A newspaper reader displays a copy of an advertisement by the Palestinian Authority published in an Israeli newspaper, at a coffee shop in Jerusalem, Thursday, Nov. 20, 2008.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has taken his case for a peace deal directly to ordinary Israelis, assuring them in Hebrew-language newspaper ads that a withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and parts of Jerusalem would bring them full recognition by the Arab world. The ad says 57 Arab and Muslim countries would establish diplomatic ties with Israel in exchange for a withdrawal from the lands that would make up a Palestinian state. This is essentially the Arab League proposal of 2002 (repeated in 2006 and 2007) which the Israeli government totally ignored.
What is not great about this development? Recognition of Israel and a two-state solution desired by most people in and outside of Israel, details to be negotiated.
Uri Avnery begins to tell the story with this essay, Eyes Wide Shut. It has mostly to do with the absence of a Left Wing in Israel who could react positively to the peace gesture.
THE DAY before yesterday, two documents appeared side by side in Haaretz: a giant advertisement from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the results of a public opinion poll.
The proximity was accidental, but to the point. The PLO ad sets out the details of the 2002 Saudi peace offer, decorated with the colorful flags of the 22 Arab and the 35 other Muslim countries which have endorsed the offer.
The public opinion poll predicts a landslide victory for Likud, which opposes every single word of the Saudi proposal.
THE PLO ad is a first of its kind. At long last, the PLO leaders have decided to address the Israeli people directly.
The ad discloses to the Israeli population the exact terms of the all-Arab peace offer: full recognition of the State of Israel by all Arab and Muslim countries, full normalization of relations – in return for Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders and the establishment of the Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The refugee problem would be solved by mutual agreement – meaning that Israel could veto any solution it considered unacceptable.
Reportedly, the Israeli government has never officially reacted to this historic offer, even in 2002. “Public opinion and the media ignored it almost completely, walled in by the national consensus that there is no chance for peace, said Avnery, and even though it was discovered anew by politicians like Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni, the Israeli public reaction was “nil.”
THE PUBLIC opinion poll, on the other hand, cast a shadow over the entire political arena.
It says that if the elections were held this week, the Likud would have 34 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, three times more than it has now, and become the largest faction.
THE DAZZLING ascent of Likud is an ominous phenomenon by itself, but even more important is the general picture: the bloc of all the parties that support peace, whether by paying lip service or sincerely (called “the Left”) will have, according to the polls, 56 seats at most, as against the 64 seats of all the anti-peace parties combined (called “the Right”).
Meaning: if the election had taken place this week, the outcome would have been a Knesset devoted to the continuation of the occupation, the settlements and the annexation. Binyamin Netanyahu would be Prime Minister and would be able to choose freely between a dozen possible compositions of the next government coalition.
Likud, of course, is the anti-peace party, whose agenda is the full annexation of the Palestinian territories into a Greater Israel. Likud says “no to withdrawal, no to a Palestinian state, no to any compromise on Jerusalem, no to any meaningful peace negotiation. And, of course: no to the Arab peace offer.” The only truly left wing party in Israel, Meretz, has experienced a loss of leadership through resignations, and while it gained in intellectuals and young activists, its small representation offers no hope that in future elections it will gain a voice.
In his article The Problem With Israel, written a few years ago by Jeff Halper, founder of the peace activist group, Israel Committee Against House Demolition, he stated, “the problem is us” and from what one can surmise about the perennial refusals of Israel to negotiate peace, is that there is no Left Wing left in Israel capable of accepting the “generous offer” made by the Arab League.
This is the situation that Obama will confront if he were ever to move on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians:there is no comparable Left Wing in Israel to negotiate with.
For this reason, Avnery suggests that if “BARACK OBAMA were to announce immediately after taking office that he is determined to achieve peace between Israel and the Arabs in the spirit of the Saudi peace initiative, before the end of 2009,” it might influence many Israeli voters, because if the Likud party in the form of Bibi Netanyahu were elected, Obama will be faced with a serious dilemma and could end up “(leaving) peace in the freezer, like his predecessors.”
Haaretz, possibly the only liberal newspaper in Israel, reporting on Hamas’s disinclination to go along with the advertisement, still spelled out just what a majority of Israelis are alleged to want: peace.
The full-page ad published by Abbas in three Hebrew-language newspapers this week explained to Israelis that a withdrawal from Palestinian territories would bring full recognition by the Arab world – in line with a peace initiative first proposed in 2002 and relaunched at an Arab summit last year.
The ad says 57 Arab and Muslim countries would establish diplomatic ties with Israel in exchange for a withdrawal from lands Palestinians seek for an independent state, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip and parts of Jerusalem.
A few days ago, in the article, Born In Sin, the Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy, wrote about the dying of the Left Wing in Israel, and in its absence, how the Right Wing will only continue its nationalist goals.
The Israeli peace camp was born in sin and died because of a lie: It was born as the legitimate son of the sin of occupation, and died the illegitimate son of the lie that “there is no partner” with whom to negotiate on the other side. Between September 1967 and October 2000, it spent 33 years waging the brave and determined struggle of a minority against a majority, “traitors” against “patriots,” “defilers of Israel” against “lovers of Israel,” David against Goliath. Today, we must painfully admit that it was struggle that did not produce much.
(snip)
At the end of Camp David, when he told us “there’s no partner,” Ehud Barak propagated an even bigger lie: that we have a peace camp. How pleasant it is to delude ourselves that we have one, and how depressing it is to know that we don’t. There is no left – just empty words. When the only demonstration in town is over student tuition, when the only discourse in city and village alike concerns the “Big Brother” TV show, and the loudest cries are over “corruption” and Olmert’s frequent-flier miles instead of over the jailed Palestinian who is bleeding and beaten, who hasn’t had a normal day in his life – then we know for sure that there is no peace camp in Israel in 2008.
(snip)
The term “left” and the expression “peace camp” need to be removed from the dictionary of Hebrew terms. We no longer have the right to make use of them. Any use whatsoever.
So if there is no significant Left Wing left in Israel that can accept a peace offer from the Palestinians, whose problem is it? This problem would seem to be Obama’s if he does intend to ignite a new beginning in the Middle East. Otherwise, Avnery’s comment about dumping it in the freezer will apply.