Pro-Palestinian sympathies are on the rise. Due to the prevalence of social media, mainstream news outlets can no longer control the message. Ordinary folk around the world were incensed by the horrors inflicted upon the residents of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli army, seen graphically in videos posted on YouTube and many rounded on the corporate media for seeking to frame the conflict as one waged between equals.
The unvarnished truth has left the Israeli government on the back foot and has embarrassed the US for its unfailing support of the Jewish state. And now this groundswell of public anger in western capitals has impacted politicians and decision-makers to the extent that Israel is no longer sacrosanct; no more seen as the eternal victim awarded immunity from being held responsible for its crimes.
Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to understand that the status quo cannot endure in perpetuity as reflected in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly that received a smattering of applause in a half-empty chamber. Although most of his words were dedicated to justifying Israel’s brutality and demonising Hamas, he also spoke about “a historic opportunity.”
“After decades of seeing Israel as their enemy, leading states in the Arab world increasingly recognise that together, we and they face many of the same dangers . . .” he said. “Our challenge is to transform these common interests to create a productive partnership, one that would build a more secure, peaceful and prosperous Middle East . . . Many have long assumed that an Israel-Palestinian peace can help facilitate a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world. But these days, I think it may work the other way around, namely that a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world may help facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace. And, therefore, to achieve that peace, we must look not only to [occupied] Jerusalem and Ramallah, but also to Cairo, Amman, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and elsewhere.”
I’ve discussed Netanyahu’s outreach at Arab writers and academics, who are generally sceptical, unsurprisingly so, given the Israeli premier’s track record of paying mere lip service to the peace process to keep Washington off his back and as a carrot to subdue Palestinian discontent. But I do not believe this olive branch should be dismissed out of hand. Netanyahu should continue to be viewed with suspicion, but his offer may well be genuine in the light of changing circumstances.
Firstly, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has a new card up his sleeve: The option for Palestine to join the International Criminal Court, which would open the way for Israel to be investigated for war crimes. Hamas would be vulnerable to the same charge, but notwithstanding the risks, it has urged Abbas to go for it. However, Abbas prefers to wait until the UN Security Council votes on a resolution, giving Israel a November 2016 deadline to withdraw from all Palestinian territories.
Secondly, European Union member country Sweden has announced its recognition of Palestine’s statehood. Soon afterwards, a non-binding vote in the British parliament followed suit, which resulted in an overwhelming approval for Palestinian recognition with just 12 nays. France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: “Paris would recognise a Palestinian state” if peace negotiations fail. Fabius had earlier condemned Israel’s colony expansion, while his British counterpart, Philip Hammond, said he “deplored Israel’s plans to build 2,000 Jewish homes [colonies] in [occupied] East Jerusalem.
Thirdly, the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is gaining traction and beginning to hurt companies with links to Israel and the export of products from Israeli West Bank colonies. Earlier this month, 500 scholars called for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions. A theatre in London refused to stage a Jewish film festival on the grounds that the organisers were recipients of a grant from the Israeli embassy.
Fourth, Israel has acknowledged that its onslaught on Gaza has triggered ‘anti-Semitic’ (read anti-Israeli policies) attacks on synagogues, Jewish schools and museums, especially in Europe. A growing number of European Jews are seriously considering immigrating to Israel. Lord Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth, wrote: “More than once during the summer, I heard well-established British Jews saying, ‘For the first time in my life, I feel afraid.’”
Fifth, if Abbas follows through on his threat to dismantle the Palestinian National Authority and tightens the lid on the idea of two states living side by side, Israel will automatically become responsible for the well-being of an occupied people, which would take a hefty financial toll on the Israeli economy. Moreover, Israel would face international clamour to implement a one-state solution with equal rights for Palestinians that would ultimately undermine Israel’s Jewish identity based on demographics.
Even America may be running out of patience. US Secretary of State John Kerry was recently uncharacteristically forthright, linking the Israel-Palestine conflict with the rise of Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). “There wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israelis and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of (extremist) recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt.”
There is no doubt that Israel is on the defensive. There may indeed be a historic opportunity here if only it is grasped by all sides before the window slams shut.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
RSS
A changing Israel-Palestine global dynamic
Posted on October 21, 2014 by Linda S. Heard
Pro-Palestinian sympathies are on the rise. Due to the prevalence of social media, mainstream news outlets can no longer control the message. Ordinary folk around the world were incensed by the horrors inflicted upon the residents of the Gaza Strip by the Israeli army, seen graphically in videos posted on YouTube and many rounded on the corporate media for seeking to frame the conflict as one waged between equals.
