How to move forward from Obama’s Jerusalem Speech: Three Proposals for Renewed Work

(An action link to a “signon” petition appears at the end of this article and here: http://signon.org/sign/a-petition-to-president?source=c.em.mt&r_by=5439069)

By Gilbert Schramm, March 24, 2013

This week saw a courageous speech by President Obama in Israel. In it he said many things that, as a historian and a longtime student of the problem of Palestine, I take serious issue with. These issues are important and will doubtless be revisited along the way, but now is not the time to get sidetracked by them. Now is a time for renewed action.

Leaving all of its faults aside, I believe that Obama’s speech can be a new starting point towards  a just and comprehensive peace in Palestine. I believe that all of us who are concerned with US security, with Israeli security and with security, human rights, and peace and justice for the people of Palestine, should now come together and use this moment (that President Obama has taken great political risk to create) to rethink our strategy and try to re-energize ourselves to help finally achieve a viable Palestinian state. To simply attack the weak points of his presentation would be immature and a waste of time. Let’s try to see what we can build on.

The point is not so much that Obama took the risk of bringing the imperatives of peace and justice up in such a pointed way and before such an unpredictable audience. The real point is the overwhelmingly positive response he received from the Israeli audience—an audience that has lived with the obsolete, confrontational, dead-end rhetoric of Benjamin Netanyahu and other “hardliners” for so long. Clearly these people are tired of the policies of Likud and their allies. So, Obama’s speech clearly suggests that there is an opening for rebuilding a seriously viable Israeli peace movement. We, in America, should try to open channels through which can communicate our support for them.

Obama is a gifted politician, not a historian. There is a big difference and we should be aware of it. Good historians may be tempted to argue over how the past should be interpreted. – that is important work. Good politicians try to take the situation as it is and make something better of it—that is even more important.  So I think we should acknowledge that a great deal of what Obama said was intended purely to assuage extremely sensitive audiences in Israel and in the US. It is sad, but true, that the real power to resolve this issue lies in mostly those two quarters. It is a tragedy that the Palestinians, the true victims of the rise of Israel that Obama seems to publicly laud at such great length, simply lack the power to do so themselves. Sadly, in implicitly acknowledging this (by not speaking more directly to very real Palestinian grievances), Obama is simply being a realist.

At present, the Palestinians by themselves can do little to resolve the outstanding issues. On the other hand, Israel could actually resolve almost every issue unilaterally by simply ending its occupation, bringing its settlers home and declaring its final borders on the 1967 green lines—that is, by basically accepting existing UN resolutions and embracing the 2002 Abdullah peace plan. Even the Iranians were willing to sign on to that proposal. And even the most radical Palestinians (actually a very small minority) would then be so busy adjusting to the new situation that they would probably no longer have either the time or the inclination to keep firing their virtually useless rockets. So the disparity in power between the two negotiating parties is striking. That is why, if the opening created by Obama is to bear real fruit, if the US is truly to be seen as an “honest broker” for peace, the US must shift its support towards the Palestinians. That shift will involve moving the American public as well as the American political establishment.

For those that think the “unilateral” scenario I just outlined above is naïve, I would point out that prior to the collapse of the white government in South Africa, extremist, ‘worst case’ scenarios for that collapse were very popular in the media. A black South Africa (so it was said)  would soon become communist, would abuse its nuclear weapons, or would become a bloodbath as angry blacks took revenge on whites. In fact, none of that happened. Instead, South Africa renounced its nuclear capability, conducted an impressive peace and reconciliation program, and went on to struggle with its more serious problems. In other words, as Obama suggests, we must take some risks to gain peace while always remembering that optimism and faith are not always as misplaced as some run of the mill fear mongers would have us think. Somewhere out there is a tipping point.—a point at which what is unthinkable today, becomes the new “common wisdom” of tomorrow.

So as we look at Obama’s speech, what can we do to build on it and what traps should we avoid? First, as I already suggested, the Israeli response to the speech was far more positive than we in the US might have been led to expect. There is a constituency for peace in Israel. Sadly, as some commentators were quick to point out, Obama’s speech received a much more positive response in Israel than it probably would have before audiences in the US—particularly if he had given them in the Senate or House or in a major campaign speech. That suggests that the most important work that needs to be done right here at home.

