Akiva Eldar / A summit can be a very dangerous thing
The 'peace process' has taught us that a summit can be desirable, but also a place of unsurpassable danger.
By Akiva Eldar Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu Barack Obama Israel news PalestiniansThe all-too-long history of the "peace process" has taught us that a summit can be a desirable goal, but also a place of unsurpassable danger. When participants come with insufficient preparation, and without a safety net, the depth of the fall can be as high as the summit itself. There is a great difference between a fruitless round of shuttle diplomacy between Jerusalem and Ramallah on the part of a presidential envoy and a failed summit called by U.S. President Barack Obama with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
In the 16 years since the Oslo Accords were signed at the White House, Israelis and Palestinians have witnessed countless summits, peace conferences, negotiations and understandings and even innumerable agreements. All ended in disappointment or, at worst, in yet another wave of violence.
It can be hoped that the Americans have learned, from the bitter experience of Camp David in 2000, that a tripartite summit is not just another media event, like a speech in Cairo or a New Year's greeting. A meeting of the U.S. president with the leaders of the parties is the Judgment Day weapon of the diplomatic world. The term peace process has already been placed in quotation marks and absorbed heavy doses of cynicism. Who remembers what Obama said in Cairo this spring, or the declarations made in Annapolis in November 2007? Both parties have since lost their remaining faith in a negotiated solution. If Tuesday's summit, too, ends with nothing but a handshake for the cameras, what will they have to look forward to?
The New York summit can move things forward or bring them crashing down; staying in place is not an option. Netanyahu and Abbas are not the only players on the field; every failure on the part of the pragmatic Palestinian camp is a victory for the extremist Palestinian camp. Abbas has bet his credibility on the Americans and their ability to influence their Israeli friends. If Obama sends him away empty-handed it will play into the hands of Abbas' big rivals in Gaza and Damascus. Hamas will not miss such an opportunity to present the summit as yet more proof of its claim, since the Oslo Accords, that support for Fatah is flimsy. How much longer will Abbas' police officers put up with being painted as collaborators with the occupation?
The summit's success will not be measured by the extent of the settlement freeze Obama obtains from Netanyahu. Even the Palestinians recognize that a few hundred more homes in Ma'aleh Adumim or Pisgat Ze'ev will not make a difference in a long-term solution of the conflict. For the summit to avoid becoming another forgettable footnote in the history of the peace process, the participants must return home with a full translation of the slogans voiced in Cairo by Obama into the language of action. Obama doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. All he needs is to update the road map timetable, which long ago became UN Security Council Resolution 1515.
The road map says that in 2005 the parties will reach a permanent solution that will end the occupation that began in 1967. It also says the agreement will include a negotiated settlement on the status of Jerusalem and an agreed, just, fair and realistic solution to the refugee issue. Two Israeli prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, negotiated with the Palestinians on all these issues and even reached some understandings. As President Shimon Peres (who is now pushing the two sides to deal, as a first stage, only with the issue of borders) says, you can make an omelet with eggs but no one can make eggs out of an omelet.
In a Rosh Hashanah Eve interview Netanyahu called on Abbas to decide whether he is Yasser Arafat or Anwar Sadat. Obama may ask Netanyahu on Tuesday to decide whether he is Menachem Begin, who gave back the entire Sinai (without asking in exchange that Israel be recognized as "the nation-state of the Jewish people") or Yitzhak Shamir, who opposed the peace agreement with Egypt. If Likud MK Benny Begin, Menachem Begin's son, still supports Netanyahu the day after the summit then Israel and the world will know that, to paraphrase Shamir in regard to the Arabs and their inability to change: The sea is the same sea, and Netanyahu is the same Netanyahu.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
"I see nothing in Israel`s future other than a very costly great calamity of their own making." ...And you've been predicting (i.e. hoping for) this for how many years now? Don't you EVER tire of being wrong and making an ass of yourself? Israel will continue to thrive (as it always has) while your "heroes" will continue to live their hateful lives in squalor (as they always have). Nothing will ever change that. But feel free to keep on spouting your absurd, inane little idioms like "time's up", "wingnut", "Jihadi under the bed", "smackdown", etc., etc. They're all you've got....pathetic. Keep siding with the likes of Hitler, Ahmedinejad, Bin-Laden, Chavez, etc. You're in good company. P.S. How's your lawsuit against Wall Street Journal, JTA and its readers coming along? Isn't it funny that, of all the Israel haters in these forums, you are the one who is always likened to Hitler? How utterly fitting.
