We’re only hours from the Obama-Netanyahu meeting and the advice is coming fast and furious. The New York Times is all over the place today with commentary from Ali Abunimah, Chas Freeman, Daniel Levy and Jeffrey Goldberg. The discourse is truly opening up . Now it’s essential to bring 1948 into the conversation.
Hussein Agha and Robert Malley begin to do this over at the New York Review of Books. Their article “Obama and the Middle East,” takes stock of the current moment and offers some advice forward. In it, they repeat an idea that has been shared on this site – the peace process needs to be less concerned with the mechanics of two states and more focused on principles that can lead to peace. Agha and Malley:
Its starting point would be less of an immediate effort to achieve a
two-state agreement or propose US ideas to that effect. Rather, it
would be an attempt to transform the political atmosphere and
reformulate the diplomatic process. This would entail, first,
identifying and recognizing fundamental Israeli and Palestinian
concerns and aspirations and then placing them at the core of the
process.
Towards this end they take on the elephant in the room: 1948 and the Nakba. Writing on the day the Nakba was commemorated in Palestine, Agha and Malley explain, “The Israeli–Palestinian conflict will have to be tackled within the
1967 boundaries. But it can be resolved only if it deals candidly with
its 1948 genesis.”
Despite this provocative statement, they hedge a bit by qualifying it in a confusing manner, “In fact, the more the refugees’ plight is openly
acknowledged by the US, the easier it will become to end the indecent
prolongation of their current misery on the dubious pretext that if
their lives could be improved, this would eradicate their cause and
obliterate their rights.” Are they saying the refugees need to be acknowledged so that they will give up their rights (which they admit is “dubious”)? Not sure, but the greater point is right on – the Obama administration can take the lead in redirecting the understanding and discourse of the conflict. And it needs to place the Nakba front and center.
This is essential for many reasons, but the most simple is this – the Nakba is what this conflict is about. The original dispossession and displacement of the Palestinian people has never been acknowledged by Israel and the international community and has been ignored by the peace process. Obama can change this. Acknowledging the Nakba as part of the peace process is necessary for there to be an honest discussion of the refugee issue. And while justice for the refugees is still a long way away, addressing their history and Israel’s responsibility is an important first step.
A lot of attention has been given to how the US will need to force Israel into concessions on the ground, but it is also true that Obama will have to apply pressure for Israel to even acknowledge the simple facts of the conflict. Obama can do this. Agha and Malley are correct, it’s one simple thing he can do to show the world that things have changed, and that the US is serious about ending this conflict.
