Away from the US-Israeli conflict over the settlements issue, the Israelis have found a bomb that is able to blow up the settlement that the Obama administration is striving to achieve. It would be wrong to make light of the persistence of the Netanyahu-Lieberman government on linking any progress in the peace process to the Palestinians' approval on Israel's identity as a ‘Jewish State'. There are diplomatic leads that this Israeli prerequisite is not widely opposed by the European governments or even within the Obama administration. On the contrary, it seems there is an ‘understanding' that this prerequisite is taken for granted. Also, there are declarations – ‘dubbed as slips of the tongue' – by the US President himself and his envoy to the region Senator George Mitchell, which point to Israel as a ‘Jewish State'. To have a more detailed stance by Obama on this matter, one can go back to what he said in Iowa during his electoral campaign on 24/12/2007: “I believe that everyone is aware what should be the basis of the solution between Israel and Palestinians. The Palestinians must understand the right of return in a manner that preserves Israel as a Jewish State. This might involve the payment of indemnities by the Israelis and other concessions, but in the end Israel should not give up its identity as a Jewish State”… Did Obama retract this stance or is the right of return not an obstacle anymore to settlement? Israel's prerequisite for its acknowledgement as a ‘Jewish State' is not merely one that no Palestinian party – no matter how ‘moderate' – can accept, but is also a prerequisite that could rewrite the history of the conflict, whereby 1948 would become the end, not the beginning of this conflict. In other words, it would be the year where Israel ‘retrieved' the land that was promised to the Jews. According to this Israeli view, the Palestinians would've turned in 1948 ‘into Zionists', as Palestinian researcher Ahmad Samih Khalidi wrote in the Guardian a few days ago. They would've also recognized that the Palestinian land had always belonged to the Jews, and that what had taken place in that painful year was a ‘rectification' of the Jewish dispersion around the world. Hence, the issue is no longer linked to the stance of Fatah or Hamas regarding a settlement with Israel, and who is extremist or moderate. The issue now is that the Israeli leaders are attempting to remove the Jewish guilt complex – and it is indeed so – by asking the Palestinians to accept to erase their past. Even Hamas acknowledges now, albeit implicitly and in a politically-dependent manner, that Israel with the 1948 borders is an acknowledgeable state – if it approves the peace conditions that are set forth by the international community. Hamas is aware that the slogan of removing Israel from the 1948 borders has been surpassed by reality. Also, the Islamic movement is not a supporter of the other solution that once called for the establishment of one state for Jews, Muslims, and Christians in the framework of equality in nationality. Putting forth the ‘Jewishness of the State' by Israelis at this time, while there are serious intentions from all parties along with the new US administration to reach a solution, will be the most important obstacle facing this solution. Accepting this idea directly implies the elimination of the right of return of the refugees – and who among Arabs or Palestinians would accept that? The Netanyahu government has opted for a prerequisite to thwart peace that is the most acceptable on the international level. The other international demands – such as suspending settlements, withdrawing from occupied territories, and ceasing aggressions on Palestinians – cannot all be confronted by Israel in the face of international pressures. It is why Israel set the condition that is most capable of putting a stop to the solution, i.e. demanding the acknowledgement of its Jewish identity, without there being a real international capacity or wish to confront this condition. On the contrary, there is an international stance wavering between understanding and acceptance, which must be taken into account by Palestinians and Arabs in their negotiations with the US side… unless it is another concession they intend on offering.
