News and Views » Commentary

Gwynne Dyer: No peace in the Middle East, just a Nobel Prize for Obama

By Gwynne Dyer,

“Anyone who says that within the next few years an agreement can be reached ending the conflict (between Israel and the Palestinians) simply doesn’t understand the situation and spreads delusions,” said Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman last week.

But Barack Obama does say that. In fact, they gave him the Nobel Prize for saying it, didn’t they?

Speaking in a radio interview, Lieberman added: “There are conflicts that have not been completely solved and people have learned to live with it, like Cyprus....We have to be realistic. We will not be able to reach agreement on core and emotional subjects like Jerusalem and the right of return of Palestinian refugees.”

And he said all this just as Obama’s point man for what we used to call the “peace process”, George Mitchell, arrived in Israel.

Undaunted by Lieberman’s comments, Mitchell gabbled the usual nonsense about how “we’re going to continue our efforts to achieve an early relaunch of negotiations...because we believe that is an essential step toward achieving a comprehensive peace.”

Doesn’t he understand that the “peace process” has been dead for years?   It is no more. It has expired. It is an ex-peace process.

Yes, of course he knows, but it was Lieberman who went off-script, not Mitchell. Every Israeli government since 2000 has believed what Lieberman said and acted accordingly, but has colluded with the United States and various well-meaning Europeans in pretending otherwise.

The Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas also pretends that the peace process is still alive. Indeed, it did so even in the last years of Yasser Arafat’s life.

It has to go on pretending, because if the PA admits that the peace process is dead, then it becomes no more than an Israeli instrument for indirect control of the Palestinians. As it often is, in practice.

We had a vivid demonstration of this recently, when Judge Richard Goldstone submitted his report on last winter’s three-week war in the Gaza Strip to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The 575-page document reported that both Israeli forces and Palestinian militants had committed war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and a resolution was put before the Council that could ultimately have led to prosecutions at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Israel launched a propaganda blitz to discredit Goldstone’s report, and together with the United States it mounted a diplomatic campaign to postpone any formal consideration of the report until next March.

By then, it would be old news. Standard tactics, but here’s the bizarre bit: the Palestinian Authority also supported delaying the vote by six months.

What possible reason could the PA have for doing such a thing? Well over  1,000 Palestinians had been killed in the conflict, and only 13 Israelis.

The only Palestinians accused of war crimes were the militants of Hamas, who rule the Gaza Strip, and they are the sworn enemies of Abbas, his Fatah movement, and the Palestinian Authority. It was a no-brainer, and yet the PA went along with the Americans and the Israelis.

Unsurprisingly, this public evidence of the PA’s subjugation to American and Israeli policy caused a great outcry among Palestinians even in the West Bank, and Mahmoud Abbas ordered a “probe” into who had made such a wicked decision. (Hint: his initials are MA.)

The truth is that the Palestinian Authority is just as complicit in the charade of a continuing peace process as the Israeli or American governments, and cannot afford to abandon it.

Only the radical Islamists of Hamas, from their besieged enclave in the Gaza Strip, openly acknowledge the same reality that Avigdor Lieberman describes (although from a very different perspective). There is no peace process, and the “two-state solution” on which it was built is all but dead. So what they offer Israel, at best, is a long-term truce–but only if the Palestinians get their pre-1967 borders back now.

A long-term truce (“like Cyprus”) is all that Lieberman is offering, either–and even that is not going to happen because he has no intention of returning to Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Neither does his boss, Prime Minister  Benjamin Netanyahu, although he wraps his refusal in more diplomatic language.

All of President Obama’s pleas have failed to extract from Netanyahu even a promise to freeze the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, let alone to negotiate a withdrawal from them.

He has not moved from pleas to actual pressure because the Israelis effectively control the U.S. Congress on this issue. And he will not risk alienating Congress over Israel while he is trying to get legislation through on health care, climate change, and other urgent issues.

