U.S. must now start twisting Israeli and Palestinian arms
Obama aimed to obtain too much, too quickly with pan-Islamic arrangement he presented in his Cairo speech.
By Yoel Marcus Tags: Barack Obama Middle East peace Israel newsEvery time disaster strikes anywhere in the world, I am filled anew with admiration at how ready and willing we are to assist, and how speedy, effective, organized and wholehearted that assistance is.
We did not rush aid to Haiti because there is a Jewish community there. We went there for humanitarian reasons. As a nation that has experienced disasters and bereavement for generations, other nations' disasters do not leave us indifferent. Our photographers and reporters hurried over there not to humiliate some Turkish ambassador, but because they want to show - and rightly so - an attractive side of Israel, for a change.
It is easier for us to organize rescue operations outside Israel than do all that is necessary to advance peace inside it and thus prevent deadly attacks on our home front. There is no need to wait for an "earthquake," as the Yom Kippur War was dubbed, to achieve a "peace of the brave." Anyone who remembers the Scud missiles from Iraq, the 34 days of missiles and Katyusha rockets on the north during the Second Lebanon War and the eight years of Qassam rockets from the Gaza Strip must do everything possible to prevent any excuse for a new war that could strike our civilian population.
U.S. envoy George Mitchell, who returned to Israel this week, has not achieved anything in his visits so far. Despite the halo he won by his successful mediation in Northern Ireland, he is no James Baker. Nor is he Henry Kissinger. Baker was tough and didn't like our tricks. Kissinger, who was closer to his president, knew how to turn algebra into arithmetic, as Zalman Aran once reportedly said.
Mitchell's views on solving the conflict, as he outlined them back when he chaired a presidential commission in 2001, may have been reasonable, but they were unfeasible at that time. He believed Israel had to freeze settlement construction and the Palestinians had to stop the terror attacks. Yet Mitchell's visit this week could be very important, if he abandons his slow mediation and instead puts a more definite and effective presidential plan on the table.
After Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed publicly to a two-states-for-two-peoples solution, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' response was peculiar. Instead of agreeing to begin negotiations, he demanded that Israel first freeze construction in the settlements and added several other conditions. This refusal appeared on the face of it like a continuation of the Palestinian tradition of not missing any opportunity that could be missed. For Netanyahu's approach, at least in theory, marked a dramatic turnabout that put his stand in line with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's formula - the 1967 lines plus territorial swaps.
Mitchell said in a television interview that he believed it was possible to reach an agreement within two years. But the truth is that the chances of an agreement are getting smaller - not least due to the settlement-freeze policy adopted by U.S. President Barack Obama, on one hand, and Netanyahu's condition - that the Iranian nuclear issue must be solved first - on the other.
In any case, Obama's first year as president was lost as far as a peace settlement is concerned. Obama aspired to obtain too much, too quickly: namely, the pan-Islamic arrangement he presented in his Cairo University speech. Another reason was the administration's loss of confidence in Netanyahu.
Netanyahu may have agreed to a solution in principle, but in reality, he is continuing to lead us astray, one Middle East expert said. Yitzhak Rabin had a 15-year time-out between his first term as prime minister and his second, when he returned as a man of peace. Bibi is in no hurry to make peace. He returned to power for the purpose of returning to power.
Mitchell has so far been convenient for Netanyahu, as he has focused mainly on being present. This does not stem from Mitchell's weakness, but from Obama's. It is not clear why Obama has not forced Abbas to respond to Bibi's two-state proposal. And it is not clear why Mitchell keeps coming and going but has not yet presented an operative plan for an agreement authorized and sponsored by the president.
It is very important that on this visit, Mitchell twist Abbas' arm and put the credibility of Bibi's speech at Bar-Ilan University to the test. No agreement will be reached without a plan, and without starting negotiations. It is important that this time, Mitchell not leave before the white smoke is visible - i.e., without a plan and a timetable both for beginning negotiations and for reaching an agreement.
This is essential to keep Iran from getting the bomb, and us from being forced, heaven forbid, to hold onto our disaster survival kits in order to save ourselves.
|
U.S. President Barack Obama. |
| Photo by: (Reuters) |
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
The time of twisting is done. This has been clear for some time now. But it is underlined by the Democratic loss in Massachusetts. I believe even Rahm Emanuel knows that the whole Jewish world is not JStreet. Supporters of Israel are the great majority of American Jews. And the Democrats are going to need them very much in what lies ahead. Second point. The Palestinians are not interested in any deal which requires them to truly recognize and live in peace with a Jewish state. That Yoel Marcus does not see this shows that he is still living in the cloud cuckoo- land dream of Oslo.
why is it up to the US to solve the problem? If Israel wants peace, call the Palestinians and get on with it.
read the 49/50 armistice agreement Jordan legally annexed the WB as a temporary trustee, which is why there is no UNSC resolution condemning the annexation. "according to the un-charter the war which the arabs led against israel in 1948 (and which actually led to the present situation) was illegal" A) where is the UNSC resolution condemning the Arab League's Invasion of Palestine? B) What Sovereign Israeli territory did they invade?
