The Arab World is once again waiting. This time they are waiting for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to respond to a series of demands it is believed the U.S. made of him following the March, 2010 flare up over settlement construction in Jerusalem; or they are waiting for the Administration to respond to Israel's lack of response.
By waiting and not acting they are wasting precious time and an opportunity to define their concerns and a political path forward. Worse still, if the past provides a clue to the future, waiting will only lead to disappointment.
There was no question that seven weeks ago, the Obama Administration was angered by the Israeli announcement of new settlement construction in Jerusalem. The U.S. reaction was immediate, harsh and sustained over several days. Our polling showed that American public opinion sided with the White House.
Netanyahu reacted by mobilizing his U.S. support base, appearing before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual conference issuing a direct challenge to Obama. When the President remained firm, Netanyahu mobilized his allies who organized letters from Congress and placed full page ads in major U.S. daily newspapers taking Obama to task for publicly challenging Israel.
All during this time, not a single Palestinian leader visited the U.S. to make the case for Jerusalem. Hollow protests were issued from afar, but these said nothing new and did not register here. The Arab League met and adjourned, but without offering anything newsworthy, and so many Americans were left wondering what the fuss was all about.
As our polling makes clear, U.S. opinion: supports a balanced policy toward the conflict; wants a two state solution; and thinks the President ought to "get tough" about continued settlement construction. Our polls also show that while most Americans will support the President, they simply do not understand the Palestinians' case or their concern with settlements. They, therefore, are susceptible to Israeli counter arguments (like: "these aren't settlements, they are neighborhoods" or "Jerusalem isn't a settlement, it's our capitol". Because these claims are made to a largely uninformed American audience, they have the effect of confusing or neutralizing the issue.
And so, what began as "an insult to the Vice President ... and the United States" evolved into a "crisis in the U.S.- Israel relationship" and ultimately ended up with the Administration reaffirming its "unshakable bond with Israel" while still holding firm to a set of irreconcilable goals: a "vital interest" imperative in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; a continued insistence that Israel refrain from "provocative acts" (coupled with a call to Palestinians to end incitement); and an appeal to all parties to restart negotiations. I say irreconcilable because the Netanyahu government shows no interest in ending its settlement construction or changing its other behaviors toward the Palestinians, and the Palestinian leadership cannot (or dare not, given the adverse domestic reaction it would create) enter negotiations absent a change in Israeli policy.
When policy discussions have occurred during this period they have focused either on the value and nature of the U.S.- Israel relationship, whether this current flare-up will make a difference in the stand-off with Iran or whether the President will outlast Netanyahu. The Palestinians, their rights and needs, are not mentioned.
A similar impasse existed between the 2008 election and the inauguration of the new president (with the devastating war in Gaza also occurring in this period) and last summer during the months in which Netanyahu refused to accept the settlement freeze President Obama insisted was needed to create a positive environment in which good faith negotiations could begin. In both of these instances, instead of taking advantage of the opportunity provided by the impasse and using it as "teachable moment", Arabs waited for others to act. The U.S. public could have been educated and eventually mobilized. The resolve of the Obama Administration could have been reinforced. And the outcome might have been better. But because nothing was done, the period was defined by Israel and the U.S. with no constructive Arab content provided.
What should have been done and still can be done is for Arab leadership and Palestinians, in particular, to directly engage American opinion to both make their case and provide concrete ideas for a solution to the conflict. As it is, the impasse is defined as a test of wills between what Israel wants versus what the U.S. says must be done. Nowhere to be found in all of this, is the Palestinian story. Abstract appeals to "international legitimacy" do not sway opinion, nor do references to an "Arab Peace Initiative" that most Americans do not understand. The issue of settlements, for example, must be spelled out in concepts that can be understood - ancestral lands stolen, discriminatory housing projects built, rights denied, humiliating repression imposed on an entire people, and freedom denied. And the matter of statehood must be presented as more than the solution to a pesky problem or a begrudging acceptance of a demographic reality, it must be elevated into a visionary right of people who have for too long been denied freedom. What is needed are real people telling real stories, making the Palestinian narrative come to life.
As long as the Arab side is absent and/or passive and waiting, the game will be defined and won by others.
Brad Hirschfield: The Maddening Israel I Love and Admire
Don't get me wrong: my love for Israel is a mature love, one that freely acknowledges the many failings and shortcomings in the object of my affection.
MJ Rosenberg: Schumer and Dershowitz vs. Obama
Dershowitz despises J Street for precisely the reason younger Jews, members of Congress, frustrated Israelis, and the Obama administration welcome it. It represents a new kind of pro-Israel activism, and Dershowitz is old school.
Rabbi Joshua Levine Grater: Jews Ought to Stick with President Obama
President Obama has committed himself to the Jewish people by committing himself to working for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Obama is precisely the kind of leader we need now.
Daoud Kuttab: Has Obama Decided That the Netanyahu Coalition Is the Problem?
It is time to announce to the world what is required for peace in the Middle East, no matter who ends up looking like the obstructionist party to the conflict.
I disagree completely with this statement. As long as there is unbalanced support for only one side of the dispute the stronger party will never make any concessions. Why should they? The only thing I believe would bring an end to Israeli expansion is an large International force on the ground ensuring the rights of the Palestinian people. Once the Palestinian people can believe that there is somebody in their corner looking out for their interests the extremist elements will be marginalized and real negotiations can begin in good faith.
If someone can provide me an example of a powerful nation dealing in good faith with a much weaker opponent I will re-evaluate my opinion
Yes, I agree the central message ought to be the disrespect & disavowal of private property rights, one of the most central of all legal rights within any civil society. It is indeed the basis for all human legal systems. Any society that evicts one family for the benefit of another within the same society is in violation of ancient codes of accepted behavior. The US media is reluctant to show the images of what is happening in Jerusalem, but the images are out there in the international satellite media, viral & taking on a life of their own. No one likes to see any family (of any religion or background) being thrown out of their home, while another family steps over them to take possession. Do you know any Americans who would allow this dispossession of house & hearth to occur to their families?
