After futile efforts under former American president George W. Bush to revive Middle Eastern peace process based on the roadmap failed at Annapolis in 2007, the United States under Obama administration is trying to rekindle the process once more, hopefully once for all. If the last handshake between Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli PM Binyamin Netanyahu in New York at the UN summit is the first step in that regard or not is debatable but no doubt that it has elicited different reactions. Those reactions ranged, it was noticed, from expressions of frustrations with Obama administration by both sides at times, claims that Netanyahu has won the first round, to the need for allowing Obama more time to realize what he has promised and bold claims that the prospect for a breakthrough in negotiations might actually be closer than many think.
No matter which viewpoint one adopts the Middle East Peace Process, if successfully revived, will have not to commit the same mistakes fallen into before both during Oslo peace process more than a decade ago and at Camp David. It is here one is caught by pessimism though. The Arab Peace Initiative, introduced first in 2002 and rearticulated in 2007 does not reverse that pessimism.
The Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement gets bogged down when the most contentious issues are laid on the negotiation table. Those issues are Jerusalem, Palestinian right of return, Independent sovereign Palestinian state, border issues, and settlements. It is those issues that UN Resolution 242 and subsequent resolutions have been unable to address adequately. The Arab Peace Initiative addresses those issues better than the UN Resolution 242 does and offers normalization with Israel by all Arab states in the Middle East. However, when closely examined Israel is not likely to accept the Arab Peace Initiative either. The latter claim is clearly contradicted by the statistical data obtained on the issue as well.
The Arab Peace Initiative demands Israeli withdrawal to June 4, 1967 borders and it emphasizes that Israel should withdraw from all the territories, something that the UN Resolution 242 failed to achieve. In fact, it is not only the Arab Peace Initiative demanding that. The roadmap prepared by the U.S. in 2002 aimed at terminating the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967. The withdrawal, hence, includes the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as Gaza.
Yet, Israel’s stance on the withdrawal has been based on their view that “1967 ceasefire lines were not permanent, and there was no continuous territorial connection between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank”, which basically means that the West Bank was not within 67 borders and that implies further that Israel does not need to withdraw from the West Bank. The existence of 480,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the fact that Israel obtains almost 35% of its water supply from there are major hindrances in front of the issue of withdrawal. This links the solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict necessarily to a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East. The issue of Jewish settlements is one of major stumbling blocks in front of negotiations and it is hard to be optimistic about a potential Israeli decision to halt on settlements. Even the most recent moratorium Israel has announced does not include Jerusalem, those buildings started before already and those public buildings to be built. The Palestinians will be hardly open to peace when they remember that Israel had continued building settlements and confiscating the Palestinian land at a large scale even during Oslo peace process and Camp David negotiations between 2000 and 2001. The Palestinian state, as envisaged in the Arab Peace Initiative, is to have East Jerusalem as its capital but already existing settlements and continuing settlement activity complicate the situation there. Besides, there is little change in Israeli attitude towards Jerusalem because like Ehud Barak had said at Camp David that “Jerusalem is our eternal and undivided capital,” Israeli PM has said that “Jerusalem for us is our eternal capital. We don’t want to redivide it.” Besides, general Israeli opinion is utterly negative on giving up East Jerusalem as recent surveys reveal. 2008 J poll revealed that 78 percent of Israelis are against demolishing settlements and allowing East Jerusalem to be the capital of future Palestinian state although the same survey found out that 78 percent supported two-state solution. When American Jews are considered, 58 percent rejects any compromise on the status of Jerusalem.
The Arab Initiative envisages a just solution to the dispersed Palestinian refugees based on General Assembly resolution 194, which stipulated that “the refugees wishing to return their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return or for the loss or damage to property which, under principles of international law and in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” The refugees issue has been enough perplexing that only a “satisfactory solution” was promised at Camp David 2000. ‘Palestinian right of return’ is not on Israel’s agenda these days either and it will hardly be when one ponders about it because this will put, Israelis maintain, Israel’s ‘demographic security’ on risk. The right of return for refugees from 48 war had been ruled out long time ago because this would have meant that Israel accepts responsibility for the war. However, this ruling out does not solve the problem of 350-400,000 refugees in Lebanon, who could have not been integrated to or digested within Lebanon for instance. This demonstrates how complicated the peace process is and why it seems intractable.
The final contentious issues concern independent and sovereign Palestinian state and the issue of Golan Heights and withdrawal from Lebanon, in particular Sheba’a Farms and part of the village of Ghajar, which Israel occupies in violation of the UN Resolution 1701. Lebanon comes into the picture not only in terms of the fate of Palestinian refugees but also of Israeli concern about Hizbullah. The issue of disarming and future of Hizbullah have the potential to block the whole negotiations when Syria has not signed a peace agreement with Israel. Hence, Syria will undoubtedly enter the picture as the Arab Initiative calls from Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights but neither Syria nor Lebanon would sign an agreement separately. With regards to establishment of an independent sovereign Palestinian state, the mistake committed at Oslo was giving the Palestinian Authority powers over tourism, culture and health but not to land for instance. The roadmap cleared out the establishment of the Palestinian state as the end-goal but what kinds of power the new state would have was left subject to further negotiations. However, the kind of Palestinian state Israelis deem appropriate for the Palestinians does not seem to soothe that concern. The Palestinian state, according to Israeli PM Netanyahu, will be “a demilitarized state that recognizes the Jewish state”, which will hardly be accepted by the Palestinians when they live side by side with a nuclear state.
I deem it appropriate to state bluntly in the end that the American and European preference for conflict building measures (CBMs), incremental steps, and gradual approach embraced are exactly the kinds of approaches that failed at Oslo and the roadmap. The same approach is firmly embraced by the EU in its border assistance mission to keep presence at Rafah Border Crossing since 2005 to help build confidence between PA and Israel without applying any sticks against Israel whatsoever. Yet, it is already proved and thus, must be understood that such confidence building measures build in fact little confidence between Palestinians and Israelis as even the statistics attest to and do not prove useful to solve that seemingly intractable conflict. According to American Jewish Committee’s 2009 Annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion, The Jerusalem Post reports, 75 percent of those surveyed believe that Palestinians do not long for establishing their independent sovereign state but destroying Israel. This pessimism gets aggravated when Hamas is placed on the side of Palestinians. If surveyed, it is very likely to find out that a similar kind of pessimism and suspiciousness, if not worse, prevails among the Palestinians about Israeli intentions. The Israeli preference for negotiations without any preconditions or mapping out the end-goal of the game will not help revive peace process and settle the conflict. As Oslo had revealed and it was taken into account with the roadmap under Quarter monitoring it, guardianship during the process will be essential. The United States has the leading role in delivering the carrots and sticks. Before such a pressure is put neither the peace process can be revived nor can negotiations move forward in later phases. Such an American pressure on both sides has to be in line with what international law requires from both sides. However, whether Obama administration has that capability in view of the sway Israel Lobby has in the Congress is highly doubted.
Israeli Prime Minister has said recently that the economy is flourishing in the West Bank in contrast to Gaza where Hamas terrorism reigns and Israel has removed several roadblocks and checkpoints in the West Bank. This seems to be an effort to direct and draw more pressure on Hamas by claiming Hamas’ responsibility for severe conditions in Gaza. Yet, a Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement cannot be struck without Hamas and any pressure Hamas feels Israel is trying to draw on them to weaken Hamas’ say in negotiations through third parties in the West may backfire.
Omer Aslan
aslaomer@gmail.com
Turkey-Japan Relations: The Need to Think Beyond Trade
