The stillborn Cairo-2

OF all the peace moves made by the United States, Cairo-2 had the shortest life: it died the day it was born.
Other proposals, formulae and treaties worked out by America died a lingering death much later, taking years. But this one had no parallel in terms of the speed with which Israel acted to kill the foetus.
We are aware, for instance, of the several jokes George Bush Jr floated as part of a peace process that all sides knew was a big farce. In 2003, he unveiled a plan that had been approved by the Quartet — the US, EU, UN and Russia. It called for the establishment of a Palestinian state “by 2005”. While Yasser Arafat accepted what was billed “a road map”, Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s prime minister, waited for a fortnight before conveying his approval with several reservations.
Even though there never was a chance that a Palestinian state would come into being “by 2005”, Sharon visited the White House, and it is now confirmed that the speech which Bush read out was written by Sharon. Then Bush dropped a bombshell:
addressing a press conference, he said that even after withdrawing from the West Bank, Israel would retain “some” land in the occupied territory. ‘Some’ was never explained, but it could mean not only the settlements Israel had on the West Bank but also Islamic holy sites in east Jerusalem and the new housing in the Arab part of the holy city.
Some months later, Bush gave a coup de grâce to the road map by saying “by 2005” was an unrealistic date for a Palestinian state to emerge.
Two years later, in November 2007, a bigger drama was staged at Annapolis, Maryland. Besides the host and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, several Arab leaders were invited, and a declaration was signed, pledging the formation of a Palestinian state in 2008.
What importance Israel attached to this hoax became clear when on his return home Olmert declared he was not bound by the time frame given in the declaration. No one in the White House had the courage to rap Olmert for repudiating a solemn agreement he and the American president had jointly signed.
Yet, astonishing as it sounds, Condi Rice, the Bush administration’s prima donna, kept saying as late as 2008, when the Bush term was drawing to a close, that the Annapolis declaration would see the light of day by the end of that year.
However, until now, no American president had the mortification of seeing three of his peace moves sabotaged by Israel in as many years.
On June 4, 2009, in an unprecedented gesture of goodwill towards the Arab Islamic peoples, Obama categorically called in a speech from Cairo for a halt to Jewish settlements as the first step toward a two-state solution. Since this was his first major move on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the speech aroused considerable hope across the Middle East after years of frustration.
A few days later, at a press conference jointly addressed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Obama in Washington, it was very clear who called the shots. While the American president referred to the two-state solution and demanded a halt to settlements, Netanyahu didn’t even use the word ‘state’ once and made no commitment to halt the building of new settlements. Israel had won the first round.
On Sept 2 last year, the first direct talks in two years between Israel and the Palestinian Authority began in Washington, with Obama telling Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas to tackle within 12 months the ‘core issues’ — the settlements, the borders of a Palestinian state, the question of the return of Palestinian refugees, and the final status of Jerusalem.
Israel knew its strength, for the mid-term polls were two months away, and the Democratic administration could ill-afford to annoy the Israel lobby. Aware of its hold on America’s domestic politics, Israel stuck to its position: it would not extend the moratorium on housing ending on Sept 26. And Netanyahu chose to speak at America’s most powerful lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and declared, “Jerusalem is not a settlement”. No one in the Obama administration had the courage to protest. Round two to Israel.
The third, and perhaps not the last, snub was delivered by Netanyahu last week. In a speech labelled Cairo-2 — Cairo-1 being Obama’s telecast to the Muslim world — the US president called for the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 borders. In his speech to the State Department on May 19, Obama had this to say: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” Netanyahu, en route to America, denounced it within hours, saying he would not accept “indefensible” borders for Israel.
Talking of the 1967 borders is like showing a red rag to a bull, for such was the furore in the Israel lobby that within 24 hours, Obama, who after all has a second term to win, was apologetic, declaring he was misunderstood. “Let me reaffirm,” he said, “what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means: by definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israeli and
Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” Round three to Israel.
Incidentally, Netanyahu demanded that he see the Obama speech before it was delivered. The Likud leader saw it, though the changes he suggested were not incorporated. Come to think of it, even at the height of the Second World War, Churchill might at best have requested FDR to show him his speech in advance, but he would have made a request rather than a demand.
Netanyahu made a demand, and the speech was promptly supplied to him. All rounds to Israel.
The writer is a member of staff.