Indirect talks bring Israel, Palestinians back to square one
19 years after Madrid and 17 years after Oslo, we find ourselves back at the starting point.
By Zvi Bar'el Tags: Mahmoud Abbas Middle East peace Israel news PalestiniansFinally, a ladder has been found that enables Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to descend from the tree he had climbed. The Arab League follow-up committee authorized him to hold indirect talks with Israel. They are not to exceed four months, and the progression to direct talks is dependent on a total freeze on construction in the West Bank settlement. The negotiations, as everyone knows, cannot actually die so once again they are being put on an IV drip.
The fact is that this result could have been achieved in November, when the building freeze, but the issue was allowed to drag on until March. It can be assumed that things will stall once again, at the same point, in July, when the time comes for direct negotiations. But then it will only be two months before the scheduled end of the settlement freeze, when will be able to breathe comfortably once more, to build and settle en masse.
According to the theory of connected vessels, the same thing that brings Abbas down from his tree causes Israel to entrench itself deeper into the sand pit.
Indirect talks are a good trick when the other side is an enemy with which there is no dialogue and agreement must be reached on the initial conditions for negotiating, or for entities that do not recognize each other. This was the case for the indirect talks between Israel and Syria that were meant to formulate preconditions and to summarize what had been agreed to that point, or for the indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas.
With the Palestinians, however, the situation is fundamentally different. For many years now both parties have recognized one another. They have cooperated on security issues and have recognized each other's needs. They have signed agreements, and above all they both recognize the right of the existence of two states, side by side.
In theory, this is not a repetition of Madrid circa 1991, which led to the proximity talks between Israel and a joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation and later to separate talks between delegations. The couch that the U.S. State Department placed in the hallway because Israel refused to sit in the same room with the Palestinians has surely been sold to a secondhand furniture store on the assumption that it was no longer needed.
That was a mistake. Nineteen years after Madrid and 17 years after Oslo; following one war in Afghanistan, another in Iraq; the creation of new states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union; with Iran on its way to a nuclear bomb, after years of nursing its wounds from the Iran-Iraq war; after two intifadas, five and a half U.S. presidential terms, seven Israeli prime ministers and two Palestinian presidents, we find ourselves back at the starting point. At indirect talks and talks in the hallway, the couch and the Madrid curse. The setting that is so familiar failed to produce anything in the past, and there is no reason to assume that this time will be different.
Israel and the Palestinians do not need any more confidence-building measures, the lifting of roadblocks or the razing of outposts. Each knows the other all too well, and knows that these are hollow steps that even if they are carried out will only contribute to the occupation's extension. The road map drawn by George Mitchell also led to a dead end. The Palestinian price tag for direct talks will not change in the indirect talks.
A settlement freeze was and has remained a fundamental condition of the Palestinians. The view that East Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital does not match Jewish construction there. The territory of Palestine, which theoretically is the easy part of the negotiations, is also known, as is the territorial contiguity that is necessary in order to have a viable state. The settlements are contrary to these principles and removing a large portion of them is a necessary requirement.
But the right-wing government, even when it is decorated with some symbols of Labor, is contrary to freezing settlements, and certainly opposed to their dismantling. The Palestinians' basic conditions are antithetical to the conditions for the existence of a Netanyahu government. Therefore, it does not matter what the format of the talks will be. Because in the balance between the government's survival and the conditions for the state's existence, the government is of course more important.
The only encouraging sign we can draw from these talks is in the fact that the American mediator has become part of the actual price tag. Because he is the one who in the end will have to rule on who is to blame for the failure. This is the only element that can threaten Israel and the Palestinians.
But if we are to judge by the degree by which the Americans have shown they are committed to a resolution of the conflict, we should not hold our breath. They softened their tough stance on the settlement freeze pretty fast. The problem is that Barack Obama will not have to live with the results of failure.
|
Prime Minister Netanyahu, U.S. President Obama and PA president Abbas. |
| Photo by: (Reuters) |
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
Mr.X Military, you, and the Israelian "hard liners", are wrong. Zvi Bar'el's text is correct. Without two Palestinian States, the Jewish and the Arabic ones, the war,that had begun in 1922, not in 1948, will never stop. Jordan is another country, like Syria and Egypt. Think it better. Don't deceive the friends of your people like me. Luiz Felipe Haddad.
