As the United States sends envoy George Mitchell to grasp at straws in hopes of restarting negotiations to create a Palestinian state after the Israeli government refused to curb settlement construction, Obama’s inability to entice Netanyahu’s coalition to comply with international law has frustrated many who wish for peace between Israel and Palestine. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes apparent that Obama’s specific failure and the now-seemingly inevitable collapse of negotiations in general constitute a tactical victory for Palestinians.
Firstly, Obama’s initial offering and its subsequent rejection have opened the door to mounting discontent among the American public, causing some to examine the United States’ special relationship with Israel more critically. The very contents of the proffered aid package began this process. In the midst of a prolonged recession the US offered Israel $3 billion worth of F-35 fighter jets among other incentives (such as a guarantee of U.S veto should the Palestinian Authority call upon United Nations Security Council to recognize a Palestinian state) at the same time that Bush tax cuts for the wealthy were extended for two years. To many Americans, politicians’ Israel-First attitude became glaringly obvious –and quite a few did not like what they saw. Incidents such as this offer a powerful foundation for reexamining Israel’s special place in the United States’ pocketbook. The context of this offer, embedded in a time in which the state of the economy has facilitated the emergence of staunch movements against large government expenditures, could not be worse for Israel, which relies on US aid to sustain the occupation. Undermining this relationship has real consequences for Palestinians on the ground.
On a political level, the generosity of the offer exposed the United States’ impartiality in the matter. America usually functions more as Israel’s lawyer than a third-party facilitator of negotiations. Illuminating Obama’s position and methodology gives observers a perfect example of such behavior. Recognition of this reality is an integral component of its correction.
Luckily, US taxpayers avoided further subsidizing Israel’s war crimes and in doing so escaped an unnecessary if not immoral burden. Obama’s failure also did more to expose the United States’ weakness in the face of Israeli obstinacy, calling into question exactly who is in control of this relationship. Palestine solidarity activists and impartial analysts have long argued that Israel “wags the dog” to American detriment. Israel’s refusal to cooperate with US demands is not new, yet this particular incident highlights the country’s arrogance in a startlingly demonstrative way. Each instance of recalcitrance works to undermine Israel’s position in American esteem, or at the very least stretches the bounds of what previously unconcerned Americans are willing to stand.
Some believe that Obama’s offer was simply a pretext for items that Israel will inevitably receive irrespective of compliance with any US demands. Various analysts have suggested this is the very reason Netanyahu was unable to convince his coalition to accept a partial moratorium –why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Yet the delinking of the package from the peace process again offers US citizens more grounds to question policy toward Israel. Apologists might be compelled to excuse the fiscal magnitude of Obama’s gift with the belief that peace is worth any price. What excuse can they offer if Israel still receives it regardless of intransigence? If receiving these items were inevitable, there are only three outcomes. 1) The US will be further exposed as putting Israel’s interests ahead of its own in even more explicit terms 2) Israel will have to actually pay for the jets or 3) The US will be forced to create another pretext for the gift. In any event, Palestinians win.
As for US Security Council veto, while many assume Israel needs no such guarantee as the US consistently veto’s “anti-Israel” legislation without precondition, Israel’s refusal to meet demands obviates 100% certainty on the subject.
The current stall in and ultimate failure of negotiations also renders moot the weakness of any agreement that would have been reached, specifically the inability to enforce it due to Hamas’ absence in the process. As the ruling government of what will be the other half of a Palestinian state, Hamas’ cooperation with Fatah in implementing any promises made to Israel and acceptance of Israel’s pledges as sufficiently just are integral to the contract’s viability. Leaving Hamas out only works to ensure that the entire process will be an exercise in futility, in which case Palestinians will (most likely) have given up much in exchange for nothing at all while Israel exploits Hamas’ non-cooperation to excuse its own inevitable shortcomings. If the peace process does not fall apart completely, at the very least stalling the resumption of negotiations will give Hamas and Fatah a chance to continue the next round of reconciliation talks between the two factions.
In most cases, Israel has sufficiently controlled popular discourse concerning all aspects of the conflict, whether they center on war history, the humanitarian situation in Gaza, the level of existential threat the country faces, justifications for various human rights abuses or the disintegration of negotiations. The latest collapse serves as a marked departure from such control of the narrative.