which state you want to exist for the "stateless people under occupation" the hammas version that exists in Gazza or the hammas state that will shortly be at the west bank.how do you expect Israeli`s to agree to have a hammas state beside them if they state they will never recognize Israel and are not willing to give a square inch of the holly muslem land.Do yourself a favor start championing the rights for the aborigeny independent stste and leave Israelis alone you really don`t know what you are talking about
Begin at the time did not need to ask recognition of Israel from Sadat.The Egyptians had lost their bloody wars against us you dummy. So,Begin was the VICTOR and had no need to ask anything from the DEFEATED COUNTRY'S LEADER. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.To the responder you addressed:He is absolutely spot on! No way should we give the West Bank to that terrorist Abbas anything.
for someone living in Milwaukee,you are right on with your analiss.I hope the american public hears you ,as for Obama i think he is not sharing your views and i ask myself why?
Than being annihilated/dead. Capiche? You wrote:The Summit is another ridiculous ritual of posturing and propaganda. Anyone who thinks there will be progress under Obama/Netanyahu/Abbas is a fool. It is clear to the world that Netanyahu is a right-wing obstructionist. Wrong,Bibi is bright and his only thought is about Israel's survival and not be a patsy to who wants/need Obama's pleasing his Arab friends. What is more we Israelis will not be outsmarted.We have had to deal with many who are trying to bully us Jews/Israelis for far too long,and have become innured to it. And bugger Olmert,he was a failure by agreeing with Sharon to cede Gaza which brought us nothing but a big headache.But,once bitten,twice shy,and NEVER AGAIN. What is more,we do not need a mini taliban state by creating/pleasing the "HOLOCAUST" denier Abbas and give him control of the West Bank to continue with his terorists cohorts who's boss he is. Now push off for you are making a fool of yourself.
The words summit and peace process have been thrown around so much that at least in U.S. terms know one expects much to come of it and the coverage in the news of these events has suffered.
"USA does not give Texas/california back to Mexico, does it?" (dudu) Don't be stupid. While annexing Texas & California the USA granted full citizenship to all the inhabitants of these lands. Just tell us that this is what Israel should do concerning Gaza and the West Bank. "History shows you cannot run from terror!" (dudu) Right. But the time is long past when an Army clashing, not with another Army, but with a foreign and stateless people, could bring a definitive military solution. What other nations, much more powerful than we can ever be, have learned a long time ago, we, supposedly a clever people, have still to understand.
Territorial expansion by war became illegal following World War II, as one of the foundational principles of the UN which gave the Modern State of Israel its legitimacy based upon international law.
"In a Rosh Hashanah Eve interview Netanyahu called on Abbas to decide whether he is Yasser Arafat or Anwar Sadat." (Akiva Eldar) An opportunity lost for Netanyahu not to sound like a fool. Pres. Anwar Sadat was the ruler of an independent country, with well-defined borders, free of foreign occupation and of foreign settlements. And PM Begin, while not a great intellect himself, was politically savvy enough not to try to extort from Sadat a recognition of Israel's "right to exist as a Jewish state".
Never miss any meetings otherwise you risk being out of the loop.
