The preconditions put forward by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his speech before the joint session of Congress are his and Israel's onus alone. The most appropriate Arab response to the strategic framework proposed by Netanyahu for the peace process is to ignore it and act on the basis that this affair does not concern the Arabs. Each of the Arab and Israeli sides has its own visions and strategic frameworks, and within each camp, there are disagreements on both essence and implementation. At the end of the road, however, everybody's options are limited.
Just like war with Israel is not an option for the Arabs, war with the Arabs is not an option for Israel at this juncture. The Israeli government seeks to preserve the status quo intact but fears that this may not be possible amid the winds of change blowing across the region. For this reason, Israel proposes peace offers that it has already constrained with impossible conditions with the aim of evading the implementation of the two-state solution.
Once again, Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to retreat forward to avoid the commitments of peacemaking, extend the status quo between war and peace, and manipulate the Palestinian fate through occupation and postponement of the two-state solution. Netanyahu was perhaps most angered by President Barack Obama's reference in his speech to the Palestinians' "right of self-determination," in addition to the strategic framework proposed by Obama for the outcome of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, namely, two states along the armistice lines of 1967 with land swaps agreed upon by both sides.
Netanyahu wanted to go on with the peace 'process' but without arriving at any outcome. This is why he was furious at what Obama said: that it is time to clearly define the goal of these negotiations. Netanyahu also found change in the Arab arena an excuse to postpone serious negotiations for the establishment of the Palestinian state. However, Obama responded by saying: I disagree that the time is not appropriate now, but rather believe the opposite is true.
Netanyahu became even more furious. However, it is not the U.S. President alone who provoked the ire of the Israeli Prime Minister, but also a considerable segment of Israeli society that opposes his hindrance and obstruction of the two-state solution. He was also infuriated by a significant proportion of American Jews who want to see a permanent solution and who challenge the domination of some influential Jewish organizations in the United States to impose their extremist ideas when it comes to Israel, even at the expense of American national interests.
Benjamin Netanyahu thus turned to AIPAC, one of these Jewish organizations, to protect him from Obama's pressure to make peace. However, his strongest sanctuary by far was the U.S. Congress and its blind support for any Israeli government, even if this government's policies run contrary to the interests of Israel itself.
Certain media outlets, especially television networks, showed the same amount of subservience to Netanyahu as the U.S. Congress and carried sound bites and snippets from Netanyahu's speech for the purposes of media sensationalism in an amazing show of naivety. However, this does not invalidate another reality on the U.S. scene -- be it the media, the public opinion, the government or in policymaking circles -- which is the explicit disagreement with the Israeli Prime Minister and his prohibitive ideas for the peace process.
The Congress is solitary among U.S. official institutions that have lined up behind the strategic framework adopted by the U.S. President. This, while bearing in mind that the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Department of Defense are all in agreement with the gist of Obama's speech, as they consider the matter at hand to be at the core of U.S. national interests. At the international level as well, Netanyahu is leading Israel to major isolation by rejecting the internationally recognized foundations of the two-state solution.
Today, there are four initiatives or proposals, either conflicting or complementary to one another, regarding the Arab-Israeli question:
* The Arab Peace Initiative which offers recognition of and peaceful coexistence with Israel in return for its withdrawal to the 1967 lines to end the occupation and allow the establishment of the Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital.
* The non-governmental Israeli initiative for peace proposed by 40 prominent politicians, military and cultural figures in Israel, which came as a response to the Arab Peace Initiative. The signatories included the former head of the Shin Bet and former IDF Chief of Staff, as well as former head of the Mossad, former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's son and others. The crux of this initiative is that the Palestinian State must be established on the basis of an Israeli withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied in 1967, with land swaps, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and that the status of the Palestine refugees must be settled either through reparations or their return to the Palestinian state, except for some cases whereby some refugees are allowed to return to Israel proper.
* The U.S. President's initiative is very similar to the unofficial Israeli initiative which revolves around the fundamentals laid down by the former Democratic President Bill Clinton and the vision of the former Republican President George W. Bush, who in turn had spoken about putting an end to the occupation of the territories of 1967. However, what's new about Obama's proposal is that it has clearly set out the features of the outcome of the negotiations, with two states on the basis of the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps, thereby putting an end the 'process' lasting indefinitely. In other words, he said something to the effect that the two states must have boundaries and the process must have limits, because patience, too, runs out.
* The official Israeli initiative as put forward by Benjamin Netanyahu before the U.S. Congress, outlines the conditions for implementing the two-state solution by rejecting the 1967 lines, keeping the settlements, insisting on Jerusalem as a unified capital of Israel, and security guarantees that comprise permanent Israeli military deployment along the Jordan River. This is in addition to prior recognition by the President of the Palestinian National Authority Mahmoud Abbas of Israel as a "Jewish State" and his abandonment of the agreement he concluded with Hamas within the framework of Palestinian reconciliation.