While Arabs were unfairly blamed for everything from their own ethnic cleansing (by not implementing the UN’s 1948 Partition Plan) to not accepting a state of their own when they were offered one (as Arafat rejected Camp David), the world has finally woken up to Israel’s role in perpetuating conflict. Mainstream outlets’ coverage of negotiations plainly refers to Israel’s refusal to curb settlement construction as the reason for the stalemate. Couple this development with international backlash against Operation Cast Lead in 2008 and reactions to the flotilla massacre this past May and Palestinians just might be getting the sympathetic ear their cause deserves. People are looking at the conflict through a new paradigm, one which is more reflective of reality and consequently works to empower the Palestinian position.
At the same time, the more radical elements of Netanyahu’s settler-controlled coalition are finally being exposed. The more racist legislation that passes through the Knesset, the more opportunities for peace that the coalition rejects, the more Israel will be treated like a rouge pariah state. The political isolation that will ensue provides Israel with a compelling reason to fall in line with accepted international norms or will at minimum mount international support in defense of Palestinian rights.
The international community has already begun to act in solidarity with Palestine as a result of Obama’s failure. The Palestinian Authority’s threat to appeal to the United Nations to facilitate the declaration of an independent state has been historically seen as an empty one, however as a result of the latest collapse Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Uruguay have formally recognized a Palestinian state along 1967 borders in the past weeks. The European Union will discuss recognition in as soon as one year. Israel is losing its chance to impact the substance of a settlement.
What’s more, the media are now openly discussing alternatives to solving the conflict, including a one-state solution. As Alex Kane reports, while the debate on a one-state solution has been discussed in reference to its allegedly disastrous consequences for Israel, any solution-oriented debate that utilizes the term “apartheid” is a step in the right direction to achieving justice for Palestinians both inside and outside Israel.
Because the proposed settlement moratorium was admittedly partial (excluding East Jerusalem in contravention of international law) and temporary (only to last 90 days), Palestinians did not stand gain much tangibly. In contrast, Israel’s rejection of Obama’s incentive package has provided myriad advantages to the Palestinian cause which would have proved difficult to attain in alternate iterations of events. While peace still seems elusive, it is fair to say that Palestinians have gained more than they have lost this week.
Maggie Sager is an American college student and activist. You can find her work at http://www.resistingoccupation.com
“… rouge pariah state.”
Phil, times have changed. Nobody cares how much eye make-up Israel wears anymore.
Which reminds me, here’s what S.J. Perelman said about Israel:
“What magic, what ingenuity and manpower it has taken to recreate Grossinger’s, the Miami Fountainbleau, and the Concord Hotel on a barren strand in the Mid East!”
I couldn’t have put it better myself, but I try not to let it get me down. I just do my best. Before they made Perelman, as he says, they broke the mold.
“The context of this offer, embedded in a time in which the state of the economy has facilitated the emergence of staunch movements against large government expenditures…”
I can only assume you said that with your tongue in your cheek. In any case, it’s better than being in mine.
While many republicans (the incoming Chair of the House Foreign Affairs committee comes to mind) will still do their best to keep aid to Israel intact regardless of budget cuts or reductions in spending, I was making the point that times of fiscal constraint definitely make it comparatively easier to argue against these kinds of expenditures than times of great prosperity.
“I was making the point that times of fiscal constraint definitely make it comparatively easier to argue against these kinds of expenditures than times of great prosperity”
Oh, okay then. To me, the entire “fiscal constraint” thing is entirely phony, in which some spending is attacked on a completely political or emotional level, and the things which are in reality draining the US are ignored.
As long as Americans can be convinced Israel is our first line of defense against the Moslems, they will see the money we send them as a bargain.
I see your point, but I think the entire “deficit” debate is phony.
Remember, the Israelis don’t necessarily have to convince the US that Israel is good, all they have to do is convince us the Moslems are worse.
The best thing about the failure of the “peace” talks is that the Palestinians will not have some rump agreement shoved down their throats as a result.
As I read here–or on some other blog–there seems to be either one of two results: 1. a declaration of statehood and recognition 2. the demise of the PA and reoccupation by Israel, which would quickly focus world attention on Israeli apartheid and, I think, moving the situation inexorably to a 1 state solution.
thanks maggielorraine, excellent report. tone, everything. “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? ” right in the gut.
Some nice free bottle of milk yes, delivered by Uncle Sam right to your door–Obama squeezed it out himself, just for Israel. 3 billion in F-35s.
“Three billion dollars for three months is one billion dollars a month to stop Israel’s colonisation. That’s half a billion dollars a fortnight. That’s $500m a week. That’s $71,428,571 a day, or $2,976,190 an hour, or $49,603 a minute. And as well as this pot of gold, Washington will continue to veto any resolutions critical of Israel in the UN and prevent “Palestine” from declaring itself a state.”
link to independent.co.uk
And that F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (FSJ) is not your run of the mill bomber/fighter. It’s part of a “joint, multinational acquisition program for the US Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and eight cooperative international partners.”
