Obama: Confronting the Challenge of Israel
Published in Al-Quds
(Palestine) on 26 February 2013
by (link to original)
The Israeli government under the leadership of Benjamin Netanyahu will continue to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state because of Israeli military power and unlimited Western support for Israel. However, this should not be a reason to expose the Palestinians to constant Israeli vetoes, which block them from deciding their own fate and establishing a state, but should instead be a reason to demand that the United Nations apply their charter to this case.
Israeli involvement in serious negotiations with the Palestinians will not achieve anything, so long as the Israeli government hopes that its continuing refusal to allow a Palestinian state will cause the Americans to prevent this issue going before the United Nations. However, there is a problem: Diplomatic experts often create policies to address controversial, complex and often chronic issues in a way that meets the demands of the strongest parties, rather than presenting the facts on the ground.
The Israeli government insists that there is no option but to continue the occupation of Palestinian lands because they offered a number of painful concessions with the promise of more to come. Yet the Israelis received nothing from the Palestinians except for an absolute refusal to concessions. Moreover, Israel affirmatively answered the demands of American President George W. Bush and approved the retention of the official settlements in the West Bank, a move that was in opposition to their earlier withdrawal from Gaza, which was carried out by Ariel Sharon.
Israel did not offer any concession on any controversial issue and continue to insist that the Palestinians offer concessions on the subjects of borders, territory, Jerusalem, refugees, water and security. But concerning Bush’s “gift” to Sharon, i.e. the official settlements as opposed to the abandonment of Gaza, the American foreign minister at the time, Condoleezza Rice, said during a joint press conference with her Israeli counterpart: “No one should try and unilaterally predetermine the outcome of a final status agreement.”
President Bush said at that time that it was necessary to take into consideration some new rights regarding the land that was obtained after 1967. However, this must not be done as a preventative measure or in advance, because these issues should be left for final status negotiations. Of course, Netanyahu is always complaining because the Palestinians are constantly asking Israel to give more and more, satisfied with taking what Israel gives. But Netanyahu’s complaints are misplaced because they are issued by the head of the government that controls about 60 percent of the West Bank!
However, Shimon Peres, defending the 1993 Oslo Accords, said: “Before Oslo, the size of the Palestinian state stemmed from the 1947 borders according to United Nations maps. But Arafat made the 1947 map into the 1967 map, abandoning 22 percent of the West Bank. And I don’t know a single Arab leader who is ready to abandon even two or three percent of his country’s territory.” Instead of using this to call on the Israeli government to undertake negotiations with the Palestinians, he contented himself with saying, “This was our greatest achievement.”
What must America do about insisting on Israel’s and Netanyahu’s refusal of a two-state solution?
President Barack Obama leaves no room for Israel or its forthcoming government to doubt that the special relationship between them, which emanates from their shared faith in common values, will have an effect — nay, it will be very harmful to President Obama because it violates those values that the two nations profess to share. Israel denies the Palestinians the right to determine their own fate in the territories that Israel occupied in 1967, while at the same time denying them the right to obtain full and equal Israeli citizenship. This Israel cannot be called a democratic state — indeed, it is an apartheid state.
Is President Obama the person to confront this challenge?
There is nothing in Obama’s performance during his first term as president to suggest that he is the person to face it, but recent developments have given rise to some hopes on this front. First, he appointed John Kerry as secretary of state and Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense. These two have no great delusions about the reasons for the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; they also have the courage necessary to speak the truth.
Second, Europe is ready to present an initiative to the currently-forming Israeli government about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially as it regards the 1967 borders.
Israeli involvement in serious negotiations with the Palestinians will not achieve anything, so long as the Israeli government hopes that its continuing refusal to allow a Palestinian state will cause the Americans to prevent this issue going before the United Nations. However, there is a problem: Diplomatic experts often create policies to address controversial, complex and often chronic issues in a way that meets the demands of the strongest parties, rather than presenting the facts on the ground.
The Israeli government insists that there is no option but to continue the occupation of Palestinian lands because they offered a number of painful concessions with the promise of more to come. Yet the Israelis received nothing from the Palestinians except for an absolute refusal to concessions. Moreover, Israel affirmatively answered the demands of American President George W. Bush and approved the retention of the official settlements in the West Bank, a move that was in opposition to their earlier withdrawal from Gaza, which was carried out by Ariel Sharon.
Israel did not offer any concession on any controversial issue and continue to insist that the Palestinians offer concessions on the subjects of borders, territory, Jerusalem, refugees, water and security. But concerning Bush’s “gift” to Sharon, i.e. the official settlements as opposed to the abandonment of Gaza, the American foreign minister at the time, Condoleezza Rice, said during a joint press conference with her Israeli counterpart: “No one should try and unilaterally predetermine the outcome of a final status agreement.”
President Bush said at that time that it was necessary to take into consideration some new rights regarding the land that was obtained after 1967. However, this must not be done as a preventative measure or in advance, because these issues should be left for final status negotiations. Of course, Netanyahu is always complaining because the Palestinians are constantly asking Israel to give more and more, satisfied with taking what Israel gives. But Netanyahu’s complaints are misplaced because they are issued by the head of the government that controls about 60 percent of the West Bank!
However, Shimon Peres, defending the 1993 Oslo Accords, said: “Before Oslo, the size of the Palestinian state stemmed from the 1947 borders according to United Nations maps. But Arafat made the 1947 map into the 1967 map, abandoning 22 percent of the West Bank. And I don’t know a single Arab leader who is ready to abandon even two or three percent of his country’s territory.” Instead of using this to call on the Israeli government to undertake negotiations with the Palestinians, he contented himself with saying, “This was our greatest achievement.”
What must America do about insisting on Israel’s and Netanyahu’s refusal of a two-state solution?
President Barack Obama leaves no room for Israel or its forthcoming government to doubt that the special relationship between them, which emanates from their shared faith in common values, will have an effect — nay, it will be very harmful to President Obama because it violates those values that the two nations profess to share. Israel denies the Palestinians the right to determine their own fate in the territories that Israel occupied in 1967, while at the same time denying them the right to obtain full and equal Israeli citizenship. This Israel cannot be called a democratic state — indeed, it is an apartheid state.
Is President Obama the person to confront this challenge?
There is nothing in Obama’s performance during his first term as president to suggest that he is the person to face it, but recent developments have given rise to some hopes on this front. First, he appointed John Kerry as secretary of state and Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense. These two have no great delusions about the reasons for the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; they also have the courage necessary to speak the truth.
Second, Europe is ready to present an initiative to the currently-forming Israeli government about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially as it regards the 1967 borders.