Major d1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,721
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
By PETER BAKERSEPT. 22, 2016.
JERUSALEM — They took the stage, one after the other, two aging actors in a long-running drama that has begun to lose its audience. As the Israeli and Palestinian leaders recited their lines in the grand hall of the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, many in the orchestra seats recognized the script.
“Heinous crimes,” charged Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. “Historic catastrophe.”
“Fanaticism,” countered Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. “Inhumanity.”
Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu have been at this for so long that between them they have addressed the world body 19 times, every year cajoling, lecturing, warning and guilt-tripping the international community into seeing their side of the bloody struggle between their two peoples. Their speeches are filled with grievance and bristling with resentment, as they summon the ghosts of history from hundreds and even thousands of years ago to make their case.
While each year finds some new twist, often nuanced, sometimes incendiary, the argument has been running long enough that the world has begun to move on. Where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once dominated the annual meeting of the United Nations, this year it has become a side show as Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas compete for attention against seemingly more urgent crises like the civil war in Syria and the threat from the Islamic State.
“There are times when the entire world is focused on what they’re saying and they are the featured players,” said Mara Rudman, a former deputy special envoy for Middle East peace under President Obama. “In a year like this, they’re not the featured players on that global stage. But they’re still the featured players back home, and it’s still a big stage for their people.”
Beyond their constituents back home, both men had another target audience of one this year: Mr. Obama. With four months left in office, the president is thinking about asking the United Nations Security Council to lay out parameters for a solution to the conflict in hopes of push-starting a comatose peace process.
“Both sides want to weigh in with the international community ahead of that and give their side of the story,” said Philip Gordon, a former Middle East coordinator for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Netanyahu sternly rejected any such effort as intolerable interference. “We will not accept any attempt by the U.N. to dictate terms to Israel,” he told the assembled diplomats. “The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York.”
Mr. Abbas, for his part, said he would seek his own Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. “We hope no one will cast a veto,” he said, referring to the Americans who have vetoed resolutions targeting Israel in the past.
Each leader tried to position himself as a man of peace who cannot find a partner to negotiate with. Mr. Abbas welcomed a French peace initiative and called for an international conference by the end of the year. Mr. Netanyahu welcomed an Egyptian initiative and proposed that he and Mr. Abbas address each other’s parliaments. (Neither mentioned a Russian effort to organize a Moscow peace conference.)
But they spent much of their time on stage recounting their indictments against the other side.
Mr. Abbas talked about “the atrocities” that Israel had committed, including the seizure of Palestinian land, the demolition of Palestinian homes, the blockade of Gaza and various provocations at Muslim holy sites.
Mr. Netanyahu complained of Palestinian children being “indoctrinated with hate” by leaders who talked of detonating a nuclear bomb in Israel, slitting the throats of Israelis and welcoming every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.
“They’re retelling their own historical narratives each time they go up to the podium,” said Khaled Elgindy, a former adviser to the Palestinian leadership on peace negotiations. “It gets tailored to suit each individual moment, but the basic thrust is the same.”
As often happens in the Middle East, the argument about the present and the future quickly turned into one about the past. Mr. Abbas condemned “the notorious Balfour Declaration,” the 1917 decision by Britain, which controlled the area at the time, to support the creation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Mr. Abbas demanded “an apology to the Palestinian people for the catastrophes, miseries and injustices that it created.”
Mr. Netanyahu picked up on that. “Is he kidding?” he said. “And this is taken seriously here?” He said his counterpart’s comments proved the conflict was not about settlements, but about Israel’s right to exist.
These speeches over the years have often been dramatic affairs. Crowds gathered in the streets of Ramallah to watch on jumbo TV screens when Mr. Abbas sought United Nations membership or marked the raising of the Palestinian flag over the United Nations.
Mr. Netanyahu drew attention — and some scorn — a few years back when he held up a cartoon of a bomb to illustrate his fears of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Last year, he excoriated the world body for its silence about Iranian threats to Israel, then went silent himself for 45 long seconds to make his point. The Jerusalem Post this week posted a reader quiz: “What should Netanyahu’s U.N. gimmick be this year?”
It can be hard for such seasoned presenters to find fresh ways to draw attention. For Mr. Abbas, his speech Thursday was his 11th straight to the General Assembly going back to 2006. For Mr. Netanyahu, it was his eighth, going back to his first stint in office, not counting a previous post as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. Netanyahu has had a particularly confrontational relationship with the United Nations, and this year was no exception. “Year after year I’ve stood at this very podium and slammed the U.N. for its obsessive bias against Israel,” he said. “And the U.N. deserved every scathing word.”
He referred to “the disgrace of the General Assembly”; “the joke called the U.N. Human Rights Council”; and “the circus” at the United Nations cultural agency.
“The U.N., begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce,” he said.
But noting Israel’s growing ties to Arab countries, Africa and Asia, Mr. Netanyahu predicted that the United Nations would change, comparing it to the last Japanese soldier emerging from the jungle three decades after the end of World War II.
Still, if the diplomats were not ready to embrace Israel, they were also focused elsewhere. It did not go unnoticed in Jerusalem that Mr. Obama devoted just one sentence to the Israeli-Palestinian issue in his final United Nations speech as president, compared with some years when the topic took up to a quarter of his address.
Next year, of course, Mr. Obama will be gone. But Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu might very well be back. “And,” Mr. Elgindy said, “we’ll hear similar speeches as we heard this year.”