By the addition of F-35s to its Air Force, Israel joins the US and its eight other international partners as members of a western alliance working together to create what is “expected to be the largest military aircraft procurement ever.”
The stealth, supersonic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) will replace a wide range of aging fighter and strike aircraft for the U.S. armed forces and its allied defense forces worldwide, which now includes Israel.
In short, Israel would have received a gift of 20 F-35s (to add to the 20 it has already “contracted” for with Uncle Sam. Thus Israel is becoming part of a procurement program designed to run through 2026 and possibly longer. According to the same Global Security Report, the F-35 worldwide fleet “may well stay in service until 2060 or longer”.
This international procurement program benefits the US company Lockheed-Martin, which on October 26, 2001 won “the largest military contract ever, a possible $200 billion competition to build the Joint Strike Fighter,” winning a competition over Boeing. Now that’s a few thousand jobs for Obama’s Donkeys, a giant feather in their campaign caps that can also be exchanged for huge piles of zionist campaign dollars, and another squadron for the IDF simply for a 90 days pause in the usual Israeli customs?
Ever since 1948 the Palestinians have been gaining “every week”.
Unless they are able to unite under a strong but practical leadership that is accepted by the whole world, they will keep falling behind.
eee, I don’t quite get your comment or the subtext behind it. Are you implying that this is all “show” and that the Palestinians and Israelis don’t actually want a settlement? or that the author of the post doesn’t want a settlement. Israeli politics is wracked with double standards, disunity, attacks on one another of racism, with three major political parties and a host of minor ones. They can’t agree on anything, are essentially impotent. Hamas and Fatah represent two distinct aspects of the Palestinian political calculus but their are others, ranging from the secular to the non-nationalistic but strictly Islamist. Why should there be a need for the Palestinians to unite behind a political leadership if they don’t believe that? any more than the Israelis should unite behind Peace Now if they do not believe it….
Biorabbi,
No, I think both nations want a settlement. And your assessment of Israeli politics is correct except that they can agree occasionally. We have had periods of wide coalition governments that have done difficult things like the peace with Egypt, fight hyperinflation or left Gaza.
Unity does not mean one set of ideas or a consensus about everything. I meant agreeing on a mechanism to share power in a non-violent, hopefully democratic way which leaves at least a hope of reaching difficult decisions. For example, Bibi has the option to make a coalition with Kadima if he thinks there is a good chance reaching a two state solution that he believes most Israelis will support.
Currently, this is not the case with the Palestinians. First, neither Hamas nor Fatah have an understanding how to share power non-violently. Another divide is between the diaspora Palestinians and those in the West Bank and Gaza. The currently have no vote in the PA and are not really represented in the negotiations. Thus, they are very unlikely to accept a two state solution without the right of return.
As I recall, it was Fatah who refused to take orders from the newly elected government. It was Fatah who began the policy of abduction and assassination. It was Fatah who accepted arms and supplies from the US, Israel and other countries. It was Fatah who called for another election because they didn’t like the results of the first. It was Fatah who began the fighting by firing on a Hamas rally in Ramallah, killing 20. And finally, it was Fatah who dissolved the Unity Government in favor of taking over the West Bank and abandoning Gaza. So where does that indicate that Hamas was not willing to “share power” if sharing power means accepting other, lesser parties into the government? Fatah’s conception of sharing power meant ignoring the results of elections and placing itself in the majority, and that conception resulted in the ridiculous situation we have today.
But all of this is moot if reconciliation talks succeed, which I genuinely hope pans out in the very near future.
Et tu, Brutus?
Yes, it is always the Palestinians fault that their productive land is taken from them, their water supplies diverted, their houses taken over, their institutions attacked, their free movement shackled, their lives made a misery – all because they don’t elect the patsies the Israelis/US want so that they continue stealing their country from them. How convenient for the smug Israelis who have no real connection to the land, but have nevertheless decreed that it is theirs, have decided whoever speaks for the Palestinians is nor good enough for them. Blame the victims for not being compliant enough in their own ethnic cleansing.
‘America usually functions more as Israel’s lawyer than a third-party facilitator of negotiations.’
My, how soon we forget the selfless efforts of permanent politician (and Israel’s actual lawyer) Dennis Ross, who personally formulated the shameful sellout of ‘stop breaking the law for 90 days, and we’ll give you the keys to the kingdom’!
