Strenger than Fiction / Peace talks are sure to fail, but what will be the consequences?
Netanyahu probably assumes that the Palestinians will walk out, and he will be justified in maintaining the status quo. But is he prepared for what comes next?
By Carlo Strenger Tags: Benjamin Netanyhau Mahmoud Abbas Salam Fayyad Middle East peace Washington peace talksNetanyahu has recently scored a diplomatic victory, as many pundits have pointed out, because the U.S. administration has shifted pressure from Israel to the Palestinians, and pressured them into direct talks with Israel. He probably assumes that the talks will fail, because the Palestinians will walk out at some point, and then he will be justified in maintaining the status quo. But this victory is likely to be hollow.
 |
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (L), U.S. mediator George Mitchell and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu |
| Photo by: Eran Wolkowski |
Netanyahu’s worldview has consistently been that Israel, the West’s foothold in the Middle East, is likely to face threats for a very long time to come, and that any peace agreement must address all realistic threats.
Netanyahu does not believe that betting on the positive dynamics of a peace agreement is sufficient to guarantee Israel’s survival. The events of the last decade, starting with the second Intifada, have convinced most of Israel’s electorate to endorse Netanyahu’s views.
Therefore, there are good reasons to believe that detailed proposals published this year by the hawkish Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs more or less reflect Netanyahu’s position, particularly because the center is associated with Moshe Ya'alon, Netanyahu's Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, and Uzi Arad, his security advisor.
Their claims are as follows: the international assertion that any future peace agreement must be based on 1967 borders is unacceptable, because it fails to address Israel’s security needs. Hence Israel must to return to a security based diplomacy in which the parameters of any peace agreement must be defined by Israel’s security needs.
Israel must have enough time to mobilize its military reserves in the event of an attack from the east, and therefore must retain control of the Jordan valley as well as other critical territories beyond the Green Line. Israel is extremely vulnerable to air terrorism, whether through rockets or through 9/11 style suicide attacks; hence it needs complete control over all the airspace west of the Jordan as well as the electromagnetic spectrum.
None of these claimed security threats can be dismissed as paranoid fantasies: all the scenarios have precedents in the past ranging from ground attacks from the east through rocket attacks on Israel to attempts to shoot down Israelis civilian airliners. The latter scenario is particularly chilling, as the downing of single airliner would effectively shut down Israel’s main physical connection to the outside world in a single moment.
Let us now look at the pressures currently facing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas: a sizeable portion of his constituency has not given up on the Palestinian Right of Return to all of historical Palestine. As many pundits have pointed out, many Palestinians prefer the scenario in which the peace process is pronounced dead. The Palestinian Authority would announce its own dissolution, and Palestinians would demand Israeli citizenship, thus effectively implementing the one-state solution in which Palestinians would soon have a demographic majority.
For Abbas to gain support for a final status agreement, he needs some sizable gains with high symbolic value. The most important would be Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and at least some form of international sovereignty over the holy basin. Even under these conditions, it would be an uphill battle for him to sell the final agreement to the Palestinian people.
If Abbas has to make concessions regarding borders, it will make his task nearly impossible. This is why he insisted that the talks need to presume some understanding about borders. But if Netanyahu’s views are more or less reflected in the presentation of the Jerusalem Center of Public Studies, there are very good reasons why he refused to agree to such an understanding - his best offer falls far short of the 1967 borders.
Ergo: the gap between the two negotiating parties is so enormous, that the talks are headed for certain failure and we better take a clearheaded look at the likely consequences.
The most likely scenario is that failure of the talks will significantly weaken Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Palestinians will no longer have any hope of attaining sovereignty in peaceful ways, and terror attacks will resume. Israel will react forcefully, possibly along the lines of Operation Cast Lead. This will not only create outrage in the world, but may mobilize Israeli Arabs to start terror attacks inside Israel. This in turn will force Israel to restrict freedom of movement of its Arab citizens and it might start censoring internal criticism of its policies, which would endanger Israel’s democracy.
