EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

GET UPDATES FROM Jason Hicks
 

Failing Palestinian-Israeli Negotiations May Promote Peace in the Middle East

Posted: 3/26/10

Michael Bröning contributed to the following post.

Following closed door meetings between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, serious "disagreement" remained between the US and Israel regarding Israeli settlement construction in occupied East Jerusalem, including Israel's approval that same day of the construction of 20 apartments in the Shepherd's Hotel compound in East Jerusalem. Prior to these meetings, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the US position before the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington that continued settlement activity "undermines mutual trust and endangers the 'proximity' talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides say they want and need."

The script to these 'proximity' talks was thrown overboard when the Netanyahu-led government declared the future construction of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem during Vice President Biden's recent visit to the region. Following Israel's declaration, the Arab League and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas retracted their support for the talks. Ultimately, however, Abbas will likely have no choice but to bend to US pressure and return to the negotiation table given the fact that ominous 'proximity' talks have been blown out of proportion as "jump starting the peace process."

When negotiations do resume, a sober stocktaking of the prospects leaves little room for optimism. In diplomacy, 'proximity' talks are used to pave the way for direct negotiations; however, in Palestine-Israel, direct negotiations between the hostile parties have already been tried, tested, and largely failed for over 15 years. Additionally, the format and framework of any future talks remain unclear, and the Israeli government has successfully averted the Palestinian demand that talks be continued from where they were halted when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert left office in March 2009.

This difference reflects paramount differences in policy between both negotiating parties, which will be nearly impossible to bridge. While the Palestinian side is certainly not free of programmatic shortcomings, it is the unbending position of the Netanyahu-led government that seems to make success virtually impossible at this point in time. While the Israeli Prime Minister has publicly embraced the new round of negotiations, he has time and again repeated that "substantial negotiations" should be based on preconditions, including the indivisibility of Jerusalem as the "eternal capital of the Jewish people," a refusal to negotiate any return of refugees to Israel, not using pre-1967 borders as the basis for negotiations (thus insuring retention of large settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank), continued Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan valley, and Palestinian recognition of Israel as "the state of the Jewish people" (thus denying legitimacy to 20 percent of Palestinian Israelis). These preconditions, however, will be nearly impossible for any Palestinian negotiator to accept.

For any future negotiation to be meaningful, a new US approach is critical. In an attempt to bring Abbas to the (indirect) negotiation table, the US State Department has issued a "non paper" to Abbas, promising active US engagement as a true peace broker who will actively contribute to the process and -- if necessary -- openly label the spoiling side should negotiations fail. This stance was reiterated by the Vice President, who declared that the US will "continue to hold both sides accountable for any statements or any actions that will inflame tension or prejudice the outcome of these talks."

These uncommon declarations from a US administration open the door to overcoming the unconstructive bilateralism that has dominated peace efforts for years, and also may be why the Palestinian side had insisted on a ceiling of four months for open talks. This time frame would terminate an initial round of proxy negotiations just before the end of Prime Minister Netanyahu's 'partial' settlement moratorium and would increase pressure on Israel to expand the "settlement freeze," however limited its virtues.

Such an approach -- if duly implemented after an initial round of disappointing negotiations -- could essentially transform the US mission from that of a mere postman, delivering messages, to that of an effective and evenhanded arbitrator, a role that since 1967 has only been actively sought by former President Jimmy Carter, who successfully brokered the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. This new approach cannot contain only rhetoric and must be accompanied by a willingness of the US to use economic diplomacy and reductions in diplomatic support to reshape intractable positions on the core issues. The Jewish pro-peace group J Street recently referred to a new US-led approach by stating that "ending the conflict will require more than talk and process. It will take strong and sustained American -- and international -- leadership."

Thus, the best possible results of potential US-brokered 'proximity' talks may be their eventual replacement by meaningful negotiations under intensive US guidance and international pressure that rescues the State of Israel from an uncompromising government. In this sense, the most productive outcome of any coming rounds of 'proximity' talks might well prove to be their failure.

Jason Hicks was recently a visiting scholar with the Palestinian Academic Society for International Affairs (PASSIA) in East Jerusalem and is a regular commentator on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Michael Bröning is director of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Jerusalem, a political foundation affiliated to the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).

 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:26 AM on 03/29/2010
Find below an opinion of rational Arab secular thinker.
Very refreshing change of pace from the usual slightly unhinged irrational­ity which emanates from the Muslim fundamenta­list -Western liberal revanchist alliance.

Dr. Mamoun Fandy:
The Palestinia­ns Are Their Own Worst Enemy
London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,

"Where should someone who wants to mediate in solving the Palestinia­n problem go? Should the Europeans and the Americans go to the Palestinia­n Authority in Ramallah, or to Hamas in Gaza?
Who should former U.S. senator George Mitchell or EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana talk to...?
"Today, there is in fact no Palestinia­n partner [for peace] - and the idiotic warring Palestinia­n factions can take 'credit' for that. There are of course those who make a living from the [intra-Pal­estinian] struggle, with their writing or their television programs, but they are not confrontin­g the Palestinia­n [leadershi­p] with this truth. But it's better to discuss the Palestinia­n problem like adults, not like adolescent­s..."
04:51 PM on 03/28/2010
I don't know if this business of "precondit­ions" makes much difference­. Both sides have bottom line positions that they will not compromise­. The Israelis, it seems to me, are just broadcasti­ng theirs ahead of time.

As you say, the two sides are too far apart. Trying to push them into negotiatio­ns only makes sense if they are bluffing about what their true positions are. If not, there is no point to negotiatio­ns, since neither can agree to the other one's bottom line.
photo
tallen
panem et circenses
08:39 PM on 03/26/2010
No one, not the US nor anyone else will be able to force the palestinia­ns to accept peace.
It's been offered numerous times since 1948 and consistent­ly rejected.
09:48 PM on 03/26/2010
Palestinia­ns have never been offered peace, they have been offered reservatio­ns, while the illegal occupiers of their homes have total control over their lives.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JustMeInNY
Live and Learn.
02:49 PM on 03/27/2010
Just because Israel refuses to give up all of Israel to the palestinia­ns, does not mean that peace hasn't been offered and that the palestinia­ns kept turning it down, again and again.
09:48 PM on 03/27/2010
Peace on Israels terms.
03:59 PM on 03/26/2010
More than anything else, we in the U.S. need to receive more objective media coverage of the Israeli-Pa­lestinian conflict.

Christiane Amanpour has just been selected as the new host of ABC's This Week morning news program, and could be a step towards gaining some degree of objectivit­y.

The decision is however under considerab­le attack from the Israel lobby. Please go to the ABC news website and voice your support of her selection.­..

http://abc­news.go.co­m/Site/pag­e?id=34281­74
09:52 PM on 03/26/2010
Perhaps if the US wasn't so biased?

How happy would you be if, watching the news one night you saw a report about a lawyer and a judge being best friends, indivisibl­e, and the next day you walked into a court room to find your opposing council was the best friend, indivisibl­e, from the judge sitting over your case?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JustMeInNY
Live and Learn.
02:51 PM on 03/27/2010
You know Skili, errr alysheba, it is possible to actually be the absolute best friends and have respect for each other's careers. Just because you come from a different society doesn't mean that such situations don't exist.