|
Monday Jun 01, 2009
The Other View: A new chapter in US-Arab relations?
Posted by Ziad Khalil Abu Zayyad
Comments: 25
    
The US has been showing brave policy shifts towards the Muslim world and the Israeli-Arab conflict. This change is mostly noted in America's view of the importance of finding a solution for the Israeli-Arab conflict. These changes started as soon as President Obama took office. Both Europe and America have indicated that ending the conflict in the Middle East would be beneficial to the Western world and would help bring about international security. The Israeli occupation of Arab lands which started more than sixty years ago generated much anger and hatred across the Arab world. Since the establishment of the Jewish state, the world has stood by while Israel occupied and controlled Arab lands. This has enabled several extremist organizations and movements operating in the Arab world to gain strength and convinced the Arab people that the only way to get back what is rightfully theirs is through the use of force. The political and economic situation of Arab governments prevented them from taking extreme actions against Israel since they lacked the needed power and capabilities to do so. Instead, Arab states threw their efforts into convincing the world to support their demands to make Israel change its policy and withdraw from the occupied lands. One of these steps included proposing the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which offered Israel full Arab recognition of its existence and sovereignty over the 1948 borders of Palestine and promised to start complete and normal relations with it. In exchange, Israel is asked to withdraw from the 1967 occupied lands, accept a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and find a fair solution for the refugee issue. Israel rejected the initiative as it was and asked to make changes to it although the Arabs stated clearly that they were already asking for the minimum which they can accept. The emergence of new challenges such as the Iran's nuclear ambitions and Russia's change in policy convinced the new American leadership and the European Union that it is extremely important to gain Arab support. President Obama wants to do this by turning US-Arab relation into one that is mutually beneficial. Therefore, President Obama started with assertions that only the two-state solution can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel's new government does not like this idea and tries to fight it with everything it has. But Israel is clever enough to prevent any kind of tension with America, therefore, Prime Minister Netanyahu was cautious not to refuse the American agenda outright. President Obama's speech in Cairo is supposed to open a new chapter in American-Arab relations. Most Arab governments and a good percentage of Arab people are waiting to hear Obama's speech in Cairo in order to gauge America's future policy towards the Muslim and Arab world. The question is whether Obama will be smart and cautious enough to satisfy both Arab and Israeli interests. Otherwise, he will fail in achieving anything different, like many US presidents before him.
1 |
Jen USA,
Monday Jun 01, 2009
Obama is a pragmatic man. He knows how much is riding on repairing our ties with the world &restoring the good will that was squandered by Bush II. Some people make the mistake of seeing Obama as only a visionary, without conviction. This is a man with conviction. The real question is, will the Muslim world trust him & will pro-Israel interests in the US allow him succeed. I think the hardest thing that he has to do right now, is to lower expectations about this Cairo speech. Then again, he has made great speeches under pressure. He knows the power of words...
2 |
Yerucham Kopelman Miami, FL,
Tuesday Jun 02, 2009
The bottob line is this. "If the arabs put down their weapons there would be peace in the Middle East. If Israel put down their weapons, there would be no more Israel" .
AND DON'T FORGET IT!!!!
3 |
Ari,
Tuesday Jun 02, 2009
Yerucham Kopelman is absolutely right. I don't understand, when the government finally leans to the right, the Jerusalem post leans to the left
4 |
MK boston,
Tuesday Jun 02, 2009
dear Ziad, congratulations for your article, but you forgot something very important. Arab leaders don't want peace w/Israel. They want palestinians having an endless war, for endless confusion and entertainment called "ONE COMMON ENEMY: THE JEWS", so they can keep their own people submit to their own non-democratic dictator leaders, the case of the Jordan King, Mubarak in egypt, and all the bunch of Sheiks and Kings on the arab world. BAD for Obama dealing with kings-dictators instead of democratic elected leaders----thanks
5 |
McQueen NYC,
Tuesday Jun 02, 2009
So the wars the Arabs waged were not "extreme action" according the genius who wrote this article?
And notice how he says that Israel has been an occupier for over 60 years (not since the 67 war)!
And further notice how he says the minimum the Arabs can accept is the destruction of Israel through mass in-migration of "refugees."
