A newspaper reader displays a copy of an advertisement by the Palestinian Authority published in an Israeli newspaper, at a coffee shop in Jerusalem, Thursday, Nov. 20, 2008.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has taken his case for a peace deal directly to ordinary Israelis, assuring them in Hebrew-language newspaper ads that a withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and parts of Jerusalem would bring them full recognition by the Arab world. The ad says 57 Arab and Muslim countries would establish diplomatic ties with Israel in exchange for a withdrawal from the lands that would make up a Palestinian state. This is essentially the Arab League proposal of 2002 (repeated in 2006 and 2007) which the Israeli government totally ignored.
What is not great about this development? Recognition of Israel and a two-state solution desired by most people in and outside of Israel, details to be negotiated.
Uri Avnery begins to tell the story with this essay, Eyes Wide Shut. It has mostly to do with the absence of a Left Wing in Israel who could react positively to the peace gesture.
THE DAY before yesterday, two documents appeared side by side in Haaretz: a giant advertisement from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and the results of a public opinion poll.
The proximity was accidental, but to the point. The PLO ad sets out the details of the 2002 Saudi peace offer, decorated with the colorful flags of the 22 Arab and the 35 other Muslim countries which have endorsed the offer.
The public opinion poll predicts a landslide victory for Likud, which opposes every single word of the Saudi proposal.
THE PLO ad is a first of its kind. At long last, the PLO leaders have decided to address the Israeli people directly.
The ad discloses to the Israeli population the exact terms of the all-Arab peace offer: full recognition of the State of Israel by all Arab and Muslim countries, full normalization of relations – in return for Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders and the establishment of the Palestinian state, with East Jerusalem as its capital, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The refugee problem would be solved by mutual agreement – meaning that Israel could veto any solution it considered unacceptable.
Reportedly, the Israeli government has never officially reacted to this historic offer, even in 2002. “Public opinion and the media ignored it almost completely, walled in by the national consensus that there is no chance for peace, said Avnery, and even though it was discovered anew by politicians like Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni, the Israeli public reaction was “nil.”
THE PUBLIC opinion poll, on the other hand, cast a shadow over the entire political arena.
It says that if the elections were held this week, the Likud would have 34 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, three times more than it has now, and become the largest faction.
THE DAZZLING ascent of Likud is an ominous phenomenon by itself, but even more important is the general picture: the bloc of all the parties that support peace, whether by paying lip service or sincerely (called “the Left”) will have, according to the polls, 56 seats at most, as against the 64 seats of all the anti-peace parties combined (called “the Right”).
Meaning: if the election had taken place this week, the outcome would have been a Knesset devoted to the continuation of the occupation, the settlements and the annexation. Binyamin Netanyahu would be Prime Minister and would be able to choose freely between a dozen possible compositions of the next government coalition.
Likud, of course, is the anti-peace party, whose agenda is the full annexation of the Palestinian territories into a Greater Israel. Likud says “no to withdrawal, no to a Palestinian state, no to any compromise on Jerusalem, no to any meaningful peace negotiation. And, of course: no to the Arab peace offer.” The only truly left wing party in Israel, Meretz, has experienced a loss of leadership through resignations, and while it gained in intellectuals and young activists, its small representation offers no hope that in future elections it will gain a voice.
In his article The Problem With Israel, written a few years ago by Jeff Halper, founder of the peace activist group, Israel Committee Against House Demolition, he stated, “the problem is us” and from what one can surmise about the perennial refusals of Israel to negotiate peace, is that there is no Left Wing left in Israel capable of accepting the “generous offer” made by the Arab League.
This is the situation that Obama will confront if he were ever to move on peace between the Israelis and Palestinians:there is no comparable Left Wing in Israel to negotiate with.
For this reason, Avnery suggests that if “BARACK OBAMA were to announce immediately after taking office that he is determined to achieve peace between Israel and the Arabs in the spirit of the Saudi peace initiative, before the end of 2009,” it might influence many Israeli voters, because if the Likud party in the form of Bibi Netanyahu were elected, Obama will be faced with a serious dilemma and could end up “(leaving) peace in the freezer, like his predecessors.”
Haaretz, possibly the only liberal newspaper in Israel, reporting on Hamas’s disinclination to go along with the advertisement, still spelled out just what a majority of Israelis are alleged to want: peace.
The full-page ad published by Abbas in three Hebrew-language newspapers this week explained to Israelis that a withdrawal from Palestinian territories would bring full recognition by the Arab world – in line with a peace initiative first proposed in 2002 and relaunched at an Arab summit last year.
The ad says 57 Arab and Muslim countries would establish diplomatic ties with Israel in exchange for a withdrawal from lands Palestinians seek for an independent state, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip and parts of Jerusalem.
A few days ago, in the article, Born In Sin, the Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy, wrote about the dying of the Left Wing in Israel, and in its absence, how the Right Wing will only continue its nationalist goals.
The Israeli peace camp was born in sin and died because of a lie: It was born as the legitimate son of the sin of occupation, and died the illegitimate son of the lie that “there is no partner” with whom to negotiate on the other side. Between September 1967 and October 2000, it spent 33 years waging the brave and determined struggle of a minority against a majority, “traitors” against “patriots,” “defilers of Israel” against “lovers of Israel,” David against Goliath. Today, we must painfully admit that it was struggle that did not produce much.
