Israel-Palestine : Is There Another Way?
September 2, 2010 by Team SAISA
Filed under Analysis, foreign policy, geopolitics
Background
The Quartet of Powers – the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations – had been discussing a draft statement inviting the two sides to talks intended to conclude a treaty in one year. The Quartet said in June that peace talks would be expected to conclude in 24 months, but the new draft says 12 months. The Palestinian Authority government intends to have established all the attributes of statehood by mid-2011.Diplomats say the idea that a unilateral declaration of statehood could win support if talks do not start or collapse in the next 12 months is gaining interest.
Netanyahu benefits from a move to direct talks, countering the notion abroad that he is not a genuine peace-seeker while Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, by contrast, has a lot to lose politically. His political future is at stake if he does not get the opposite number to agree.
Confidence amongst Palestinians or Israelis on direct talks leading to a peace treaty soon, or that one would be quickly implemented if it were ever agreed, is low. In Israel’s coalition, the focus is on the 26 September settlement moratorium deadline. The majority of hawks in Netanyahu’s inner cabinet are opposed to extending the settlement freeze, but a minority seek some compromise that Abbas could swallow. One idea is to allow building in big established settlements that Israel expects to keep in a peace deal but not in those it would hand over in a land swap with the Palestinians.
The quartet statement says that direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues should “lead to a settlement, negotiated between the parties, that ends the occupation [...] and results in” a state at peace with Israel, as per Reuters.
The White House has staked considerable political capital on the negotiations, which are the result of intense pressure exerted on both sides.
For the Cameras
Netanyahu
He was entering direct peace negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to reach an “historic compromise” that would enable both peoples to live in peace for
generations ( 01 September).
“President Abbas, you are my “partner in peace”. It is up to us to overcome the agonising conflict between our peoples and to forge a new beginning.”
Mahmoud Abbas Bowing to domestic pressure he has threatened to end the talks if the settlement deadline of 26 September is not abrogated. As per a CNN commentary, however, he has expressed his confidence that the talks would result in a meaningful action plan acceptable to both the sides. Let us see. He needs better interpreters! (Pun intended).
On the Agenda
At stake are four basic issues viz, the two state solution, the Israeli settlements, Jerusalem and the Refugees. Hamas are the detractors and have condemned the process and therefore could become a major stumbling block in the negotiations.
Two-State Solution Obama wants to create a Palestine state based on West Bank and Gaza alogside Israel. Netanyahu wants the Palestinian state demilitarised lest they become “Iranian-sponsored terror enclaves.” The Palestinians, while not objecting to this demand have kept it open for the negotiations. As per Reuters, the issue has been severely complicated by the fact that Gaza and the West Bank are run by different Palestinian parties, which are virulently opposed to each other. Hamas Islamists, who govern Gaza, denounce the notion of direct talks and do not recognise Israel’s right to exist. Hamas’ military wing, the Izz al-Din Qassam Brigades, claimed responsibility for an attack, which killed four Israelis in West Bank, calling it a “heroic operation”. While Netanyahu has not blinked yet these attacks could tilt the negotiations in favour of detractors of talks in Israel.
Israeli settlements Mahmoud Abbas has called for a total freeze on the expansion of settlements built by Israel on land it captured in the 1967 war. That would be in line with a commitment Israel made under a 2003 US-backed peace ‘road map’. Netanyahu imposed a 10-month halt to new housing starts in West Bank settlements that expires on 26 September. He did not apply the measure to East Jerusalem, captured from Jordan in 1967, and has not committed to extending the West Bank moratorium. Palestinians say all settlements should be evacuated, and along with the World Court and major powers, consider them illegal. Israel has said it intends to keep several major settlements in any future peace deal, a move that could result in territorial swaps with the Palestinians.
Jerusalem Palestinians want East Jerusalem, which includes the Old City and its sites sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians, to be the capital of the state they aim to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Netanyahu has said Jerusalem would remain Israel’s “indivisible and eternal” capital. Israel’s claim to the eastern part of Jerusalem is not recognised internationally.
