Avnery: A Line in the Sand, A model letter

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1257655700

A Line in the Sand

Uri Avnary's Column
Gush Shalom: 07/11/09

MAHMOUD ABBAS is fed up. The day before yesterday he withdrew
his candidacy for the coming presidential election in the Palestinian
Authority.

I understand him.

He feels betrayed. And the traitor is Barack Obama.

A YEAR ago, when Obama was elected, he aroused high hopes in the
Muslim world, among the Palestinian people as well as in the Israeli peace
camp.

At long last an American president who understood that he had to
put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not only for the sake of the
two peoples, but mainly for the US national interests. This conflict is
largely responsible for the tidal waves of anti-American hatred that sweep
the Muslim masses from ocean to ocean.

Everybody believed that a new era had begun. Instead of the
Clash of Civilizations, the Axis of Evil and all the other idiotic but
fateful slogans of the Bush era, a new approach of understanding and
reconciliation, mutual respect and practical solutions.

Nobody expected Obama to exchange the unconditional pro-Israeli
line for a one-sided pro-Palestinian attitude. But everybody thought that
the US would henceforth adopt a more even-handed approach and push the two
sides towards the Two-State Solution. And, no less important, that the
continuous stream of hypocritical and sanctimonious blabbering would be
displaced by a determined, vigorous, non-provocative but purposeful policy.

As high as the hopes were then, so deep is the disappointment
now. Nothing of all these has come about. Worse: the Obama administration
has shown by its actions and omissions that it is not really different from
the administration of George W. Bush.

FROM THE first moment it was clear that the decisive test would
come in the battle of the settlements.

It may seem that this is a marginal matter. If peace is to be
achieved within two years, as Obama's people assure us, why worry about
another few houses in the settlements that will be dismantled anyway? So
there will be a few thousand settlers more to resettle. Big deal.

But the freezing of the settlements has an importance far beyond
its practical effect. To return to the metaphor of the Palestinian lawyer:
"We are negotiating the division of a pizza, and in the meantime, Israel is
eating the pizza."

The American insistence on freezing the settlements in the
entire West Bank and East Jerusalem was the flag of Obama's new policy. As
in a Western movie, Obama drew a line in the sand and declared: up to here
and no further! A real cowboy cannot withdraw from such a line without being
seen as yellow.

That is precisely what has now happened. Obama has erased the
line he himself drew in the sand. He has given up the clear demand for a
total freeze. Binyamin Netanyahu and his people announced proudly - and
loudly - that a compromise had been reached, not, God forbid, with the
Palestinians (who are they?) but with the Americans. They have allowed
Netanyahu to build here and build there, for the sake of "Normal Life",
"Natural Increase", "Completing Unfinished Projects" and other transparent
pretexts of this kind. There will not be, of course, any restrictions in
Jerusalem, the Undivided Eternal Capital of Israel. In short, the settlement
activity will continue in full swing.

To add insult to injury, Hillary Clinton troubled herself to
come to Jerusalem in person in order to shower Netanyahu with unctuous
flattery. There is no precedent to the sacrifices he is making for peace,
she fawned.

That was too much even for Abbas, whose patience and
self-restraint are legendary. He has drawn the consequences.

"TO UNDERSTAND all is to forgive all," the French say. But in
this case, some things are hard to forgive.

Certainly, one can understand Obama. He is engaged in a fight
for his political life on the social front, the battle for health insurance.
Unemployment continues to rise. The news from Iraq is bad, Afghanistan is
quickly turning into a second Vietnam. Even before the award ceremony, the
Nobel Peace Prize looks like a joke.

Perhaps he feels that the time is not ripe for provoking the
almighty pro-Israel lobby. He is a politician, and politics is the art of
the possible. It would be possible to forgive him for this, if he admitted
frankly that he is unable to realize his good intentions in this area for
the time being.

But it is impossible to forgive what is actually happening. Not
the scandalous American treatment of the Goldstone report. Not the loathsome
behavior of Hillary in Jerusalem. Not the mendacious talk about the
"restraint" of the settlement activities. The more so as all this goes on
with total disregard of the Palestinians, as if they were merely extras in a
musical.

Not only has Obama given up his claim to a complete change in US
policy, but he is actually continuing the policy of Bush. And since Obama
pretends to be the opposite of Bush, this is double treachery.

Abbas reacted with the only weapon he has at his command: the
announcement that he will leave public life.

THE AMERICAN policy in the "Wider Middle East" can be compared
to a recipe in a cookbook: "Take five eggs, mix with flour and sugar…

In real life: Take a local notable, give him the paraphernalia
of government, conduct "free elections", train his security forces, turn him
into a subcontractor.

This is not an original recipe. Many colonial and occupation
regimes have used it in the past. What is so special about its use by the
Americans is the "democratic" props for the play. Even if a cynical world
does not believe a word of it, there is the audience back home to think
about.