The scenario in which the Palestinian Authority dissolves itself and asks the international community to force Israel into the one-state solution is no more palatable. Israel will be forced to resume full control over the West Bank, but will not grant citizenship to Palestinians to safeguard Israel’s Jewish majority. It will then be accused of being a de facto Apartheid regime which will deepen Israel’s current bunker mentality, particularly if much of the world will call for boycotts, divestment and sanctions.
The only scenario that could conceivably lead to positive results is the option that Fayyad has been working toward in the last years by improving enormously on Palestinian governance and creating a viable Palestinian security force. After the talks fail, Palestinians will unilaterally declare a state along the 1967 borders next year, and seek international recognition while implementing de facto sovereignty over the territories currently under Palestinian control.
Even Fayyad’s option will only bear fruit if he succeeds in the difficult task of running Palestine without major security incidents for a few years. The question is whether this will change the state of mind of Israelis sufficiently to regain the lost belief that they will see peace in their lifetime.
Despite these caveats, Fayyad’s option is the only one that offers a glimmer of hope. His success might wake up Israel’s disempowered liberals to restate the case for peace. But both Israel’s liberals and Fayyad must be aware that such a turnaround may take the better part of the coming decade. And in the Middle East, a decade is more than enough for catastrophe to derail anything.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Now what… this is all talk too, nothing will happen… time will pass and only G-d knows what is really/and will happen at the end, and if I could do something I would. However, I know one thing without a doubt that this is Israel G-Ds land, which he gave to the Jewish people, and not to the Israeli Government, whom they are playing with fire and it is a completely different battle, not with the Arab and other enemies but rather with G-D himself, which is extremely dangerous as previously noted. (I see the collapse of the present Gov. because of their poor calculations and actions, which will make the pathway for a new Gov. and not another frail Gov., but one of power and strength run by Moshiach, which I hope and pray for should come about now. I see their actions in some way a blessing in disguise from another angle). What do you think?
jewish fairy tales are fun and cute but nothing to base you future on.....reality is trust in g-d but make it better yourself (and with g-ds help) anyway if g-d gave israel to the jews how did they lose it and how is it that all those jews from europe look white while those jew from arabia look arabian? torah says arabs and hebrews are both semites and both are chosen....and both are tan or brown not white...you are fake even by your own book...
It seem almost incredulous that Abbass would consent to talks that exclude Quartet participatation. The fear of being setup for a charge of "not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity" must be almost palpable, something which could be alleviated by Quartet representation which if noting else could act as witnesses to the proceeding, The implication is that Abbas is in no position to object, that US control over him is near complete... no small wonder then the broad based Palestinian skepticism and lack of support for what is going on; not by any stretch of immagination limited to Hamas/Gaza , something perhaps not welll know in Isreal due to the near news blackout in the effort to exclude everything excepting mention of Hamas as deal breaker. This also put the lie to the Quartet itself, it cannot reasonably be argued that it amounts to little more that a facade of "international" involvement in resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
When (not if) the PLO crashes the current peace talks (idiotically thinking that the planet will blame Israel and "give" them a state that does not have to recognize Israel), Israel should pursue the North Cyprus strategy that has worked so well for the Turkish occupation of the northern half of that island. Simply 1) withdraw to the 1967 armistice lines, and 2) allow the Jews of the W. Bank and Jerusalem to declare independence, the Jewish State of Judea, on all the main settlement blocs and the entire 10-mile wide Jordan River Rift valley; this will isolate the PLO Arab state on 4 sides - nothing goes in or out except on condition of good behavior, demilitarization and no foreign alliances, and no foreign diplomats allowed in to establish relations unless they also agree to relations with israel. Only Israel, Vanatau and Kiribati will establish diplomatic relations with Judea, but who gives a damn, only Turkey recognizes "North Cyprus". And "Peace with the Arab World"? - forget it, its worthless and unreliable anyway, Egypt and Jordan are enough. Gaza? Cut off its southern contact point with Egypt by a 5 km-wide strip north of Rafah, and clobber them with fuel-air explosives every time they fire a rocket, eventually they'll learn.