In view of the Goldstone report on Israel's self defence action in Gaza it is clear that Israel cannot pull out of the west Bank Ever!!. And I mean NEVER!! If they do, Arabs will stock tens of thousand of rockets under their houses (like in Gaza and S. Labanon) - - no one will be able to stop it. Abbas will not. To even think that he will is delusional. Then when the timing is right the "demilitarised" State of Palestine will attack. Israel will defend herself and will be referred to the Hauge war crimes court. Israel - - wake up!! Don't even think about thinking about leaving. History shows you cannot run from terror! Palestinians cannot now get what was offered in 1948 - after starting and losing 6 wars. Wars have consequences - eg. USA does not give Texas/california back to Mexico, does it?
the nation state of the Jewish People, there will never be a new nation state for the Palestinian Arab People. Bibi has finally slammed it down on the table and Obama gets it! Since long before 1948 and the founding of the modern state of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, the Arabs have adamently refused to recognize the legitimacy of the continuous ancient and historical connection of the Jewish people to any part of this land. The insanity of the Arab fantasy to have all of Palestine has long been their road map to nowhere. It continues to be a tragedy for the Palestinian people while diminishing the possibility of a viable state.
There is no point in peace negotiations until Israel withdraws to behind the 1967 armistice line, lock, stock, and barrel. The only value of the settlements for Israel are as property to offer the Palestinians in negotiations as compensation for Palestinians deprived of their right to return to their rightful ancestral properties on the Israeli side of the Green Line in a two state solution.
J: "Abbas knows that he cannot now normalize relations with Israel without an uprising." How can you "normalise" relations with a state when you, yourself, represent merely a stateless people under occupation? Jasper, that is not exactly a meeting of equals. It is axiomatic that the Palestinians have to have their own sovereign state before there can be "normalization" between those two states. And that state simply isn't going to happen while the issues of "settlements or borders or land use" are still outstanding, precisely because the Israelis won't ALLOW a Palestinian state to arise while Bibi thinks that there is still a chance that Israel can steal a little bit more land.....
Wise words that don't advance the process. There needs to be a bold stroke from all three leaders, and not one pushing the other. If Abbas said simply that Shalit should be released without conditions, and Bibi voluntarily lifted more roadblocks, and Obama invited them to camp david to sit indefinitely until some progress was made, that would be good. the PA needs elections to determine whether the Palestinians will pursue peace authentically as a nation or degerenate into Hamas style Islamic terror and extremism. simple , but hard.
Abbas has been (in Arabic) a cheer leader for the destruction of Israel, while (in English) appearing to be moderate enough to keep funds flowing. He is very good at what he does. Too good. Abbas knows that he cannot now normalize relations with Israel without an uprising. This is not about settlements or borders or land use, or any of the fine print. They are only the excuses.
...the same old Bibi. If in a moment, if he makes the slightest move towards peace, his government will fall as he rides the plane back home, just like last time. Bibi can't make peace, he cares about power far more than Israel. Abbas can't make peace, he has no power. And President Obama cannot impose peace, he is beholden to AIPAC. I see nothing in Israel's future other than a very costly great calamity of their own making.
Given the low expectations, and the upcoming talks with Iran - it is highly unlikely that failure will cause any immediate reaction. Success is impossible since Netanyahu has no way to accept a total freeze. All that will happen is that Netanyahu will go home more tightly squeezed between US demands and settler values.
Obama has proven to be a fawning, feeble and supplicant President. He has submitted to Netanyahu in the most craven fashion. What 'danger' can exist in a meeting where Israel will lord it over it's inferiors, America and Palestine?
The Summit is another ridiculous ritual of posturing and propaganda. Anyone who thinks there will be progress under Obama/Netanyahu/Abbas is a fool. It is clear to the world that Netanyahu is a right-wing obstructionist whose party will simply wait out Obama, figuring (correctly) that he has too much else on his plate to prioritize I/P. It is, however, the Israelis who are outsmarting themselves in the long run. Soon enough Olmert prophecy will come true: Israel will be an Apartheid state, and things will get much more painful for everyone.
At this summit, it makes sense to update the parties on the timetable of the Road Map and its background as mentioned in UN Security Council Resolution 1515. There's not much else to say, but there's been hints in the past, and I'm more hopeful than I was last week regarding the continued preconditions from both sides.