This editorial, which appeared in the Financial Times of London (via Jews sans frontieres) August 26, 2009, well describes the Israeli government’s current trajectory toward peace when it invoked the term, “cynical evasion.” Nothing could be more evident even though a historical precedence for this evasion was already set up by the Oslo Accords and the later Camp David/Taba farce conducted no less by the Clinton/Ross team then operating out of the White House (Clinton, it may be recalled, contrary to the settlement freeze then dictated by the Oslo Accords, permitted the colonization to continue resulting in a doubling of the rate and number of settlers in the West Bank).
A halt to the evasion is now being attempted by Obama, whose adversary, Netanyahu, seems to be winning the day, at least on the critical issue of the settlement freeze.
It is also hard to believe that someone like the anti-Zionist Mark Elf, who runs the British site, Jews sans frontieres, could admit, “I hadn’t realised the extent to which Oslo had worked to the benefit of zionism and to the detriment of the Palestinians.” Israeli propaganda is just that good. To say the least, all of Israel’s peace efforts have been to the detriment of the Palestinians, and Netanyahu’s current cynical evasions are no different.
Says the Financial Times editor,
Mr Obama has chosen as his battleground the Jewish settlements on occupied Arab land, all of them illegal under international law. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” the president said. Washington has called for a total freeze, including on the so-called “natural growth” that has enabled the settlements to expand exponentially. Mr Netanyahu, in London and due to see George Mitchell, the president’s special representative, wants to talk economics. This is cynical evasion.
Obama has since folded on the settlement freeze, permitting natural growth in terms of 1,200 housing units to continue for the next 9 months and allowing Israel a free hand in building in East Jerusalem with as many settlements it wishes.
In 1992-96, at the height of the peace process, Israel alone reaped a peace dividend, without having to conclude a peace. Diplomatic recognition of Israel doubled, from 85 to 161 countries, leading to doubled exports and a sixfold increase in foreign investment. During the same period, per capita income in the occupied territories fell by 37 per cent while the number of settlers increased by 50 per cent. Economic development deals in facts; Mr Netanyahu deals in cosmetics.
In his last administration, Mr Netanyahu turned the drive for peace into pure process: piling up unresolved disputes to be parked in “final status” negotiations he never intended to begin. Under US pressure he has changed tactics – but the aim is exactly the same.
It is important to remember that Mr Netanyahu has always argued that the Palestinians cannot expect a nation, only some sort of supra-municipal government. His utterance of the word “state” in the June 14 policy speech he made in reply to Mr Obama does not change this in any substantive way. Beyond the Jewish religious claim to the Israel of the Bible, Eretz Israel, Netanyahu believes Israeli security requires a buffer of occupied land – including most of the West Bank – to insulate it from its Arab neighbours. The whole Arab-Israeli equation is, for him, a zero sum game. That rules out land-for-peace: the United Nations Security Council-mandated approach ever since the 1967 Six Day War.
The US president could have been addressing Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, who refuses to rein in colonisation of Palestinian land or push a two-state solution to the conflict. Yet, however much Mr Obama tries to change the conversation, in and on the Middle East, Mr Netanyahu keeps trying to change the subject.
As we recall, in the “Clean Break” document developed for Netanyahu in 1996 by proLikud Neocons, the land for peace formula of Oslo was defunct. “Peace for peace” was Netanyahu’s cry. Little did he know then how Oslo would play out to Likud’s advantage.
It should be evident to most by now that following the deceptions of Oslo and Camp David/Taba where we came to know about the “generous offer,” Netanyahu is only beginning the third act of this historical drama, well described in the Financial Times as a “cynical evasion.” It is more of the same.
