Bush/Ariel Sharon compact. While it
is clear that the bitter tenor of recent generations has changed, we must
view with careful scrutiny the shifting implications and subtle,
sophisticated inconsistencies which are always a feature of American and
Israeli rhetoric.
So it is with Benjamin Netanyahu, an Israeli leader whom I believe
sincerely desires to achieve piece. He does speak with eloquent and
carefully chosen sentiment on the subject, when he claims to "appeal
tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us
talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at
any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well"
(Netanyahu, 2) This is a statement couched in other flowing terms about
unconditional terms of diplomacy and reference to a desire for 'good
neighborly' relations. I believe the Israeli's desire this, but it is a
falsehood that Netanyahu claims an unconditional willingness to proceed
thusly. Bobbing above the surface of his poetic pleas, Netanyahu strikes
multiple conditions relating to the determination of nuclear rights in
other nations and declarations concerning the rightness of its current
borders.
Netananyahu knows that I and my countrymen can tolerate no such
policy which does not produce the outcome of a Palestinian state. There is
thus little that can be said to the end of promoting good neighborly love
without fair concession. But he is unrepentant in his explicit reference
to Gaza and the West Bank, which he claims are not the primary issue of
concern. He follows the call for peace with the statement that "even
with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly
rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been
and remains - the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to
its own state in its historical homeland." (Netanyahu, 3) This, he claims,
and not the plight of the aggrieved Palestinians, is at center...
President Obama clearly strikes a
more conciliatory tone than his predecessor, the warmongering Mr. Bush.
But this may in some manner be a trick of psychological impression. Obama,
in language yet more flowery, asks for peace. He denotes in a speech in
Cairo, "I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United
States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just
as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude
stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of
the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known" (Obama, 2)
This latter point of view, however, seems the more dominant as his
speech proceeds to outline America's intent to continue to manage
impressions at its own will. For instance, he denotes that "the situation
in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together.
Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaeda and the Taliban
with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because
of necessity." (Obama, 3) Certainly, in my community, this imperative is
not seen with the same certainty. I and my family are not terrorists. We
are average Palestinian citizens attempting to live in political, religious
and economic freedom. In our recognition of Israel and America as
functioning to obstruct these freedoms, we view any such expression as
ethnocentric in nature and failing truly to consider the political
statements which are made by acts of terrorism. We do not support these,
and consider the acts such as those on 9/11 to be cowardly and inconsistent
with the word of Allah, but we do consider it important for the achievement
of real peace that the political implications of such actions be truly
considered.
