Newtown Synagogue Community Hall
November 17, 2011
It was standing room only in Newtown for a talk given by David Landau, Israel correspondent for The Economist and former Editor-in-Chief of Ha’aretz. Mr Landau was brought to Sydney by the Australian branch of the New Israel Fund (NIF) - a leading organisation committed to equality and democracy for all Israelis.
November 17, 2011
Summary
by Janet Kossy
While claiming no ability to predict the future outcomes of the Arab Spring, David Landau addressed the topic with a few lessons and possibilities. The first was a caution against typecasting. Particularly he referred to assumptions about religiosity in relation to politics. With strengthening religious revivalism, he argued that the assumed connection with xenophobia, exclusivism and fanaticism now needs to be challenged. Examples include Turkey, and also the newly elected government in Tunisia which is Islamist, but also progressive and democratic. We need to look at evidence in each case rather than pigeonhole religious parties.
Then, in speaking about Israeli responses to the popular uprisings, Landau said it was important to acknowledge deep anxiety. While Netanyahu is concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood might take over power in Egypt, his real reason for worry, according to Landau, is the release of the pent up Arab masses. The status quo in Israel may be threatened even though the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not currently front and centre of Arab concerns, because the Arab people are deeply unhappy with the ongoing occupation.
Landau pointed out that Mubarak in Egypt and King Abdullah in Jordan subscribed to the two-state solution, but because of relationships with Washington they accepted lack of progress and kept the feelings of their people in check. There has been no progress toward the two-state solution or resolution of the conflict under Netanyahu. More so than these previous leaders, the Arab masses have grown impatient with the seemingly endless occupation of the Palestinians. Landau suggested this impatience and a surge of genuine feeling in the Arab world may work for the good.
Landau’s talk turned to the role of people who want peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Using first person plural to include himself, he suggested that we who want peace have been smug, and have failed to exercise what influence we could toward the goal of peace. He said that there have been opportunities where peace agreement was within reach, but instead of screaming for the protagonists to “do it!”, those of us who want peace have criticised, been perfectionists, and have been guilty of failing to seize the moment.
Rabin and Arafat signed an agreement at Oslo, but for the peace camp this wasn’t good enough, Landau observed. We didn’t give it our full support, but instead wasted time criticising and cavilling, watching as each side gradually lost support.
While claiming no ability to predict the future outcomes of the Arab Spring, David Landau addressed the topic with a few lessons and possibilities. The first was a caution against typecasting. Particularly he referred to assumptions about religiosity in relation to politics. With strengthening religious revivalism, he argued that the assumed connection with xenophobia, exclusivism and fanaticism now needs to be challenged. Examples include Turkey, and also the newly elected government in Tunisia which is Islamist, but also progressive and democratic. We need to look at evidence in each case rather than pigeonhole religious parties.
Then, in speaking about Israeli responses to the popular uprisings, Landau said it was important to acknowledge deep anxiety. While Netanyahu is concerned that the Muslim Brotherhood might take over power in Egypt, his real reason for worry, according to Landau, is the release of the pent up Arab masses. The status quo in Israel may be threatened even though the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not currently front and centre of Arab concerns, because the Arab people are deeply unhappy with the ongoing occupation.
Landau pointed out that Mubarak in Egypt and King Abdullah in Jordan subscribed to the two-state solution, but because of relationships with Washington they accepted lack of progress and kept the feelings of their people in check. There has been no progress toward the two-state solution or resolution of the conflict under Netanyahu. More so than these previous leaders, the Arab masses have grown impatient with the seemingly endless occupation of the Palestinians. Landau suggested this impatience and a surge of genuine feeling in the Arab world may work for the good.
Landau’s talk turned to the role of people who want peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Using first person plural to include himself, he suggested that we who want peace have been smug, and have failed to exercise what influence we could toward the goal of peace. He said that there have been opportunities where peace agreement was within reach, but instead of screaming for the protagonists to “do it!”, those of us who want peace have criticised, been perfectionists, and have been guilty of failing to seize the moment.
Rabin and Arafat signed an agreement at Oslo, but for the peace camp this wasn’t good enough, Landau observed. We didn’t give it our full support, but instead wasted time criticising and cavilling, watching as each side gradually lost support.
Seven years later, Barak and Arafat, along with Clinton, were ready to agree, but we kibbitzers kept saying the agreement was not good enough. There should have been a huge outcry saying “do it!” but instead we watched. The result was more years of terror and bloodshed.
In 2005 Israel’s leader was Ariel Sharon, man of war, father of the Israeli settlements who had done everything possible to thwart Palestinian statehood. He must have had a Damascus moment, because he decided to smash the settlement movement by removing the settlements from Gaza. But, Landau asked, where were the people in Australia, America and elsewhere to say,“This is a historic moment! This man has curbed the settlers, which had to be done to promote peace!”
In 2005 Israel’s leader was Ariel Sharon, man of war, father of the Israeli settlements who had done everything possible to thwart Palestinian statehood. He must have had a Damascus moment, because he decided to smash the settlement movement by removing the settlements from Gaza. But, Landau asked, where were the people in Australia, America and elsewhere to say,“This is a historic moment! This man has curbed the settlers, which had to be done to promote peace!”
Three years ago Olmert and Abbas were meeting secretly, and again were close to an agreement. But Olmert was ousted because of scandal. Abbas now says publicly that if Olmert had stayed in office for three more months, the peace would have been negotiated.
Landau referred to revelations about negotiations in Condoleeza Rice’s recent book. He also said that an international statesman who was then in power told him recently that if he had known at the time how close Olmert and Abbas were, he would have pulled out all stops. He would have marshaled pressure by getting the UN Security Council to meet in Jerusalem until the agreement was settled.
Landau continued with a plea to those of us who want peace. He said we need to be more vigilant, to put pressure on the protagonists and bombard the ambassadors. We can spell it out that the agreements are already there, and these are the building blocks. We can say to Abbas, to the Israeli side and to Obama that a plan for peace exists, it is not a fraud. They pulled back but were nearly there. Hamas and the PA are divided but can’t deny they were nearly there. It is available.
Landau concluded, “The two state solution is there for the taking. It just needs courage. I find myself here in Newtown mourning missed opportunities, but saying let’s not miss another opportunity.”
A half-hour question period following the talk enabled the audience to put forward their concerns regarding Israel’s current situation and its future.
