Opportunity of the century?
It is a testimony to how isolated the Palestinians are right now and how radicalised the Israeli position is
PHOTO: AFP
After being totally irrelevant for the past three years, the Palestinians are being mentioned again. And that is only because of Trump’s ‘deal of the century’. The issue of Palestinian irrelevance needs some attention because a pattern reinforcing the law of diminishing returns clearly emerges. In the bipolar cold war period, things were relatively clearer. The Arabs were aligned largely with the Soviet Union, and the Israelis with the US. But then the cold war ended, and a unipolar world order took shape. In the formative phase of this period, particularly in the Clinton years, the US tried to be a neutral arbiter. We saw the conclusion of the Oslo Agreement. But three things happened then: Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli leader, was assassinated by a religious fanatic ushering in an age of constant radicalisation and hardening of positions in Israel, the end of the Clinton years, and 9/11.
These three developments would witness the gradual strengthening of the Israeli hand. The years following Rabin’s assassination saw the rise of Benjamin Netanyahu, a man and a movement that would refuse to see even the legitimate concerns of the Palestinian community. George Bush Junior used the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as a pretext to finish his daddy’s unfinished agenda in Iraq. The Iraq invasion followed by Hillary Clinton’s policy of working with Iran in the post-occupation political order totally unhinged the Arab world and would eventually lead to the Arab Spring. To the Arab leaders, this was a bigger threat than the state of Israel. Meanwhile, Netanyahu and the Israeli hard right would use 9/11 to conflate Islam with terrorism – hardening of positions everywhere, and nowhere in the interest of the Palestinians.
The Iran nuclear deal was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Sensing the Arab discomfort with the deal and an opportunity to pit one party against the other, Netanyahu took a lead in the assault on it. It worked like a charm. The Arab world would gradually move closer to the Israeli position on Iran. An unwritten alliance of sorts. At the cost of Palestinians, of course. While this was going on, the Palestinian disunity would further drag down the path of obscurity. In Hamas, Netanyahu had the perfect frenemy. Whenever the Israeli attention wandered off to Netanyahu’s corrupt practices, Hamas’ attacks would come handy as an effective diversion. The Israelis were to gradually learn that Bibi Netanyahu’s radicalism was not meant solely for the betterment of the state of Israel. It was the classic wag the dog routine.
What would you say to a leader who uses the perpetual insecurity of its own people to stay in power? But there it was. In the garb of making only the Palestinians irrelevant Netanyahu was aggressively dismantling Israeli democracy, institutions, and opposition. More on that later. But the irrelevance of the Palestinian cause was near complete. The most dangerous signs of this are when your key allies start treating you as a mere afterthought and when the only policy option left with you, violence, is likely to increase your isolation and irrelevance further. Separately something similar was being attempted by the Indian government inside India as well as Kashmir and Pakistan. But in the shape of Prime Minister Imran Khan a foreign policy correction has mostly reversed the tide. And inside India, the Indian Muslims, other minorities and seculars have done a commendable job of frustrating Modi’s agenda by coming together against the CAA-NRC-NPR trident.
Since the formula was working in Israel for Netanyahu, he felt further emboldened. It is remarkable how a radical ecosystem of the far-right leaders strengthens each one of them despite them being on different sides. However, when in its final days the Obama administration tried to revive talks on the two-state solution, Netanyahu took a blowtorch to Washington and New York. He did not use the Palestinian issue of course. The Iran nuclear deal was the low-hanging fruit. He used it to make a lame duck presidency further irrelevant. On the two-state solution, he maintained that the only possible solution was a single-state solution. Hearing this, Obama argued that if a single state was to be a solution it would have to be a secular and not a Jewish state. Netanyahu did not argue further. He only went back and doubled down on strengthening his alliance with the religious far-right, even bringing in the fascist Otzma Yehudit and his plans to further annex the Palestinian territory. In Europe where the mainstream parties had a principled stand on a two-state solution he forged an alliance with the antisemitic far-right outliers who were ready to support Israel as long as it didn’t stand in the way of their local agenda. Consequently, antisemitism has once again reared its ugly head in the West.
It is a testimony to how isolated the Palestinians are right now and how radicalised the Israeli position is, that when President Trump unveiled his deal of the century, the Palestinian representation was not in the frame. It also shows you how impossible and irrational Netanyahu’s position is, that even a proposal by a political ally like Donald Trump, the president who recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, is likely to harm his chances in the next election rather than help him. This proposal is not acceptable to his far-right allies in Israel and he will have to halt further annexation of the Palestinian territories.
The reaction from the Palestinian side has been symptomatic of its isolation, disunity, and fatigue. It has made it plain that it is not eager to trust the Trump administration which had moved closer to the Israeli position mostly at the expense of the Palestinians. But here is a penny for your thought. Trump’s proposal is largely a framework, only an opening point in a fresh round of negotiations. The map we have been debating ad nauseam since the proposal was unveiled is just a conceptual map. Seen in this light it offers two opportunities: to bring the Palestinian cause back to the limelight of relevance; and deradicalising the Israeli position by building equity for peace. So far, the Palestinian side has chosen to reject the proposal and agitate its cause at the UN instead perhaps owing to the internal disunity and the optics of it. But here is the thing. Further violence will make it more irrelevant. Agitating the cause at the UN only helps Netanyahu in making the UN irrelevant. They have hardly anything to lose in coming back to the negotiation table. There are ways to do it without compromising your principled position at the outset.