The unvarnished truth has left the Israeli government on the back foot and has embarrassed the US for its unfailing support of the Jewish state. And now this groundswell of public anger in western capitals has impacted politicians and decision-makers to the extent that Israel is no longer sacrosanct; no more seen as the eternal victim awarded immunity from being held responsible for its crimes.
Israel’s right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to understand that the status quo cannot endure in perpetuity as reflected in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly that received a smattering of applause in a half-empty chamber. Although most of his words were dedicated to justifying Israel’s brutality and demonising Hamas, he also spoke about “a historic opportunity.”
“After decades of seeing Israel as their enemy, leading states in the Arab world increasingly recognise that together, we and they face many of the same dangers . . .” he said. “Our challenge is to transform these common interests to create a productive partnership, one that would build a more secure, peaceful and prosperous Middle East . . . Many have long assumed that an Israel-Palestinian peace can help facilitate a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world. But these days, I think it may work the other way around, namely that a broader rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world may help facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace. And, therefore, to achieve that peace, we must look not only to [occupied] Jerusalem and Ramallah, but also to Cairo, Amman, Abu Dhabi, Riyadh and elsewhere.”
I’ve discussed Netanyahu’s outreach at Arab writers and academics, who are generally sceptical, unsurprisingly so, given the Israeli premier’s track record of paying mere lip service to the peace process to keep Washington off his back and as a carrot to subdue Palestinian discontent. But I do not believe this olive branch should be dismissed out of hand. Netanyahu should continue to be viewed with suspicion, but his offer may well be genuine in the light of changing circumstances.
Firstly, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, has a new card up his sleeve: The option for Palestine to join the International Criminal Court, which would open the way for Israel to be investigated for war crimes. Hamas would be vulnerable to the same charge, but notwithstanding the risks, it has urged Abbas to go for it. However, Abbas prefers to wait until the UN Security Council votes on a resolution, giving Israel a November 2016 deadline to withdraw from all Palestinian territories.
Secondly, European Union member country Sweden has announced its recognition of Palestine’s statehood. Soon afterwards, a non-binding vote in the British parliament followed suit, which resulted in an overwhelming approval for Palestinian recognition with just 12 nays. France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: “Paris would recognise a Palestinian state” if peace negotiations fail. Fabius had earlier condemned Israel’s colony expansion, while his British counterpart, Philip Hammond, said he “deplored Israel’s plans to build 2,000 Jewish homes [colonies] in [occupied] East Jerusalem.
Thirdly, the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions Movement is gaining traction and beginning to hurt companies with links to Israel and the export of products from Israeli West Bank colonies. Earlier this month, 500 scholars called for the boycott of Israeli academic institutions. A theatre in London refused to stage a Jewish film festival on the grounds that the organisers were recipients of a grant from the Israeli embassy.
Fourth, Israel has acknowledged that its onslaught on Gaza has triggered ‘anti-Semitic’ (read anti-Israeli policies) attacks on synagogues, Jewish schools and museums, especially in Europe. A growing number of European Jews are seriously considering immigrating to Israel. Lord Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth, wrote: “More than once during the summer, I heard well-established British Jews saying, ‘For the first time in my life, I feel afraid.’”
Fifth, if Abbas follows through on his threat to dismantle the Palestinian National Authority and tightens the lid on the idea of two states living side by side, Israel will automatically become responsible for the well-being of an occupied people, which would take a hefty financial toll on the Israeli economy. Moreover, Israel would face international clamour to implement a one-state solution with equal rights for Palestinians that would ultimately undermine Israel’s Jewish identity based on demographics.
Even America may be running out of patience. US Secretary of State John Kerry was recently uncharacteristically forthright, linking the Israel-Palestine conflict with the rise of Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). “There wasn’t a leader I met with in the region who didn’t raise with me spontaneously the need to try to get peace between Israelis and the Palestinians, because it was a cause of (extremist) recruitment and of street anger and agitation that they felt.”
There is no doubt that Israel is on the defensive. There may indeed be a historic opportunity here if only it is grasped by all sides before the window slams shut.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.