If you have been following the news on the Middle East lately, you will notice a general uptick in the rhetoric on peace between srael and the Palestinian Authority.
Endless pronuncements from Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on how Israel is ready for peace and just as desultory denunciations from the PA’s Mahmoud Abbas, that anything the Israelis have to offer, is simply not good enough.
Most of this back and forth has been driven by the Obama Administration’s determination to wade into the Middle East morass, certain that it can dredge the swamp and find gold. But in its earnest, flailing attempts to reach some kind of accord between the sides, it continues to mischaracterize the true nature of the conflict or to discern the reasons the kind of peace the U.S. expects in the region can ever take root.
Its of course nothing new. Since 1993 and the signing of the Oslo Accords, no year has gone by without the presentation of another scene from this farcical pantomime. It always goes something like this: The U.S. Middle East envoy presents ideas for jump starting peace to the Israeli prime minister. The Israeli prime minister makes a public statement to the effect that he is ” interested” in the ideas. The ideas are then presented to the Palestinian Authority leader who mulls the over for a day or so and then summarily rejects them.
The same political dynamics that have always driven this useless pas de deux are still present. Israel, for its part, recognizes the importance of American support for its ongoing war with the Muslim world and therefore is willing to play along, knowing full well that the Palestinian leadership is incapable of compromise. The Palestinian leader, well aware that not only his regime, but his life itself is forfeit if he concedes even an inch of Palestinian demands, stonewalls in the hope of buying himself time. The United States, ever eager to dislodge this bone in its throat and move on to more pressing problems in the Middle East, can’t bring itself to do very much more than pretend that it is dealing with real players in a real diplomatic engagement.
Of course it is nothing of the sort. The Palestinian leadership, having won virtual recognition for the Palestinian Authority as a sovereign body, has nothing whatsoever to gain from advancing the U.S. peace agenda. Its fat cats – from Saeeb Erekat to Mahmoud Abbas and Ismail Jibrail have grown rich from Western largesse and world famous as Palestinian celebrities . They want to keep it that way. They don’t want to lose control of the region which affords them their monopolies, while , at the same time, they are quite aware of their tenuous grip on power and the threat of their territory transforming, like nearby Gaza, into a virtual Islamic republic. Placating Palestinian extremism has therefore always been far more important to them than mollifying the Americans.
These realities are beginning to dawn on Washington. Yesterday Obama finally admitted what every Administration since Truman’s has discovered to its chagrin: that the Arabs simply don’t want peace with Israel – they want the country removed. Palestinian nationalism, buttressed by Arab governments throughout the region, has never been based on securing a national home for the Palestinians but rather on the elimination of a national home of another people. Say what you want about the Palestinian drive for dignity and emancipation – if they had wanted a state any time in the past 70 years, they could have had it. But having a state also means accepting Israel’s existence and its right to secure borders, and to this day, no Palestinian leader has ever gone on record embracing such a notion.
Therefore it is not so surprising that Obama could finally admit yesterday:
“I think it is absolutely true that what we did this year didn’t produce the kind of breakthrough that we wanted and if we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high”
Expectations were raised high, because Obama thinks that diplomacy and statecraft can override practical realities. But lets be very clear. The U.S’ insistence on treating the Palestinian leadership as a genuine “peace partner” is itself one of the causes of the failed process. Peace will never come to the Middle East while Palestinian intransigence is treated us a legitimate diplomatic position or when its resistance to compromise is respected. The peace process will continue to fail as long as its mediators misunderstand that the Palestinian urge to statehood is a farce and that its leadership has far more interest in perpetuating the conflict than in resolving its intractable problems
America the Ungenerous
January 16, 2010As the Haitian tragedy unfolds, the question of what America will be prepared to do address the disaster engulfing that island nation has arisen. Inevitably the knives will be drawn, much as they were following the 2004 Tsunami in southern Asia.
Then, Jan Egeland, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, criticized the U.S. commitment as “stingy” despite the fact that the U.S. pledges far exceeded those of all European nations.
Yet in actual dollar contributions, the U..S. should be regarded as the world’s largest donor of humanitarian aid by far. By nature, humanitarian aid must be tailored to individual crises: Every single famine, earthquake, flood, or other disaster is unique and requires different types of aid and different strategies. As death tolls climbed in the wake of the disaster in Southeast Asia and the needs of the survivors became clearer, the United States upped its humanitarian aid commitments to the region to $35 million, and the total of U.S. contributions private and public continue to climb to $75 m by the end of 2005.
Americans are by nature givers. In 2006, Americans gave about $295 billion to charity. This was up 4.2 percent over 2005 levels, and charitable giving has generally risen faster than the growth of the American economy for more than half a century. Correcting for inflation and population changes, GDP per person in America has risen over the past 50 years by about 150 percent, while charitable giving per person has risen by about 190 percent. That is, the average American family has gotten much richer in real terms over the past half century, and charitable giving has more than kept pace with this trend.
According to the late Gary Tobin, in a report he co-authored in 2005 American Mega-Giving: A Comparison to Global Disaster Relief
Before the financial crash of 2008, national giving had skyrocketed to record amounts according to Giving USA Foundation, which reports on national charitable contributions.
So far, the United States has provided 600,000 daily rations to Haiti and has mobilized $48 million worth of food assistance, which will be enough to feed 2 million people for several months.
So Barack Obama’s pledge of $100 m in ultimate aid relief in Haiti is completely in keeping with an American tradition of aid and support to disaster beset nations. Lets hope, this time, we see the rest of the world match its own rhetoric on philanthropy with action.
Share this:
Leave a Comment » | Planet Earth, Social Commentary | Tagged: American philanthropy | Permalink
Posted by avidavis