The merits of the proposal may require a separate column and we must wait and see what becomes of the initiative. However, Muslim leaders should make a final solution contingent on Israel giving up its propaganda campaign against Muslim communities around the world. Meanwhile, the moderate leaders of the West, especially Europe, should link their eventual support to Israel, severing ties with racist far-right. Meanwhile, all concerned parties and the commentators on the matter should read the entire document.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 1st, 2020.
These three developments would witness the gradual strengthening of the Israeli hand. The years following Rabin’s assassination saw the rise of Benjamin Netanyahu, a man and a movement that would refuse to see even the legitimate concerns of the Palestinian community. George Bush Junior used the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon as a pretext to finish his daddy’s unfinished agenda in Iraq. The Iraq invasion followed by Hillary Clinton’s policy of working with Iran in the post-occupation political order totally unhinged the Arab world and would eventually lead to the Arab Spring. To the Arab leaders, this was a bigger threat than the state of Israel. Meanwhile, Netanyahu and the Israeli hard right would use 9/11 to conflate Islam with terrorism – hardening of positions everywhere, and nowhere in the interest of the Palestinians.
The Iran nuclear deal was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Sensing the Arab discomfort with the deal and an opportunity to pit one party against the other, Netanyahu took a lead in the assault on it. It worked like a charm. The Arab world would gradually move closer to the Israeli position on Iran. An unwritten alliance of sorts. At the cost of Palestinians, of course. While this was going on, the Palestinian disunity would further drag down the path of obscurity. In Hamas, Netanyahu had the perfect frenemy. Whenever the Israeli attention wandered off to Netanyahu’s corrupt practices, Hamas’ attacks would come handy as an effective diversion. The Israelis were to gradually learn that Bibi Netanyahu’s radicalism was not meant solely for the betterment of the state of Israel. It was the classic wag the dog routine.
What would you say to a leader who uses the perpetual insecurity of its own people to stay in power? But there it was. In the garb of making only the Palestinians irrelevant Netanyahu was aggressively dismantling Israeli democracy, institutions, and opposition. More on that later. But the irrelevance of the Palestinian cause was near complete. The most dangerous signs of this are when your key allies start treating you as a mere afterthought and when the only policy option left with you, violence, is likely to increase your isolation and irrelevance further. Separately something similar was being attempted by the Indian government inside India as well as Kashmir and Pakistan. But in the shape of Prime Minister Imran Khan a foreign policy correction has mostly reversed the tide. And inside India, the Indian Muslims, other minorities and seculars have done a commendable job of frustrating Modi’s agenda by coming together against the CAA-NRC-NPR trident.
Since the formula was working in Israel for Netanyahu, he felt further emboldened. It is remarkable how a radical ecosystem of the far-right leaders strengthens each one of them despite them being on different sides. However, when in its final days the Obama administration tried to revive talks on the two-state solution, Netanyahu took a blowtorch to Washington and New York. He did not use the Palestinian issue of course. The Iran nuclear deal was the low-hanging fruit. He used it to make a lame duck presidency further irrelevant. On the two-state solution, he maintained that the only possible solution was a single-state solution. Hearing this, Obama argued that if a single state was to be a solution it would have to be a secular and not a Jewish state. Netanyahu did not argue further. He only went back and doubled down on strengthening his alliance with the religious far-right, even bringing in the fascist Otzma Yehudit and his plans to further annex the Palestinian territory. In Europe where the mainstream parties had a principled stand on a two-state solution he forged an alliance with the antisemitic far-right outliers who were ready to support Israel as long as it didn’t stand in the way of their local agenda. Consequently, antisemitism has once again reared its ugly head in the West.
It is a testimony to how isolated the Palestinians are right now and how radicalised the Israeli position is, that when President Trump unveiled his deal of the century, the Palestinian representation was not in the frame. It also shows you how impossible and irrational Netanyahu’s position is, that even a proposal by a political ally like Donald Trump, the president who recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights, is likely to harm his chances in the next election rather than help him. This proposal is not acceptable to his far-right allies in Israel and he will have to halt further annexation of the Palestinian territories.
The reaction from the Palestinian side has been symptomatic of its isolation, disunity, and fatigue. It has made it plain that it is not eager to trust the Trump administration which had moved closer to the Israeli position mostly at the expense of the Palestinians. But here is a penny for your thought. Trump’s proposal is largely a framework, only an opening point in a fresh round of negotiations. The map we have been debating ad nauseam since the proposal was unveiled is just a conceptual map. Seen in this light it offers two opportunities: to bring the Palestinian cause back to the limelight of relevance; and deradicalising the Israeli position by building equity for peace. So far, the Palestinian side has chosen to reject the proposal and agitate its cause at the UN instead perhaps owing to the internal disunity and the optics of it. But here is the thing. Further violence will make it more irrelevant. Agitating the cause at the UN only helps Netanyahu in making the UN irrelevant. They have hardly anything to lose in coming back to the negotiation table. There are ways to do it without compromising your principled position at the outset.
The merits of the proposal may require a separate column and we must wait and see what becomes of the initiative. However, Muslim leaders should make a final solution contingent on Israel giving up its propaganda campaign against Muslim communities around the world. Meanwhile, the moderate leaders of the West, especially Europe, should link their eventual support to Israel, severing ties with racist far-right. Meanwhile, all concerned parties and the commentators on the matter should read the entire document.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 1st, 2020.