Watching the direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians fizzle out over the last week, I was reminded of Conor Cruise O'Brien's observation that "conflicts don't have solutions -- they have outcomes." For nearly two decades, the contours of a final compromise that would enable the State of Israel to live alongside a new State of Palestine have been known, yet an actual agreement has remained elusive.
The current hiatus in the talks, if the Palestinian Authority and the Arab League are to be believed, stems from Israel's decision not to renew its ten month moratorium on building in existing West Bank settlements. A combination of media shorthand and anti-Israel sniping distorts this as "new settlement building." It isn't, because there is a long-established Israeli-Palestinian understanding that these settlements will be incorporated into Israel in any Final Agreement. This is not, as large parts of the media imply, a new "land grab."
The Palestinians and their Arab allies have given the United States one month to get the talks restarted, hoping that the Obama Administration will cajole Israel into renewing the moratorium. Barely ten months ago, the Palestinians dismissed the moratorium as a PR measure, as it did not cover the entire West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Suddenly, last year's publicity stunt has become a test of Israeli sincerity.
There's nothing new in such spoiler tactics. Invariably, they begin with PA President Mahmoud Abbas reminding the world, "après moi, le déluge." Fearful negotiators then focus on the settlements as the primary, even sole, obstacle to peace. Israel disagrees and highlights other issues, like continuing antisemitic incitement in PA-financed media. In response, Abbas, wearing a wounded look, threatens to resign. Predictably, he doesn't. Talks resume, stall, and the Palestinians then blame Israeli intransigence with the Arab League dutifully providing the PA with diplomatic cover.
Why, then, is the international community so keen to retrace its steps toward such a familiar dead end? In part, because politicians, like athletes, seek glory -- securing an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is the grand prize which Bill Clinton grasped for, only to see it slip through his fingers when Yasser Arafat launched the second intifada in 2000.
And why is it a grand prize? Because of the prevailing myth that an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is the key to global stability. Once justice is secured for the Palestinians, the conventional wisdom goes, the anger of the Islamic world toward the west will be assuaged. The former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, neatly summarized this view upon leaving office: "We may wish to think of the Arab-Israeli conflict as just one regional conflict amongst many. It is not. No other conflict carries such a powerful symbolic and emotional charge among people far removed from the battlefield."
Eloquent, perhaps, but wrong-headed, as many seasoned policy analysts have since realized. "None of us is going to recommend, and, in fact, all us will recommend against, rushing towards a grand, comprehensive, end-of-conflict deal between Israelis and Palestinians," said Robert Malley, a former Clinton negotiator who has often counseled the Palestinian side, at a seminar in February 2009. Another veteran negotiator, Aaron David Miller, argued for "transactional" as opposed to "transformative" diplomacy -- small, incremental steps on specific issues like the Gaza blockade, instead of a Middle Eastern version of the Congress of Vienna.
Despite such caution, the Obama Administration nonetheless opted for the grand approach -- an Israeli-Palestinian agreement that would strongly counter Iran's regional influence, explained State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley -- with the aim of resolving the conflict within one year. Only the most churlish would wish Obama failure in this endeavor -- at the same time, the historical precedents are hardly encouraging.
Even if the direct talks are rescued again, final status issues could scupper them. Israel will never agree to the physical division of its capital, Jerusalem, even if it might not discount a creative proposal on shared sovereignty. When the Palestinians insist on the so-called "right of return" for the descendants of the 1948 refugees, Israel asks for recognition of its character as the state of the Jewish people. Max Weber famously defined a state as an entity with a monopoly on the "means of violence," but it is implausible to envision Israel accepting a fully militarized Palestine a short drive from Tel Aviv. As for incitement, neither Abbas nor his congenial Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, have much incentive to stamp on it, loathsome as the rhetoric is.
There is a more basic question. Does it matter if the talks are regularly frustrated, when so little is expected of them anyway? After all, as Elliot Abrams recently observed, the West Bank is one of the few places on earth where the economy is booming, with growth at 8 percent and tax revenues up by 50 percent over last year. For all of Abbas's dire warnings, West Bank Palestinians, much as they may resent Israel, won't risk his resignation being followed by the kind of Hamas regime that has brought so much devastation to Gaza.
As for the U.S. Administration, it needs to exercise care that disillusionment with the peace process doesn't spill over into hostility. The record is unsettling enough: among Israelis, President Obama's policies have been viewed with distrust for some time. Among American Jews, according to the latest survey conducted by my organization, the American Jewish Committee , 45 percent disapprove of Obama's handling of U.S.-Israel relations, while 62 percent approve of Benjamin Netanyahu's. Even in the Arab world, the President's reputation is suffering ("President Obama has not translated his Cairo speech and all these good intentions into a coherent program and that is why his credibility among the Arab public has declined," a former Jordanian Foreign Minister, Marwan Muasher, told CNN.)