6 |
Stanley Teicher-Philadelphia,PA,
Tuesday Jun 02, 2009
The saudi plan advocated by Saudi Arabia would have Israel withdraw to the pre 1967 borders.However,we have been therefore,even at these borders Fedayeen coming from Egypt and attacks from the Syrian Golan Heights were every day ocurrrences against Israel.What President Obana has to understand and make the Arab Leaders understand is that"Israel is a reality and that Israel is here to stay".That the Koran's objection to having a non Moslem State in the so called Moslem areas has to vanish.The Palestinians must halt their anti semitic and anti Israel propaganda barrages.
7 |
Vi USA,
Tuesday Jun 02, 2009
Israel needs to stand strong and not give up Jerusalem to anyone. The land was given to them by GOD ALMIGHTY. NO one has a right to take it from them , nor a right to tell them how to run their government. They are a peaceable people.
8 |
Daniel Ivtsan, UK,
Tuesday Jun 02, 2009
Mr. Zayyad your painting of the Arabs of the past being pacifists pushed to the brink of violence is ridiculous. To quote Abdul Rahman Hassan Azzam, first secretary of the Arab League, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades" with regards to the Jews in the 1948 war. Arabs have not been pushed to violence, the Arab world chose violence as the first option to remove any Jewish presence in the Middle East. Remember it was the Arab world which tried to exterminate the Jews before any occupation.
9 |
Isa Ten, USA,
Tuesday Jun 02, 2009
In Zayyad's view the establishment of the state of Israel was an act of "occupation" of Arab lands. Why then he approves of the so-called "Arab Peace Initiative" which would legitimize this "occupation"?
If it is OK for Israel to exists on arbitrary armistice lines of 1949 (1948 borders), why any other borders are not as acceptable if they are determined by an agreement between the parties involved? What is so sacred about 1948 borders?
10 |
Joe - USA,
Wednesday Jun 03, 2009
Gaza didn't provide Israel the "Land for Peace" anticipated... with the Palestianian leadership currently divided among themselves, what's the hurry for declaring statehood, especially if there would be unrest from within... unless the most prevelant sentiment expressed would serve to unite them, as the Iranian President has stated before the UN on several occasions with applause. The basics are being undermined, are humanitarian concerns the priority for the Palestianians by their leadership. Why are there no issues with Jordan (Trans-Jordan) as to land that was intended for the Palestinians?
11 |
Mike JC, USA,
Wednesday Jun 03, 2009
Sad to say, but #2 is correct. #1 is baloney. For me, I cannot get away from the fact that Fatah was given Gaza. That was a real test. What happened? The Palestinians took it and turned into a base for launching attacks. I see absolutely nothing to indicate a handover of the West Bank would end ANY differently. Release the border checks and allow Fatah to control its own borders? It is 100% certain the only result from that would not be peace, but mass importing of weapons that would be used to attack Israel. There is NO evidence pointing to another result.
12 |
Vladimir,
Wednesday Jun 03, 2009
Incredibly dishonest and misleading article. Distortions and lies in every sentence. There is no "Israeli occupation of Arab lands". It is Jewish land: read documents of League of Nations. "Anger and hatred" against Jews from Arabs "generated" much earlier than "sixty years ago" and so on. Lies and lies and lies...
13 |
AMERICAN USA,
Wednesday Jun 03, 2009
JEURSALIM IS GOING TO BE CRUCIAL STUMBLING BLOCK FOR PEACE TREATIES ,MAKING THE CITY INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS SITES LIMITING JEWS AND ARABS NOMBERS THERE ALTHOUGH DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE MIGHT BE A SOLUTION .
UNDERGROUND TUNNELS BETWEEN WEST BANK AND GAZA MIGHT HELP ESTABLISHING FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT .
UNITED PALASTENIAN GOV. WITH STRONG POLICE ,NO MILITARYCAPABILITES MIGHT HELP
14 |
Paula Kempf,
Wednesday Jun 03, 2009
it is what it is. our redemption draws near.
15 |
Massoud Levy,
Wednesday Jun 03, 2009
The BIG mistake is to think if Israel gives up land, everything will be great, but this is not true. If Israel does everything Arabs want, will the Al Qadeda behave? will the moslems in Pakistan, and Sudan, and ...... will act normal? why this did not happen in Gaza?
16 |
Jen USA,
Thursday Jun 04, 2009
Joe, You are right that Gaza didn't work out the way that the Israelis had hoped. I think that Israel thought that there would be a government in Gaza that they could influence (control). We pushed for democracy and then when Hamas came to power, Israel and the US undermined any possibility of Hamas evolving from a "terror" organization to a normal political party. This evolution was possible, look at the IRA. With a decisive plan for autonomy, there will be less Palestinian in-fighting. They may even become a united and independent country. What is the alternative...Constant war? Apartheid?
