Many say that the peace process is at a standstill. This is mistaken, since nothing stands still in the politics of the Middle East. A more accurate formulation is that the peace process is in retreat.
Among the Palestinians, the Abbas-Fayyad government continues to work on building infrastructure for statehood, but its leaders look across the Middle East and worry whether (as a Ha’aretz headline succinctly put it) “Mideast popular unrest may be rolling into the Palestinian territories.” Despite Fayyad’s efforts, which have significantly improved governance as well as security in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority continues to be plagued by corruption, inefficiency, and undemocratic conduct. It is a Palestinian tragedy that in the 2006 elections Fayyad’s good-government, democratic Third Way party only garnered two seats in the 132-member Palestinian parliament. Current polls predict eight seats, at most. In the absence of an active peace process, it is uncertain that the Fayyad-led PA government can stay in power past September, when the PA intends to declare a Palestinian State; it could even fall earlier. At the same time, the scandal generated by the so-called “Palestine Papers” suggests that the PA may not be in a position to make the compromises that most observers see as basic for the Israelis to sign off on a peace agreement.
As for the Israelis, everywhere they look in the region they see trouble. Across the borders they see challenges to the stability of peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. In Egypt, Sheikh Yusuf Qardawwi, the grand old man of the Muslim Brothers, spewed anti-Semitism to a vast and appreciative crowd in Tahrir Square. Despite promises, natural gas is not flowing to Israel again following the explosion on the line in Sinai, and Egypt allowed Iran to send ships through the Suez Canal for the first time since the Iranian revolution. The Middle East policies of the United States, Israel’s major ally, raise questions in Jerusalem. The EU, for its part, seems to be taking steps that look a lot like an imposed solution – unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1949 ceasefire lines, with Jerusalem the capital of two states.
Foreign diplomats with whom AJC is in contact suggest a growing consensus that the Israeli government is running out of time to produce an initiative that might change the regional and international climate for a negotiated solution. Many Israelis, and not just their government, find it hard to understand why the international community questions the government’s seriousness about peace in light of Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech and the unprecedented ten-month building freeze. Diplomats suggest that one source of their skepticism is the speech at the UN last fall by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in which he stated: “… we should focus on coming up with a long-term intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades. We need to raise an entire new generation that will have mutual trust and will not be influenced by incitement and extremist messages.”
Lieberman’s call to wait a generation (in opposition to the declared policy of his own government) made an impression on diplomats, and for good reason: no disciplinary action was taken against him other than the clarification that the speech had not been cleared with the Prime Minister.
On the other hand, many Israelis cannot accept the argument advanced in foreign capitals that because the PA government is on such thin ice, Israel must make peace now or the PA may not survive. Israelis can certainly not be faulted for wondering why, in addition to all the risks Israel will be taking, she may be to blame for not betting her citizens’ safety on such a fragile PA government.
Under the circumstances, an Israeli initiative will have to address certain challenges if it is to stave off the prospect of an imposed solution. At the same time, of course, it will have to command support among Israeli voters.
Internationally, the government of Israel must reinforce the message that it is serious about making peace. AJC hears from various sources that this will entail a resolution of the conflict between the Foreign Minister and the government on the timeframe of the peace process; greater openness to the international consensus on what such an agreement will look like on the ground (perhaps the Clinton parameters or something closely resembling them); and further symbolic steps by Israel that can build trust – such as the signals the Prime Minister and his political allies have been sending in recent days on settlements, illegal outposts, and new Palestinian security measures.
To provide internal credibility, an Israeli initiative must firmly insist on conditions that allow Israelis to live in safety behind what will be much more vulnerable boundaries. Such conditions include an end to the conflict; a demilitarized West Bank and Gaza; the ingathering of the Palestinian Diaspora to Palestine and not Israel; free access to Jewish holy sites; an end to all anti-Israel boycotts and discrimination; and no further tolerance for anti-Jewish rhetoric in Palestine, the Arab world, and international fora. Also, to ensure the successful creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel, both sides need regional political and economic integration, including diplomatic relations with the members of the Arab League and a long-term international commitment to support Palestinian state-building efforts both financially and politically. Israel has a great deal of support internationally for all of these requirements, but it will take well-conducted foreign relations to solidify that support.
The Israeli media is reporting a plan for an Israeli withdrawal to temporary borders as a trust-building step, perhaps turning Area B (currently under Israeli military and Palestinian civilian control) over to full PA control. Some even suggest Israeli recognition of a state of Palestine in the temporary borders of Areas A and B. The PA has already indicated it will not accept temporary borders, fearing that nothing in this region is as permanent as a “temporary measure.” It is unclear, however, if the current right-leaning Israeli coalition could survive such a step. Indeed, such an Israeli initiative may require changes in the government.
With these questions and tensions in mind, Israel’s widely admired president, Shimon Peres, spoke on television last week about his personal preference for a national unity government. Defense Minister Barak also indicated last week that the current coalition is “problematic” for a peace process, and called on Kadima to join. But it is not only from the left and center that we see indications of possible moves toward a new coalition: in what may be a preemptive shot across the bow, the settlers’ Yesha Council began a campaign of pressure on the prime minister under the slogan, “Build Bibi, Build!”
Netanyahu’s first government was brought down by the right, and he is famously aware of his potential need to choose whether to shore up his standing there, or, like his two predecessors, turn toward the center if he wants to get anything done in the international arena. Observers suggest that in this period of upheaval in the Middle East, new Israeli peace efforts, perhaps in combination with internal political moves, would strengthen the country’s international position.
first published at http://bit.ly/1maIHbw
Where Do We Go From Here?
Many say that the peace process is at a standstill. This is mistaken, since nothing stands still in the politics of the Middle East. A more accurate formulation is that the peace process is in retreat.
