CAIRO: Contrary to pessimistic Arab expectations, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to US President Barack Obama’s initiative for the creation of the Palestinian State as the only viable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
In his speech last Sunday, Netanyahu confirmed his acceptance of a Palestinian State but stipulated that it should be demilitarized without an army or troops; should forfeit the right of return and recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel would continue to control airspace and territorial waters.
Giving up the right of return means official renunciation of all territories that were usurped and are still being usurped by Israel in Jerusalem and West bank. To recognize Israel as a Jewish state means renunciation of the right of people who have been hanging on to their homeland by refusing to leave, bearing the woes of living as second-class citizens inside Israel. To accede that the potential state is demilitarized one, with territorial waters and airspace under Israeli control, means to renounce the most basic tenet of the state: sovereignty.
But what is the importance of sovereignty? What is the importance of the rights of the Palestinians who stayed and those who were forced to leave and remain without a homeland for 60 years? What is the importance of the lands usurped for constructing more settlements? Does all of this matter when the goal is to create a state?
Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution stipulated by US President Barack Obama. For the Arabs, this is a political gain. True, the supposed state is only a state in name, but it can have both a flag and an anthem – which Netanyahu didn’t object to. Is this not enough?
States are nothing but flags and anthems. The flag is the symbol that embodies any state. If demonstrators want to express their anger against a certain state, they set its flag ablaze.
On the other hand, the anthem is the symbol of existence. This is why it is chanted on national holidays. Besides, if we want to greet important guests we play their national anthem as a sign of their presence.
I followed many of the Arab reactions to Netanyahu’s speech. As usual, I found that we did not understand it. Some commentators wrote that Netanyahu tried to deceive the international community using the phrase “Palestinian State at the beginning of his speech, but went on to devoid the phrase of its meaning.
Others wondered what Palestinian State was Netanyahu talking about if he insists on not giving up the occupied Jerusalem as an eternal capital to Israel; if he refuses to halt settlement construction that are continuously expanding on Arab land in the West Bank.
Some commentators said that he completely ignored the Arab initiative introduced seven years ago, which stipulated recognition of Israel and normalizing relations in exchange for withdrawal from occupied land.
Others wrote that Netanyahu wanted both peace and land, which means he wanted to take everything and give nothing.
In fact, a careful reading of Netanyahu’s speech would simply reveal what I have said at the beginning of my column; when he gave them the right to a flag as well as an anthem, Netanyahu can be said to have given the Palestinians more than enough.
Both the flag and the anthem are the symbol of any state. Without them there would be no state at all. Never mind if the state proposed is a symbolic one – a jelly-like state; once Palestinians hold it from one side, it will slide out the other; and if they try to hold it from both sides, it will vanish completely, turning into liquid.
Mohamed Salmawyis President of the Arab Writers’ Union and Editor-in-Chief of Al-Ahram Hebdo.