Benjamin Netanyahu and all those who support him in his bid for the recognition of Israel as a "Jewish State" must define what this means exactly. It is the responsibility of the European countries and the other parties to the Quarter to demand Israel to guarantee it would not expel or deport the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs and to guarantee them full equality with the Jews in Israel in the so-called Jewish State.
Hamas too must clarify the meaning and end the ambiguity in its stances if it is truly sincere in its willingness to accept peace with Israel on the basis of the two-state solution with the borders of 1967. It is not logical to conduct negotiations with an entity that Hamas refuses to recognize its right to exist. Hamas must choose and clarify, just like Israel must do. Ambiguity is a common denominator between them and this does not serve the cause of the two-state solution but instead undermines the chances of its success.
As for Netanyahu's demand that Abbas discard the Palestinian reconciliation and his comparison of Hamas to al Qaeda, this is sinister because in reality his goal is to incite and provoke in order to obtain an excuse to evade U.S. and international pressure to achieve peace.
The strategy of nonviolently besieging Israel and through civil disobedience is more effective than the strategy of provoking Netanyahu through military action.
Israel is well versed in war but is befuddled and confused when it is faced with an unarmed march towards the border, civil disobedience or peaceful uprising like the one taking place within the Arab spring.
Continuing to build the institutions of the Palestinian State and providing financial, moral and political support to this state will force Israel to deal with a de facto reality that is outside of its control, which will practically lead to the end of the occupation against Israel's will, not with its consent.
For this reason, ignoring Benjamin Netanyahu's proposals as a strategy adopted by the Arabs is a good option along with persistent lobbying with Europe, Russia, the UN and the U.S. administration in order to bolster and enhance international consensus over the form of the final status, should the negotiations be resumed.
The 'process' of buying time and stalling, with a view to continue the 'peace process' for and by itself, has now come to an end. Barack Obama has dared break that vicious cycle that in reality was the foundation of U.S. policy practically masterminded by Mr. Process himself, Dennis Ross. In fact, Ross today is part of Barack Obama's vision in his capacity as the official responsible for drafting U.S. policies on the Middle East at the National Security Council.
The U.S.-Israeli, or Jewish-Jewish dispute, has nothing to do with the Arabs. The Arabs must instead push forward with the Arab Peace Initiative, civil disobedience, and Palestinian state-building on the ground, while mobilizing international support for the accession of the Palestinian state to the UN. They must launch an intensive campaign in the media to show that the Arabs are advocates of peace and coexistence, and that it is Netanyahu's Israel that rejects both peace and coexistence.
Arab Americans meanwhile, are attempting to put pressure on Congress, but they will most probably fail. This is because the political structure of the U.S. Congress and the American electoral process relies greatly on Jewish funds and votes.
Members of Congress did well as they stood up repeatedly in ovation for the Israeli Prime Minister as he was digging the grave for the Two- State solution, challenging the American President, and ridiculing American National Interest. They did well because they showed the world how difficult is the task of Barack Obama and how brave is his initiative in the midst of a Congress that puts the American national interest in the back seat bowing to Israeli dictation.
President Obama has no other option now but to stay the course without any hesitation or backing away or bowing to intimidation. If he succumbs, he would gamble with his chance for a second term because that would be waged against him as a testimony to an inbuilt weakness and lack of resolve.
If he perseveres, he might gather up the dormant courage in the hearts of many Americans, including increasing numbers of Jewish Americans, to de-stifle the debate, which rages amongst Israelis more freely, and to deliver on the two-state solution, which is the best outcome for Israel itself as well as for America's national interests.
Raghida Dergham - New York
Follow Raghida Dergham on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Raghida Dergham
Glen Pearson: No Spring in Canada
Romney: Obama 'threw Israel under the bus' - Yahoo! News
Parties See Obama's Israel Policy as Wedge for 2012 - NYTimes.com
Obama Speech Backlash on Call to Reinstate 1967 Mideast Borders ...
GOP contenders: Obama has 'thrown Israel under the bus' - CNN
Obama and Israel : The New Yorker
Obama Calls for Mideast Peace Deal Based on Israel's Pre-1967 ...
Prodding Israel, Obama embraces Palestine borders - Yahoo! News
On another note, I think the author brings up a good point. The humiliating show congress put on, clearly shows how difficult a task Obama has. I mean, look at who he is dealing with.
Off the record, journalists will tell you that any opposition to Israel is carreer suicide, an amazing statement for Americans to make while working for American media but dont you dare make the statement that our media is controled by israel or the charges of anti semetism abound.
Which Israel should they recognize? The one with 67 borders? unacceptable to Israel. The one yesterday, that was slightly smaller than the one today as the illegal settlements continue to balloon outwards?
