News analysis
Newsbook
Obama's speech
The view from Palestine
May 20th 2011, 14:46 by N.P | JERUSALEM
FOR would-be Palestinian negotiators, there was much in Barack Obama's speech on the Middle East to applaud. For the first time an American president has articulated his country's commitment to two states based on the 1967 borders. He also called for a "full and phased withdrawal of military forces"—ruling out a permanent military presence, though leaving open the possibility of a long-term interim one. He said a Palestinian state would border Jordan, thereby quashing any lingering Israeli demands that Israel retain a buffer in the Jordan Valley. To Israel's chagrin he also proposed that the parties first resolve their security arrangements and define their borders, before tackling what he called "wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees". Israeli officials have long preferred that nothing should be resolved until everything was resolved. "We're pleased," says a Palestinian negotiator, who had days earlier been told that Mr Obama's speech would make only scant reference to Israel.
There were, of course, some discomforting passages for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. Mr Obama scoffed at his plan to secure recognition for a Palestinian state at the United Nations, warning him that it would be simply "symbolic". He made it clear that he would not again seek an Israeli settlement freeze as a precondition for kick-starting negotiations. He recognised Israel as a Jewish state, rather than one of all its citizens, Arab and Jewish alike. But the Palestinians have heard all this before.
There was as much delight in what Mr Obama did not say. His failure to mention his meeting in Washington next week with Binyamin Netanyahu was seen by Palestinians as a snub to the Israeli prime minister. He abandoned his predecessor's commitment to allowing Israel to keep its West Bank settlement "blocks"; instead he said land swaps should be mutually agreed. And he pointedly dropped any reference to the three conditions (the abrogation of violence, recognition of Israel, and respect of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements) that America and its fellow Quartet members had set out five years ago for Hamas, the Islamist group that governs Gaza, as a price for engagement. Instead he said merely that Hamas's non-recognition of Israel raised questions. In short, says an intrigued international official in Jerusalem, this is the most pro-Palestinian speech ever by an American president.
But is it too late for more negotiations mediated by America? Since the expiry of Israel's moratorium on settlement building last September, and the resulting collapse of a brief round of negotiations, the Palestinian leadership has distanced itself from reliance on American brokerage. The Arab spring has further increased pressure on Mr Abbas to bow to popular appeals for intra-Palestinian reconciliation and the unilateral pursuit of Palestinian core demands. In September, Mr Abbas plans to seek endorsement of a Palestinian state at the UN. To Mr Netanyahu's dismay, he has also agreed to heal the rift between the nationalist Fatah faction, which he heads in the West Bank, and its Islamist rivals, Hamas. On May 15th Palestinians refugees launched with his blessing a campaign of civil resistance aimed at encouraging the return of Palestinian refugees by breaching Israel's armistice lines.
Palestinian officials still hope they can satisfy both their people and their external bankrollers. While agreeing in principle to restart negotiations, they plan to throw the ball back into Israel's court by demanding Mr Netanyahu accept previous agreements to suspend settlement building and agree terms of reference. Should Mr Netanyahu balk, as he is expected to do, Mr Abbas could then head back to the UN.
But bucking the momentum for negotiations could prove easier said than done. Palestinian negotiators seeking to pocket Mr Obama's new parameters could come under pressure to suspend their unilateral measures. Mr Abbas would probably be accused of bad faith were he to accept the offer of borders along the 1967 lines but start a campaign to isolate Israel at the UN while efforts to resume negotiations were afoot. In an effort to woo Israel, he might also come under pressure to backpedal on his rapprochement with Hamas. (Mr Abbas had already delayed implementing his reconciliation deal with Hamas until after the Obama speech.) Similarly, he might also be pressed to rein in Palestinian civil resistance.
Fearing as much, some Hamas officials have already denounced Mr Obama's proposals as futile. They accuse the president of double standards—blessing popular uprisings, even armed ones, as struggles for freedom elsewhere in the Arab world, while condemning Palestinians for unilateralism. They rebuked their own, including Khaled Meshaal, the movement's Syria-based leader, for endorsing negotiations with Israel, have been pilloried by rivals within. After two decades of inconclusive negotiations overseen by America, Mr Obama will have an uphill struggle convincing Palestinians that their quest for statehood still goes via Washington, rather than acts of self-determination on the ground or the UN plaza in New York.
About Newsbook
In this blog, our correspondents respond to breaking news stories and provide comment and analysis. The blog takes its name from newsbooks, the 16th-century precursors to newspapers, which covered a single big story, such as a battle, a disaster or a sensational trial
Advertisement
Economist blogs
Most commented
- Charlemagne: Decoding DSK
- India and Pakistan: The world's most dangerous border
- China and Tibet: Go back to law school
- Greece and the euro: Bailing out the bail-out
- Barack Obama's speech on the Middle East: 1967 and all that
- China and Tibet: No way, Sangay
- Israel and Palestine: Those indefensible 1967 borders
- Pakistan and India: A rivalry that threatens the world
- Israel and America: Chasing the rabbit
- America and China: No go
Over the past five days
Most recommended
- Charlemagne: Decoding DSK
- India and Pakistan: The world's most dangerous border
- Barack Obama's speech on the Middle East: 1967 and all that
- Israel and Palestine: Here comes your non-violent resistance
- Schumpeter: The Catalan kings
- France's intelligentsia and the IMF chief's arrest: Those terribly clever French intellectuals
- Alternative medicine: Think yourself better
- Dominique Strauss-Kahn: Damned
- Well-being and wealth: The pursuit of happiness
- The prosecution of Thomas Drake: Hating the Drake
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.