It’s mere weeks since Ross’s deal went down to defeat, and already he’s such a nonentity as not to even earn a name check in Maggie Sager’s comprehensive essay on the topic.
Maybe Universe is sending a signal to young Dennis to ease out of the Israeli lawyering biz, before he ends up facing a felony indictment for violating the Logan Act.
Yep. BTW, what ever happened to AIPACgate?
What ever happened to George Mitchell’s sense of self-respect? Did it secretly die when Chas Freeman was deprived of his cafeteria privileges? Or when Chas lost his Israel First credit card? Funny, George never worried about what the Irish Americans would say when he solved the Irish Troubles. I recall, at the outset of his present mission, he even mentioned once in public that he might consider hinting to the Israelis that if they don’t pay attention to his sound and expert advice his nation’s usual loan guarantees to their country might be a tad at risk.
Seems to me one can agree both with Ms. Sager’s very finely perceived comments about the Palestinians winning the latest (tactical) battle, and yet also agree with eee’s observation above that just about since forever (in the minds of some) the Palestinians have been “gaining” every week.
As the U.S. experienced in Vietnam, one can win every battle in a war and yet still lose it.
eee says that the problem right now at least is the lack of a united “strong but practical (Palestinian) leadership,” but to me at least that’s only the non-substantive half of the equation. The substantive half is the lack of any strategic thinking on the part of the Palestinians of how to proceed to turn their tactical victories into success(es).
So okay, one might thus observe, the Palestinians and/or events have revealed the things that Ms. Sager has noted—especially about America’s grotesque partiality in the conflict—and then even beyond what Ms. Sager pointed out and especially with this Congressional Resolution the bigger revelation that the U.S. is just simply, utterly and incontrovertibly incapable of ever really achieving a two-state solution.
So what should the Palestinians now do with these (hardly new, but still somewhat spectacularly confirmed and thus valid ) revelations? Well, certainly it wouldn’t be to continue to play along with the U.S. and Mr. Mitchell and keep going down the same path and thereby effectively say to the world “Okay, okay, don’t worry, stay out of it, you can stay behind your fig leaf of caring; we at least are happy with the U.S. and its ‘processes.’”
Think about it: People have concentrated much on the U.S.’s provisioning of Israel’s *material* defense, but it sure can seem that at least as decisive so far has been its providing Israel with what amounts to an almost total diplomatic defense. With that defense taking the form of the U.S. allowing other countries and entities (such as the EU and even the Arab League to a degree) to say “oh well, so long as the Palestinians are happy with the U.S. being the mediator we can basically sit on our hands.”
So now that all this stuff has been revealed or at least confirmed, just as Ms. Sager has observed, here’s a huge opportunity that’s just being totally thrown away by the Palestinians. Instead of standing up and saying they they simply reject the U.S. as a mediator and decline its offices in that regard, and seizing the momentum Brazil and Argentina have provided and etc., no, there they are, huddling with Mitchell all over again. Yes, making some little mewing noises here and there asking for maybe some recognition from some countries, but far more prominently participating as ever it seems in these closed little talks with U.S. envoys whose very nature implies that gee, the Palestinians must agree that something significant is being accomplished….
Even moreso than Ms. Sager has observed it seems to me the Palestinians have been handed a game-changer. And yes not having a unified and strong leadership is necessary to take advantage of same. But first of all there has to be at least some recognition when one *has* been handed a game-changer, and even *that* doesn’t seem to be true with the Palestinians yet.
And what in the world would be the harm in trying this game-changer? Indeed, doesn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that, finally, it starts a *good* self-reinforcing dynamic for the Palestinians at the very least? That is, as any little bit of progress seems to be made by them and as the U.S. opposes same, it just hammers home ever moreso that no, the U.S. is *not* aiding the peace there, but is instead an obstacle to same. Again, at the *very* least. And who knows what real progress might be made in addition?
Clearly, if the game isn’t changed soon, it’s going to be hard not to fault the Palestinians for playing the old one for far too long. Either fault them for their judgment or, even worse, come to the conclusion that one does by seeing someone continually doing the same old thing and yet expecting different results.
So you think they should reject the US as mediator and ask someone else to step in? If so, whom?
Hello Ms. Sager:
Well, anyone else I guess. Insist on the entire Quartet being a part of it. Name their own Quartet or Septet or whatever and insist that they be part of it; after all why should Israel get to insist on the U.S. being the sole mediator? Or go to the U.N., detail that the U.S. mediation is hopeless and ask the U.N. to mediate itself.
…. Something different … anything, Maggie. Publish out their demands in detail and then stand by them and let the world judge … whatever.
