OP-ED: What Obama must do first for peace

By M.J.Rosenberg · November 23, 2008

Photos

WASHINGTON (JTA)—The Palestinian Authority, in a brilliant display of public relations, ran Hebrew-language ads this week in Israel’s four major newspapers endorsing the Arab Peace Initiative and calling on Israelis to support it, too. The Palestinian Authority also is urging President-elect Barack Obama to put his prestige behind the initiative, formerly known as the Saudi plan, as a critical first step to help end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Reports in the British media that Obama has endorsed the plan are false. The British media has always been rather dodgy on issues relating to the United States.

I wish it were true. And I hope Obama does endorse the initiative early in his term. But he hasn’t yet.

One of the stellar accomplishments of the Obama campaign’s Jewish outreach team was its ability to prevent the candidate from taking stands on specific Israeli-Palestinian issues, leaving him with maximum flexibility.

That is not why he received nearly 80 percent of the Jewish vote. Jewish voters do not cast their votes with the Middle East foremost in their minds. Nonetheless, the campaign’s studied ambiguity probably helped deliver some key precincts in battleground states such as Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada.

The campaign is over and governing time approaches. The new administration will soon have to decide how to proceed. One thing is certain: It has a stronger hand than any new administration in recent history. It won in a landslide; Obama is the first Democrat to win a majority of the popular vote since Lyndon Johnson. His party controls both the House of Representatives and the Senate. And Jewish voters are in his corner.

So where should he start?

He should start by endorsing the Arab Peace Initiative—the best offer the Arabs have ever made to Israel.

Forget what some Israeli officials and Jewish organizational types say about the Arab League plan. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I say that because every provision requires the agreement of both Arabs and Israelis. So what if its language on borders presupposes full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-’67 lines? So what if it contemplates the return of more refugees than Israel can handle? Or that it envisions the full return of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians?

None of that matters because the language of the initiative represents the maximum Arab position, an opening position. The Saudis (and the other Arabs) are not saying "take it or leave it." They are saying "let’s negotiate."

In fact, to avoid misunderstanding, the reference to the return of the refugees—the most controversial part of the initiative—specifically refers to Israel’s agreement. It calls for the "achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem agreed upon (my emphasis) in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194." Could anything be more clear? A solution to the refugee problem would not be imposed on Israel; it would have to be accepted by Israel.

That is true of everything in the initiative. In fact, it specifically states that its provisions are derived from U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338—the U.S.-drafted resolutions, endorsed by Israel, that call for direct negotiations to end the Arab-Israeli conflict on the basis of land for peace.

Of course, 242 and 338 have not resolved the conflict. This is in large part because, until recently, the Arab world was not ready to accept Israel’s right to peace and security, while Israel refused to accept Palestinian rights. Even after 1993, when the Palestinians and Israelis exchanged mutual recognition, the Arab world as a whole remained steadfast in its refusal to accept the presence of a Jewish state in its midst.

But now Israel accepts the Palestinian right to statehood in the West Bank and Gaza. And the Arab Peace Initiative offers Israel not just acceptance, but also full recognition and normalization of relations with the entire Arab world.

The initiative states that following successful negotiations, every single Arab state will: "(I) consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region, and (II) establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace."

So why is Israel dragging its feet rather than accepting the plan and starting to negotiate? The reason is, almost surely, the settlers. It’s always the settlers.

No peace plan is going to permit a few hundred thousand Israeli settlers to remain in the West Bank—settlers who have no intention of leaving. For instance, this weekend some 20,000 settlers and their supporters are descending on Hebron to defend their right to remain in a Palestinian home they seized. The army ultimately will move to evict them, but the militants say the Israel Defense Forces is the enemy and that they will fight them. Past experience has demonstrated that they will attack the IDF soldiers who are ordered to move them. (In fact, attacks on soldiers have begun.)

This whole business of attacking soldiers is difficult for an American to fathom. In the 1950s and 1960s, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson all had to send in troops to break the back of segregation in the Deep South. The segregationists were every bit as entrenched as the settlers—and they were armed—but once the president sent in the troops, resistance collapsed. Americans do not physically attack their own soldiers. Besides, the U.S. show of force was so overwhelming that the segregationists understood that they were beaten.

What’s wrong with Israel? Has the occupation so degraded attitudes toward the military that settlers feel that they can spit on them, throw rocks at them or worse, and get away with it? Talk about democracy run amok.

That is not America’s problem. Our problem is to resolve a conflict that harms American interests throughout the Muslim world, and has done so since 1967. Perhaps the American interest hurt most of all is Israel’s long-term prospects for survival.

Time is running out. The Arab Peace Initiative presents an unprecedented opportunity. Obama should run with it.

M.J. Rosenberg is the director of Israel Policy Forum’s Washington Policy Center.

Discussions About this Article Elsewhere

Trackback URL: http://jta.org/trackback/1001160/

No trackbacks have been created for this article, be the first to create one.

Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments

Victor Galindo

11/23/08 09:48 PM

I rarely, if ever, agree with Mr. Rosenberg. I strongly disagree with him now. The Arabs can accept Jews living in Judea/Samaria just as Israelis have accepted Muslims in Israel. The problem is not with the ‘settlers’, but with the Arabs wanting NO JEWS in a future state. Even though the Jewish ties to Judea and Samaria are infinitely greater than either Muslim or Christian ties. Even without such acceptance by the Arabs, it must be remembered that Egypt and Israel reached an agreement while settlers were still in the Sinai. This entire ‘settler’ business is merely a smoke screen.

brent rubin

11/24/08 03:00 PM

I think Mr Rosenberg is being a littel naive to think that also Israel has to do accept the preconditions of the Saudi Plan, There is no precedent in history where you accept the maximum unconditionally to negotiate for the minimum. Does he truly believe that the Saudi Plan is in Israels best interest, because no before have any of these countries offered one ounce of peace. If you think that removing 10,000 people from Gaza was tough wait until you have to remove 300,000 from the West Bank and Samaria. Whose pocket is the funds coming from to pay for this fiasco.

Jordan

11/24/08 03:05 PM

Parts of this article are actually incorrect and there was some backtracking that the Obama team had to do particularly regarding his speech at AIPAC and the statement regarding the status of Jerusalem. After Palestinian outcry, Obama had to issue a new statement that was more flexible.

Now, contrary to the above statement, the settlers are in fact posing a problem and anyone who doesn’t see and accept this is intentionally trying to distort the reality. I agree that the Arabs have a terrible double standard in not allowing Jews to live in a future Palestinian state while at the same time demanding non-Jews the ‘right of return’ to Israel, not to mention the Muslims who already do live in Israel as citizens. It’s really a bizarre situation. That said, there is a fringe element of settlers who are doing Israel no favor by attacking Palestinian olive harvesters etc.

The settlements were established to serve as a defensive buffer against the Arab armies. The need for them today in general is really not there. Everyone who disagrees is looking at things through a purely right-wing religious lens.

These same people keep saying one thing or the other is God’s will. Take the Neturei Karta for example. They believe Israel should not have been reestablished… but who are they to say what is God’s will? Because of their own personal interpretation of a text? If it has been established, is it not the will of God? Are they then implying that the power of man to create exceeds that of God?

This is much like the settlements… decisions are made and are made to be realities for however long it is deemed necessary. Leaving most of the West Bank, like how Israel left Gaza occurs only if God has decided so. All of the religious fighting against it are the ones who truly need to look in the mirror and realize they are not God.

It’s time to stop worrying about trivial no longer necessary settlements and look to the east at Iran. There is the real danger to Israel and settlements won’t do a thing to help.

david singer

11/24/08 08:13 PM

The placement of these advertisements amount to a total - and highly public - repudiation of the Roadmap by the Palestinian Authority after almost six years of totally fruitless negotiations.

The Bush Roadmap and the negotiating farce it represented is effectively ended once and for all by these ads.

The Quartet - America, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - will see its collective prestige in jointly endorsing and promoting the Roadmap finally come crashing to the ground without achieving one iota of movement in achieving the Roadmap‘s objectives.

Those countries who have paid up on their pledges totalling US$7.7 billion dollars to the Palestinian Authority just 11 months ago must be aghast - as must those other countries who have contributed billions of more dollars in the last 15 years to a totally implacable and unyielding Palestinian Authority.

Rejecting 90% of what you want and holding out for 100% - and being supported in that rejection by a host of fawning nations eager to throw money at you - has been brought to an end by a few full page ads.

The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Howard Cohn

11/24/08 08:39 PM

Mr. Rosenberg seems to have forgotten that the Saudi Plan was presented as a “Take it or leave it,” plan. It is interesting that all of the ‘settlers’ must leave areas to be ruled by the Arabs without being offered the choice of staying under Arab rule. It seems as if there is no place for Jews in some Arab territory. Go back in time and read what was stated when the Saudi Plan was first presented. Suicide is not an option

David Hersch

11/26/08 03:43 AM

The telling quote from Rosenberg’s episcle is “Our problem is to resolve a conflict that harms American interests throughout the Muslim world, and has done so since 1967.” This is naive and buys into the shallow and infantile propaganda that peace in the Middle east will change the Arabs’ attitude towards the West and the USA. All it means is that they are a step nearer
their goals of conquest and taking over the world and can only encourage them. It shows no real understanding of the situation in the Middle East tied up with the Arab mentality. It shows how their intransigence is a good tactic from their perspective as we have no long term view or patience and the West is inclined to lose focus if things take too long to resolve, whilst they are the exact opposite. They give nothing, make no move, no conciliation, show no reason and in the end achieve their goals. They understand our psychology better than we do and how we don’t understand them at all. When I speak about
“we”, I mean the West in general.

As for Rosenberg admiring the Palestinian Authority’s adverts, it means nothing and as usual is war by other means, which they constantly apply and morph. Its part of a constant campaign to undermine the israelis and abuse people’s ignorance.

It is a starnge phenomenon in the West how we seem to have no memory, forget the horrors, bombs, rockets, murders that were perpetrated just this morning or yesterday and we seem to accept that these people can do whatever they like when they like as this is their “nature”. I am afraid the the only real answer is real fear and complete, total and utter defeat of israel’s enemies. As in WWII where the Allies would only accept unconditional surrender from Japan and Germany and then went on to remake their societies, so we should apply this to the Palestinians. Talk, of course, but there is no other way it seems to bring these people into modernity, civilisation and common sense.

Mr Rosenberg, Americas best interests continue to lie with a strong Israel. Knopw thy self, know they friends and especially, know they enemy, which I suspect you don’t really.

To comment on this article, you must first be registered with JTA.