Most battered wives eventually learn the hard way that the words “I love you” spoken by their abusive spouse are nothing more than a deliberate con without respect and caring actions to back them up.
Likewise, US President Barack Obama’s recent call for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, part of a speech delivered at the State Department and designed to curry favour with the Arab world is also a mere whisper of sweet nothings.
Obama is being praised for being the first US president to spell out his vision in terms of the 1967 borders allowing for land swaps. The problem is until now he’s lacked the necessary backbone to make a difference. He promised there would be a Palestinian state by September and did little to bring it to fruition.
He ordered the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to quit expanding Jewish colonies on the West Bank and made no move to punish the Israeli government when he was ignored. He appointed an experienced peacemaker George Mitchell as US Middle East Envoy and allowed his Zionist Foreign Policy Adviser Dennis Ross to ride roughshod over Mitchell’s efforts until the latter quit in frustration.
Now he talks about 1967 borders knowing full well that Netanyahu would respond with a snub—at least in public. Who knows! It may be that behind closed doors the pair are patting each other on the back and having a good laugh. However, the rest of the world isn’t laughing. The Quartet—the EU, the UN, the US and Russia—has expressed its ‘strong support’ for a Palestinian state framed on 1967 lines.
Moreover, a growing number of UN member states are prepared to bless the Palestinians’ unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state that to Washington’s consternation was originally scheduled for September but may have been put on ice as a result of US pressure.
Netanyahu’s ploy
Netanyahu was quick to say Israel would never retreat behind 1967 borders because they are ‘indefensible’ and do not reflect changed realities on the ground. In other words, Israeli colonists are there to stay. The Israeli leader also said Israel would never agree to any Palestinian right of return and warned the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that any reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas would kill the peace process.
Obama is said to be ‘disappointed.’ Someone should tell him the peace process died on the day Netanyahu took office. He’s never wanted to give-up one inch of occupied land for peace; he wants to pacify Palestinians living on the West Bank with jobs and economic opportunity and leave the 1.5 million people indefinitely imprisoned by Israel’s crippling blockade.
All his talk about peace in the recent past has been nothing more than a sop to the Obama White House that does its best to look useful in front of the international community—and wants to show America’s Arab allies that it’s still playing the part of ‘honest broker’ with playing being the operative word.
Of course, Obama is in the doghouse with pro-Israel lobbyists who had to be instructed not to boo him when like so many presidents before him he made his annual obeisance to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Presidential contender Mitt Romney opportunistically accuses Obama of throwing Israel under a bus.
There’s no getting away from it; in the unlikely event Obama is on the level he has to put his money where his mouth is. Only a president who has enough courage and determination to face the ire of lobbyists and their sycophants in Congress can cause ripples within Israel; someone prepared to put his popularity on the line for the sake of achieving a real breakthrough using both carrots and sticks.
Humiliation
Judging from his record to date, Obama is not that man. He’s happy to urge Arab leaders to step down and thinks nothing about slapping economic sanctions on Syria and Iran. He ordered his military to infringe Pakistan’s sovereignty to assassinate Osama and to drop bombs on the head of the Libyan leader.
But he wouldn’t dare shave even a dollar from the annual $3 billion(Dh11 billion) aid to Israel (set to increase by $75 million next year) or threaten to support a unilateral Palestinian declaration of a state.
Netanyahu has humiliated Obama more than once and is obstructing the peace process yet all the US leader can say is disagreements happen ‘between friends.’ US leaders have been mediating between Palestinians and Israelis for decades without success.
Obama should either announce failure and stay out of the loop or put his neck on the chopping board. Enough fancy speeches and faux promises! Palestinians want their rights not more raised hopes. There has to be another tack; the hope is that the changing political dynamic throughout the Middle East and North Africa will provide more power to their elbow and enable them to twist a few elbows of their own.
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
Palestinians want rights not pledges
Posted on May 31, 2011 by Linda S. Heard
Most battered wives eventually learn the hard way that the words “I love you” spoken by their abusive spouse are nothing more than a deliberate con without respect and caring actions to back them up.
Likewise, US President Barack Obama’s recent call for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders, part of a speech delivered at the State Department and designed to curry favour with the Arab world is also a mere whisper of sweet nothings.
Obama is being praised for being the first US president to spell out his vision in terms of the 1967 borders allowing for land swaps. The problem is until now he’s lacked the necessary backbone to make a difference. He promised there would be a Palestinian state by September and did little to bring it to fruition.
He ordered the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to quit expanding Jewish colonies on the West Bank and made no move to punish the Israeli government when he was ignored. He appointed an experienced peacemaker George Mitchell as US Middle East Envoy and allowed his Zionist Foreign Policy Adviser Dennis Ross to ride roughshod over Mitchell’s efforts until the latter quit in frustration.
Now he talks about 1967 borders knowing full well that Netanyahu would respond with a snub—at least in public. Who knows! It may be that behind closed doors the pair are patting each other on the back and having a good laugh. However, the rest of the world isn’t laughing. The Quartet—the EU, the UN, the US and Russia—has expressed its ‘strong support’ for a Palestinian state framed on 1967 lines.
Moreover, a growing number of UN member states are prepared to bless the Palestinians’ unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state that to Washington’s consternation was originally scheduled for September but may have been put on ice as a result of US pressure.
Netanyahu’s ploy
Netanyahu was quick to say Israel would never retreat behind 1967 borders because they are ‘indefensible’ and do not reflect changed realities on the ground. In other words, Israeli colonists are there to stay. The Israeli leader also said Israel would never agree to any Palestinian right of return and warned the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that any reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas would kill the peace process.
Obama is said to be ‘disappointed.’ Someone should tell him the peace process died on the day Netanyahu took office. He’s never wanted to give-up one inch of occupied land for peace; he wants to pacify Palestinians living on the West Bank with jobs and economic opportunity and leave the 1.5 million people indefinitely imprisoned by Israel’s crippling blockade.
All his talk about peace in the recent past has been nothing more than a sop to the Obama White House that does its best to look useful in front of the international community—and wants to show America’s Arab allies that it’s still playing the part of ‘honest broker’ with playing being the operative word.
Of course, Obama is in the doghouse with pro-Israel lobbyists who had to be instructed not to boo him when like so many presidents before him he made his annual obeisance to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Presidential contender Mitt Romney opportunistically accuses Obama of throwing Israel under a bus.
There’s no getting away from it; in the unlikely event Obama is on the level he has to put his money where his mouth is. Only a president who has enough courage and determination to face the ire of lobbyists and their sycophants in Congress can cause ripples within Israel; someone prepared to put his popularity on the line for the sake of achieving a real breakthrough using both carrots and sticks.
Humiliation
Judging from his record to date, Obama is not that man. He’s happy to urge Arab leaders to step down and thinks nothing about slapping economic sanctions on Syria and Iran. He ordered his military to infringe Pakistan’s sovereignty to assassinate Osama and to drop bombs on the head of the Libyan leader.
But he wouldn’t dare shave even a dollar from the annual $3 billion(Dh11 billion) aid to Israel (set to increase by $75 million next year) or threaten to support a unilateral Palestinian declaration of a state.
Netanyahu has humiliated Obama more than once and is obstructing the peace process yet all the US leader can say is disagreements happen ‘between friends.’ US leaders have been mediating between Palestinians and Israelis for decades without success.
Obama should either announce failure and stay out of the loop or put his neck on the chopping board. Enough fancy speeches and faux promises! Palestinians want their rights not more raised hopes. There has to be another tack; the hope is that the changing political dynamic throughout the Middle East and North Africa will provide more power to their elbow and enable them to twist a few elbows of their own.
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.