Israel is unilaterally annexing the territories which anyone with half a brain knows is against international law. Astonishing how people who are otherwise law abiding and reasonable support Israel's blatant crimes. The recent revocation of work visas for NGO employees is a telltale sign that Israel has no intention of backing off the territories, but rather prefers to reenforce prison like conditions in Gaza and most of the WestBank. And Funny how Israelis who love to travel have no problem with denying hundreds of thousands of innocent Palestinians the right to movement. Odd, sad, and cruel.
I will never understand why Haaretz writers on the one hand credit Netanyahu with a peace plan when he violates every attempt to make peace, while on the other hand they totally ignore the peace plan which Abbas and the PLO has drawn up ready to present anytime Netanyahu is ready to stop plsy-acting and start talking seriously The truth is that the Palestinian plan was presented behind closed doors, but rejected by the Israeli government. I don't think they want the public to know what was in that plan, even though the core of that plan was prepared by a ranking Israeli, an Aluf, a member high in the ranks of Shabbak, an aide to DM Barak, and a member of the Foreign Office under Lieberman. Meanwhile, the USA pressures Palestine and eases off on Israel. This is a move toward peace? I don't think so. It is instead a perpetuation of the status quo: no peace in our time.
You admit, as did Dear Petra in another posting, that the Jewish money and AIPAC/others actually control the US congress and President, and thus, control the US foreign policy? It is an unspoken truth, and all I can hope for is that the US will wake up and see that the tail is wagging the dog.
"(in 1950) annexed by jordan. was this illegal behaviour by jordan?" A) Israel AGREED to Jordan occupying, read the 49/50 armistice agreement. http://tinyurl.com/y8ewves/myths-mis-conceptions-propaganda/#Jordans-occupation-of-the-WestBank-was-illegal B) Where's the UNSC resolution condemning Jordan's temporary trustee annexation? "by the way: according to the un-charter the war which the arabs led against israel in 1948 (and which actually led to the present situation) was illegal. " A) Where's the UNSC resolution condemning it? B) What Sovereign Israeli territory did the Arab states attack? http://wp.me/pDB7k-ki
If they accepted a peace deal for a change (such as Bill Clinton's proposal) Israel would have been cut to ghetto borders and Jerusalem would have been divided. Ironically, the integrity of Israeli land is being saved by Palestinians.
what i stated as necessary for peace in #1...so yeah take your time its only been 40 yrs and whose counting and if bibi has his way in a few short yrs there wont be anything left of Palestine to talk about, right? you think goyim are stupid dont you?
If the UK recognized an illegal occupation and the act of recognition is illegal under international law then yes, the UK did act illegally. Stop trying to justify illegal actions by saying others are the same or worse. Just because the other guy is a murderer doesn't mean you can get away with kidnapping because it's not as bad. A crime is a crime. Get used to it.
s: "if yes, why then united kingdom recognized the annexation?" Because Lord Bevan had cut a secret deal with King Adullah of Jordan, scallywag. That's why. What? You though that the UK recognized that annexation because it was convinced that this was legal? No, scallywag, they recognized it because they had promised the Jordanian King that they would do so. You may as well ask wether the UK recognizing that Up is Down, Black is White, and Left is Right makes all of those things true. The UK promised that it would recognize the annexation, and so Jordan annexed, and the UK lived up to its promise. Britain then looked around to see who else was swayed by its behaviour, and found that Not. A. Soul. Followed. Britain's. Lead. What *does* that tell you, scallywag?
To date the only concessions have been by us, the only obligations fulfilled have been by us. The Arabs have never lifted a single finger for peace. Now it's their turn to prove that they are interested in peace.
Israel pulled out of Lebanon and Gaza, and for its efforts, they were met with missiles and kidnappings. Israel pulled out of most of Judea and Samaria, and they got bombings. In 1948, Jerusalem was supposed to be an international city, yet Jordan took it over and destroyed virtually every holy site.
There is only one way to achieve peace in the middle east an that is to impose it, using sanctions an isolation, it work in South Africa it will work the Middle East. The real question is when this will happen rather than if, Europe is getting closer to doing it year after an there is popular public support for it.
"In this situation Obama cannot afford to lose the support of the Jews, who are behind 40 percent of the contributions to the Democrats` elections." Agreed, #4. Before Obama tries to twist Netanjahu`s arm, he will feel his own pulse first.
