Obama Gives Everything, Netanyahu Wants More

President Obama's speech in response to the changes in the Middle East yesterday covered many different areas. While people who care about the human rights and self-determination of Arab peoples might be pleased by some elements of the speech, others will also question the sincerity with which these points were delivered given the U.S.'s history for supporting some of the very rulers Arabs rebelled, and are rebelling, against.

The Arab Spring however, which came not only after President Obama delivered his first speech in Cairo but more importantly after he failed to fulfill the promises of that speech, signified that Arabs are not waiting around for American leadership or vision to shape their own destines. If there would be any litmus test of American commitment to supporting positive change in the region however, it would be the discussion of the Palestinian issue in the speech.

The question of Palestine took up a more significant portion of the speech than any other single country and yet, despite the remarkable changes in the region, President Obama's speech offered nothing new. While some in the US are busy, for domestic political reasons, attacking Obama for mentioning 1967 lines with agreed swaps as the basis for territorial negotiations, this is no departure from the norm established and operated under by successive negotiating sessions.

As far as the negotiations are concerned, this principle of land swaps was not really where Israelis and Palestinians disagreed. The disagreements arose over which particular land to swap based on the geopolitically sensitive locations of massive Israeli settlements. The Israelis wanted an extra 10% of the West Bank, the Palestinians argued that such plans would make a Palestinian state impossible and permanently usurp Palestinian water resources. A look at the map linked here, made available thanks to the leak of classified "Palestine Papers" negotiations documents, shows that in such a scenario to go from the Palestinian city of Qalqilya to Hebron - a crow's flight distance of less than 50 miles (or vice-versa) - would mean either crossing international borders drawn to accommodate illegal settlements 4 times or circumventing these 'fact's on the ground' by making a trip that should take less than an hour into a zig-zaging afternoon. The proposed state that Palestinians had to look forward to seemed practically the same as occupation.

The problem was not the baseline of a two-state solution (except in Jerusalem where the Israelis unilaterally annexed occupied territory) the problem had always been that when Israel wanted to take what the Palestinians couldn't afford to give, no one stopped them. This was perhaps best brought to light by another conversation revealed by the "Palestine Papers" when in a trilateral meeting a similar disagreement arose over the particularly sensitive settlement of Maale Adumim, a massive settlement deep inside Palestinian territory that practically cuts Jerusalem off from the rest of the West Bank:

Palestinian Negotiator Ahmad Qurie: Just like Ariel, Maale Addumim is a problem. Jerusalem is out if they take Maale Addumim.

Condoleeza Rice: No – Jerusalem is not out! Everyone understands that what is Jewish is Israeli and what is Arab is Palestinian.

Qurie: But we don’t want to fly to Jerusalem by helicopter!

Rice: I don’t think that any Israeli leader is going to cede Maale Addumim.

Qurie: Or any Palestinian leader.

Rice: Then you won’t have a state!

What this excerpt clearly demonstrates is not that the baseline from which to swap was the problem, but when it came to which territory would be swapped, the United States - supposedly playing the role of even-handed mediator- tells the Palestinians they have to accept the Israeli position or else. This is why the concept of the settlement freeze was so important as well, not only was settlement building entirely illegal under international law, but the Israelis were also using it to leverage their bargaining position so that the blocs they knew the US would support them in keeping would only grow each time they met at the negotiating table.

This is exactly why even the Palestinians who were most willing to negotiate realized that American-led negotiations simply would not bring fruit to their quest for dignified national liberation. If it did anything, Obama's speech simply confirmed this conviction among Palestinians. If you look at the demands outlined by Netanyahu in his speech to the Israel Knesset this week prior to his trip to Washington it is clear to see that Obama's speech left space to accommodate all of them.

Let's take the points outlined in Netanyahu's demands during his recent Knesset Speech and see how the points in Obama's speech yesterday relate.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: The Palestinians must recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.

Obama on this point: What America and the international community can do is to state frankly what everyone knows -- a lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples: Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace.

Problems: Obama here is accepting Netanyahu's pre-condition for peace. Even though Palestinian negotiators recognized Israel as a pre-condition for negotiations 20 years ago, Netanyahu and the Israelis continue to set the bar higher and higher. Palestinians will not and should not recognize Israel as a Jewish state for two important reasons 1) This recognition implies a relinquishing of claims of the national rights of the Palestinian minority which exists in Israel today amounting to 20% of Israel's population and 2) It is not up to Palestinians to define Israel, that is Israel's job. But knowing that this is yet another hurdle that would divide the Palestinian house, Israel has thrown it in the path of Palestinian negotiators precisely because they know it can not be accepted. That Obama supports this pre-condition so openly speaks to the lack of credibility of the United States as mediator.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demands: The problem of the Palestinian refugees must be resolved outside Israel’s borders. Jerusalem will remain the united, sovereign capital of Israel.

Obama on this point: I’m aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Problems: While Obama doesn't repeat Netnayhu's points here, he is hardly precluding them. (He actually mimicked Netanyahu's demand on Jerusalem at the AIPAC conference in 2008) By saying any issue will be left up to negotiations with such ambiguous language, and given the US's history as a mediator highlighted above in the Condi Rice conversation, they have no reason to believe anything but Netanyahu's demands will an option the US let's them consider.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: Israel will retain the settlement blocs.

Obama on this point: We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.

Problems: Again, as demonstrated by the conversation above, there is no conflict here between what Netanyahu is asking for and the principles Obama lays out. Behind closed doors, the US has supported Israeli demands for keeping the settlement blocs which dissect the West Bank.

Netanyahu Knesset Speech Demand: A Palestinian state must be demilitarized and not endanger Israel’s security. Israel would be allowed to keep a military presence along the Jordan Valley, as part of those security arrangements.

Obama on this point: Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism, to stop the infiltration of weapons, and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. And the duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.

Problems: Can you see a trend here? If Obama is not echoing Netanyahu's exact demands in his speech, it's because the issues must be agreed on in negotiations. What he doesn't tell you is that during those negotiations the United States will act as a tireless advocate for Israel's demands. Plus, the idea of pre-conditioning the existence of a state on its inability to defend itself empties the concept of sovereignty of any of its meaning.

So the only way you can really say that Obama's speech and Netanyahu's Knesset speech are incompatible is if you are not really paying attention to one of them. While Netanyahu might be putting on a temper tantrum now, he got everything he could have asked for in this speech with the well-established assurances that in the areas where Obama did not repeat his demands, the US negotiating team would behind closed doors. The tensions on display from Netanyahu are playing to an American political spectrum he knows well.

The section of Obama's speech which discussed Palestine is a a very strong reminder that the United States is not in a position to mediate this conflict. After an 18-month showdown between Obama and Netanyahu over settlements, this speech coming in the last week of work for the newly resigned envoy George Mitchell, should only embolden Palestinians to seek liberation strategies that circumvent American-led negotiations.

Share |