That is how it was done in the past in Vietnam. How Hamid Karzai
was chosen in Afghanistan and Nouri Maliki in Iraq. How Fouad Siniora has
been kept in Lebanon. How Muhammad Dahlan was to be installed in the Gaza
Strip (but was at the decisive moment forestalled by Hamas.) In most of the
Arab countries, there is no need for this recipe, since the established
regimes already satisfy the requirements.

Abbas was supposed to fill this role. He bears the title of
President, he was elected fairly, an American general is training his
security forces. True, in the following parliamentary elections his party
was soundly beaten, but the Americans just ignored the results and the
Israelis imprisoned the undesirable Parliamentarians. The show must go on.

BUT ABBAS is not satisfied with being the egg in the American
recipe.

I first met him 26 years ago. After the first Lebanon War, when
we (Matti Peled, Ya'acov Arnon and I) went to Tunis to meet Yasser Arafat,
we saw Abbas first. That was the case every time we came to Tunis after
that. Peace with Israel was the "desk" of Abbas.

Conversations with him were always to the point. We did not
become friends, as with Arafat. The two were of very different temperament.
Arafat was an extrovert, a warm person who liked personal gestures and
physical contact with the people he talked with. Abbas is a self-contained
introvert who prefers to keep people at a distance.

From the political point of view, there is no real difference.
Abbas is continuing the line laid down by Arafat in 1974: a Palestinian
state within the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The
difference is in the method. Arafat believed in his ability to influence
Israeli public opinion. Abbas limits himself to dealings with rulers. Arafat
believed that he had to keep in his arsenal all possible means of struggle:
negotiations, diplomatic activity, armed struggle, public relations, devious
maneuvers. Abbas puts everything in one basket: peace negotiations.

Abbas does not want to become a Palestinian Marshal Petain. He
does not want to head a local Vichy regime. He knows that he is on a
slippery slope and has decided to stop before it is too late.

I think, therefore, that his intention to leave the stage is
serious. I believe his assertion that it is not just a bargaining ploy. He
may change his decision, but only if he is convinced that the rules of the
game have changed.

OBAMA WAS completely surprised. That has never happened before:
an American client, totally dependent on Washington, suddenly rebels and
poses conditions. That is exactly what Abbas has done now, when he
recognized that Obama is unwilling to fulfill the most basic condition: to
freeze the settlements.

From the American point of view, there is no replacement. There
are certainly some capable people in the Palestinian leadership, as well as
corrupt ones and collaborators. But there is no one who is capable of
rallying around him all the West Bank population. The first name that comes
up is always Marwan Barghouti, but he is in prison and the Israeli
government has already announced that he will not be released even if
elected. Also, it is not clear whether he is willing to play that role in
the present conditions. Without Abbas, the entire American recipe comes
apart.

Netanyahu, too, was utterly surprised. He wants phony
negotiations, devoid of substance, as a camouflage for the deepening of the
occupation and enlarging of the settlements. A "Peace process" as a
substitute for peace. Without a recognized Palestinian leader, with whom can
he "negotiate"?

In Jerusalem, there is still hope that Abbas' announcement is
merely a ploy, that it would be enough to throw him some crumbs in order to
change his mind. It seems that they do not really know the man. His
self-respect will not allow him to go back, unless Obama awards him a
serious political achievement.

From Abbas' point of view, the announcement of his retirement is
the doomsday weapon.

***

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Warner <patnJeff@keyway.net>

You have an opportunity to write a letter to the editor to express your
views about peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A model letter to
the LA Times is below our signature. Use the model letter as your own,
modify it as you see fit, or be inspired to write your own letter. The LA
Times letter may be applicable to the NY Times.

E-mail your letter to

letters@LATimes.com and/or letters@NYTimes.com and please
send a BCC to me.

Please pass this letter-to-the-editor prompt on to others who might be
interested, and invite them to contact me to be added to this mailing list.
Let me know if you wish to be removed from this mailing list.

best jeff

MODEL LETTER - START # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

TO THE NY TIMES - same as yesterday's letter

RE: "Collapse Feared for Palestinian Authority if Abbas Resigns," Nov. 9

Mahmoud Abbas' decision to step away from Palestinian politics shows the
bankruptcy of Israeli policy of doing everything possible to prevent a
Palestinians state, even though a majority of Israelis and their leadership
know that, as former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, without a Palestinian
state "Israel is finished." Abbas' decision also shows the bankruptcy of
American policy of unconditional support of Israel, even as supporting
Israel undermines United States strategic interests in the Middle East.

As a Jewish American who longs for peace and prosperity for Israelis and
Palestinians, I call on President Obama to make it clear to Israel American
support will be conditional on real progress towards an economically viable,
political sovereign Palestinian state.

Your Name
Your city
Your phone number

MODEL LETTER - END# # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

## ##