Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Palestinian Leaders Critical of Netanyahu’s Speech

Despite receiving some support from the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's call for a qualified Palestinian state was widely unpopular with Palestinian leaders, spurring one prominent figure to call for the annulment of the Arab Peace Initiative.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

(Inter Press Service)

Despite receiving some support from the United States, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s June 14 foreign policy speech, in which he called for a qualified Palestinian state, was widely unpopular with Palestinian leaders.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee and a close confidant of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, said the speech was empty of content and pointless. Rabbo called Netanyahu a “swindler … who makes up tricks about the achievement of peace,” according to the Palestinian news agency Maan.

Similarly, Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rdeinah declared that “Netanyahu’s remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralyzed all efforts being made, and challenged the Palestinian, Arab, and American positions.”

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who just last week told the Inter Press Service (IPS) that Palestinians were politically in their strongest position ever, and that this time around the United States meant business, also lashed out at Netanyahu’s speech.

Erekat said the Israeli premier’s speech had “closed the door to permanent status negotiations. We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term ‘Palestinian state’ because he qualified it,” said Erekat.

“He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain. The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise. Netanyahu has flipped it over on its back.”

Erekat has gone as far as to call for annulment of the Arab Peace Initiative. The Arab initiative was a peace plan sponsored by the Saudis and adopted in 2002 during the Arab League summit in Beirut. It called for normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world in return for Israel withdrawing form occupied Arab land and returning to its internationally recognized borders.

While the U.S. administration has hailed Netanyahu’s reference to a Palestinian state, something he has refused to do since taking office in February, the preconditions for establishing and defining this state are very much in question.

Netanyahu only clambered on to the two-state solution bandwagon reluctantly—and clearly in response to intensive pressure.

This pressure came not only from U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration, but from the EU, Israeli opposition figures, and regional Arab leaders. Netanyahu also faces growing criticism among American Jews of his far-right policies.

In spite of Netanyahu’s last-minute support for a two-state solution, critics from across the Palestinian and Israeli political spectrum dismissed his speech as solely aimed at placating Obama and offering nothing but lip-service rhetoric about Palestinian statehood.

“The ball is now in the Americans’ court. It remains to be seen whether they will buy this faulty product Netanyahu is trying to sell them,” said Samir Awad, a political scientist at Birzeit University in the West Bank.

“Netanyahu, in a not very subtle way, basically undermines two of Obama’s main demands. He refused to cease settlement expansion, and the kind of state he envisions would not be a truly independent state by international standards,” Awad told IPS.

“Palestinians would have no control over their borders, natural resources or air space, besides being a demilitarized state,” added Awad.

Netanyahu’s refusal to cease settlement expansion means that returning Palestinian refugees, and ordinary Palestinian citizens, would not have full rights to the occupied Palestinian West Bank.

Palestinian resources such as land and water continue to be expropriated for the benefit of the 500,000 Israeli settlers who, according to international law, are illegally living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of civilian populations into occupied territory.

A third of Israelis living in the West Bank settled there during the years of the Oslo peace accords in the 1990s. Another third settled in the West Bank after the peace process was suspended. Forty-five percent of the Israelis living illegally in East Jerusalem settled there between 2001-2009.

In his speech, Netanyahu demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Arab League have already recognized Israel’s right to exist, but argue that recognizing it as a Jewish state would infringe on the rights of Israel’s non-Jewish minorities.

Additionally, this recognition would negate the right of return of even a small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who either fled or were driven out by Israeli forces during the Israeli-Arab wars.

Netanyahu has already said that no Palestinian refugees can return to Israel proper.

Furthermore, he has said categorically that Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel—thus ignoring international law, which explicitly recognizes that East Jerusalem is occupied. Netanyahu’s position preempts the PA from establishing its future capital in that part of the city.

The bitterly divided Hamas and the PA have found common ground over Netanyahu’s less than auspicious speech.

Dr. Ahmed Yousef, Hamas’s deputy foreign minister and political adviser to Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, says Netanyahu’s speech was nothing but flowery rhetoric.

“His entire speech was meant only to satisfy Obama. It was basically nonsense with no real intention of reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Even the overly-accommodating PA can’t stomach it,” Yousef told IPS.

Mel Frykberg writes for the Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and two-time failed presidential candidate, is a foreign policy hawk with neoconservative leanings who appears set to become the next senator from Utah.


Vin Weber, a former Republican congressman and longtime “superlobbyist” who has supported numerous neoconservative advocacy campaigns, has become embroiled in the special prosecutor’s investigation into the Donald Trump campaign’s potential collusion with Russia during the 2016 presidential election.


Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share