By Rami G. Khouri
Commentary by
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The likelihood that Palestinians and Israelis will soon launch indirect negotiations, or “proximity talks” mediated by American officials, sounds positive on the surface, but in reality it is a very bad sign. It provides the illusion of progress toward peace, while in fact it mainly affirms the depressing state of play of the five primary actors in this long Middle Eastern drama – the Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Arabs and the United Nations. The Europeans do not figure here, because they are now busy ski jumping, and perhaps they will re-enter the picture in spring.
The sudden resort to indirect talks is bizarre because it follows 17 years of on and off efforts in which the two sides met regularly and negotiated directly. They have concluded agreements, implemented parts of them, and established joint mechanisms and close working ties in many fields. The 1993 Oslo Accords never achieved their full potential, as the momentum for a comprehensive peace agreement was halted, then reversed, Israeli colonization and Palestinian resistance persisted, and wars followed in Lebanon and Gaza. Now we are back to square one.
The desperate resort to indirect talks following 17 years of failure makes no sense, other than to provide the illusion of progress where there is only stalemate. The Israelis are the most pleased with this development, because they will feel that they have forced the Palestinians and Americans to play by Zionist rules. Talks will resume while core Israeli activities persist unchanged – colonization, expropriation and theft of occupied Arab lands, slow motion ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs from occupied East Jerusalem, the siege and strangulation of Gaza, and refusal to seriously explore resolving the Palestinian refugee issue through the application of UN resolutions and international law.
The Palestinians, represented by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, have neither credibility nor clout. Abbas has tried several approaches to negotiating with Israel, and all have failed. He has marginalized himself and his Fatah movement by trying to do the impossible: enter into a serious diplomatic negotiation without harnessing his Palestinian national assets, resolving the split with Hamas, or marshalling the support of wider circles of allies in the region and beyond. When he finally did take a principled stand – refusing to negotiate with Israel until it froze all settlement activity – he was unable to maintain this for more than a few months, and ultimately panicked and agreed to the bizarre proximity talks suggestion.
The Americans are the world’s least credible go-between, to judge by their performance during the past four decades. Senator George Mitchell’s personal credibility from his Northern Ireland days is impressive, but the past year has not provided a single shred of evidence that the Obama administration wants to apply the approach that worked in Northern Ireland to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The opposite seems to be the case, as the United States has backed down from demanding an Israeli settlement freeze and still refuses to engage diplomatically with Hamas. Relying on the US to mediate fairly when Israel is involved seems slightly delusional The Arabs who should provide support for the Palestinians are nowhere to be seen. They have never seriously followed up their 2002 Arab peace plan that offered Israel long-term, comprehensive peace, coexistence and normal relations. Whether this is because of insincerity, incompetence or irresoluteness due to dependency on US (and occasionally Israeli) protection is not clear. What is clear is that the Arabs collectively are on diplomatic vacation. The United Nations is intriguing as an actor, or, in this case, a non-actor. While it is not a sovereign player, but rather reflects the collective position of the world’s states, it does provide diplomatic mechanisms that states can make use of, and that the secretary general of the UN can trigger as well through his personal initiatives. The organization remains on the sidelines, however, shackled by its odd participation in the American-dominated and Israeli-defined Quartet (with the US, the European Union and Russia), licking the wounds of its own growing irrelevance. The resort to indirect proximity talks merely highlights the prevailing postures of the five principal actors. None of the five has offered any sign that it will change positions to help move towards a diplomatic breakthrough. With no likelihood of progress, it is not clear why anyone is interested in these proximity talks, other than to perfect their skills in the domain of diplomatic illusion and self-deception. It is interesting to contrast these moves with this week’s 20th anniversary commemoration of F.W. de Klerk’s release of Nelson Mandela from prison in South Africa, a decisive, bold move that paved the way for justice, peace and reconciliation in that land. The giants who changed South Africa belong to a different world than the thugs, wimps and children who prevail in Israel and Palestine. Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR. Note: "The Israelis are the most pleased with this development, because they will feel that they have forced the Palestinians and Americans to play by Zionist rules." When anyone makes a bold statement that Israel is playing by "Zionist rules", all credibility of that individual ceases - for it demonstrates antisemitism. Please look at the following:
Zionism Is Not Racism
In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution slandering Zionism by equating it with racism. In his spirited response to the resolution, Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Chaim Herzog noted the irony of the timing, the vote coming exactly 37 years after Kristallnacht.
Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland.
History has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through a national homeland. Zionism recognizes that Jewishness is defined by shared origin, religion, culture and history.
The realization of the Zionist dream is exemplified by more than four million Jews, from more than 100 countries, including dark-skinned Jews from Ethiopia, Yemen and India, who are Israeli citizens. Approximately 1,000,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs, Druze, Baha'is, Circassians and other ethnic groups also are represented in Israel's population.
Many Christians have traditionally supported the goals and ideals of Zionism. Israel's open and democratic character and its scrupulous protection of the religious and political rights of Christians and Muslims rebut the charge of exclusivity.
The Arab states define citizenship strictly by native parentage. It is almost impossible to become a naturalized citizen in many Arab states, especially Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Several Arab nations have laws that facilitate the naturalization of foreign Arabs, with the specific exception of Palestinians. Jordan, on the other hand, instituted its own "law of return" in 1954, according citizenship to all former residents of Palestine, except for Jews.
The presence of thousands of black Jews in Israel is the best refutation of the calumny against Zionism. In a series of historic airlifts, labeled Moses (1984), Joshua (1985) and Solomon (1991), Israel rescued almost 42,000 members of the ancient Ethiopian Jewish community.
To single out Jewish self-determination for condemnation is itself a form of racism. "A world that closed its doors to Jews who sought escape from Hitler's ovens lacks the moral standing to complain about Israel's giving preference to Jews," wrote noted civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King responded: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."
The 1975 UN resolution was part of the Soviet-Arab Cold War anti-Israel campaign. Almost all the former non-Arab supporters of the resolution have apologized and changed their positions. When the General Assembly voted to repeal the resolution in 1991, only some Arab and Muslim states, as well as Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam were opposed.
Zionism Is Not Racism IS FROM the website Jewish Virtual Library,
.
