| |
PALESTINE: THE PROSPECTS FOR A TWO STATE SOLUTION
The prospects for a two-state solution to the
Israeli – Palestinian conflict remain as
intractable as ever. Israel will not withdraw from
the entire Golan Heights in return for a peace
deal with Syria, Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu's top policy adviser said in an
interview published Friday, rejecting Syria's key
demand for an agreement. Israel must remain on the
Golan Heights to a depth of several miles and
cannot withdraw in full even in return for a peace
agreement. The area is also home to crucial water
sources, a profitable Israeli winery, and Israeli
settlements with about 18,000 residents. About
17,000 Druze Arabs loyal to Syria also live there.
Indirect peace talks mediated by Turkey between
representatives of Syrian President Bashar Assad
and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have
not been renewed under Netanyahu, who replaced
Olmert in April. Direct talks between Israel and
Syria broke down in 2000. Netanyahu has said
repeatedly that Israel would not cede the Golan to
Syria. The presence of Iran as a strategic and
military counterweight to Israel is an important
element in accelerating the need for the
achievement of Middle East peace; so long as the
United States fails to address the lop-sided
nature of Israel’s position as compared to the
Palestinians, the best that can be achieved is a
peace plan bound to fail. The United States must
also address the asymmetric position of the
(divided) Palestinian leadership vis-à-vis the
Israelis, determined as ever not to compromise
over the former’s principal demands. For all his
talk of peace, prime minister Netanyahu makes it
very difficult for even the most compromising ANP
to participate in negotiations, let alone to form
a separate state.
The Aftermath of Iranian elections
The harsh government crackdown following the
contested elections in Iran last June, may have
eroded any enthusiasm that Arabs may have had for
the Islamic Republic and the measure of partial
political freedom it promises. President
Ahmadinejad and the Guardian of the Revolution,
Ayatollah Khamenei - and the Revolutionary Guards
– showed their autocratic colors, making them no
different from the rulers in Egypt, Libya, or
Saudi Arabia. The Islamic Republic has lost its
veneer as a viable alternative model of
governance. Had the Iranian ruling elites managed
the elections more fairly, they would have
enhanced the appeal of the Islamic Republic
becoming even more of a threat to the Arab
autocracies, monarchic or Republican as they may
be. However, much of the Islamic Republic’s appeal
for the ‘Arab street” has rested on its
anti-Americanism. In the past eight years, the
Bush administration has helped to fuel it with
effects not seen since the early 1980’s.
The United States is now in a position to
neutralize this sentiment. President Obama’s
speech at al-Azhar University in Cairo last May
was an important blow to the Iranian hardliners;
it now remains for the US administration to uphold
the laudable goals of resolving the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the creation of
two states. President Obama has been careful to
moderate criticism of the Iranian regime’s
handling of the elections and the post-electoral
protests, so much so that the UK and France have
replaced the United States as the ‘great Satan’
over the past few weeks. The United States must
see the Middle East as a matter of self-interest.
Should it apply pressure on the Israeli government
to relent its position on the peace talks and
ending the building of illegal settlements in the
West Bank, it will restore a position of
leadership, defusing the potential Iranian
military threat (perceived by Israel as well as
Washington’s main Arab allies) without resort to
weapons or threats. Ironically, the very need to
confront Iran’s potential development of nuclear
weapons gives such urgency to the American drive
behind the two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Syria
As for Syria, even as it is interested in
finding a solution to the peace in the greater
Middle East, it is even more interested in
pursuing the return of the Golan from Israel. For
the Alawite regime to pursue any democratizing
reforms – it has already launched partial economic
reforms – president al-Asad must achieve the
return of the Golan. Netanyahu has shown no
interest in the Turkish-mediated indirect talks
between Syria and Israel, which were suspended in
December when the Gaza conflict erupted. The
United States, even as it has established closer
links to Syria (which will be easier to pursue
thanks to the victory of the March 14 Coalition in
the recent Lebanese elections), would still prefer
to see Syria loosening its ties to Iran and Hamas,
before getting involved in the negotiations over
the return of the Golan. Yet, Syria cannot afford
to give up its Hamas bargaining chip; doing so
would leave it more vulnerable and isolated. The
Obama administration can promote a rapprochement
with Saudi Arabia, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s
presidential victory in Iran, suggests little will
change in Syro-Iranian relations in the short
term. Ideally, president Obama should have pursued
the easier problem of the Golan before embarking
on the Israeli-Palestinian question and the
two-state solution as the centerpiece of its
Middle East policy
Intra - Palestinian Fractures
The G8 also noted that Palestinian unity is
necessary before any viable peace talks can begin.