The peace will come after the age of oil ends.
Oslo was the worst thing we ever did it has been based on the concept from day 1 of a palestinian state in Judea & Samaria and constantly deadline based. The original oslo agreement was supposed to create the arab sate by 1995. We keep setting deadlines and we keep breaking them and we keep rebranding oslo with new names but its the same thing when you life the cover. We had 2 possible options back then both of which had potential and both more practical. The first would have been the best and thats Jordan the palestinian state. We give Jordan some land ( negotiated between Jordan & Israel ), create an international fund give Jordan a huge pay off and in return they give citizenship to all palestinians who have the option of moving to Jordan or those living in whats now officially Israeli territory whilst they would be encouraged to leave they could stay in Israel as Jordanians and if they want to leave and they own property if they can't find a private buyer the government is obligated to buy them out and the land can be sold to developers to finance the buy out. It means nobody leaves their homes ( jew or arab ), Israel gets land it wants, Amman is Jordans capital so the Jerusalem problem is solved, they all get homes in Jordan so refugee issue solved, Jordan gets rich which is good for its weak economy, palestinians now living under the most liberal easy going arab countries. Everything is done on paper by the politicians and lawyers but very few individuals are directly affected. Sadly now the oslo formula is rooted so deeply in peoples minds we can't sell that idea anymore. The other option would have been get rid of the deadline the goal is to create an arab state in negotiated border it will take as long as it takes to reach an agreement. That way we could have ups and downs but when things stall we know where to pick up from and we don't have to rush forward a bad deal mainly because there is an american president who wants to be the one to say look a deal was reached on my watch. Foreign countries should also stay out of it as much as possible leave the residents of the Middle East to reach an agreement that works in the Middle East. The less outside involvement the better. Doing things this way would have allowed trust to build and for everybody to start looking at this from a realistic rather than idealistic point of view. The palestinians would not be saying here is our list of demands your either agree to every one of them or no deals. What Obama is pushing for now is out of all the proposals we have looked at so far the one least likely to bring peace. The man is insistant that this deal is reached within 1 year ( just before a US election year ). He has even stared talking about the idea of a palestinian state first and peace later. The only thing Obama is interested in is the Obama legacy if he doesn't have an arab state before 2012 then unless he gets reelected there will never be any Obama legacy which will seriously hurt his ego. We need new thinking and I am not talking about a single state to replace Israel.
What you say makes a lot of sense, the only thing is that Jordon would never take the Palestinians....
Who the heck has the time to read postings this big?!!
I think Jews around the world, defacto, should be allowed voting privlages in Israel thereby outnumbering Palestinian voting block.
as Jim assumes. Many are highly critical of the way that Israeli state policy has gone in the last few years. Would the non-Jews (Both Christian and Muslim) in Eretz Israel also have a vote in your suggested scenario?
Non-jews (christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu) enjoy full voting rights and representation in eretz Israel. Always have.
All Arabs can vote in these same elctions...15million Jews vs 300million Arabs, sounds good to me.
If this isn't done quickly Israel is finished. War will be the outcome. Israel's enormous civilian losses will lead to the "Sampson" option. This time nukes will be answered with nukes and the U.S. won't be involved. Americans don't need another war on someone else's behalf. Salaam/Shalom
Anything is possible, but I don't consider that outcome probable. If you're going through hell, just keep on going. Isn't that what Winston Churchill said?
Jews have inhibited many lands and contributed enorously to common human progress.As such it does not have to be confined between ariver and sea.Judaism deserves toresume its main mission of advancing peace and human progress.
.Judaism deserves toresume its main mission of advancing peace and human progress.
