The April 27 news that Palestinian factions have taken steps toward a unity government (see Fatah and Hamas Announce Outline of Deal) has created a storm of reactions, especially in the Israeli and United States governments. There have been similar responses to Palestinian unilateral moves toward statehood.

Notably, however, even in Israel not all the reactions are negative. Americans committed to the cause of Middle East peace can read Israeli and Palestinian news outlets to understand the diverse range of positions often ignored in less nuanced approaches here in the U.S.

Below are pertinent excerpts from Israel’s daily newspaper Haaretz (for this reader, Israel’s NY Times equivalent) and the Ma’an News Agency, which calls itself ” the main source of independent news from Palestine.”

Israel can redeem itself by recognizing a Palestinian state
Haaretz Editorial
Israel can improve its status if it takes its fate into its own hands. It can be the first to welcome the establishment of a Palestinian sister-state, wish it luck, hold out its hand in peace and express a desire to discuss borders, refugees and settlements issues, this time on an entirely different level − as two sovereign states.

Perhaps such a courageous and generous step will help Israel shake off the stranglehold of delegitimization closing in on it, reduce the responsibility it has been charged with for the refugee problem and the occupation, and shift the conflict from the religious to the territorial dimension. On the tactical level, Israel will be able to pass the responsibilities required of a state to the Palestinian side as well, whatever its government.

What matters is peace, not with whom peace is made by Yoel Marcus
The reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is not necessarily a negative development, if the Palestinians are bent on an agreement. It creates an opening for an Obama initiative to create order here, while neutralizing terrorism.

In the absence of leaders, it’s up for Israelis to make peace by Akiva Eldar
Netanyahu’s demand that Fatah concede its peace with Hamas in favor of peace with its neighbor is an indication mainly of hysteria. If the prime minister were genuinely interested in promoting the two-state solution, he would willingly accept Hamas’ readiness to accept the conditions of the organization that signed the Oslo agreement, which is taking steps against the use of violence and is committed to the Arab peace plan.

Masha’al, Abbas to sign unity deal
The announcement sparked a firestorm of criticism from Israel, which said it would damage chances for peace, but Abbas said the interim government would not dictate policy when it came to negotiations with Israel, which would remain the mandate of the Palestine Liberation Organization that he heads.

Will Palestine be born this fall? by Daoud Kuttab
The failure of the peace talks because of Israel’s intransigence and the inability of the Quartet, coupled with the world praise for the performance of the Fayyad government, have all paved the way for the possible unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Over 140 countries have indicated that they would support such a declaration when it comes up for a vote at the UN. This number might go even higher once the reluctant countries of Europe make up their mind

The Rev. Mark S. Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), and 32 Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders, said in a letter that a new peace initiative by former Israeli government, intelligence and security officials offers a useful sign for Middle East peace. The leaders, writing as the National Interreligious Leadership Initiative for Peace in the Middle East (NILI), sent the letter to President Obama April 14.

Speaking of the latest Israeli initiative, as well as the Arab Peace Initiative and the Geneva Accord, the leaders said:  “The main elements of these peace initiatives reflect years of official and informal, unofficial negotiations,” the religious leaders wrote. They wrote that “the peace initiatives include creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, based on the 1967 borders with possible limited land swaps as mutually agreed; a fair negotiated resolution of the issue of refugees that does not threaten the demography of Israel; the sharing of Jerusalem by Israel and the Palestinian state with both having their capitals in the city; and Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights as part of a peace agreement with Syria.”

NILI is an initiative composed of a broad range of Jewish, Christian and Muslim national organizations in support of a common, substantive message for Middle East peace.  It’s focus is on building support for strong U.S. leadership for a two-state solution to the conflict that brings security and recognition to Israel and establishes a viable and independent state for the Palestinians—two states living side by side in peace and security—with peace agreements between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.

As part of our academic careers my husband and I had the privilege twice of living and teaching in the Arab Muslim world and thus have special interest in news reports from the region. While in Syria we experienced the conflict between the Assad regime and its political adversaries that culminated in the 1982 destruction of the historic city of Hama. In Yemen in 1992 we observed campaigning for the first democratic parliamentary elections after the contentious reuniting of the north and south.

While in Damascus, we met Joshua Landis, then a Fulbright graduate student. Now he is a University of Oklahoma professor married to a Syrian and regularly visits the country. He uses this unique perspective for a Syria commentary that combines his own and others’ analyses with translations from Arab news reports at his blog.