Palestinian unity hinges on a more cohesive Arab
position. To this effect, the Obama administration
has established much closer links to Syria, having
sent back an ambassador to Damascus. The United
States is also brokering a rapprochement between
Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Leaders of the G8 countries meeting at the summit
in Italy last week confirmed their interest in
promoting a two-state solution and the so-called
‘Roadmap’ (the document drafted by the ‘Quartet’ –
UN, EU, Russia and USA – in 2003) obligations,
which urges an end to terrorist activity as well
as an end to Israeli settlements in the
Palestinian Territories. Days after the G8 summit,
speaking officially during the weekly Cabinet
meeting, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu
has asked the president of the Palestinian
National Authority (ANP) to resume the peace talks
“anywhere in Israel”. Abbas was not enthusiastic.
He remarked that before any ‘talks’ may resume
Israel should freeze all construction of
settlements in the West Bank; as president Obama
emphasized in his Cairo speech, Abbas’ condition
has also become an important aspect of the
official position of the United States.
Netanyahu’s offer was only partially conciliatory;
even as the Israeli prime minister discussed the
economic merits, the interest of investors and the
easing of some restrictions in the West Bank, he
did not discuss the key problem of the
settlements. In fact, even as he has banned the
building of new settlements in the West Bank,
Netanyahu reiterated that he would authorize
settlements to be built in East Jerusalem and in
any settlements that Israel intends to keep for
itself apart from any potential peace deal.
Responding to rumours that Washington may ease its
pressure to allow extensions to current
settlements to allow for the absorption of
‘natural growth’ of the area, the ANP warns that
no half-measures would be sufficient and that all
settlement activity must be categorically
terminated.
Asymmetric Israeli Negotiating Position
Netanyahu’s failure to address the main
Palestinian concern, now buttressed by the United
States, suggests that for the time being Israel is
not interested in peace. Moreover, while American
policy has changed on paper, in practice it has
changed little. Even as the US international aid
agency USAID has become more active, helping the
ANP build roads linking villages in the West Bank
(not the main roads, while Israel has its own
roads for settlers only), the US army is helping
train the ANP to search and arrest real and
alleged militants, much to the satisfaction of the
Israeli authorities. The combined effect of the US
‘assistance’ policies has actually been to
validate the Israeli settlement policy. The United
States has not challenged in any way the Israeli
separation wall in the West Bank, which add
several portions of Palestinian territories along
the course of the barrier to Israel. Should the
United States continue to resist challenging the
very idea of the ‘wall’, and how Israel has used
it to annex land, suggests that any peace talks
for a ‘two-state’ solution would be flawed from
the very start.
For the record, the International Court of
Justice, five years ago, ruled that the Separation
Wall breaches international law. If the Obama
administration wants to be seen as truly serious
about re-launching peace talks, surely it would at
least acknowledge the ruling. In fact, apart from
the – welcome – conciliatory words of the Obama
White House, there is not much difference in
effect between Barack Obama and G.W. Bush. Even as
US aid agencies have implemented more construction
and improvement projects in the West Bank – US Aid
estimates that it would spend USD 300 million in
five years in infrastructure programs – Israel
would plan and supervise all the projects. The
Obama administration has not even challenged the
Israeli practice of blocking Palestinians from
using the highway (no. 443) road linking East
Jerusalem to Ramallah, among the most populated
areas. Even as it is helping Palestinians confront
the road-access program through the small roads,
by failing to address the wider issue of
restricted highways access, the US government is
enabling Israel to continue to uphold its more
intransigent positions.
The United States must also put pressure on Israel
to end its road segregation practices, which were
championed by prime minister Ariel Sharon in 2004.