Don't have an account? Register
Sort:
Obama's speech is irrelevant. American president's have little influence on Israel. Though one could make a reasonable argument that the influence travels in the other direction.
If Hamas continues to seek the total destruction of Israel, peace is probably impossible, no matter what Obama says. Israel probably isn't going to give up large chunks of real estate to buy "peace in our time". They know how that works out.
Re: AJ NS
LOL. Hear Americans, you're giving billions in aid to people who think your president is irrelevant, America has zero influence on Israel and you're more or less just a lapdog.
"We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz. We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history."
- Abba Eban, Israeli Statesman (November 5, 1969)
there is something desperately wrong with the subtitle of this article as it is presented on the economist homepage.
Someone said this about another article...this whole issue isn't contingent on the US being a miracle-working mediator. It's only going to work if Palestine and Israel really want it to work. And it seems like they're pretty apathetic to the whole idea...
Why should Israel move back to the 1967 indefensible borders? They didn't start that war, the Arabs did. What's to keep the Arabs from attacking again were Israel to do that - a UN resolution and sanctions? When the Palestinians agree to allow the Jewish refugees that were displaced in 1948 to Israel back to Palestine, then perhaps the Israelis will reciprocate. Negotiation means that both sides give something to get something; it is not a one-way process.
It is not President Obama, nor PM Natanyahu who will ensure Israel's survival - it is Hamas who's leaders are working so hard, and so "religiously" to discredit not only their own standing as legitimate organization, representing Gaza. But the entire Palestinian people.
Otherwise, how anyone in his right mind, would agree to enter into any discussion with such blood thirsty organization like Hamas, when it declares right upfront, "I will settle with your absolute and conclusive demise". And "The only agreement I am will have with Israel, is after all Jews are out of the country, and all their properties are turned over to us" - just because their (Pals) grandparents were herding their sheep and camels on that land some 100 years ago.
"And he pointedly dropped any reference to the three conditions (the abrogation of violence, recognition of Israel, and respect of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements) that America and its fellow Quartet members had set out five years ago for Hamas, the Islamist group that governs Gaza, as a price for engagement."
What's the point of further negotiations, if Obama and the Palestinians are not willing to accept these very basic rules? If you don't respect previous agreements, you are not going to respect a new one any more than the old ones. If you don't recognize the rigt of your negotiating partner to exist, who's going to trust you in carrying our your part of the agreement? If you are not willing to give up violence, why should I allow myself to be slaugthered while your pretend to negotiate?
The PA's union with Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, makes negotiations impossible. The issue of Jerusalem is paramount and a divided capital will hurt both countries. A PA state in its current boundaries where half of the population is split on both sides of Israel's borders will seriously jeopardize both countries' economic success and security. The peace process has always been unrealistic. The truth is: someone has got to go or it will be two heads on one body in times of peace or war.
Mid east peace. America is not a honest impartial mediator,broker in fact it is an hindrance for peace.The Israeli lobby controls the white house,house,and the senate, ( R Pearle says if any one goes against Israel they will not be re elected.) Netanyohu is arrogant,ignorant heads a dysfunctional coalition which does not want peace,security is an excuse It has the 4th most powerful IDF and unconditional support of America, the Palestinian have zero security,can be shot abused imprisoned tortured without any protection, the(Wall check points.Hamas is not recognized by Israel even though they were elected in fair and free elections and fighting the most oppressive occupation in history and they have right to, Obama supports other freedom fighters in ME not Hamas strange!!!. Israel was formed by UN resolution by UN dominated by Israeli supporters in the west soon after WW2, Now Israel with the help of US, UN resolutions in favor of Palestine and international law are ignored. 1967 borders are generous for Israel- Land take from the Palestinians and now Netahyahu Says that 1967 border will not sufficient for security nonsense Thugs from Europe have room not the people of the land in the racist state. Israel is self destructive and the events in the ME is not in its favor. Israel and American foreign policy are the cause of terrorism which suites their war industry.
Hamas wants to destroy Israel,mouse threatening the lion!!! Palestine has been totally destroyed. hope it will rise again in a non violent way SHANTI.
@ daskumar and the other Arab/Muslim apologists:
For sure you can't consider yourself to be the 'honest broker'?
Your POV is totally ONE-SIDED …
with statements like "Hamas is not recognized by Israel" … isn't that an OXYMORON? How can Israel recognize Hamas whose Charter calls for the disappearance/death of Jews/Zionists/Israelis? Israel will not/cannot change their position on Hamas … their fate will be the same as bin Laden … probably by drone strike!!