Somehow, the broad American public must be brought to urge its politicians to take a step away from the outdated policies embraced by Likud and AIPAC, and move in direction of the US Campaign to End the Occupation, Jewish Voices for Peace, or even the “J Street’s”  directions. I think there is a way to do that, but before I go into the details I think another important point needs to be made.

As we try to make this a truly mainstream issue in our current political conversation, we must be realistic. We cannot expect people who are new to the issue to make the whole long journey from the current “common wisdom” that the US must blindly support Israel at all costs, to the real wisdom that we may have to administer some hard medicine to Israel in order to get them to change, in a single sitting, in a single leaflet, or by simply chanting slogans.  Most of them will have to make that long journey in stages. If we don’t take that fact into account, and plan our work accordingly, we may well loose them along the way.

In other words, as we work to educate Americans about the plight of Palestinians, we should remember that this whole issue is a gray area, if not a total blank spot, for many Americans. This is especially true as it involves so many deeply embedded stereotypes about Arab culture and the Islamic religion—stereotypes that have existed in our western culture for more than a thousand years. As new people express interest, more experienced activists must be sensitive to the limited knowledge and viewpoints that newcomers to this (or to almost any issue) invariably hold. We must take care not try to overwhelm them with the condescension that superior knowledge often engenders. We must remember that we are not here to make a point of our purity or to feed our egos—hopefully we are here to help make a positive impact on the real lives of young Palestinians today.

It is here that I believe Obama’s speech gives us a new place to start. His point that the young Palestinians he spoke to were ‘not very different from his daughters’ was a powerful, personal way to challenge the stereotypical  demonization of Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims that still has such a strong hold on many people. He was speaking to a young audience and he spoke about young Palestinians. The former responded very positively. Sadly, the latter were not part of the conversation. This brings up an important point.

The exclusion of Palestinians from the conversation has been the norm since this tragedy began.  US refusals to talk directly to the Palestinian side came largely at the behest of Israel, which always argued that it best understood “the Arabs”, and could therefore best negotiate with them on the issue. In practice, Israel preferred to simply deny the existence of the Palestinians and talk with the leadership of Arab countries that often had their own, rather that Palestinian interests at heart. That mistake must not be perpetuated.

Over the years, Israel has also repeatedly tried maintain its right to define who was truly a “partner for peace.” By their definition apparently only a Palestinian who was willing to totally acquiesce to all of their demands has ever really been “qualified.” They haven’t found one yet, because no Palestinian leader could remain in power and make the incredible concessions that Israel has demanded. More to the point, even if a Palestinian leader did make such concessions the Palestinian people would never consider them binding. Since the US claims to value signs of democracy in the Arab world so highly—what the Palestinian people think and feel really matters. This is a point worth making to Americans. Overall, our position should be that the US should be willing to engage in talks with ALL major Palestinian parties.

This naturally brings up the whole question of Israel’s “legitimacy” or its “right to exist.” The tendency has been to deny parties who question  Israel’ “legitimacy” or “right to exist” from the conversation altogether. Peace activists who work on this issue must try to form a unified position on this point. Obama’s speech is a good place to start. He correctly noted that Israel exists and is here to stay. Yet, contrary to the typical Israeli propaganda narrative, from at least 1975 on, the Palestinian leadership has tacitly admitted the same fact. However, the further the PLO moved in the direction that Israel demanded, the further Israel has moved the goalposts. They have insisted not only that its “existence” be formally recognized, but that its “right to exist” and its “legitimacy” be explicitly recognized. And even as Palestinians steeled themselves to this final concession, Netanyahu again raised the bar by demanding that Israel’s legitimacy as a “Jewish state” be recognized. This of course, would “delegitimize” legitimate questions about how Palestinian Arabs  in Israel are treated—or about how Israel can be both a “Jewish State” and a true democracy at the same time.

It is time for an end to this kind of nonsense. If peace is the desired outcome, then we should be willing to accept the “existence” of Israel without adding to the injury of losing most of their land the insulting kind of language that suggests that the creation of Israel was ‘a really good, right, and pleasant thing’ for Palestinians.  This whole scenario, which had been repeated over and over again, reminds of a bully beating up a smaller kid.

The bully says, “Say I won!”

The smaller kid mutters, “You won, you won.”

The bully now says, “Say you like it!”

It’s just too much. The fight goes on.

If we really want a just and comprehensive peace, then we will not continue to support Israel in staking out such positions.