There is therefore every reason to work for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement, within a framework of modest ambitions. Equally, there is scant reason to believe that the lack of a peace agreement will plunge the region into war, especially when there are more obvious triggers, such as Iran's nuclear ambitions and Hezbollah's military build-up in southern Lebanon. Would an agreement restrain these belligerents? Perhaps, but the logic goes both ways. A two-state agreement could also be a powerful boost to the rejectionist camp in its struggle against the United States and Israel.
In such a situation, the best strategy is to assert control of those elements which you can make your own. Do not build up expectations. Do not allow apocalyptic prophecies to become self-fulfilling. And do not collapse into despair when what appears to be a solution turns out to be just one more outcome.
Follow Ben S. Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ZWord
Middle East peace talks close to collapse
Israel responsible for failure of direct peace talks: Palestinian negotiator
Israel-Palestinian Peace Deal Is Still Possible Within a Year, US Says
Tantrums and sheeshas, but who will care when Israel self-destructs?
To restart peace talks, Israeli, Arab leaders look for compromise
Israeli leaders are racist war criminals, that is why the peace will fail.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/10/20101014125820963565.html
Say what? Have you bothered to look at a map of the West Bank recently? It's torn into tiny shreds by Israeli settlements, making any viable Palestinian state impossible. The most the PA has every tentatively agreed to was to swap major settlement blocs near the Green Line for equivalent territory in Israel. But building has not resumed in just those blocs, now has it?
New settlements are being built, notably around Yitzhar and Eli. Either you are unaware of this, or are conveniently considering it as a trifle not worth considering.
If I look at the EU, they are not necessarily "so keen to retrace [their] steps toward such a familiar dead end". They are close to recognising a Palestinian state, given precisely that the current way of proceeding is going nowhere and phenomenal progress is being made in the West Bank. The EU pays PA civil servants' salaries, which is an Israeli obligation as the occupying power. If Israel and/or the PA want to stretch out the issue indefinitely, why should the EU pick up the bill when countries like Ireland and Greece are facing economic meltdown?
And how could settlement expansion not be a bone of contention? It was illegal 40 years ago and has picked up speed over the past 10. If the outlines of an agreement are known, why put the cart before the horse with semantic pre-conditions?
Any place in ME, people look at US as a supporter of Muslim oppressor, Israel.
As such if the conflict between Israel and Palestinians is resolved, US image in Muslim world, specially in ME will improve dramatically.
Israel would be foolish to pursue the “grand approach” of an immediate comprehensive agreement under pressure. It would lead to assured failure. “In the world-wide Roman Empire it was the Jews alone who refused the erection of statues and the paying of divine honors to Caligula, and thereby saved the honor of the human race when all the other peoples slavishly obeyed the decree of the Imperial madman.” (J. Fuerst, 1890).
This warped 19th century world view appears almost comical today.
From the point of international law, that can't be done. Occupation of a belligerent is legal under the Geneva Convention, San Remo and other instruments of international law.
Until such time as the losing belligerent accepts and abides by a peace treaty, they remain occupied, legally.
Palestinians are not the nation, never had been. They are geographical term as much as Floridians or New-Yorkers.
Equal rights for all in a one state solution
Independence in a two state solution
Or apartheid in the current system
Obama supports option 3
As for the 45% of Jews disapproving Obama's approach, well, that translates to less than 3M people. We are a nation of over 300M and frankly, we don't care what 3M people think. Israel is the only nation that has effective slaves. Palestinians can't travel, import or export without Israeli approval. Even their athletes are not allowed to travel freely. Enough is enough.
Mr Cohen, your solution to the impasse is to lower expectations? That's a big copout considering the suffering that it causes.
Apres moi, Le Deluge? Millions of Palestinians in refugee camps who were forcibly exiled? Where is their home, really, lower expectations?
You have giving quarter for the continuation of the (unofficial) policies of the state of Israel to colonize the west bank, I mean, the settlements must stop. Simple: Peace for Land.
When you call Israel's indivisible capital, are you talking about Tel Aviv? Please inform our citizens the right way.
When you use "...because there is a long-established Israeli-Palestinian understanding that these settlements will be incorporated into Israel in any Final Agreement"? That’s a Madison Avenue Whack Job, Mr Cohen. Can you answer this for the benefit of all of us who don’t know the history of the conflict, are the Settlements really legal?
See how you worded the "…so called right of return". Can you honestly remind us of what this right is? The pals have rights: we just don't hear of them anymore
Basically what one gets above is that expecting the Israelis to act in ways that acknowledge the Palestinians legitimate concerns is unreasonable. But expecting Palestinians to act in ways that are that acknowledge Israeli concerns is essential. The Israeli expectation that they should continue to control Palestinian populations in East Jerusalem, reasonable. The Palestinian expectation that a Palestinians state should have the features of a state, unreasonable.
And behind it all is the delusional idea that the Palestinians in the West Bank will accept growth from a pathetic starting point in the absence of freedom as long as the Israelis make Gaza horrific enough. Try imagining someone thinking that would work with Jews, or human being in general, and one gets what makes this view so delusional.