Israel must rediscover her faith in a shared future with the Palestinians. Netanyahu must do something to dramatically awaken Palestinian hope. Be creative, Bibi! Offer Palestinians who fled Israel a right to rebuy their former homes inside Israel should they come on the market. End the policy of destroying Arab houses when they're owners are families of suspected terrorists...go ahead Bibi--take a chance!
Your most likely scenario is still better than peace without security. Though I think you are more like Chicken Little who believed the sky was falling....
Real security does not come through taking the property, dignity and rights of others. In part, it is achieved by compromise and compassion. even more so, it comes through resolution of issues, not expansion of them. Israel does not feel threatened by Jordan nor Egypt, primarily because of resolution of issues and formal peace agreements, delivered through negotiations and a desire for peace. The Arab Initiative proposes compromise and resolution, recognition and peace. Likewise, Syria has a long standing willingness to negotiate and resolve issues with Israel. Alas, Israel chooses to play the security card as it's excuse for resolution and compromise, as it's justification for expanding the issues and exascerbating the problems. Basically, a self fulfilling prophesy...
You are absolutely correct. But your thoughts apply equally to the PA and their constituents. The facts do not support trust and unfortunately as a result compromise based on trust is extremely difficult. For over 60 years (80 years if you include the Arab riots and the Arab Revolt that occurred in the 1920s and 1930s), Arab and Palestinian leaders (other then Egypt and Jordan) have shown their ability to compromise is severely limited. Syria is led (certainly even you must agree) by an untrustworthy, malevolent man. Compromise without security with Syria (as with the PA) is just foolish
Israel needed to make a response to the sporadic rocket fire from Gaza. The rocket fire had not caused any Israeli casualties for a long time, but it could not be tolerated without a response. Most people recognize this, including me. Israels response, a two week campaign against the civilian population of Gaza, in which Israel killed more than a thousand civilians was not an appropriate response. Most people recognize this, except for Israelis. Israel is a hate generating society. They hate the Arabs, which is considered OK, and they make the Arabs hate them, which they use to their advantage even while condemning "Arab hate". The last thing that Americans want to do is get involved in supporting Israels hate generating campaigns. America also should stand clear of shielding Israel from taking responsibility for their own actions. Israel will even use the peace process to generate hate, by maging impossible demands while continuing to expand their settlements. Israeli greed is a monster which has proven too big for Obama to handle. Rather than fight it, Obama is content to go through the motions expected of any American president, while following Israels lead in deciding upon American foreign policy.
how many Gazans would have died had Israel done what you accuse it of having done: a two-week indiscriminate onslaught against a defenseless and innocent population. I guess we greedy monsters can't generate hate and aim our weapons at the same time.
Think you've confused the chicken with the egg. Best to read the history of Palestine and Israel. You consider Palestinians victims of Israelis. But they are victims of their own (or at least of their illustrious leaders' ) hate unwillingness coexist with Israel
circa 1,400
...The problem is that many of Israels actions are indefensible. They cannot be spun into any form that is palatable to anyone outside Israel. Maybe you don't recognize this. The act of justifying some of Israels more brutal actions, such as the Gaza op is unconvincing at best and repugnant to many. It's enough to make me wonder if you are really pro-Israel after all.
Natallie - 1) you really should read Alan Dershowitz's response to the ignominious Goldstone report. 2) Arab radicals (fore example, Hamas) do not play under the same rules as the rest of us. They have one goal and that is the destruction of State of Israel.
What difference what comes next . Israel has been in this movie before . What will be will be . Rather worry about it when the time comes. The economy and social structure of the Palestinans in the west bank is at a very high level they certanly would not give up all that luxury for a nother interfada ..no ways it never did them any good in the past nor will it do them any good now..