Accordingly, Israel itself is building an
alternative road network for Palestinians in their
own territory. These projects are designed to
normalize part of the settlements, which Israel
will refuse to give up even in the context of
possible serious peace talks. Israel maintains
roadblocks in the West Bank, over 600, confirming
also its outright refusal to negotiate the issue
of East Jerusalem, the very city that Palestinians
have designated to be the capital of their future
state. The UN Humanitarian Affairs Office (OCHA)
estimates that Palestinians are forcibly kept off
some 20% of their territory in the West Bank.
Should Israel even accept to terminate all
settlements as asked by the United States and the
G8 leaders, it would enter peace negotiations
buffered by the road networks and additional
Palestinian land demarcated by the Separation
Wall.
The United States remain overly tolerant of these
tactics and it would be impossible to create a
Palestinian state, or to pursue an actual
two-state solution, under what, for the time
being, remain purely Israeli conditions. Netanyahu
also said that an independent Palestinian state
would not be able to exercise an independent
foreign policy or control over its own airspace.
It is unbelievable that any Palestinian leader
would accept even the latter two humiliations
alone. Quite apart from any considerations of East
Jerusalem as capital, the right of return and the
permanence of settlements, is bound to fail. The
situation is far from acceptable for the ANP while
the implicit compromises it is being asked to
make, before negotiations even begin, will
continue to cause mistrust between the ANP and
Hamas in Gaza. Sunni Arab powers, whose
leaderships have grown weary of the Palestinian
problem, have become more absorbed by the
re-emergence of Iran as a strategic power in the
region.
There is no longer a ‘Sunni’ led Iraq to counter
Iran. Whereas the ‘Arab street’ may have changed
its perception of the Iranian leadership and model
somewhat, due to the violent repression of
post-election protests, the Iranian threat remains
the only hope for the Palestinians. The Obama
administration has shown a willingness to maintain
links to Iran, even if led by Ahmadinejad and even
in the wake of violent repression of post election
protests. While, a more pro-Western Iran would
make it easier to handle a presumable weaker Hamas
(which is also financially supported by Iran),
forcing it to come to terms with the ANP. It would
also reduce the United States’ urgency in helping
to reduce the excessive Israeli advantage in
potential peace talks, leading to yet another
outright failure of peace talks – for which few
have patience – or to the creation of a very
flawed and unworkable ‘two-state’ solution; one so
fragile, that Israel would be justified to
intervene and re-occupy.
The poverty, lack of economic opportunities and
sheer dependence on Israel in the West Bank and
Gaza, which has barely started to recover from the
destruction of last January’s ‘Cast Lead’
offensive, have sentenced the majority of
Palestinians to lives of bare subsistence,
surviving on Israeli offerings. Gaza, which
incurred over USD 1 billion worth of damages in
the latest Israeli offensive, has not even been
allowed to import construction materials to
rebuild. Local engineers have been reviving the
ancient Middle Eastern techniques for making mud
bricks to use as construction materials. The daily
hardships that Palestinians have to confront just
to survive are waning their energy for organized
civil disobedience, which also means that any
manifestation of resistance may come in the form
of indiscriminate terrorism and a resumption of
Qassam rocket launches.
For a two state solution to work, Israel needs to
make too many concessions and such is the state of
Israeli politics, no Israeli leader has the
mandate to grant them. In 1993, the number of
Jewish settlers in the West Bank was about 100,000
according to the UN. Today, there are 300,000
while new frontiers have opened in the form of
East Jerusalem, which houses an additional 200,000
settlers, the fastest growing segment of the
Israeli population. In the past decade, the United
States has ‘looked the other way’ and allowed it
to get away with too many breaches, giving it, as
is now clear, hugely disproportional negotiating
strength compared to the Palestinians. President
Obama’s speech in Cairo marked a welcome change of
tone, but nothing will change until Washington
takes a firm grip and holds Israeli leaders to
account. Until that time the ‘two-state solution’
will be seen simply as a convenient and
politically correct term to promote inaction.
Alessandro Bruno.
Middle East and African Affairs Analyst
Comments are invited
at our Blog www.geopolemics.com
|