JERUSALEM — They took the stage, one after the other, two aging actors in a long-running drama that has begun to lose its audience. As the Israeli and Palestinian leaders recited their lines in the grand hall of the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday, many in the orchestra seats recognized the script.
“Heinous crimes,” charged Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. “Historic catastrophe.”
“Fanaticism,” countered Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. “Inhumanity.”
Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu have been at this for so long that between them they have addressed the world body 19 times, every year cajoling, lecturing, warning and guilt-tripping the international community into seeing their side of the bloody struggle between their two peoples. Their speeches are filled with grievance and bristling with resentment, as they summon the ghosts of history from hundreds and even thousands of years ago to make their case.
While each year finds some new twist, often nuanced, sometimes incendiary, the argument has been running long enough that the world has begun to move on. Where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict once dominated the annual meeting of the United Nations, this year it has become a side show as Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas compete for attention against seemingly more urgent crises like the civil war in Syria and the threat from the Islamic State.
“There are times when the entire world is focused on what they’re saying and they are the featured players,” said Mara Rudman, a former deputy special envoy for Middle East peace under President Obama. “In a year like this, they’re not the featured players on that global stage. But they’re still the featured players back home, and it’s still a big stage for their people.”
Beyond their constituents back home, both men had another target audience of one this year: Mr. Obama. With four months left in office, the president is thinking about asking the United Nations Security Council to lay out parameters for a solution to the conflict in hopes of push-starting a comatose peace process.
“Both sides want to weigh in with the international community ahead of that and give their side of the story,” said Philip Gordon, a former Middle East coordinator for Mr. Obama.
Mr. Netanyahu sternly rejected any such effort as intolerable interference. “We will not accept any attempt by the U.N. to dictate terms to Israel,” he told the assembled diplomats. “The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York.”
Mr. Abbas, for his part, said he would seek his own Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank. “We hope no one will cast a veto,” he said, referring to the Americans who have vetoed resolutions targeting Israel in the past.
Each leader tried to position himself as a man of peace who cannot find a partner to negotiate with. Mr. Abbas welcomed a French peace initiative and called for an international conference by the end of the year. Mr. Netanyahu welcomed an Egyptian initiative and proposed that he and Mr. Abbas address each other’s parliaments. (Neither mentioned a Russian effort to organize a Moscow peace conference.)
But they spent much of their time on stage recounting their indictments against the other side.
Mr. Abbas talked about “the atrocities” that Israel had committed, including the seizure of Palestinian land, the demolition of Palestinian homes, the blockade of Gaza and various provocations at Muslim holy sites.
Mr. Netanyahu complained of Palestinian children being “indoctrinated with hate” by leaders who talked of detonating a nuclear bomb in Israel, slitting the throats of Israelis and welcoming every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem.
“They’re retelling their own historical narratives each time they go up to the podium,” said Khaled Elgindy, a former adviser to the Palestinian leadership on peace negotiations. “It gets tailored to suit each individual moment, but the basic thrust is the same.”
As often happens in the Middle East, the argument about the present and the future quickly turned into one about the past. Mr. Abbas condemned “the notorious Balfour Declaration,” the 1917 decision by Britain, which controlled the area at the time, to support the creation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Mr. Abbas demanded “an apology to the Palestinian people for the catastrophes, miseries and injustices that it created.”
Mr. Netanyahu picked up on that. “Is he kidding?” he said. “And this is taken seriously here?” He said his counterpart’s comments proved the conflict was not about settlements, but about Israel’s right to exist.
These speeches over the years have often been dramatic affairs. Crowds gathered in the streets of Ramallah to watch on jumbo TV screens when Mr. Abbas sought United Nations membership or marked the raising of the Palestinian flag over the United Nations.
Mr. Netanyahu drew attention — and some scorn — a few years back when he held up a cartoon of a bomb to illustrate his fears of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. Last year, he excoriated the world body for its silence about Iranian threats to Israel, then went silent himself for 45 long seconds to make his point. The Jerusalem Post this week posted a reader quiz: “What should Netanyahu’s U.N. gimmick be this year?”
It can be hard for such seasoned presenters to find fresh ways to draw attention. For Mr. Abbas, his speech Thursday was his 11th straight to the General Assembly going back to 2006. For Mr. Netanyahu, it was his eighth, going back to his first stint in office, not counting a previous post as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations.
Mr. Netanyahu has had a particularly confrontational relationship with the United Nations, and this year was no exception. “Year after year I’ve stood at this very podium and slammed the U.N. for its obsessive bias against Israel,” he said. “And the U.N. deserved every scathing word.”
He referred to “the disgrace of the General Assembly”; “the joke called the U.N. Human Rights Council”; and “the circus” at the United Nations cultural agency.
“The U.N., begun as a moral force, has become a moral farce,” he said.
But noting Israel’s growing ties to Arab countries, Africa and Asia, Mr. Netanyahu predicted that the United Nations would change, comparing it to the last Japanese soldier emerging from the jungle three decades after the end of World War II.
Still, if the diplomats were not ready to embrace Israel, they were also focused elsewhere. It did not go unnoticed in Jerusalem that Mr. Obama devoted just one sentence to the Israeli-Palestinian issue in his final United Nations speech as president, compared with some years when the topic took up to a quarter of his address.
Next year, of course, Mr. Obama will be gone. But Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu might very well be back. “And,” Mr. Elgindy said, “we’ll hear similar speeches as we heard this year.”
