Netanyahu’s visit to Washington was a fascinating lesson on the emerging gap between the two poles that characterize the fading peace process between Israel and the Palestinians: the historical narrative attitude on the one hand, and the realistic attitude on the other hand.
President Obama certainly represents the pragmatic attitude. In his speeches at the State Department and at the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee) conference, as well as during his meeting with PM Netanyahu, Obama showed his real politic. On the one hand, he openly presented his outline for the peace process, which includes demilitarizing Palestinian state based on 1967 borders and land swaps. On the other hand, Obama ignored the major refugees' problem, keeping an eye on the strong Israeli & Jewish lobbies as well as the pro-Israel Congress.
Palestinian President Abbas, Abu Mazen, cleverly maneuvers international & Palestinian public opinion by combining the two attitudes. In an op-ed recently published in the New York Times, Abbas presents the Palestinian narrative of the 1948 war. Nevertheless, Abbas and other Palestinian officials talk in one voice about their wish to negotiate with Israel about 1967 borders only. Abbas’ sophisticated attitudes helps him to portray himself as the defender of Palestinian interests at home while being seen as a pragmatic leader in the eyes of the international community.
Israeli PM Netanyahu is, unfortunately, yesterday’s man. In his speeches at the Congress and at AIPAC conference Netanyahu fervently discussed the Israeli narrative from 1948 onwards. Indeed, as most commentators remarked, he certainly knows how to speak to an American audience. But Netanyahu did not, or did not want to, grasp that by using the historical narrative not as a tactical tool to gain a better position but as a strategic goal for itself, he is being seen as fighting yesterday’s battle. I had already described elsewhere (link to the Guardian article) Israel's self image as “Poor Samson”. Holding to this position now makes Israel look unreliable.
In the aftermath of Netanyahu’s visit, it seems the gaps are unbridgeable. However, I believe that each side must take steps that are both practical and symbolic. By taking action, the current situation of solipsism – each speaks to oneself in one’s own language – will be changed to a real pragmatic dialogue, without giving up the different historical narratives.
First, Obama should open the door for a deeper involvement on behalf of the EU. The EU, and mostly the UK, are much less biased towards the Israeli side than the US, hence they are conceived as more objective.
The Palestinians should read between the lines of Obama’s speech at the State Department. When he praised the struggle of the Arab peoples against their corrupt leaders, Obama in fact hinted to the Palestinians to be inspired by the Arab Spring, by igniting peaceful, popular, non-violent mass demonstrations of Palestinians against Israeli occupation.
As for Israel and Netanyahu, it is time that Israel will publicly acknowledge the Palestinian perspective of 1948 events. Israel does not have to agree to the Palestinian narrative but it must accept its presence, by saying that Israel understands the implications of the 1948 war on the Palestinian people, and that it is ready to accept responsibility for its part.
Words are not enough; actions must follow, otherwise the words remain idle. But sometimes, by using the right words, psychological barriers might be lifted. I believe this is the only outcome from the dead end the peace process is heading to these days.