17 |
Maverick US,
Thursday Jun 04, 2009
Interests will not be satisfied. However, a decisive stance weighing heavily towards one side might make a difference. A cautious president does not make a smart leader and this is certainly not the time for timidity; neither is it the right moment for pandering to both sides of the divide. However given the checks and balances of the U.S., a courageous leader needs support from the legislative branch. A real peace initiative will be a hard sale to congress because it must be one-sided.
18 |
air jordan shoes,
Thursday Jun 04, 2009
Hi there,
Ugh, I liked! So clear and positively.
Have a nice day
19 |
Ziad Khalil Abu Zayyad,
Thursday Jun 04, 2009
Although the Israeli public opinion is not interested in peace with Arabs and this was proved by choosing a government which right and extreme (specially putting liberman as a minister and writing new racist laws against Arabs), I hope that both Palestinians and Israelis will one day reach a solution that brings Israel security and peace and gives the Palestinians their right in making their state on the 1967 lands. This must happen whether Palestinians and Israelis liked it or not. Two states must be made and peace should be the solution. I hope that courage leaders will invest in this.
20 |
Michael Ireland,
Thursday Jun 04, 2009
#s 1/10 is correct - The withdrawal from Gaza was badly managed - there was no treaty or negotiation to handover in a professional manner. Northern Ireland was handled professionally by Britain/Ireland and Northern Ireland. In the case of Gaza - there should have been talks to get out, hand over and determine what was expected from all sides probably under Quartet rules and regulations. If you do not negotiate and draw up rules - chaos applies. What did Israel expect would happen when they walked out in the manner they did. Having walked out of South Lebanon - they must have known.
21 |
bob, boston,
Friday Jun 05, 2009
#19 - you overlook the reason why this government was elected. you overlook the 7 or 8 opportunities for land and a state offered to the arabs over the last 60 years - all rejected outright, some without a counteroffer, some with more violence. most in israel accept 2 states as the ultimate result, but perhaps they're waking up to the reality of the last 15 years that "oslo" and unilateral concessions by israel only produces more violence, hateful teachings in classrooms, by ALL palestinian leadership. your effort to re-write history (occupied=60years) speaks volumes of your credibility
22 |
Eli, USA,
Saturday Jun 06, 2009
You assert that Israeli occupation of Arab lands which started more than sixty years ago and you do not mention why Netanyahu does not want to discuss a Palestinian state now. Both are extremely troubling half-truths.
The Arabs rejected the two-state solution in 1947 and the refugee problem was created only because of the invasion of seven Arab armies into Israel in order to destroy it.
Netanyahu, as many Israelis, is traumatized by the experience in Gaza where a golden opportunity given to the Palestinians to better their life was used to fire missiles for years on innocent Israeli civilians.
23 |
Jen USA,
Monday Jun 08, 2009
#22 Eli, You are overlooking the whole story on Gaza. Please read #20. As to Netanyahu's take on independent Palestine, he has always delayed and blocked discussion of the issue (not just now). Bibi has never taken action towards peace. Not taking action, when the time is right now, just shows what a weak and ineffective leader Netanyahu really is. Furthermore, he has used the usual fear-mongering tactics that the right-wingers in Israel take whenever the discussion turns to the two-state solution. You state that Bibi was traumatized... tell that to the real victims of Cast Lead.
24 |
Eli, USA,
Tuesday Jun 09, 2009
#23 Jen, the majority of the people in Gaza are indeed victims, but not of Israel but of the Hamas who, again, missed an opportunity to better the lives its people in the wake of Israel's withdrawal. It has been typical of Palestinian leadership to miss all opportunities and then to blame others for the failure. Venomous incitement against the small Jewish state is not the answer. True soul searching on the part of Palestinian leadership, starting with Haj Amin El Husseini, will be more constructive.
25 |
Jen USA,
Wednesday Jun 10, 2009
Eli...There is blame enough to go around. Hamas mis-managed negotiations (but what model did they have?).Israel (& the US) undermined any & all possiblility of Gaza (and Palestine) having a functional government. Israel made a point of destroying government infrastructure, the occupied territories are balkanized & Gaza was effectively on "lock-down" from the date of withdrawal.Running up to Cast Lead, both Hamas & Israel violated the cease-fire.Then there is the overkill during Cast Lead.The evidence shows that there has been a lack of true leadership and political in-fighting on all sides.
|
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Post your own comment