In his Fayyad scenario, as being the only feasible option, he makes no mention of the colonists whose enclaves make a viable palestinian state unattainable or non-functioning. Israel clearly uses its "security" concerns as a ruse for sabotaging the talks. It expressed such concerns and insecurities with Egypt and Jordan as well. Thise "security" concerns on both those fronts are almost nonexistent. Even netanyahu and his ilk don't speak of missiles or rockets coming from either of those neighbours. If there is peace with palestine, then why should the same not hold? Hamas? If they were to be included in the process, they may, at first, agree to a long term hudna which would result in a state of non-belligerentcy. But surely the colonists would never stand for the declaration of a Palestinian state since they would no place unless they wished to become citizens of palestine. But it seems to be the only viable option. Declare the entire occupied territories along with EJ and the Jordan Valley, the free and independent state of Palestine. Have it recognised by the international community who will recognise EJ as palestine's capital. Israel will be recognised as the occupier over land over which it has no legitmate claim or sovereignty.
Mr. Strenger, you seem to be stronger on theory than on reality. The people who only do theories develop too much trust in them. This also explains your overly certain prediction that the peace talks are "sure" to fail. You must allow the possibility that some progress will be made. After all, Netanyahu himself is neither Ya'alon nor Arad. He is also more susceptible to pressure, from the US as well as Labor. But even if we ASSUME (as you should have done) that the talks fail, here is another scenario, based on some actual experience: The US and EU apply some financial and other sanctions on Israel, the Israelis wake up to the situation, Labor quits the government and it falls, and in the new elections Kadima wins. Such a scenario, more or less, took place with the Shamir government, and Rabin came to power. You can learn from the past even if you cannot predict the future with certainty.
the transfer of all arabs to arab countries of the ex ottoman emnpire from the 1933 mandated territories !
is I think internationally illegal. When the Serbs tried it they ended up in the international court. Ditto the Germans in WW2. In fact Israel will find itself in trouble for its piece-meal expulsion of non-Jews (Both Christain and Muslim) from East Jerusalem and their replacement with (most American) Jews in the future. Victor does not seem to be a very humane or moral man.
...whatever, I doubt that ANYBODY is really prepared for what comes next--for the simple reason that I doubt seriously whether they REALLY know what "next" will be.
Israels "security needs" is a bogus issue meant to, at the same time, derail peace and motivate settlement expansion. There are no guarantees of safety in this life. Neither America, nor Russia, nor even Vatican City are free from real threats to their security. How and why can it be any different in Israel. The fate of millions of Palestinians and the world in general cannot be subordinated to Israeli greed. America should not continue to subsidize Israeli greed and give it precedence in American foreign policy.
Israels "security needs" is a bogus issue meant to, at the same time, derail peace and motivate settlement expansion. There are no guarantees of safety in this life. Neither America, nor Russia, nor even Vatican City are free from real threats to their security. How and why can it be any different in Israel. The fate of millions of Palestinians and the world in general cannot be subordinated to Israeli greed. America should not continue to subsidize Israeli greed and give it precedence in American foreign policy.
Your remarks about Israel's greed, control of the fate of the world, and influence on US foreign policy belong to the unanswerable domain of turgid fantasy. As for the rest -- when America and Russia felt mutually threatened, they established huge territorial spheres of control in central and eastern Europe, verging in the Soviet case on annexation. They retained those zones until circumstances -- the breakup of the USSR -- made them unnecessary.
America has experienced several major terrorist attacks, with at least two of them dwarfing any attack ever made inside Israel. America is more vulnerable to these attacks today than Israel is. As for Israeli control, I think that everybody agrees that Israel has a commanding influence on the American congress. We have often seen this in action. The American congress has a lot to do with events in the world and how they are handled. I think that you have not been paying attention to anything but how to spin your story.
By your reasoning, tbose hundreds of thousands of NATO troops who spent decades in West Germany, etc., served no cause other than American territorial greed. And the 535 members of Congress are puppets of those perennially (genetically?) greedy Israelis, who have too much territorial deptth to begin with. How's my spin now?
Water. The Israelis plan to maintain control over the aquifers in the West Bank. But lets not forget that they're the most moral army in the world, and the ONLY reason for the settlements is security,
And you are implying that Israel has no influence on the American congress? Ok, if you say so.