ISRAEL seems to be such a powerful state that it is able to defy the world's biggest power and insist on refusing to suspend building illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. However, it could be weaker than ever today because of its negative image in world public opinion. Even at the times when it launched military assaults on Lebanon and Gaza or on the Turkish flotilla carrying aid to the besieged Gaza Strip, Israel has always had allies brazenly justifying its acts as a matter of self-defence against assaults of the “terrorist” groups of Hizbollah and Hamas. However, the recent inflexible stand the Israeli government has taken on the regional peace process, together with its stubborn insistence on blocking all paths leading to the creation of a viable Palestinian state living side by side Israel, has rendered even its closest allies unable to take its side. It is true that while Washington has not clearly announced Israel's responsibility for the current failure of peace drive, it unintentionally exposed Israel's actual intentions to the world. It has become apparent how Israel insists on continuing to swallow up the Palestinian territories bit by bit at the time that it claims it is going on with the negotiation process. On the other hand, the US diplomacy, which refrains from admitting failure to resolve this decades-old problem, has decided to manoeuvre and shift of tactics. It is continuing with the indirect talks, but this time tackling the controversial issues of occupied Jerusalem, borders and right of return for the Palestinian refugees. In a recent speech, State Minister Hillary Clinton noted that in the coming stage, the US would force both sides to spell out where they stand on the fundamental issues involved in creating a Palestinian state. "We will push the parties to lay out their positions on the core issues without delay and with real specificity. We will work to narrow the gaps, asking tough questions and expecting substantive answers," she stated. This indicates that Israel, in one way or another, would be forced to go public with its rejection of recognising East Jerusalem as the capital of the future Palestinian state and the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland. Additionally, it would be compelled to disclose its outright refusal to specify its borders and to withdraw from all territories occupied in the June 1967 war. This would eventually lead to further loss of Israel's credibility in world public opinion that seems now to favour the Palestinians' right of having their own independent state to end long decades of suffering by living under inexorable Israeli occupation. Accordingly, if Israel will not speed up in making compromises or at least changing its tactics to make the world believe it is really ready to pay the dues of peace, the international community would pressurise it to do so in different ways. Israel has always sought to gain public opinion in its support and will not endure losing the world standing by its side. That is why we have started to notice a fresh media campaign for whitewashing its image and putting the blame on the Palestinians for the defunct peace process. For example, the British newspaper The Guardian has recently published a column claiming that the ball is now in the Palestinian court and that, if they are really keen about having their independent state, they should first accept the existence of Israel on the map! In their column published in The Guardian on December 14, Carlo Strenger and Akiva Eldar, claimed that, “The creation of a Palestinian state is closer than ever " but only if its leadership accepts Israel's place on the map”. The two authors, about whom the newspaper provided no details, state that they have been supporters of a Palestinian state long before the PLO and Israel ever met. “We have always recognised Palestinian suffering, and we never thought the atrecognising the Palestinian Nakba [setback in 1967] is inconsistent with a firm stance on Israel being the homeland of the Jews.” They continued: “Both of us believe that the only path to peace is a dignified existence for Jews and Palestinians. We have been opposed to Israel's settlement policies, which we consider to be unjust and an obstacle to peace, and we think that East Jerusalem should be the capital of Palestine”. This “apparent” objectivity of these authors collapsed when they requested the Palestinian leadership accept the state of Israel. “It is time for Palestinians to realise that they are no longer victims of history, but free agents who will have to make choices. International support for a Palestinian state has never been stronger, and it is a matter of time until this state will be internationally recognised along the 1967 borders. In a peculiar repetition of history, the UN General Assembly may soon recognise the partition of Palestine once again, this time to fulfil the national aspiration of the Palestinian people.” They added, “This is the moment when the Palestinian leadership must avoid repeating the mistake of 1947, when they rejected the original partition resolution, and make clear that they truly accept Israel's existence as the homeland of the Jews. “Hence we call upon the Palestinian leadership to state clearly what exactly it demands. It will have to be less equivocal on which of the two meanings of ‘right of return' it endorses. On this question the future of the whole region hinges, and this is not up for Israel to decide. It is time for the Palestinians to realise that the future of the region is now in their hands,” wrote Strenger and Eldar in their column entitled “Palestinians' future is in their hands”. This is how the two authors held the Palestinians responsible for the region's fate and endless instability. Commenting on this column might require a full paper or even a book to clarify how Israel has always been the side hindering settlement to this conflict, and how the Palestinians have made huge concessions. The first such concession was the recognition of Israel on the larger portion of the land of historic Palestine and requesting the return of the territories occupied in 1967 war (as opposed to (1948). So what do the authors want the Palestinians to do more? The most interesting aspect of this column is the innumerable comments it generated. Again due to space constraints I would review a few of these comments that reflect how world public opinion can no more accept Israeli manoeuvring and false claims. They include: “In short, the ‘Palestinian leadership' has recognised Israel's place on the map 17 years ago. When do we get to see some progress on the other side?” "Any chance Israel might be so kind as to define her place on the map with some borders? Oh wait, that'd mean they'd have to stop stealing Palestinian land, wouldn't it?” “The issue isn't whether the Palestinian leadership accepts Israel's place on the map " it's whether they can accept Israel's map. They can't.” “Israel is the biggest obstacle to peace. Only sanctions stand a chance of forcing them into anykind of peaceful accommodation. Talking to them is a waste of time.” Dear readers are invited to contribute their comments, views and questions via 111-115 Ramsis St., Cairo or e-mail: ([email protected])
