Bibi’s joke

If Netanyahu’s offer cannot be enhanced further, it can offer no help to American President Barack Obama’s efforts to get the deadlocked Middle East peace drive back on track.

Probably, the Israeli prime minister, also known as "Bibi," was correct to a great extent in his assessment that "No one in Israel wants war," but no one among the Palestinian people Ğ not those living in refugee camps since they were forced by Israelis from their homes in 1948 and 1949, nor those in the present Palestinian territories or somewhere else in the Middle East, nor members of the diaspora as far away as Latin America Ğ wants war either.

Yet opposition to war does not mean Palestinians will agree to give away their inalienable rights, including the right to return, to accept Jerusalem becoming the "eternal capital of the Jewish state" or agree to the creation of a Palestinian state on whatever land is offered to them by Bibi’s government. Nor does it mean that they will accept having no defensive capabilities while neighboring Israel continues to possess every possible military capability, including weapons of mass destruction.

Bibi offered to open talks with Palestinians without "any preconditions" Ğ provided the Palestinians agree to the conditions he listed before any such talks could get underway. According to Bibi, talks would start without any preconditions, should Palestinians agree that in a two-state resolution, the Palestinian state would not only be deprived of any defensive capabilities, but also of control of its own airspace. In addition, the Jewish state would be guaranteed that there would be no way of smuggling weapons into the Palestinian territories.

More? Yes, indeed, Bibi had some further demands from the Palestinians. While he pledged not to have any new Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian lands, and, in a way, responded to a demand made to that end by Obama, the Israeli leader at the same time said the settlers were not "enemies of peace" and did not budge from his position of backing "natural growth" in existing settlements.

Could any Palestinian consider such a statement as anything promising?

Moreover, the Israeli leader also refused the right of return of refugees, which has been a key demand of Palestinians in any peace effort thus far. "The Palestinian refugee problem must be resolved outside the borders of the state of Israel," he said. "Any demand to resettle refugees within Israel undermines Israel as a state for the Jewish people."

Just a beginning

Irrespective how short it fell in meeting expectations, and despite accusations from Palestinian spokesmen that Bibi’s remarks did not contribute to the cause of peace, but indeed sabotaged peace plans, the Israeli leader’s giving up his long-time opposition and accepting the notion of a two-state settlement, though with conditions attached, cannot be brushed aside all together either.

Indeed, we might be in the initial phase of a new process, the success of which will determine how much further Bibi might go in his offer. Could he, for example, agree to share Jerusalem between the Israelis and the Palestinians, a fundamental demand of the Palestinian people, who would, like the Jews, like to have a state with Jerusalem as its capital? Or could he expand the "no new settlements" approach to initially include a ban on expanding the current settlements and the eventual dismantling of at least some of the Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land?

Bibi was right in demanding that Palestinians must recognize the Israeli state. He was right in stressing that the future Palestinian state and Israel should develop peaceful, neighborly relations. But how healthy could such "peaceful, neighborly relations" be between a demilitarized Palestinian state and an Israeli state armed to its teeth with every sophisticated weapons system? Could the Palestinians agree to a life at the mercy of their neighbor Israel? If Bibi were a Palestinian, would he agree to such a life?