I’d like to reminisce on the path towards the current impasse in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and the chance of future success.
The process began with two stances the Israeli stance – peace talks must begin immediately and unconditionally. On the other hand Abbas wanted a complete freeze in settlement construction in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This lead to a complete stall in the peace process, with Israel eventually conceding to a halt in construction in the West Bank. Thereafter the demands racked up, Abbas demanding recognition of a Palestinian state within the 67’ borders. After weeks of non-decision Abbas, with the backing of the Arab league, decided to accept indirect negotiations. Finally with the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem, hopes of a resumed negotiation have been dashed.
Abbas and the Arab league are now claiming that Israel is the catalyst for this failure. I will now attempt to deconstruct this allegation.
Abbas’ initial demand of a complete halt in settlements, would have been an unprecedented step in Israel’s history. Indeed every single Israeli government – whether left or right - built settlements and Israel’s offer of a West Bank freeze remains a unique step. Settlements are unambiguously illegal under international law. However right and fact tend to differ on a practical level and Abbas failed to recognize that the best and permanent way to end settlements was to reach a final status agreement.
Abbas then demanded a state within the 67’ borders, implicitly saying, ‘give me everything I demand before we negotiate’. Again one may argue that the Palestinians have a right to a state as per resolution 242 and therefore Abbas was merely demanding what was rightfully his. Yet it is Israel’s right as a sovereign country to be free from terror attacks, if international law was adhered to there would be no need for negotiations – Israel would be at peace and the Palestinians would have their state. In actual fact Hamas continues to shower rockets into Sderot and the incitement by the PA and Hamas continues – brainwashing children to hate. Furthermore the purpose of negotiations is to transform ‘rights’ into ‘facts’ with each party making concessions in order to achieve more in their particular area of interested. While legal systems around the world remain imperfect, there will be a dichotomy between right and fact.
The final step to the breakdown was Israel’s recent announcement of new settlements. Let me make this clear, this was an illogical and illegal (while there was doubt of the legal status of East Jerusalem due to the ambiguous wording of resolution 242, this was solved by the ICC’s ruling on the issue) move on the part of the Israeli government. That being said Abbas’ surprise at this ’betrayal’ is equally illogical. The Israelis did what they said they would do – built settlements in East Jerusalem and as illegal as it is Abbas entered into the negotiations knowing that Israel had promised only to stop settlements outside of East Jerusalem. Indeed the Israelis made no attempt to hide their intention having built settlements in Gilo (East Jerusalem) mere months before.
One may argue that this is what the Road Map to Peace dictates, yet the Palestinians remain to fulfill many of the requirements on their side of the bargain.
When analyzing the negotiations one must take into account a number of factors – Bibi is attempting to balance the needs of his right wing support base with what is required for peace negotiations. There are two diametrically opposed goals. On the one hand Bibi must make enough concessions to satisfy the Palestinians that he is serious about peace. On the other hand if he makes too many concessions it could result in a breakdown of the coalition, leaving him in no place to negotiate peace.
On the other side of the fence can Abbas offer a real peace, what will peace with the PA achieve in Hamas run Gaza? Will a peace with Abbas end the rocket barrage on Sderot? Furthermore the PA have become viewed by many Palestinians as a tool of the Israeli system, Abbas therefore needed to prove to the Palestinian street that he could play ‘hard ball’ or risk his credibility, this was exasperated by his initial rejection of the Goldstone findings in the Human Rights Council. Again this current impasse is a message to those more radical elements of Palestinian society that Abbas can stand up to the Israelis. Abbas’ ‘joker up his sleeve’ is violence, he now stands at a forke – either wait for Israeli concessions, soften his approach and lose credibility or force Israel to accept his conditions through violence as was done by Arafat after Camp David. The recent East Jerusalem riots are an indication and a warning sign to Israel.
Ultimately the question remains what are the chances of success for negotiations? One needs to look back at the annals of history in order to determine the answer to this question.
The history of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations is a long and bumpy road, beginning with the Yishuv’s relationship with the Nashashibi family, who used the Jewish settlements for money and supplies to fight their foes however according to renowned historian Benny Morris at no point did this clan accept their rights to the land. In 1925, a small Jewish organization called Brit Shalom approached notable Arabs and Jews proposing a bi-national state; this was summarily rejected by both sides. Since then the Palestinians would be offered a state in every shape and form and they would reject them all. Two notable exceptions (the Geneva Accord does not count as it was extra-governmental) are the Taba summit – however this summit was doomed to failure from the start as there was inadequate time till Israeli elections and the lack of the heads of state (who is the only person able to make the hardest concessions according to Dennis Ross). The other instance is the Arab Peace Initiative – which required unilateral steps on the part of the Israelis with no reciprocal steps on the part of the Palestinians and a rigid refusal on the part of the Arab nations to alter any elements but may constitute a missed opportunity for Israel. Even this initiative failed to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
In conclusion, when the Palestinians sit down to negotiate they see themselves conceding seventy percent of what was mandatory Palestine before the negotiations have even begun. While the Palestinians continue to instill in their children the right of return and the right to the entirety of ‘Palestine’, in contradiction to international law, negotiations can never succeed. At the same time the Israelis need to give up on dreams, dreams of the West Bank. Peace remains as elusive as ever most due to a lack in the fundamentals required before peace can be achieved – most glaringly so on the Palestinian side. While marches for a Palestinian state exist in Tel Aviv and other parts of Israel, this is not so in respect to Israel in Ramallah or Nablus – indeed no Palestinian faction has ever recognized Israel as a Jewish homeland. Instead memories of a burning Joseph’s Tomb, of the blood of Israeli soldiers on Palestinian hand proudly displayed for the world to see remind Israel of the horrors that await if peace is not achieved.
No comments:
Post a Comment