Many thanks.
Obama will need to do the unthinkable: inform Israel that failure to accept a peace plan proposal would mean an end to all financial and military support.
It would also mean an end to our efforts to protect them from condemnation at the U.N. The President needs to understand and to publicly acknowledge that the security of the U.S. is undermined by our standing firm with Israel even when that country's policies are obstructing peace and prolonging injustice
He needs to worry less about the campaign contributions offered up by the "Israeli lobby" here and more about this nation's standing in the world, its credibility as an advocate of human rights and the security it provides its own people.
Israel's domestic policy can no longer be permitted to trump America's foreign policy.
If not, it will be sad indeed that the first African-American president of the United States defends in Israel exactly the kind of institutionalized bigotry, apartheid oppression, and racism in Israel the civil rights movement defeated in this country, a victory that made his election possible.
We are at the point where Israel is not an asset and can't even show common courtesy to their American 'allies' with friends likes these, who needs enemies?
They know they are lying, they know that you know they lying and they know that the whole world knows they are lying and that western media is either in the hands of Zionists or run by pro-Zionists.
The media has only to work for the interest of Israel, anything else is labeled as bias, even being neutral isn’t good enough for the them.
Why are they lying like that?.
Moreover, according to true polls, Arabs favor extremist leaders and the more extremist are these the more they get support.
From an Arab perspective, being depicted as a moderate is offensive.
Israeli "intelligence" comes from facts that are distorted to suit an agenda, everyone knows it’s definetly not “intelligence†but hasbara.
It's a cheap shot to claim virtually all Arabs are extremists or favor them. I don't think it
would even stand up in a mediocre high school debate.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2010/04/23/13697251.html
In cahoots with our own right wing, to maximize
the effect and stay on the same page; their power hungry goals are
similar, so they see a natural [ unholy ] alliance.
Settlements were only the method of Interferring, not that
unique by itself. This was to Insult one of Israel's long time supporters,
VP Biden, and Obama. That clearly was the main goal.
Both right wings hate him, and want to hurt him and his party. Like the Fox channel
they control nothing is sacred, nothing is out of bounds or too extreme, no Lie too
distasteful or unfair.
So while Obama/Biden simply follow US policy on creating a
peaceful climate around Israel, discouraging [in the mildest possible tones even ! ]
building on Disputed land or similar measures by the Arabs.
Yet both right wing's boldy claim this is a sudden and radical change, knowing it is not !
They get the " Israel can do no wrong " politicans and media to flip out, to
proclaim their loyality to Israel [as in the US comes a distant second].
Let's be honest, even Israel that has taken over $ 100 Billion from us does not want our
advice, from any of our Presidents. The Arabs maybe do not insult us as much but have their
own serious problems. Let's just cut off all the money, stop the advice, let them figure it out.
Actually, the activity of Arabic SatTV stations such as al-Jazeera, al-Arabyia, etc. constitute clear proof of the fact that Arab "leaders" are NOT interested in promoting a solution to the Palestinian problem. These stations (owned and directed by Arab rulers) constantly promote h8red and demonization. Their "coverage" of war (especially when Israel or the West are involved) consists of an endless parade of corpses and bloodied bodies – all Muslim of course. Mangled corpses & grievous injuries are unfortunately a reality of war, even more so when casualties are seen as "propaganda assets". The Western military actions in places like ex-Yugoslavia, Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Of course, this was not because the USA army chose to deliberately target civilians – but the unfortunate result of fighting a brutal enemy who chooses to "resist" in populated areas. The obscene (almost voyeuristic) "blood festivals" broadcast by al-Jazeera et.al. whenever Muslims (but not others!) are killed (but not by other Muslims!) aims to brainwash the Arab masses into directing their rage at Israel, at the West, etc., rather than at their own rulers.
The vast majority of US troops do care and try not to hurt civilians. The ones who don’t care are those “freedom fighters†who deliberately fight in populated area in order to cause civilian casualties that they can then parade before the cameras in all their “splendid†gore, in a bid for sympathy. I, for one, have NO sympathy for those for whom their own women and children are mere PR chips. We should do everything in our power to protect those women and children. As for the "freedom fighters" themselves, they should be hunted down. They have no place in the civilized world.
First, there was never a Palestine (it was Ottoman, then British land). The 'occupied territories' of the West Bank and Gaza were part of Jordan and Egypt, respectively - they were never 'palestinian'.
The reason palestinians lost land is because they and Israel's other 'peaceful' arab neighbors launched continued attacks/wars on israel...and continually lost.
Aside from 30+ years of suicide bombings and rocket attacks on Israel, there was the unfortunate Palestinian celebration in the streets of 9/11:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrM0dAFsZ8k
There's also the fact that Hamas and many of Israel's arab neighbors don't recognize Israel's right to exist.
Palestinians have never proactively sought peace. They turned down the 2000 camp david accords (perhaps they were imperfect, but they were far better than anything else ever discussed/offered) and responded with a terror campaign.
Israel's recent construction moves were not good, there is no doubt they were counter-productive to peace. But Americans (outside of a few fringe groups) will never accept the "palestinian story" because their story isn't one that Americans will ever identify with.
No amount of 'spin' will change that.
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't it seem the Palestinians need some help with their efforts to reach the American public?
Yes there are always going to be fools like RobHunt here, but there are minds out there that can be receptive to ideas about a fair and just resolution to Palestine / Israel.
Have you brought this messaging deficit to the attention of the Palestinian Authority or League of Arab States?