It is true that, so far, Obama’s speech is still just a speech. It needs to be given teeth and that is what we should all focus on. Over the years, many astute  observers of the so-called “peace process” have noted again and  again that without real consequences, hard-line parties in Israel will continue to take advantage of the fact that for all practical purposes, they have been able to do as they like. The famous Camp David Accords of 1978 are a case in point. In them, Israel, under then PM Menachem Begin of the Likud Party,  committed itself to  granting “full autonomy” to the occupied territories.

As early as April, 25, 1982 a Washington post editorial entitled Beyond Sinai declared of Menachem Begin’s stalling tactics on that issue, “Let him deliver, with the United States defining what it means by the term and pushing him along. Since the administration accepts that settlements harm the peace process, let it say it expects settlements to end—at once.” The piece went on to ask,  “Why must the US be held to its pledge on not talking to the PLO when Mr. Begin falls away from his on “full autonomy? Use aid as a lever? It’s a question of tactics, not principles”  (cited in Missed Opportunities For Peace, Ronald Young, American Friends Service Committee, 1987, p. 33).

Use aid as a lever? Absolutely! It is the best way to give real meaning to Obama’s initiative. It is what we do with every other country that we deal with—yes, even with our closest allies! Certainly in 1948, when the US forced the Palestine partition resolution onto a largely unwilling UN, aid was the key lever. A prostrate Europe was in no condition to bicker when Marshall Plan aid was at stake. As I wrote in a previous piece about the pressure that led to the UN partition of Palestine, former undersecretary of state Sumner Welles noted that, “By direct order of the White House every form of pressure, direct or indirect, was brought to bear [on states involved in the partition vote] by American officials.” America’s first Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, wrote of the above process that, “America has lost very greatly in prestige in the Arab world…the methods that had been used to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely onto scandal.”

It is past time that we set out to remedy our mistakes on this issue. Over the last year and half or so, there have been three huge developments that we should focus on as we try to educate a wider public on how we can do that.

The first was Likud PM Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress last year. In that speech I heard him renege on, or try to call into question, almost all the progress that has been made on this issue over the years. He not only spurned his nation’s previous commitments (like support for UN resolutions, 194, 242 and 338) he did so to repeated standing ovations and thunderous applause from the US congress—Republicans and Democrats alike. Neither Palestinians nor Israelis who long for peace can do much about that—Americans  must make the needed changes.

The second sad display was the US and Israeli opposition to the Palestinian application for “non-member observer status” at the UN. This was a purely non-violent way, through the appropriate international channels, for the Palestinian leadership to attain (marginally) greater status at the UN. Both The US and Israel responded by claiming that this “unilateral” action would undercut “the peace process.” Funny, at that point there was no peace process— and neither Israel or the US were doing much to get one started. Apparently, though critics of Palestine have long excoriated the Palestinian leadership for not doing more on their own behalf, when they actually try to do so the same critics condemn them for it. The US veto of the resolution and its threatened punishments were bad enough. Israel’s response was even worse—an “in your face” declaration that even more settlement activity would be approved—much of which threatened the long promised two –state solution in vital ways.  It is hard to see either response as rational policy—not if the real policy of the US and Israel is a peaceful resolution to this longstanding mess.

The third development was the budget sequester in the US that threatens so many important domestic programs here at home.            

Taken together with Obama’s recent speech, these three developments suggest what our future actions should focus on. Let me take them in reverse order, starting with the sequester

1.     A Settlement Sequester: Since as Obama argued, peace (as opposed to either continued occupation or mass deportation) is the only good option for Israel’s long term security, then we must take actions that will force them to realize that fact. As always, settlements are the key issue. While Obama seemed to back down from his previous call for a settlement freeze PRIOR to peace talks, settlements remain the key issue. The problem is not Obama, so much as a US Senate and Congress that remain under the sway of AIPAC. In order to get something done here action needs to be made more palatable to US politicians. To achieve that end I believe we should propose and try to popularize the notion of what we might call a “settlement sequester.” Under this proposal,  all aid earmarked for Israel would be held in escrow until a settlement freeze is truly in place. At that point is would be released only to help Israel pay for what it most needs to pay for—moving the settlers back behind the 1967 green lines stipulated by UN resolutions 242 and 338.

