo, Ramat Shlomo or Givat Zeev. There were other points of dispute. But there were also midway agreements that should not be underestimated. Those agreements, though incomplete, had some significance. In any future negotiation, the negotiating parties are well aware of what has already been accomplished. This is the reason why the Palestinians, Europe and the American administration demanded a building freeze in the West Bank and in the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, but never fixed on Jewish neighborhoods such as Gilo or Ramat Shlomo. There was a silent consensus about it.
Whoever insists on withdrawal from the Jewish neighborhoods is not pleading for peace. Even the greatest devotees of the peace process understand that such a demand from Israel is like demanding that Americans withdraw from Washington in favor, let’s say, of the native Pistacaway Nacotchtank who lived in the Potomac Valley, where Washington D.C. is now located.
What has Obama’s administration wrought forth? Persuaded the Palestinians to go back to demands they had already given up and make Jerusalem their main concern. If Obama is asking for Gilo and Ramat Shlomo, how can the Palestinians demand any less? And, indeed, at the Arab League summit during the weekend, Abu Mazen has already affirmed a toughened position on Jerusalem. All former understandings are void and nil.
So, because of Obama, Jerusalem has become the main issue. This is how you turn a conflict between two nations into a religious clash. The sane followers of the peace process know what a peace agreement will look like; there are no secrets. The outline is there, in Clinton’s post Camp David II bridging proposals and even in the Geneva Convention. Olmert brushed against the over-extended existential capability of the Israeli side to compromise. He even crossed the red lines by agreeing to a symbolic Right of Return. Olmert never pictured giving up on Ramat Shlomo or Gilo.
In fact, moderate Palestinians (there are such, like those who supported the Geneva Convention or Clinton’s Proposals) also agreed to Israeli hegemony over the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. And now Obama has stepped in and thrown in a monkey wrench. Obama does not stand on the side of the Palestinian/Israeli peace camp. He stands on the side of the rejectionist front.
Pressure is a rule in this game. Only Obama’s pressure is not headed toward compromise. Quite the contrary. It is about inflaming the Arab street and strengthening the hands of radicals and Islamists. Will Obama admit his error? If he persists, he will give a boost to Hamas and Palestinian Irredentism while dealing a severe blow to the peace process. Obama will, not Netanyahu.
If, as you say, Obama stands in the ‘rejectionist camp’, then the author should be overjoyed with his presidency! That is certainly the plan initiated decades ago by Begin and followed to this very day.
Now before anyone goes off thinking these are merely the ravings of some anti-Semite…unless they wish to place Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, and 26 other Jewish intellectuals into the same boat, then I suggest they read with an open mind how he and the others all co-signed a letter to the NYTimes warning of Begin’s trip to the US. They portrayed it as a cynical effort of a violent madman intent on planting in American heads the seeds of modern Israel’s foundation mythology..one that now sees it trapped in a never-ending series of distortions and cover-ups over what really happened.
And what Israel will never admit is the fact that Menachem Begin was a violent, right-wing nationalist and militant, one who saw Zionism as a golden opportunity to act out on his aggressive impulses. During the initial occupation of Palestine by Jewish forces, Begin would reputedly attack both Jew and Arab should they dare to defy his vision of a Jews-only state. That his had many of the same elitist ideas that characterized the Nazi state should come as no surprise when the source is considered.
Prior to his appearance in Palestine as leader of Irgun’s terror wing, Einstein described him thus in 1948:
“Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin’s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement.
The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.”
(Yes! Albert Einstein really said these things. And more! Much more! (link at bottom) The very fact however that few have ever heard these should-be-scandalous words stands as a stark testimony to the level of control that media corporations in the US have over what the public sees and hears)
Despite this being published in the Times, Begin came to the US. His mission was to gain financial and material support from similar minded nationalists already here (Due the recent war with Hitler, the word “fascism” was now greatly out of favor with wingnuts everywhere… …especially for any /Jewish/ nationalist, as I’m sure most can easily determine why.
True to Einstein-Arendt’s description of him, Begin immediately set about revising the record of historical events that had recently transpired in Palestine. For instance, he erased the Deir Yassin massacre of a couple hundred Arab civilians. But the way he did it set the paradigm that is still being used to this very day.
In a flash of anti-social pathos, he set about turning the attackers into the pitiable victims, while simultaneously telling gullible Americans that the Pali’s, the real victims, were all violent cold-blooded killers and… of course..horrible anti-Semites! IOW….he changed events into the version familiar to us today, and also being pushed by the author of the above article.
How it was done is to sink so deep into the morass of psychosis that one could excuse him had he actually endured Auschwitz personally. But the vast majority hadn’t. Never to let a good thing pass by, with the Holocaust now looming large in the world’s collective conscience, he set into motion the key to the very successful hasbara campaign Israel still pursues today.
Knowing that the world now had a very deep reluctance to accuse /any/ Jew of doing anything wrong publicly, he proceeded to turn night into day, sin into purity re: events Palestine and the nature of Zionism. But he then made sure that everyone knew he loudly declare anyone daring to contradict his revision that they must then somehow also be an anti-Semite… “like Hitler!”.
To this very day the accusation can be a career-killer regardless if it’s founded in fact or not. This works in much the same way that a false accusation of someone being a child molester will forever tarnish their name /despite/ Not Guilty verdicts, recantations by the accuser…whatever! Their life is now screwed.
Using such an accusation maliciously is also one of the lowest forms of humanity imaginable, yet so it was that Begin began the series of lies originally designed only to save his own pathetic skin from accusations of having engaged in atrocities. But by now they have become so much a part of the Israeli “historical” fabric that many Israelis no longer even know there’s a controversy. A similar thing can be seen in the USA in the way that what was once Cold War propaganda and rhetoric now has millions of Americans so hopelessly deluded about the actual nature of socialism, socialist economic principles, and of course on communism itself. Reagen seemed to be the catalyst for permanent cultural amnesia, with his term being highlighted with numerous instances of Cold War propaganda that he actually appeared to believe himself!
So it is with the hasbara ‘begun by Begin’…. lies told in part to save his own skin with the result that he never did have to answer to a court or to history (so far!) for the time he spent as the ruthless fascist thug that he was.
G.D.W. – Canada
Albert Einstein Letter to The New York Times. December 4, 1948
http://www.archive.org/details/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948