MidEastWeb commentaar op speech Netanyahu

Ami Isseroff schrijft:

 

The Netanyahu speech itself, in which he welcomed the peace initiative of President Obama, did a bit to redress the balance and paint a gray hat, if not a white hat on the Israeli character in the peace play. The big payoff however, was in the reaction of the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu could not have hoped for a better Palestinian response. It is not just the fact that the Palestinians rejected the speech out of hand, and can be painted once again as never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It is the tone and the reasons given for the Palestinian rejection that should give Netanyahu and the settlers the greatest reason for rejoicing. Palestinians did not not concentrate on the settlement freeze that interests the Americans and Europeans. Instead they reassertted their own maximalist demands for return of refugees and obliteration of Jewish rights in the old city of Jerusalem:

 

Dat zou je denken, maar er is veel begrip voor het feit dat de 'gematigde' Abbas en de Palestijnse Autoriteit zo fel op deze speech reageren. De EU reageerde buitengewoon zuinig op Netanjahoe's speech en zelfs Verhagen was gereserveerd. Toch heeft Netanjahoe laten zien niet de extremist te zijn die hij volgens sommigen is, en is het belangrijk dat Israel de tweestatenoplossing, die Israelische regeringen sinds 2000 voorstonden, weer heeft geaccepteerd.

 

De vergelijking met het Arabische vredesinitaitief die Ami hieronder maakt is to the point, alleen was Netanjahoe explicieter in zijn acceptatie van een tweestatenoplossing. Het Arabische vredesplan gaat immers uit van het zogenaamde recht op terugkeer van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen.

 

RP

-----------------

Handing Netanyahu a victory

06/15/2009

by Ami Isseroff at MidEastWeb Log

 

Benjamin Netanyahu's speech (see Address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Begin-Sadat Center) should not be viewed in the context of a "peace process" or judged in terms of its relevance to peacemaking. None of the peace-related utterances of Israeli, Palestinian or the Arab or Muslim world are actually directed at making peace, because none of the parties believes in the possibility of peace at this point or has worked to develop, in its own constituency, a concept of peace that might be acceptable to the other side.

A speech like that of Mr Netanyahu, or the Arab Peace Initiative, or a statement by Palestinian leaders has several purposes:

To make the right peace noises in order to relieve American and European pressure and curry favor with moderates at home.

To fashion the peace offer in such a way, and with such conditions, that it looks reasonable to outsiders, but that there is no 'danger' whatever that the other side could ever accept it.

To curry favor and gather support in their own constituency, by reiterating unifying national rally cries such as "united Jerusalem" or conversely, "A Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem." "Right of Return" or denial of Right of Return for refugees, "Right of resistance" or "Security against terror."

To establish the justification for the next round of hostilities by showing that they have made a peace offer that was rebuffed.

To assert and reiterate national rights as they see it, until these hopefully, by dint of repetition, become accepted by the rest of the world.

To put the other side on the defensive and require them to come up with a "peace plan" of their own. :

This sort of speech has an ancient and honorable history, going back at least to the beginning of the Roman Republic, when peace offers were made to hapless Latin neighbors, so that the fetiales priests could later justify war on the grounds that the other side had refused speech. The Friedensrede of Bismarck and the Friedensreden of Adolf Hitler were notable contributions to this genre that laid the foundation for two world wars. .The Arab Peace Initiative and the letter of the Palestinian Prisoners as well as most of the pronouncements about "peace" of the served most of the above purposes. After all, nobody could seriously hope that Israel would accept obliteration of Jewish rights in the old city of Jerusalem, "right of return" for millions of Palestinian refugees, or the "right of resistance" affirmed by the Prisoners' letter. Similarly, it is really doubtful that Benjamin Netanyahu expects Palestinians to accept obliteration of their rights in Jerusalem.

Netanyahu made a single "concession" to Palestinians and to Barack Obama in agreeing to a demilitarized Palestinian state, precisely as several previous Israeli governments had done before him. This elicited a cautious welcome from the Obama administration. Mission number 1 accomplished!

Netanyahu refused to impose a settlement freeze, which would have caused an open revolt in his own party. Netanyahu's speech established a consensus of support among Israelis, accomplishing its first mission. It reiterated the Jewish right to self determination, independent of the Holocaust; it reminded the world that the Israeli Arab conflict preceded the Six Day War and the settlements. It reminded the world that, despite Palestinian claims, there were Jews in the land of Israel in ancient times. All this rhetoric was a chance to put the Israeli case and the Zionist narrative before the world. If the Palestinians and the Arab peace initiative could use UN General Assembly Resolution 194 as a rationale for justifying return of refugees, Netanyahu could balance this by citing UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in support of his demand that Arabs recognize a Jewish state. Mission number 2 accomplished. Netanyahu made a serious error however, when he gratuitously explained that the had already made this concession privately to President Obama in Washington. The same concession cannot be made twice by the same leader. That's not the way the game is played.

The European Union, unsurprisingly, views the Netanyahu speech as insufficient, since he did not declare a settlement freeze. This issue will not go away, and in the future Netanyahu will have to make some concession, as he has already intimated

But Netanyahu's greatest victory could not depend on himself alone. The Arab Peace Initiative, and similar Palestinian moves, failed to achieve an important goal for many years, since previous Israeli governments refused to reject them. The Olmert government even attended the humiliating Annapolis conference, at which Israeli delegates were forced to enter by the service entrance and Arab delegates would not even shake hands with the Israeli delegation.

>> Continued here: Handing Netanyahu a victory

---

Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000766.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.