TALKS OF PEACE - LIFE MATTERS

I take great interest in understanding history, generally, and history between peoples, specifically.  Today I watched and listened to a speech given by Israel's Prime Minister, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he entreated President Obama, Europeans, Palestinians and Arabs towards "peace," with an immediate concern about Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology. 

It's a "good sign" - Israelis are "willing to talk."  Life matters.  If the Palestinians listen, understand, and participate in the way intended by Mr. Netanyahu, the better for all concerned.  But I doubt that any serious headway will be made given the preconditions already set forth by the Prime Minister, though he insisted he will speak with the Palestinians without any preconditions.  Mr. Netanyahu proposed that both peoples can live peacefully, side by side, with the Palestinians having a "territory" under the control of the Palestinian Authority (I did not hear the word "Nation-State" associated with it, though, in the sense we all understand), but which will be "demilitarized" and in which Palestinians will have no control over their own airspace, so as to provide "iron-clad security measures" for Israel.  That sounds more like a "vassal province," rather than a Nation-State.

In addition, there was an appeal for Arab States to invest in that envisioned "territory," in order to activate an "economic track" that will provide jobs and development for Palestinians.  Mr. Netanyahu did reiterate his stance that Palestinians should declare and recognize Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people or as a Jewish State.  It appears that Mr. Netanyahu is pushing the economic front first, as a prerequisite for initiating talks on political and geographical matters.  He took great pains, however, to rationalize settlement extensions as necessary to fulfill the needs of extant settlers and their children for living space - even if that space already belongs to others.  And the Prime Minister further stated that the question of Palestinian refugees ought to be resolved "outside of Israel" - perhaps meaning that all lands already confiscated, or on the verge of confiscation, will not be returned to Palestinians from whom such lands were taken.  Remember the old picture "the wandering Jew" - but now, is it "the wandering Arab," the Palestinian without a home?

My impression of that speech is that Mr. Netanyahu felt he had to answer, in some form or another, to the pressures of the international community, generally, and of the Obama Administration, particularly.  It appears to have been an exercise in futility.  The speech was more psychology than policy.  The words spoken were carefully chosen to include inferential terminology being utilized in the "Peace dialogue" around the world with suggestive rather than concrete determinations of actions that Israel will take towards achieving substantial agreements for real peace.  It appears Israel did not budge from previous positions but instead proceeded to delineate what others must do in order for Israelis to begin the "Peace dialogue."  This speech was meant to appease "two-State solution" proponents in a way that finessed it with false hopes rather than addressed the issues constructively, - Israeli assumptions, preconceived conditions and preparatory mentality have not changed much.

What can be deduced from this speech is that Palestinian refugees displaced by land confiscations for Israeli settlements will remain refugees as long as they retain a legitimate claim to their expropriated property; that the so-called "Palestinian territory" envisioned by Mr. Netanyahu, will have no army and no control of its airspace, but will be expected to perform "State duties" in confronting and subduing Hamas and Hezbollah so that Israelis can feel more secure.  These proposals would appear to be prescriptions for failure since they are being imposed, so it seems, by military occupiers on a people expected to behave as a vassal province of Zionist conquerors.  This is not an "extreme conclusion," for Mr. Netanyahu compares the Jews living in settlements to "pioneers" of Zionism, "Zionists" who are "good people."  The whole theater or psychological environment of this speech evokes themes extolled by American colonists who settled this continent.  But this is AD 2009.   

We continue to pray and hope for real, concrete, constructive and actual achievements towards a peaceful resolution of this on-going conflict, the continuity of which, is not only very expensive financially to us, - we've spent over $1 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq, - but also very destructive in terms of human costs, lives and sufferings, - over 4,000 Americans dead.  We are fighting two wars in the Middle East because we are internationally engaged between these two neighbors who have been warring continuously since the aftermath of World War II.  That's very different from our involvement since the Eisenhower Administration.  When in 1956 Israelis had persuaded France and Britain to join them in confiscating the Suez Canal from Egypt, President Eisenhower instructed them to return it to the Egyptians immediately for it was a gross and flagrant violation of international law and of Egyptian sovereignty.  They did, subsequently. Then, all it took was "our word."  But today, we express our hegemony and exercise our power in very different ways, many of which, have been proven to be too costly, in more ways than one.

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs is particularly meaningful and important to us.  For, since the fall of the former Soviet Union, the "Cold War" paradigm that had been defunct was soon replaced by the "terrorism paradigm" due to bellicose conditions between Jews and Arabs in the Middle East.  "Terrorism" would not have reached our shores but for the path of engagement carved by different presidential administrations that did not seek continuum policy expressions in the advent of developing events between these two "warring brothers."

It is long overdue that this perpetual state of war be constructively and peacefully ended.  We've known peace for about four years and that was during the Carter Administration, from 1976 to 1980, after which we returned to the "war path" during the Reagan years.  We've not known peace since then, either.  And it is during that time that we cemented our alliance and "partner relationship" with Israel.  Israelis used to buy Mirage Jets from France; now they obtain $3 billion in "foreign aid" from us every year, in addition to F-15s or F-16s.  All is well between "friends."  Pollard, the spy who got caught "doing Israel's business" here, is still in American jail, after having been duly and lawfully convicted.

Israel is still our permanent ally and we do not anticipate a change in policy.  However, it matters very much how peace negotiations proceed for real results rather than one more exercise in futile engagements or false hope in the continuum of "stop-and-go" warfare.  We have no sympathy for real terrorists who will commit suicide while killing women and children in the wake of their fanatical undertakings.  But we Americans also yearn to know peace, once more, at home and abroad.  Too many young lives, American, Israeli and Arab, are being short-circuited with their hopes and dreams drowned in human blood, since the dawn of this tragic conflict. 

Prime Minister Netanyahu quoted Isaiah and Jeremiah in his speech.  We sincerely appeal to Mr. Netanyahu and all Israelis to give substance to the Prime Minister's declarations that all Israelis truly want peace for their children and young people so that they can mature in domestic tranquility and constructive relations with their Palestinians neighbors, as they live out their aspirations, hopes and dreams to prosper until their natural death rather than by the blast of a bullet.  Life matters.  Spiritual freedom creates for mutual edification.  Moral liberty builds and does not destroy. 

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."  (Matthew 5:9, RSV, Bible)