As long as the Israeli government refuses to act on this sequester, the roughly 3 billion dollars a year that the US sends to them annually might be simple diverted to help pay down our own budget deficit. Alternatively, it might be simply retained until Israel does comply. (A growing fund of this sort might provide a powerful stimulus for Israeli politicians to finally see the light). In any case, at present, if peace is really in the interest of the US and Israel as the President says (and it clearly is), continued aid to Israel is not merely a waste, it is actually counterproductive and makes us all liable to higher costs in the future.  It must be possible to counter this hemorrhaging of taxpayer dollars. By addressing a serious foreign policy concern  AND a pressing fiscal concern, the “Settlement Sequester” kills two birds with one stone—exactly the kind of smart policy that our current situation demands. So much for our strategy with regard to Congress.



2.     International Campaign to Abstain: Just Say No to the US Veto!

Up to now, Israel has remained impervious to international pressure to stop its settlement program and to make peace largely because of the incredible record of US security council vetoes of resolutions that have tried to make Israel act more reasonably. This lack of accountability that US vetoes have created in Israel engenders in turn a sense of entitlement that Israel continues to use and abuse in defiance of official US policy, its own long-term interest, and international opinion.

Here, Obama can truly do something concrete. The UN ambassador serves at the discretion and direction of the President. He doesn’t need congress to approve, he can simply instruct the US ambassador to the UN NOT TO VETO any resolutions that are aimed at protecting Israel from censure for its own violations of international law and at forcing Israel to act in the interest of a just and comprehensive peace. We should put pressure on Obama to so instruct the US ambassador to the UN. We should put it to him directly (in the form of letters and petitions) that if he is serious about the need for peace, and truly believes that Israeli settlements stand in the way of peace, then he must shoulder his own responsibility and help create substantial disincentives to curtail Israel’s continued tendency to ignore his policy.

3.     Likud…? NIX:

On a third front, one that goes back to Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress almost a year and half ago, we must work harder and more effectively to help Americans understand the regime that we give so much support to—the Likud party.  Isn’t ironic that US aid to Israel apparently makes it possible for a Likud leader to insult, ignore and dismiss as irrelevant the serious policy objectives set by the United States? Don’t you think it would severely irritate, if not enrage Americans to know that after many long years of giving Israel aid (apparently in the belief that they were serious when they said they only wanted to live in peace with their Arab neighbors) that the Likud party has now simply lost interest in peace and has unilaterally decided to ignore their Arab neighbors, while at the same time pressuring the US to support new action against Iran—a country over a thousand miles away? Where is this supposed to stop?

Likudiks have often claimed that Israel’s Arab neighbors couldn’t be trusted. The truth is, Egypt never reneged on its responsibilities in terms of the US brokered 1978 Camp David Peace agreements—Likud’s Menachem begin did. The Palestinians agreed to George Bush’s “roadmap” for peace—Likud’s Ariel Sharon was the one who came up with 14 lengthy amendments that virtually amounted to a call for unconditional Palestinian surrender.

And as for “negotiating with terrorists, shouldn’t the American people be made aware that Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were both infamous terrorists (one of Irgun and one of Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang) –look them up on Google. Eventually, both became Likud prime ministers who had regular access to the US government. So it is a bit odd that the charter of Hamas gets so much negative attention while the charter of Likud, (which explicitly renounces the two state solution which is stated US policy) gets so little attention at all. The 1999 Likud charter also emphasized the importance of the settlement policy—a policy which is in direct contradiction to international law.

All this being the case, an effective strategy would certainly involve giving better information about the Likud party and what it stands for to the American people. Then we’ll see how many American Representatives and Senators will continue to stand by them.

These are just three elements of a broad, revitalized strategy to promote a just and comprehensive peace in Palestine that I think emerge logically from President Obama’s Jerusalem speech. I think we should think of Obama as the “community organizer in chief.” He is reluctant to dictate, but willing to create or suggest avenues of action—and then let us “vote” on them by the actions we take. So rather than engaging in endless carping about how he could have done more, I think we should simply take what we can from his speech and try to move the ball that he passed us forward as effectively as possible. Netanyahu is already making much of the parts of the speech that HE liked. We had best do the same for the parts of the speech that WE liked. In the final analysis, I think Obama’s speech gave the Palestinian case a real lift. To make something more concrete of that, we will have to ‘have Obama’s back’ and give him a visible show of support.

I also hope you will sign the following  petition and forward it to as many friends as you can.

http://signon.org/sign/a-petition-to-president?source=c.em.mt&r_by=5439069

• Prev
• Next