Refugees Palestinian negotiators have signalled they would accept “a just and agreed-upon” solution for refugees who fled or were forced to leave in the war of Israel’s creation in 1948. Israel says any resettlement of Palestinian refugees must occur outside of its borders.
Early Prognosis
The scars are deep, mistrust complete and the domestic pressures intense to holding any meaningful give and take at this stage. Whether Netanyahu will be able to stop the construction in the West Bank settlements will primarily decide the fate of the talks as 26 September does not give him enough levey to dither further. He will have to take a call on that count. It is no gainsaying the fact that Obama has a lot at stake here in the field of foreign policy and would have pressurised the two privately to at least agree to talk directly at regular intervals. If anything these talks could deliver agenda for further talks and to that extent would not be termed as failure.
Netanyahu’s coalition could very well abandon him if he agrees to extend the soon-to-be-expired ten-month moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank. Abbas, meanwhile, lacks the formal support of any faction of his government heading into the negotiations. Abbas, plagued by the Hamas, has a problem with the back door and has to find a solution. Netanyahu knows this and is likely to play hard ball initially for his domestic audience. While Abbas and Netanyahu are risking their governments, there is a ray of hope that signs of momentum will compel the critics to squelch their opposition.
Coming into the talks, NY Times on 21 August had articulated that, “There is little confidence — close to none — on either side that the Obama administration’s goal of reaching a comprehensive deal in one year can be met.” Now that Michelle is on board and Obama has rolled up his sleeves – there is every reason to believe that there will be some headway. Quoting from the same post:
Haim Assa, who served as a close political consultant to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the 1990s and continues to advise centrist Israeli leaders, said that even though the talks were between the Israelis and Palestinians, the power of success was with the Americans.
“The main player is the United States,” he said. “All the cards are in its hands. When the U.S. leaves Iraq it will want to put together a coalition of Israel, Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinians. These talks are central to that happening. If they push and take it seriously, they can do it.”
The two heads of states are on their way back after what they publically called “cordial and constructive” talks where they decided to work on the “framework of further Negotiations”. The two are meeting again after two weeks. Speculations on the private component of the talks between the two heads of states fighting for their country’s honour and their own survival may not be pragmatic right now.
While Obama is “cautiously hopeful” to find a solution, he has put the entire weight of his government behind success of the talks in some measure palatable to the Israelis and the Muslim World. It is here that he wants to redeem some lost ground on Bush’s War on Terror being called the War on Islam.
Can he risk considering a one state solution based on secular values and principles? Can he convince the two to beat de Klerk and Mandela? The questions are many and there is always more than one way – the other way. Risking the untrodden utopian path may finally be the best solution. The challenges are too many and the detractors infinite – one mistake and this fragile effort may blow into a naught.
Going into the peace talks early in his presidency Obama has the advantage of time to see the process through. For now, he has his eye on the ball – let us see if he can putt well! There is more than a solution at stake.
Having followed this middle east subject for some time, I wish to compliment you on a well rounded article putting the current situation and prognosis in perspective.
Middle East peace process has always been the test of wills for the parties involved including the Quartet at the best of times. The two nation theory has failed many times over as both sides do not wish to compromise – the detractors are too many, a coalition Likud party and a Hamas backed violent opposition are just the tip of the iceberg. Socially the two societies have been brought up on so much of venom that there will always be some opposition which will manifest itself in rise in violence levels causing the talks to fail.
If Obama can pull this off, which I doubt, he would be known as the best statesman ever.
Palestine draws a lot of material moral and ideological sp from Lebanon and always has. Can there be peace if this connect is not broken/short circuited, because Lebanon is against the very idea of Israel and has the tacit sp of Iran and Iraq.