Again, isn’t it obvious that continuing down the same path they’ve been on is just simply not going to get them anything except obliteration?
(Regardless, kudos again for your comment starting this thread; very sharp, very well written. Hope to see your contributions here regularly.)
I agree with you that the US should bow out. I just wonder if anyone else is willing to fill the gap, and if so will the US then interfere (such as in the case of the UN, or congress’ demand that the US actively lobby other countries to reject Palestinian statehood). Also, if the US isn’t a part of the “process” will they still continue to give money to the PA? Would the PA be able to make up for that lost funding should it dry up? Then again, with the new Chair of the HFAC, they might not get that money anyway…
“and if so will the US then interfere (such as in the case of the UN, or….”
Sure it will try. And the Palestinians should welcome it. Highlight it. Trumpet it. Nothing like a little clarity. Especially after all the years of sham and darkness that the U.S. isn’t subsidizing their ethnic cleansing.
“Also, if the US isn’t a part of the ‘process’ will they still continue to give money to the PA? Would the PA be able to make up for that lost funding…?”
Interesting. Even if not, yes, it must be admitted, it’s always hard to turn down a good bribe. But it sure would add clarity again for the P’s to note the withdrawn bribe.
And I wonder if indeed the U.S. would withdraw same: After all it has been bribing them for a reason all these years, and that reason has only grown more substantial: I.e., to get them more pliable, and persuade the rest of the moslem world that the U.S. isn’t an enemy.
So let the U.S. threaten, and let the Palestinians trumpet the threat, and then let the U.S. decide. If handled smartly by the P’s at worst they might still lose the dough, but, again, it’s always difficult to turn down a good bribe, but it always looks good to be seen as doing so.
*Something’s* gotta change for the P’s to have any chance at all, Maggie. Something big. And they gotta at least try starting it.
So who is the poker player now? What if all this was by design?
What kind of Palestinian unity to strike a deal with Israel is everyone hoping for when half of them are trying to find an acceptable situation for Palestinians while the other half is collaborating with Israel at maintaining the status quo?
Walid,
I was referring to the position that Obama has put Israel in. For those former EU leaders to write that letter as a result of Obama’s failure is remarkable. Netanyahu is boasting. Israel’s boastful arrogance appears to the world as unseemly if ‘reducing its threat’ or ‘increasing its security’, its’ constant yammer-yammers, are to be taken seriously.
Americans are being overly harsh on Obama for something over which he has no control. The guy’s intentions have always been OK but he’s guilty of of his naivety on Israeli matters. The billions worh of goodies offered appeared more the work of the Israel-lover Clinton and her followers and Obama just went along with it because he was probably told that this was the best that could be gotten. You can blame Obama for being an innocent babe in the woods but I don’t think you can pin anything dishonest on him. Maggie Sager used the cow analogy but a better one would have been the goose with the golden egg. Why should Israel get all excited about the Clinton offer when similar offers are regularly coming Israel’s way all the time? There will be many more eggs heading towards Israel before this is over. Until he gets actually kicked where it really hurts, Netanyahu is right to brag. Give the world another H movie and he’ll have it back eating out of his hand.
Ive been thinking about this a lot. I’ve noticed that in my arguments with Zionists or even in my criticisms of specific US politicians I continually dismantle their insistence that Palestinians are all terrorists and Israel can’t make peace without security with two pieces of evidence 1) The Hamas ceasefire that culminated in Cast Lead to no fault of Hamas, as well as repeated calls for another ceasefire 2) The precipitous drop in suicide attacks and the PA’s success in providing security.
Plus, when discussing Oslo it becomes clear that the PA has in fact lived up to its obligations whereas Israel has not.
Now I know all of this collaboration is bad for civil society, but it seems to be a point I must consistently rely on in order to make the case for Palestine.
are you suggesting that Palestinians concocted Obama’s bribe to Israel? And then got Israel to reject it?
“Firstly, Obama’s initial offering and its subsequent rejection have opened the door to mounting discontent among the American public, causing some to examine the United States’ special relationship with Israel more critically.”
What evidence do you have of this? I don’t think the MSM noticed, let alone the general public. I think it just came through as more of the same and failure was due to them damn Moslems.
Maggie, I like your post and you clearly know your shit but you’ve got to remember that very few of the common millions out there we would like to influence have the time or inclination to deal with this, let alone get up to speed on the issues, and largely couldn’t care less. The only think that will make them wake up and pay attention will be if something really bad happens to US that can be pinned directly on the Israelis. Sad but true.