An added bonus of our Damascus Fulbright year was visiting relatives in Lebanon’s Bekaa valley and seeing firsthand the damage from sectarian divisions and strife. Years later I got acquainted with Rami G. Khouri, one of Lebanon’s most respected journalists. More precisely than most western commentators, Khouri can place the current uprisings in the context of many decades’ worth of post-colonial citizen-led movements.

Read more: “No surprise: Spring always follows Winter” in the Daily Star (Lebanon), 13 April 2011.

On Apirl 19, the Los Angeles Times printed a report detailing growing international pressure on the State of Israel to produce a viable proposal that would renew negotiations toward the establishment of a Palestinian state. The plan will most likely be unveiled in a speech by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This policy speech might be delivered before a joint session of the U.S. Congress.

One might think that a speech signaling a different Israeli approach to peace-building with Palestinian neighbors might best be delivered to an audience of Palestinians. Or, at least, that such a speech might be delivered in Israel.

Here in Chicago, “The Friendly Confines” refers to Wrigley Field, home of the ever-hopeful Cubs. It seems that for PM Netanyahu, there is no friendlier place on earth than the U.S. Congress. The likelihood that this speech will be delivered in the U.S. to a U.S. audience should give U.S. citizens a clue about their government’s role in perpetuating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its preference for Israeli perspectives.

Whenever the speech might be delivered, details of the “Netanyahu Plan” are being leaked to elicit response. Yesterday, in response to some unofficial details, Palestinian Anglican Christian and Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Hanan Ashrawi, said that the plan already seems to be little more than “a reinvention of Israel’s occupation.”

Christians in the United States should be careful, then, when Netanyahu’s speech is finally delivered. Some will hail him as a courageous leader for peace. Others will criticize him for giving too much away to the Palestinians. But watch carefully about details of where the speech is made. Why should it be assumed that an oration about Palestinians which cannot bear being recited to Palestinians would come close to addressing their most basic needs? If such a speech is indeed given in the chamber of our country’s legislative branch — to an audience of our elected representatives — how will we be implicated in what will follow?

The NPR program, All Things Considered, had an interesting segment last Wednesday about the peace process in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The title, “U.S. Hopes To Jump-Start Israel-Palestinian Talks,” is a bit misleading since the piece discusses a multitude of potential options and justifications for the way forward in this region of the world.

The most interesting point for me was the potential for quite a few “leaders” in the process to emerge. Will the US be at the forefront? Will the Palestinians opt to go through channels at the UN? Will Israel unilaterally make a move? How will the other actors in the Middle East position themselves in this new environment? Definitely worth checking out.

Read and/or Listen to the Segment

Original post: April 7, 2011. After weeks of mounting tensions and cross-boundary violence, Hamas has worked with all militant groups within Gaza to ensure a cessation of rocket attacks from the coastal territory. See this analysis from the Israeli daily newspaper, Ha’aretz. The ELCA’s Churchwide Strategy for Engagement in Israel and Palestine (available here in PDF format) seeks “An end to terrorism and violence by individuals, groups, and states” (2.B.1.b).

Update: April 8, 2011. Unfortunately, the cease-fire has not held among all parties in Gaza. As Ha’aretz reports today, militants in Gaza fired several mortars into Israeli territory, prompting an IDF military strike. The Ma’an News Agency reports that the status of the ceasefire is unclear, given the refusal of some militant groups to lay their weapons down.

The Forward had an excellent article on Wednesday entitle “Did a Private Meeting Prompt Goldstone To Change His Mind?“. The article gives an analysis of the events leading up Goldstone’s Washington Post op-ed, what the op-ed might actually have been saying and what has happened since than.

If you missed it check out the earlier post on the op-ed “Recants” Goldstone Report”.

Today prominent leaders within Israeli society will officially reveal a new Israeli Peace Initiative (pdf). This initiative is meant to be a response to the Arab Peace Initiative issued by the Arab League in 2002 and again in 2007. Though it does not get in to much detail it is broad in its scope touching on issues from refugees to Jerusalem to the Golan Heights.

It has been officially welcomed by both Americans for Peace Now and J Street. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also received a copy on Sunday and is reported as saying he looks forward to reading it.

For more information read the NY Times article Prominent Israelis Will Propose a Peace Plan.

Ha’aretz blogger Natasha Mozgovaya has recently published an interesting article on the range of Israeli policy options presented to the annual conference of the Anti-Defamation League. The headline is a bit misleading, I think; the fascinating thing here is the diversity of opinion on what Israel should do in this moment of history. The options range from unilaterally separating from Palestinians to embracing the change sweeping across the region by developing stronger diplomatic relationships. There is no question that the landscape of the Middle East is changing. Because of its broad base of political, military and economic power, many paths are available to the State of Israel. And because of that power, its chosen path will have implications for many.