A leaked report drawn up by the Israeli government says there is no "fear" of a solution coming from these talks, since US politicians will be too preoccupied with midterm elections, and unwilling to take any stance contrary to Israeli government interests, due to the immense power the Israel Lobby wields within both parties. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1154530.html In other words, these 'talks' might as well not go forward, as Netanyahu's radical coalition has no intention of ending the war to prevent Palestinian statehood and annex what remains of their land, which is all this conflict really is. They are deliberately perpetuating this, and in doing so, perpetuating the only real threat facing Israelis.
If only Israel have the Arab Oil, the picture would have been the other way round ! Nothing change when money speaks !
They can all talk till hell freezes over, there will be no indipendent Palestinian state. Nobody wants it not even the Palestinians.If a Palestinian state is created by US preasure, this state will become a Syrian client. It will not be powerful enough to continue outright war with Israe,it will however continue terror attacs and forment trouble in Jordan where 75% of population is Palestinian,trying to bring down the Hashamite dynasty and bring Jordan under its rule. This will precipitate major conflict with Jordan and Israel, a lot worse than anything the world has seen till now. No Arab nation wants to see a Palestinian state, they know the cosequences even if the west has been hoodwinked by Palestinian propoganda.
With a tiny bit of good faith and no tricks, the borders issue could be settled in a few days based on the formula apparently already agreed - 1967 + or - with 1:1 land swaps. I know it will be hard for Bibi; his coalition might fall. And dealing in good faith with no trickery, wow, that'll be totally out of character for him. Maybe the US could sweeten the deal and offering to recognize prior US commitments and treaties and agreements to the extent Bibi honors those made with the US and Palestinians. Does Bibi have any good faith in him?
Israel gave back 94% of the territories seized during the war in 1967. Resolution 242 requested Israel to give back territories to the States it is in war with against a Peace agreement. Against those 94% we got 2 Peace agreements (Egypt and Jordan). Remain 2 more states (Syria and Lebanon). Nowhere it is written that Israel has an obligation to create a New Muslim state and give more territories. As per Res. 242 those 94% could be considered as enough to guarantee Israel's security... Why do we write that Egyptian and Jordanian pre-1967 territories are Palestinian lands ? Maybe that the more we tell a lie the more it becomes true ??
These talks can achieve nothing, because: 1) Both the Pals and the Americans are insisting that the outcome must be a VIABLE and a CONTIGUOUS Pal state. 2) Likud insists that the border must go AROUND the Israeli settlements so that they remain in Israel rather than that they require dismantling. Those two positions are unbridgeable, for the simple reason that the settlements WERE PUT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE to stymie the creation of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state. Stalemate, but the important thing is that it is ISRAEL that is the odd-man-out. Not the PALESTINIANS, but the ISRAELIS.
There will be no peace. Israel will have endless war, because it wants land which it does not own and cannot buy. It flaunts UN resolution after resolution. Its people have become arrogant. They think god has given them the land. It thinks that if it obfuscates long enough the world will forget. The world will not forget. Green Line or peace never and endless war.
Apportioning blame is not the business of the mediator. The mediator is not supposed to have his own interest involve in the matters he is mediating about. In this case he is turning himself to be a partner than a mediator ! Obama can't turn this conflict to his own advantage and part of the U.S strategy in the middle east ! It is obvious that matters relating to Oil etc.. will be part of what any president of the U.S wants and will have by blaming Isreal ! This conflict has entered a stage that made it necessary for Israel not only to stand for its rights as a sovereign state but also to speak its mind without fear or favor !
I have being sitting on this couch as long as I remember. My mother is a Jewish and my father is a Muslim, both keep arguing since the day I was born of who is right. I learned to laugh at them because at the end of the day they are still deeply in love. The day I learned to agree with both of them, they turned against me and Ilove it. I am a surfer and hate to write. My mother always tell me that I could be a great writer while my father tell my I am a good surfer and a great bullshitter. For sure, I know that they love each other and they will be buried together.