Lest it not be clear or be forgotten, Palestinians and other Arabs are spelling out what a peace settlement in their view entails: The two-state formula in accordance with the agreed references, particularly the Arab peace initiative. These policy positions, recently expressed by the chief Palestinian negotiator in Palestine, and in neighboring Jordan where Arab foreign ministers met to review of the Middle East peace process, were meant to reiterate the ways of reaching peace. Given how many years the Palestinians have been announcing the terms of statehood, it might seem odd to even have to mention it, but in light of the ascendancy of Benjamin Netanyahu in Israeli politics, a reiteration of peace conditions is in order. Netanyahu inaugurated his new government with the pronouncement of the death of the Annapolis agreement.

It is true that a year of negotiations did not produce tangible results, but no results of any kind are being anticipated now. Netanyahu failed to bring the Kadima Party into his ruling coalition because he refused to comply with Kadima leader Tzipi Livni’s demand that he support the creation of a Palestinian state. The new Israeli government brought together every shade of Israeli extremism. It consists of those who reject peace, those who want to expel the remaining Arabs from Israel, and those who maintain that Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians and Arabs is one of permanent warfare. In light of this, it is not hard to predict how the Netanyahu-Lieberman-Barak government, backed by settler and extreme religious parties, will function.

As for the Arab peace initiative, which envisages recognition of Israel by all Arab states in exchange for Tel Aviv vacating all Arab territories it occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem, it will not remain on the table forever, although it is debatable what effect withdrawing the initiative will have on Israel which never accepted it to begin with.

Israel can never be talked about without underlining its utter dependence on the bottomless economic, military, technological and diplomatic support of the US. But Lieberman and Netanyahu could lead Israel into a head-on collision with President Barack Obama who wishes to see significant progress toward a two-state solution and soon. Obama is working hard to improve relations with the wider Muslim world. Netanyahu and Lieberman may become the biggest barrier to his hopes. Inter-Palestinian rivalry was not mentioned in the recent announcements by the Arabs even though a full settlement probably cannot be achieved in the absence of Palestinian unity. If Fatah is playing the lead in the process, Hamas must, too, have a role. But the US and Europe have excluded Hamas from the peace process because it refuses to meet three demands: accept the two-state solution; accept past treaties and agreements; and renounce violence. Now, ironically, Israel under Netanyahu and Lieberman also does not accept the two-state solution; Lieberman refuses to accept Israel’s past commitments; and Israel has never renounced violence. Israel under Netanyahu and Lieberman mirrors Hamas’ politics. Will Israel now become just as unacceptable as Hamas to Europe and the US? No. Therein lies the problem, not in the intransigence or obduracy of any Israeli politician.

A US plan for Castro brothers

President Obama can lay out a plan for the Castro brothers to enjoy a slow easing of sanctions if they also move toward joining the region’s liberty club, said the Christian Science Monitor in an editorial yesterday. Excerpts:

How to deal with Cuba has vexed US presidents since communist Fidel Castro took power in 1959. Now it is President Obama’s turn. But this time, more than US-Cuban ties are at stake.

Cuba-watchers are waiting to see how much he will ease a US embargo on Cuba before an April 17 summit of Western Hemisphere leaders. Already, he has decided to allow family visits for Cuban-Americans and to ease their ability to send money to relatives. But will he also lift a ban on all American travel to the island, or only for certain people such as scholars? Will he end the entire trade embargo, or only parts of it?

Or will he be the first US president to lay out a road map for restoring relations with Havana by tying a gradual end in sanctions to Cuba taking steps toward democracy? That would be the best course.

Despite nearly 50 years of US sanctions, Cuba is hardly a democracy. But that wasn’t the embargo’s primary goal during the Cold War. Rather, sanctions helped curtail Castro’s ability to conduct mischief in other countries. Since then, the US has found sanctions against authoritarian regimes can bring mixed results in pushing a country to adopt either democracy or, at the least, a market economy that could eventually lead to democracy.

Cuba has done neither. Its dictatorship still cruelly punishes dissidents and its failed socialist policies have forced Cubans to live on less than a dollar a day. And while the rest of Latin America left their military dictators behind in the 1980s to embrace democracy as the best guardian of economic growth, they also left Cuba behind.