(snip)
At the end of Camp David, when he told us “there’s no partner,” Ehud Barak propagated an even bigger lie: that we have a peace camp. How pleasant it is to delude ourselves that we have one, and how depressing it is to know that we don’t. There is no left – just empty words. When the only demonstration in town is over student tuition, when the only discourse in city and village alike concerns the “Big Brother” TV show, and the loudest cries are over “corruption” and Olmert’s frequent-flier miles instead of over the jailed Palestinian who is bleeding and beaten, who hasn’t had a normal day in his life – then we know for sure that there is no peace camp in Israel in 2008.
(snip)
The term “left” and the expression “peace camp” need to be removed from the dictionary of Hebrew terms. We no longer have the right to make use of them. Any use whatsoever.
So if there is no significant Left Wing left in Israel that can accept a peace offer from the Palestinians, whose problem is it? This problem would seem to be Obama’s if he does intend to ignite a new beginning in the Middle East. Otherwise, Avnery’s comment about dumping it in the freezer will apply.
Now, if they’re really getting PR savvy, the Palestinians would place the same advertisement in U.S. newspapers. The U.S. might be even more important to peace and sovereignty than Israel. Would Secretary Clinton support the content? Or someone else? Obama? I will not disappoint myself by giving my answers. Or would the U.S. newspapers refuse the advertisement? I’d really like to see that. Is there mention of these advertisements by any U.S. news outlet.? Lots of questions here.
These ads should go out to the Left Wing in AMERICA too. If we’re joined at the hip, diplomatically, with Israel, maybe we can offer our Left as their surrogate Left, at least in stirring up conversation.
Alternative weeklies, etc.
It’s incomprehensible that the Palestinians, one of the most politically aware people in the Middle East, seem not to understand the fundamental importance of a high-powered information (propoganda) machine in the U.S.
are purged even from so called liberal websites.
Great idea. Wonder why the Fatah group didn’t think of it first?
I can’t answer your question. Maybe you can suggest it to Fatah. I will, if you can provide me with a contact. But I think maybe they thought of the idea and rejected it for reasons I can’t imagine.
I don’t know the answer, two possible ones might be:
I am reminded here of the debate a few years ago between Uri Avnery (Gush Shalom) and Jeff Halper (ICAHD). One, Avnery, who continually political posts ads in the Newspaper, Haaretz, directly or indirectly about the efforts to make peace with the Palestinians, and the other, Halper, who believed that the local Israeli peace effort to that date was “a voice in the wilderness,” and that the cause had to be internationalized. He subsequently opened chapters of his organization, ICAHD, in the US and Britain, and has frequently gone on tour speaking about the Palestinian cause in these countries.
From my own small view, there has been a slow but certain movement in the US, in particular, an undermining of media censorship that diminishes American awareness of the IP conflict, especially the inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people. What will come of it? Just hard to say.
PS: Diane, you are so much better at getting to the bottom of these issues in your writing, I hope that you soon publish on the Israeli election and its relevance for the Palestinians.
The Palestinians are only visible in the U.S. public perception as some kind of violent people. Let New Yorkers open their morning Times and read what Israel can do to achieve peace instead of constantly whining about how much Israel suffers. Maybe their eyes will pop open and they’ll slowly get the feeling they’ve been played. You see, Israel costs the U.S. taxpayer oodles of dough, directly and indirectly (Iraq, Iran, etc.). U.S. public opinion is at least as important as, if not more so, than Israeli public opinion, curiously enough. That’s why Likud and the AIPAC go to so much trouble to manage media and academic coverage of the issue. I’d bet that the NYTimes and other newspapers wouldn’t even dare to print the advertisement. You see, they wouldn’t dare inform their readers. Maybe I’m wrong.
It would be a great challenge for the NY Times to maintain the illusion of unbiased reporting. Yes, illusion.
You are looking at something like that..
It seems that the Palestinians may have placed a similar full-page statement of the Arab League’s proposal in the NY Times on November, 10, for which see Ralph Nader’s article on Counterpoint. I can’t find the reference though. Can anyone help?
I know that the Israel Committee Against House Demolition published ads in the NYT, but I was not aware that the PLO (Fatah) had. The ICAHD often mentions the Arab League offer and other offers of peace, and Israel’s recalitrance about making peace as opposed to giving up the annexation of the Palestinian territories.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3628171%2C00.html
It should be obvious to anyone who pays attention that the real impediment to peace is and has always been Israel. For six years the Arab League has been offering Israel everything it claims it wants – peace, full recognition, and normal relations. All Israel needs to do is comply with international law and its own agreements to UNSC Resolution 242 and related instruments. And for six years Israel has given the Arab League its middle finger. The only rational explanation for this behavior is that there are things Israel wants a great deal more than it wants peace, full recognition and normal relations with its neighbours.
The short answer is “land.”
Yep, that’s what they want, what they reallyreally want – at least it is what those who have the power over the decision making want.
And I think there is something else. Bullies, once they get a taste of how it feels to beat up on and dominate everyone else on the playground, enjoy the fear they see in the other kids’ eyes, and frankly they also get a rush out of doing violence to others. It’s like a drug to them. So, they are not interested in becoming respectable members of society because it means giving up their drug of choice.
And that brings me to another very plausible theory that is quite popular inside Israel. Some people seem to fear that without the external threat to bind it together Israel might implode and collapse completely. There is a fairly common belief that it is this fear that is at least part of the reason that Israelis cannot bring themselves to get serious about settling down, do what is necessary to get along, and become a respectable part of the neighborhood – something the majority of Arabs have been ready to accept for quite some time.