If the Palestinians recognize Israel, will they also have to "recognize" the right of the settlements "natural growth", (meaning Israel will be larger tomorrow than it was today yet again, ever after recognition) as the Israeli government has insisted that they should?
Recognition under these terms seems politically suicidal.
Rather, I would say Israel must "recognize" itself first by declaring which borders actually constitute "Israel" because up until this very moment, they have not.
how can you recognize a nation that will not even define its own borders, especially when it is YOUR LAND they are constantly moving over into?
It is very difficult to "recognize" a moving target.
but the other sisde to that point tis that these things are to be negotiated, what the prime minister was saying is that a nine mile border is not going to be the starting point
I know that much sooner than most Jewish leaders hope there will be a Palestinian state. The real question is do Americans want to be seen as a friend or foe? I think the latter. Americans hate with a relish Arabs, forgetting them any Christians and linking them with the attack of 9/11.
After 9/11 I kept hearing neighbors asking tourists in my area: "are you Israeli"? and then "Now we understand why you have to do what you do".
My urologist during a prostate exam took my mind off the process by saying "We have to kill all Arabs!" My being Jewish means the most dreadful things are uttered with a nod and a wink by fellow Jewish Americans or goyim who want to see Israel kill every last one of "them".
This is just my experience living in NYC. therefore, I hope they declare statehood in September as nothing else will happen to justify them not doing so. Obama has been a tad mendacious in claiming there could be talks before then or even after IF Abbas desists from taking the UN route.
Better they do that than launch another Intifada?
It'd be something different if Abbas wasn't avoiding Netanyahu like the scared little child he apparently is.
Rather than launch a media campaign to try to convince the world of something that is untrue, why not let actions speak for themselves?:
Hamas could renounce their charter of destroying Israel and killing Jews and state on record that they will recognize a Jewish state beside a Palestinian one and not view a two-state solution as a steppingstone to eventual "liberation" of the rest of Palestine.
Imams in mosques, teachers in schools, and commentators on TV could talk of living in coexistence with Jews rather than demonizing them as the "sons of apes and pigs," denying the existence of Israel even on maps, and glorifying suicide bombers by naming town squares after them and giving their families cash rewards.
Abbas could tell his people that they will need to make compromises for peace, and such compromises are far better than waging eternal war. The Palestinian people could respond by seeing such compromise not as "collaboration with the enemy" but as the way to get the peaceful and prosperous state for which they yearn.
Hamas could join in the efforts of people like Fayyad in concentrating their efforts on building a Palestinian state rather than focusing on destroying Israel.
Do these things and there would be no need for a disingenuous media campaign.
As S.H. so aptly puts it: ..."Obama may be fully aware of the fact that he unconscionably manipulates the truth and is hence disingenuous, to say the least (for whatever ultimate purpose). If not, then Obama is deluded and entirely incapable of discerning the critical fundamentals of our existence, which should alarm the entire free world, as he nominally, at least, leads it.
We Israelis cannot, therefore, accept Obama’s recommendations- cum-diktats for our own life-and-death struggle for survival. For us, it’s inherently immaterial whether they spring from hardened cynicism or from inordinate naïveté. In any case, subscribing to this president’s bottom line would doom us all irredeemably to the bottom of the abyss..."
Another problem I have is the continued reference to palestineans as Arabs, instead of Semites.
Palestineans are semites, like Israeli Jews. only the religion is different. repetedly using the term Arabs to describe Palestineans is unfair, unreasonable, and especially confusing to uninformes, ignorant Americans.
As for the upcoming opportunity for the UN to recognize an independent state of Palestine, one can only wonder why this wasn't done decades earlier.
From my point of view, this is not about peace, but about the very existant of a Jewish state, which can only happen with a genuine two state solution.
Carpe diem!
http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/mideast/info/maps/british-mandate-map.html
http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/mideast/info/maps/british-mandate-map.html
It's sustained and grown only through a brutal military occupation, that has literally ruined the lives of millions of innocent people, men women and children over the period of more than 4 decades.
It is run by people whose clear and stated goal is to take every inch of the land that the Palestinians currently occupy, and they have made good on that promise over the last 40 years. So far, they have violently and illegally inserted more than 500,000 settlers into that land, and taken more than 40 percent of it. The settlers have no intention of ever stopping under any circumstances, as is clearly evidenced by the steady growth of settlements through all peace negotiations and despite any conditions that would obligate them to stop.
There are more than 10,000 Palestinian prisoners of war in Israeli jails. I suppose you are referring to the ONE prisoner that the Palestinians hold in Gaza (who I also think should be returned).
To suggest that Israel in NOT doing exactly what you are accusing the Palestinians of is laughable, because Israel is doing it on a FAR more grand scale than ANYTHING the Palestinians have ever done.
Israel actually IS destroying Palestinians nation and lives, while you accuse the Palestinians of merely talking about it.