What you don't like is … the fact those drones are after Muslims!!!!
Until the Arab/Muslims can accept a sovereign secure Jewish State … there will continue to be a robust response to any and all acts of 'resistance' against the Jewish People. You don't have to take it from me … this is ISRAEL'S DNA
Israel's claim that the Green Line presents an indefensible border is simply idiotic; even handing over control of contentious territory, such as the Central Hills that overlook Israel's coastal plain, would not change the fact that Israel has a state of the art military, whilst the Palestinians have antiquated AK47s and home-made Quassam rockets(that are really jumped-up fireworks). Anyway, if the Palestinians finally got their freedom, i think they would be more preoccupied with building-up their State rather than picking a fight. In fact, you would probably find that the Palestinians would treat their new Israelis like we would treat a smelly neighbour: give them a wide berth.
tzatz> The problem with your irrational propaganda, is that a rational person would look up the historical context. Israel lasted 2 hundred years as an independent nation in its previous incarnation, when the land was stolen from the Canaanites by the nomadic Jews, even Jerusalem was originally built by the Canaanite, not the Jews, so no historical link to the land other than theft, murder, and the destruction of a civilisation and peoples that originally inhabited that land.
The second problem is your irrational double standards, where you have hailed the internationally recognised terrorists like the Lehi as heroes, and yet decries that Netanyahu (who has links to such terrorists) should have to negotiate with Hamas.
Though I do hope that you take this as the constructive criticism it is meant to be, not a personal attack.
Until we move the UN to Jerusalem & the Intrnational Secretariat to the Settlements, who is speaking for the Christians in the Holy Land; let us believe their are real Christians in Congress, at least some of whom will speak for them, in the face of Arch Zionism?
@Whitechapel
You make it sound like the Palestinians are harmless. I'd like to remind you that the second intifada led to the death of 1100 Israelis, with an unprecedented amount of civilian casualties (730). And this occurred despite Israel's "state of the art military." Also, I think you fail to see that Israel's argument of not reverting to the 1967 borders is more relevant to the 6 or so Arab states, many of which are openly hostile, surrounding Israel. Whatever the case, the political and demographic conditions of 40 years ago are hardly relevant today. Complete new borders may have to be drawn. I mentioned before that for both states to be truly contiguous and successful, Palestine cannot be split into two.
You said: "Anyway, if the Palestinians finally got their freedom, i think they would be more preoccupied with building-up their State rather than picking a fight."
Then explain why when Gaza was given back to the Palestinians … that is … 100% sovereignty to the Palestinians … they didn't build their state … THEY BUILT A TERRORIST LAUNCHING PAD … WITH 5000 ROCKETS AIMED AT ISRAELI POPULATION CENTERS!
Then explain why when the PA was formed and Arafat given control over his people … why the Intifada II broke out on his approval?
THE ARAB/MUSLIMS CAN'T ACCEPT A SOVEREIGN JEWISH STATE … they would rather attempt to destroy it … than try to build a viable liberal democratic state of their own. (Fayaad has made attempts to build institutions and an economy but he's a technocrat NOT ELECTED and frankly, DESPISED BY HAMAS)
The Palestinians won't get their freedom UNTIL THE ISRAELIS GET THEIR FREEDOM FROM WORRY OVER WHAT THE ARAB/MUSLIMS ARE PLOTTING! So you might as well say … there will be a permanent war between the Jewish State and the Arab/Muslim world UNTIL the Arab/Muslim world ACCEPTS A STRONG SOVEREIGN JEWISH STATE in the Middle East.
It won't be in my lifetime as things are going but … let's try and keep optimistic …
I´m getting confused.... Is there anything else but "Nutting about Nothing" ?? From the GripeVine... & Donah..//
Ja... the Ploblem with you guys ´zz... You´re all too serious.... Look.. them Jews and Palestineans know eachother from before Moe and Eve met.... They´ve been throatslitting for and beyond any doomsday, so let´s keep it that way.. They wanna fight.. they pick a fight. So it´s the Jordan River or the Golan Heights... Who cares....!! We Are Emerica...!!!! We have our own orgs.... our own NRA approved 6.Peashooter... and our own "versions" of what the Bible should be.... all screwed up... We quoted Liviticus and rehearsed Jezus telling his Pa:- where are YOU, Ol´Man ?? ´Course he didn´t say: ´Hear you !! I wouldn´t eather.... You get yourself in trouble with the church elders... you´re on your own... Son..!! ´Reason why.. I am a molded -into-one non-believer... So... do a bit of noodle shifting, will ya.... ??
From the GripeVine.... & Donah..//
TZATZ forgets the Palestineans were not bulding "terrorist launching pads"... That came all about "after"the Brits dumped 2 C-1 Liberty ships with Zionists on Palestina Land and told them to find a place.... The Brits had just vacated their mandated territories.... The Arabs were there first !!
From the GripeVine.... & Donah..//