He cannot even order the Israelis not to attack Iran. They will do it if they want to, even if the bulk of the Iranian retaliation would fall on American bases and forces in the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Still, there is no doubt that Obama’s intentions are good. So are mine. Where’s my prize?

Gwynne Dyer’s latest book, Climate Wars, was published recently in Canada in paperback by Vintage.

Comments

netsp
Obama received the prize for changing the "tone" on several issues, not just this one. Several Nobel Peace prizes have already been doled out for not solving this conflict. He has also changed the tone on (related) relations with the Arab world while failing to secure their cooperation in his plans. He has also changed the tone on climate change, though his practical progress is relatively weak. He has changed the tone with Iran, with no results yet also.

He also talked about nuclear disarmament. Here he has done nothing yet, just talk, but he may find the lowest hanging fruit here. The US could halve their nuclear arsenal with virtually no strategic consequences. In fact (and I am no expert on this), they probably should anyway. How many of those ICBMs, warheads, bombs and whatever else are over 20 years old? How many are over 40? I assume that to date various initiatives (Clinton, etc.) have taken care of of the 50-60 year old weapons, but if the US wasn't made new weapons since 1995 & weapons become obsolete at (lets say) 30-35 years old, the remaining arsenal at 2020 would be pretty small. Promising to get to 2020 levels by 2015 or something like this might be a cheap way to score 'we are disarming' points. Russia is in similar situation as are most large Nuclear states.

After a certain time, the decision not to build more becomes a decision not to have many. If you can see where you are going, why not be there 5-10 years early and score the points?

In any case, if he manages this issue well, maybe he'll deserve the prize.
 
Stephen Samuel
Nobel prize for nobel intentions

The Nobel prize isn't just for people who have accomplished big things. It's also for people who are up to big things. There are a number of examples of people who have recieved Nobel prizes long before they have accomplished their intended result. Aung San Suu Kyi, for example, is still under house arrest and The Dalai Lama has not yet Tibet. Desmond Tutu received his prize while South Africe was still under apartheid. and Martin Luther King died long before a black man had a hope of being voted president.

The Nobel prize, you see, is not only backwards looking. It is also forward looking. It goes, more often as not, to someone who is attempting to achieve something noble and difficult. A nobel prize can give a recipient. not only press exosure but also often support and sometimes protection in their campaign.

Simply put, the Nobel Prize isn't just to congradulate people for their accomplishments. It's to encourage and support them -- and given what Obama's up to, he's probably going to need all of the support and encourgement he can get.
 
asp
Nuclear disarmament was mentioned prominently by the Nobel committee. Obama has stated total nuclear disarmament as a goal, to be achieved over decades. The cancellation of the missile shield in eastern europe is a step towards that goal.

Nobody else has talked about moving in that direction for years. He won the prize for not only talking about it, but for being in a position to do something about it.

 
bartimaeus2002
Nice Pythonian parapharase Mr.Dyer...classic. Excellent article and bang on the money as usual...thanks for doing what you do.
 
Phoenix Woman
Wow, nice to see Gwynne Dyer and the Taleban agreeing on something! (http://www.juancole.com/2009/10/taliban-condemn-obama-nobel-peace-prize....)

The Nobel Peace Prize is often awarded for works in progress. So far, Obama has scrapped an expensive and useless missile shield plan in Poland and in exchange got Russia to scrap plans for placing troops and tanks near the Polish border -- as well as Russian and even Chinese assistance in getting Iran to back off on its nuclear ambitions (neither Russia nor China want any new members of the nuclear club, either -- they don't want to be bossed around by another flyweight nation like North Korea).

As for the Middle East, go check out what Juan Cole, who knows a thing or two about the place, has to say about Obama's NPP: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/10/11/nobel_cole/
 
 
[Comments Disclaimer]
Post a comment
· Use your real name to have your comment considered for publication in print.
· URLs and email addresses will be automatically turned into links.