The 2006 war with Lebanon left Israel bruised and low on confidence. 15 Merkava’s were hit by the Lebanese of which 5 were completely gutted with IED’s and/or short rg anti tk weaponry. Israeli heptrs with full comb loads of pers were shot down…some of the worst comb disasters in Israel in recent years. The Israeli rabbi spoke publicly against the war…at least some of them did.
With Israel threatening war against Iran to hit at their nuc project, and Iran saying they will saturate Israel with msl strikes and worse, the US is playing a tricky balancing game there. Hillary confesses that her job has worn her out…so whats next?!!
I grow old, I grow old
I wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled
says it all
Is there a sense of deja vu… somewhere there?
You said it. If Obama can resolve this tangle by one nation, two nation or a combination of compromises without burrning the region,he would covet the nobel peace prize conferred on him earlier.
The dimensions of this conflict are indeed complex. This article was the first salvo…two weeks down the line we may see a totally different ball game at Sharm-el Sheikh where the initial euphoria may evaporate to Jaise the or worse.
It is too early to predicate a solution but as we follow the media, currently the odds are against any meaningful prognosis. Obama may have to wait a while longer to stake claim as the best statesman.
As expected Iran has fired the first salvo following the talks by Ahmadinejad exhorting Palestinians to continue their armed struggle. This report is as provocative as it can get. Soon Lebanon and Hezbollah will stand up alongside Hamas to blow the talks out. Let us see, this is only the first salvo as we say.
No one understands the larger Israel plan. They want to have only one state and throw the Palestinians into the sea. All the Islamic countries will not let this happen and the issue will never be settled. Obama can do what he wishes here but there will be no positive result.
Despite Egypt two weeks from now, Sept. 26 is the next flashpoint. Both leaders, in the meanwhile, will be subjected to intense domestic pressure to stand up to their respective demands. If even one blinks, it will be years before they meet to talk again. And there are enough detractors in the Islamic World for whom this conflict is their personal Jihad against the Zionists. At the same time the anti talks factions in a coalition Likud and in Israel in general will do their best to seek a better deal – a deal Netanyahu may find tough to meet.
There are monumental mountains to be traversed by Ms Hillary Clinton in making a dent where her husband couldn’t succeed. As an interlocutor she faces an uphill task success or failure of which would impact her political career.
Iraqi security forces are not likely to be fully ready to fill the vacuum created by America’s pullout. The axiomatic inference is that an Iraq under intense internal discord and an overt interference by Shia Iran may soon requisition US services again.
The state of managing the change in relations between Israel and Palestine is such that status quo has virtually become a certainty with out going through the cycle of Change Management highlighted in the picture below
On September 03, close on the heels of the talks, militant groups in the Gaza Strip said that they had joined forces to step up attacks against Israel, possibly including suicide bombings. More from Guardian here.
The picture of status quo will come true at a cost paid by both sides in blood and agony.
The talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been launched with great hope and uncertainty. The basic questions are, “Will Netanyahu agree to Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders? and will Abbas forfeit the Palestinian ‘right of return’?”
This is a crucial foreign policy initiative for Obama and would send his approval ratings soaring but then this won’t be the first time talks between Israel and Palestine fail, if they do. Obama should take heart and press on despite the opposition from hard line Muslim opposition to the talks.
The recent round has already started a bout of angry exchanges between Iran and PA. The Hamas are sticking to their guns claiming to be the sole representatives of Palestinians. Netanyahu hardened his stand amidst growing domestic pressure repeating that any agreement would be based on two pillars: security arrangements implemented on the ground, not just on paper, and Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s talk about an “historic compromise” and said there would be no compromises on core issues such as Jerusalem and borders.
US President Barack Obama urged Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to extend the settlement moratorium so long as the talks begun this month are bearing fruit.
Obama pledged to help keep fast-track peace talks from breaking down, and said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas knows “the window for creating a Palestinian state is closing.”
Amidst this cacophony of dissenting and condescending noises do we see another attempt at middle east peace torn to pieces?