Israel pours cold water on
Sunday, 22 May 2011
Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury
The prospect of settling the intractable Middle East (ME) crisis through negotiations appears remote. A stubborn Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a Nelson's eyed assessment of the situation; this is unlikely to bring about positive results to the latest initiative by US President Barack Obama on the tangle. The hawkish Israeli prime minister, notwithstanding his assertion relating to a peaceful resolution of the crisis, fails to see the reasons and continues to stick to his guns as far as fundamental issues of the Middle East crisis are concerned. Consequently, the hope for finding a solution to the lingering international flash point remains as elusive as before even though Tel Aviv's closest ally and world's only super power is sparing no efforts to break the ice without jettisoning Israel. But unfortunately, Mr. Netanyahu shows scant willingness to accommodate the views of such an ally and in the process no headway is being made for resumption of the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The net result is that the crisis remains unaltered with no signs at all towards its settlement, which, however, is a complex task, but not unachievable. But the sordid aspect of the whole things is that initiatives for re-launching of the peace talks is falling on the face because of the policies of the Tel Aviv government -- whereas reconciliatory tone is a must for any solution. President Obama in a much-awaited policy statement on the "Arab Spring" and the Middle East crisis, laid down the basic principles of the settlement of the ME problem through discussions; he said that the future Palestine state and the sovereign state of Israel should live in co-existence with the pre-1967 war borders as the new demarcation of the two countries. The president was emphatic when he said "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised border are established for both the states". This makes the position of the Washington very clear on the issue of peace and has been supported by the European Union (EU). The Palestinians have also found a new ray of hope in the speech towards a negotiated settlement of the vexed tangle. But not totally unsurprisingly, the Israeli prime minister poured cold water on the ideas of the US president and seeks to rake old coals by recollecting the position of former president George Bush, predecessor of Obama in 2004, to the effect that accepting the borders of 1967 for a settlement of the ME crisis is "unrealistic". He wants Obama to stick to the same position since Israel was greatly benefited by the 1967 war and is unwilling to vacate the areas it had occupied through the conflict. This raises a very timely and pertinent question -- how can the ideas of 2004 be relevant today, particularly when such ideas were seen as unrealistic and failed to make any progress towards the resolution of the conflict? Moreover, Mr. Bush's was a Republican government while Mr. Obama's is a different one - rival Democrats and they have divergent positions on many issues which are only normal. President Obama owes to his people and beyond new drives and policies for a better world that can be vastly different from the previous regime for obvious reasons. A meeting between the US president and the Israeli prime minister soon after the announcement of Obama's new initiative appeared unproductive in settling the differences as the visiting Tel Aviv leader remained largely uncompromising. It is worth mentioning that many within the coalition government of Mr. Netanyahu do not see eye to eye with the prime minister as they are relatively less hawkish and more realistic for the sake of larger peace in the volatile region. The peace talks were launched at the painstaking mediation of the Obama administration last year, but collapsed after a few rounds because of new Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab areas. Despite pleas from the Arabs, Palestine and the Western nations, Tel Aviv failed to halt these settlements. Now that the US is again taking the initiative for the establishment of the sovereign Palestine state -- the crux of the whole matter -the efforts are likely to hit snags -- let alone bring any positive results -- due to Israeli intransigence that needs to be shunned for greater interest of peace and stability in the region and beyond. zaglulbss@yahoo.com
The prospect of settling the intractable Middle East (ME) crisis through negotiations appears remote. A stubborn Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a Nelson's eyed assessment of the situation; this is unlikely to bring about positive results to the latest initiative by US President Barack Obama on the tangle. The hawkish Israeli prime minister, notwithstanding his assertion relating to a peaceful resolution of the crisis, fails to see the reasons and continues to stick to his guns as far as fundamental issues of the Middle East crisis are concerned. Consequently, the hope for finding a solution to the lingering international flash point remains as elusive as before even though Tel Aviv's closest ally and world's only super power is sparing no efforts to break the ice without jettisoning Israel. But unfortunately, Mr. Netanyahu shows scant willingness to accommodate the views of such an ally and in the process no headway is being made for resumption of the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. The net result is that the crisis remains unaltered with no signs at all towards its settlement, which, however, is a complex task, but not unachievable. But the sordid aspect of the whole things is that initiatives for re-launching of the peace talks is falling on the face because of the policies of the Tel Aviv government -- whereas reconciliatory tone is a must for any solution. President Obama in a much-awaited policy statement on the "Arab Spring" and the Middle East crisis, laid down the basic principles of the settlement of the ME problem through discussions; he said that the future Palestine state and the sovereign state of Israel should live in co-existence with the pre-1967 war borders as the new demarcation of the two countries. The president was emphatic when he said "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised border are established for both the states". This makes the position of the Washington very clear on the issue of peace and has been supported by the European Union (EU). The Palestinians have also found a new ray of hope in the speech towards a negotiated settlement of the vexed tangle. But not totally unsurprisingly, the Israeli prime minister poured cold water on the ideas of the US president and seeks to rake old coals by recollecting the position of former president George Bush, predecessor of Obama in 2004, to the effect that accepting the borders of 1967 for a settlement of the ME crisis is "unrealistic". He wants Obama to stick to the same position since Israel was greatly benefited by the 1967 war and is unwilling to vacate the areas it had occupied through the conflict. This raises a very timely and pertinent question -- how can the ideas of 2004 be relevant today, particularly when such ideas were seen as unrealistic and failed to make any progress towards the resolution of the conflict? Moreover, Mr. Bush's was a Republican government while Mr. Obama's is a different one - rival Democrats and they have divergent positions on many issues which are only normal. President Obama owes to his people and beyond new drives and policies for a better world that can be vastly different from the previous regime for obvious reasons. A meeting between the US president and the Israeli prime minister soon after the announcement of Obama's new initiative appeared unproductive in settling the differences as the visiting Tel Aviv leader remained largely uncompromising. It is worth mentioning that many within the coalition government of Mr. Netanyahu do not see eye to eye with the prime minister as they are relatively less hawkish and more realistic for the sake of larger peace in the volatile region. The peace talks were launched at the painstaking mediation of the Obama administration last year, but collapsed after a few rounds because of new Jewish settlements in the occupied Arab areas. Despite pleas from the Arabs, Palestine and the Western nations, Tel Aviv failed to halt these settlements. Now that the US is again taking the initiative for the establishment of the sovereign Palestine state -- the crux of the whole matter -the efforts are likely to hit snags -- let alone bring any positive results -- due to Israeli intransigence that needs to be shunned for greater interest of peace and stability in the region and beyond. zaglulbss@yahoo.com