Among the Palestinians, the Abbas-Fayyad government continues to work on building infrastructure for statehood, but its leaders look across the Middle East and worry whether (as a Ha’aretz headline succinctly put it) “Mideast popular unrest may be rolling into the Palestinian territories.” Despite Fayyad’s efforts, which have significantly improved governance as well as security in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority continues to be plagued by corruption, inefficiency, and undemocratic conduct. It is a Palestinian tragedy that in the 2006 elections Fayyad’s good-government, democratic Third Way party only garnered two seats in the 132-member Palestinian parliament. Current polls predict eight seats, at most. In the absence of an active peace process, it is uncertain that the Fayyad-led PA government can stay in power past September, when the PA intends to declare a Palestinian State; it could even fall earlier. At the same time, the scandal generated by the so-called “Palestine Papers” suggests that the PA may not be in a position to make the compromises that most observers see as basic for the Israelis to sign off on a peace agreement.
As for the Israelis, everywhere they look in the region they see trouble. Across the borders they see challenges to the stability of peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. In Egypt, Sheikh Yusuf Qardawwi, the grand old man of the Muslim Brothers, spewed anti-Semitism to a vast and appreciative crowd in Tahrir Square. Despite promises, natural gas is not flowing to Israel again following the explosion on the line in Sinai, and Egypt allowed Iran to send ships through the Suez Canal for the first time since the Iranian revolution. The Middle East policies of the United States, Israel’s major ally, raise questions in Jerusalem. The EU, for its part, seems to be taking steps that look a lot like an imposed solution – unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state based on the 1949 ceasefire lines, with Jerusalem the capital of two states.
Foreign diplomats with whom AJC is in contact suggest a growing consensus that the Israeli government is running out of time to produce an initiative that might change the regional and international climate for a negotiated solution. Many Israelis, and not just their government, find it hard to understand why the international community questions the government’s seriousness about peace in light of Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech and the unprecedented ten-month building freeze. Diplomats suggest that one source of their skepticism is the speech at the UN last fall by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in which he stated: “… we should focus on coming up with a long-term intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades. We need to raise an entire new generation that will have mutual trust and will not be influenced by incitement and extremist messages.”
Lieberman’s call to wait a generation (in opposition to the declared policy of his own government) made an impression on diplomats, and for good reason: no disciplinary action was taken against him other than the clarification that the speech had not been cleared with the Prime Minister.
On the other hand, many Israelis cannot accept the argument advanced in foreign capitals that because the PA government is on such thin ice, Israel must make peace now or the PA may not survive. Israelis can certainly not be faulted for wondering why, in addition to all the risks Israel will be taking, she may be to blame for not betting her citizens’ safety on such a fragile PA government.
Under the circumstances, an Israeli initiative will have to address certain challenges if it is to stave off the prospect of an imposed solution. At the same time, of course, it will have to command support among Israeli voters.
Internationally, the government of Israel must reinforce the message that it is serious about making peace. AJC hears from various sources that this will entail a resolution of the conflict between the Foreign Minister and the government on the timeframe of the peace process; greater openness to the international consensus on what such an agreement will look like on the ground (perhaps the Clinton parameters or something closely resembling them); and further symbolic steps by Israel that can build trust – such as the signals the Prime Minister and his political allies have been sending in recent days on settlements, illegal outposts, and new Palestinian security measures.
To provide internal credibility, an Israeli initiative must firmly insist on conditions that allow Israelis to live in safety behind what will be much more vulnerable boundaries. Such conditions include an end to the conflict; a demilitarized West Bank and Gaza; the ingathering of the Palestinian Diaspora to Palestine and not Israel; free access to Jewish holy sites; an end to all anti-Israel boycotts and discrimination; and no further tolerance for anti-Jewish rhetoric in Palestine, the Arab world, and international fora. Also, to ensure the successful creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel, both sides need regional political and economic integration, including diplomatic relations with the members of the Arab League and a long-term international commitment to support Palestinian state-building efforts both financially and politically. Israel has a great deal of support internationally for all of these requirements, but it will take well-conducted foreign relations to solidify that support.
The Israeli media is reporting a plan for an Israeli withdrawal to temporary borders as a trust-building step, perhaps turning Area B (currently under Israeli military and Palestinian civilian control) over to full PA control. Some even suggest Israeli recognition of a state of Palestine in the temporary borders of Areas A and B. The PA has already indicated it will not accept temporary borders, fearing that nothing in this region is as permanent as a “temporary measure.” It is unclear, however, if the current right-leaning Israeli coalition could survive such a step. Indeed, such an Israeli initiative may require changes in the government.
With these questions and tensions in mind, Israel’s widely admired president, Shimon Peres, spoke on television last week about his personal preference for a national unity government. Defense Minister Barak also indicated last week that the current coalition is “problematic” for a peace process, and called on Kadima to join. But it is not only from the left and center that we see indications of possible moves toward a new coalition: in what may be a preemptive shot across the bow, the settlers’ Yesha Council began a campaign of pressure on the prime minister under the slogan, “Build Bibi, Build!”
Netanyahu’s first government was brought down by the right, and he is famously aware of his potential need to choose whether to shore up his standing there, or, like his two predecessors, turn toward the center if he wants to get anything done in the international arena. Observers suggest that in this period of upheaval in the Middle East, new Israeli peace efforts, perhaps in combination with internal political moves, would strengthen the country’s international position.
first published at http://bit.ly/1maIHbw
Related Posts
Referenda, Peacemaking, and the Israeli Mother
Understanding the Latest Conversion Crisis
The Biden Visit a Week Later
About Author
Edward Rettig