No alternative to peace!
Prime Minister Netanyahu envisages a Bantustan, with municipal powers, not a sovereign state, as mandated by the UN.
The writer was Pakistan’s ambassador to the EU from 2001-2004 and to the US in 1999 tariq.fatemi@tribune.com.pk
Though an American President’s visit to the Middle East is generally expected to generate excitement and expectation, President Barack Obama’s current visit to Israel is, however, being treated by both sides as a virtual non-event!
Not only has Secretary John Kerry dampened any expectation, the president, too, has reassured American Jewish leaders that he was not planning to deliver “a grand peace plan” but urge the sides to enter into a dialogue. He also confided that his primary objectives would be: (i) to reiterate Washington’s “unshakable support” for Israel; (ii) stand by Israel against all challenges in the Middle East; (3) send a clear message to Iran that all options are on the table; and (iv) find a just solution to the Palestinian issue.
What explains President Obama’s cautious approach? For one, the early unpleasant experience of dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the resultant conclusion that in the face of the prime minister’s intransigence and skill in manipulating the powerful pro-Israeli lobby in the US, there was little possibility of the White House taking any meaningful initiative on the peace process. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are stuck with a weak and increasingly isolated president on the West Bank and an elected — though unrecognised — leader in Gaza, with both at loggerheads and unable to present a united front.
There are, however, some reports to the effect that President Obama may ask the Israeli leadership for a detailed plan for withdrawal from the West Bank, to consider whether he can float plans to promote the establishment of a Palestinian State by 2014. But the current situation is tailor-made to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advantage. With President Obama lacking Congressional support to apply pressure on the Israeli leader even on a temporary freeze of settlements, and the Europeans unwilling to go beyond mere diplomatic demarches, there is little likelihood of any meaningful initiative being taken for the resumption of the peace process.
Some observers see room for optimism in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s success in finally knitting together a coalition. But it embraces such disparate politicians as Yair Lapid — a moderate — and Naftali Bennett — an extreme right-winger, who has ruled out a Palestinian state — which means that Israel will have a weak and fragmented government unable to agree on any initiative, especially when there is little support in the country.
Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu is well versed in American politics. He has rightly claimed, both publicly and privately, that his strength is in the Capitol, not the White House. Consequently, he sees no reason to entertain any initiative, attaching preconditions to the resumption of peace talks, vowing to make no compromise over Israel’s claim “that united Jerusalem will remain its eternal and indivisible capital”. He has also refused to dismantle the illegal settlements while rejecting the Palestinian right of return and demanding that any Palestinian entity in the occupied territories be demilitarised and not have a border with Jordan. In other words, Prime Minister Netanyahu envisages a Bantustan, with municipal powers, not a sovereign state, as mandated by the UNSC resolutions.
With Palestinians disunited at home and neighbouring Arab states in a state of turmoil that has reduced even further their less-than-usual support and solidarity for the Palestinians, Prime Minister Netanyahu may well feel that the status quo is Israel’s best option. This allows him to continue with current policy, eventually making annexation of the West Bank a reality, taking Israel’s borders to the Jordan River. The Israelis, nevertheless, need to ponder the consequences of ruling over 2.5 million angry disillusioned Palestinians, living in an apartheid-like situation. What will it do to Israel’s claim of being a democracy or even of its Jewish identity, as forcefully brought out by six former Israeli security chiefs? The US, too, must appreciate that though its requirement for Middle Eastern oil is dwindling rapidly, a Middle East in a state of permanent ferment does not serve its purpose, or those of its allies.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 20th, 2013.
Not only has Secretary John Kerry dampened any expectation, the president, too, has reassured American Jewish leaders that he was not planning to deliver “a grand peace plan” but urge the sides to enter into a dialogue. He also confided that his primary objectives would be: (i) to reiterate Washington’s “unshakable support” for Israel; (ii) stand by Israel against all challenges in the Middle East; (3) send a clear message to Iran that all options are on the table; and (iv) find a just solution to the Palestinian issue.
What explains President Obama’s cautious approach? For one, the early unpleasant experience of dealing with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the resultant conclusion that in the face of the prime minister’s intransigence and skill in manipulating the powerful pro-Israeli lobby in the US, there was little possibility of the White House taking any meaningful initiative on the peace process. The Palestinians, on the other hand, are stuck with a weak and increasingly isolated president on the West Bank and an elected — though unrecognised — leader in Gaza, with both at loggerheads and unable to present a united front.
There are, however, some reports to the effect that President Obama may ask the Israeli leadership for a detailed plan for withdrawal from the West Bank, to consider whether he can float plans to promote the establishment of a Palestinian State by 2014. But the current situation is tailor-made to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s advantage. With President Obama lacking Congressional support to apply pressure on the Israeli leader even on a temporary freeze of settlements, and the Europeans unwilling to go beyond mere diplomatic demarches, there is little likelihood of any meaningful initiative being taken for the resumption of the peace process.
Some observers see room for optimism in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s success in finally knitting together a coalition. But it embraces such disparate politicians as Yair Lapid — a moderate — and Naftali Bennett — an extreme right-winger, who has ruled out a Palestinian state — which means that Israel will have a weak and fragmented government unable to agree on any initiative, especially when there is little support in the country.
Moreover, Prime Minister Netanyahu is well versed in American politics. He has rightly claimed, both publicly and privately, that his strength is in the Capitol, not the White House. Consequently, he sees no reason to entertain any initiative, attaching preconditions to the resumption of peace talks, vowing to make no compromise over Israel’s claim “that united Jerusalem will remain its eternal and indivisible capital”. He has also refused to dismantle the illegal settlements while rejecting the Palestinian right of return and demanding that any Palestinian entity in the occupied territories be demilitarised and not have a border with Jordan. In other words, Prime Minister Netanyahu envisages a Bantustan, with municipal powers, not a sovereign state, as mandated by the UNSC resolutions.
With Palestinians disunited at home and neighbouring Arab states in a state of turmoil that has reduced even further their less-than-usual support and solidarity for the Palestinians, Prime Minister Netanyahu may well feel that the status quo is Israel’s best option. This allows him to continue with current policy, eventually making annexation of the West Bank a reality, taking Israel’s borders to the Jordan River. The Israelis, nevertheless, need to ponder the consequences of ruling over 2.5 million angry disillusioned Palestinians, living in an apartheid-like situation. What will it do to Israel’s claim of being a democracy or even of its Jewish identity, as forcefully brought out by six former Israeli security chiefs? The US, too, must appreciate that though its requirement for Middle Eastern oil is dwindling rapidly, a Middle East in a state of permanent ferment does not serve its purpose, or those of its allies.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 20th, 2013.