I agree completely.
yes, it's indeed time to get real, and time to get real means: talking and preparations. we saw the results of israel's one-sided withdrawal from gaza. afterwards many people who first were in favour of the withdrawal said that it was a mistake since there were no talks beforehand and therefore chaos afterwards. so, israel cannot simply leave the westbank. the danger that hamas-terrorists take over and treat not only israel but also fatah-people in a crucial way, is too big. there have to be talks, there has to be common preparation, not only concerning the palestinians but also concerning the israeli settlers. (many of those settlers who left gaza have still not proper residence, up to now.) so, get real and think about logistics (among others) before you write such stuff.
may i remind you that the westbank and east jerusalem were first occupied during the 1948-war by jordan and later (in 1950) annexed by jordan. was this illegal behaviour by jordan? if yes, why then united kingdom recognized the annexation? did uk participate in illegal behaviour? by the way: according to the un-charter the war which the arabs led against israel in 1948 (and which actually led to the present situation) was illegal. what do you say about this? how to deal with this?
Mitchell should spend all his time trying to broker a reconciliation deal between the west bank and Gaza... Then and only then can talks start again...
yes, it's indeed time to get real, and time to get real means: talking and preparations. we saw the results of israel's one-sided withdrawal from gaza. afterwards many people who first were in favour of the withdrawal said that it was a mistake since there were no talks beforehand and therefore chaos afterwards. so, israel cannot simply leave the westbank. the danger that hamas-terrorists take over and treat not only israel but also fatah-people in a crucial way, is too big. there have to be talks, there has to be common preparation, not only concerning the palestinians but also concerning the israeli settlers. (many of those settlers who left gaza have still not proper residence, up to now.) so, get real and think about logistics (among others) before you write such stuff.
may i remind you that the westbank and east jerusalem were first occupied during the 1948-war by jordan and later (in 1950) annexed by jordan. was this illegal behaviour by jordan? if yes, why then united kingdom recognized the annexation? did uk participate in illegal behaviour? by the way: according to the un-charter the war which the arabs led against israel in 1948 (and which actually led to the present situation) was illegal. what do you say about this? how to deal with this?
"what interntl law?" The International Law Israel obliged itself to uphold m' dear. //I have the honor to notify you that the state of Israel has been proclaimed as an independent republic within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947, and that a provisional government has been charged to assume the rights and duties of government for preserving law and order within the boundaries of Israel, for defending the state against external aggression, and for discharging the obligations of Israel to the other nations of the world in accordance with international law. // It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war/force It is illegal to unilaterally annex territory UNSC Resolution 252 (1968) of 21 May 1968 UNSC Resolution 267 (1969) of 3 July 1969 UNSC Resolution 271 (1969) of 15 September 1969, UNSC Resolution 298 (1971) of 25 September 1971, UNSC Resolution 465 (1980) of 1 March 1980, UNSC Resolution 476 (1980)
President Obama is not incompetent, American administrations heve been torpedoed too many times by the incompetence and foolishness of both sides of our local conflict to dance to our tune any longer. The U.S. will do nothing until it is absolutely clear that both sides will not obstruct its efforts.
...because there are no stubborn palestinians who resist to each and everything they get offered. mr. marcus is right when he demands from mr. mitchell to twist mr. abbas' arm so that negotiations can be started. peace does not fall from the sky, it has to be acchieved by hard work on the earth.
I don't think either the Abbas government or the Netanyahu government is yet ready or capable yet. Neither Obama nor Mitchell seem willing to actually use the pressure they could. They certainly have not yet. The problem is Israel elected a government dedicated to the proposition that there can be no Palestinian state. And Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan proposed an entity that would have neither independence nor sovereignty - not a state of Palestine by any means. Netanyahu told the Egyptians one thing, but then denied it when it became public. Not a real confidence builder. And never once has any Israeli politician committed to any condition under which Gaza would ever be freed and independent. Not a hopeful scenario.
on the progression of negotiations with Israel and final agreement date on core issues. Meanwhile time has been wasted on preconditions to begin the negotiations and the Quartet has finally got to insist that both leaderships continue the Road Map commitments. It's of particular concern that this opportunity for finalizing what PM Ehud Olmert achieved with the PA regarding the exchange of territories and built trust, will once again be lost only to continue the conflict. Yoel Marcus is somewhat correct when he states that U.S. President Obama must be adamant to get started already.
Yoel Marcus, do you remember writing this? QUOTE: Obama has failed to keep a single promise or solve one major problem during his time in office. In this situation he cannot afford to lose the support of the Jews, who are behind 40 percent of the contributions to the Democrats' elections. Can Oslo take back Obama's Nobel? By Yoel Marcus
Iran is not related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if the latter wanted peace (which they do not) it would not stop the former from continuing to develop nuclear weapons and attempt to wipe us off the map. Iran is genocidal in its attempt to establish a new Middle-East empire. First Iraq, then Lebanon, and Syria. On and on it will go unless someone puts a stop to their terrorism.
Abbas doesn't speak for Gaza and he's in no hurry to negotiate and the Americans aren't going to put pressure on him. They'll put more pressure on Israel and it won't have an effect. The Republicans will bash Obama and the Democrats will lose seats in tis year's congressional election. In addition Obama's punting Iranian sanctions and Israel will be forced to act. Does anyone see this playing out any other way?
you will have to give up the WB, and e. j'slem and get over it...tired of waiting...get off your butts and get it done now!!